CPM schedule oversight is a concern of both contractors and stakeholders.  Contractors should know what to expect from oversight consultants when they submit their schedules for approval. It behooves them to use that knowledge to anticipate what elements they need to pay attention to. Stakeholders who utilize schedule oversight consultants can take advantage of an oversight consultant’s work only when they comprehend it and when they take substantive action.

Projects that have CPM schedules are most reliable when those schedules have an extra layer of scrutiny – or CPM schedule oversight – to evaluate and report on the technical and practical aspects of CPM schedule submittals. Given that most projects will not have the benefit of a CPM schedule oversight consultant, most projects will forgo this critical necessity, leaving it to project managers and other personnel untrained in the CPM. This is one of the reasons for the historically high rate of schedule failures.

The lowest tier of technical reviews begins and ends with Primavera’s the F9 key, which will report on rudimentary characteristics that are otherwise glaringly obvious to the trained eye. Schedule Comparison, which replaced erstwhile Claimdigger is a sound application to measure differences between two schedules, as well, but it challenges the lay-person. Furthermore, Primavera and most forensic modules can only compare two or three schedules where more robust platforms – such as Deltek Acumen Fuse – can analyze an infinite number of databases.

“A schedule can be technically flawless, yet completely fail to represent the correct project logic”

CPM schedule oversight is critical for any substantial project where accountability is taken seriously. It is required not only to create deep insights that go beyond the typical narrative, but it also highlights all of the criteria that schedulers’ update and narratives routinely omit. Stakeholders should never take the quality of a scheduler’s work product for granted.

Standard technical reviews will focus on progress and comparisons between updates and baselines, and examine total-float on the critical and near-critical paths. A focus on breached deadlines and commitments is key to establishing order of magnitude strategies that can resolve typical schedule shortfalls. However, deeper insights can be gained with CPM schedule oversight by inspecting the rate of merge hot-spots – or pinch points – and trends, that require multiple schedule forensics that Primavera and front-end analyzers don’t offer.

“Even a monkey can tap an F9 key”

There are several applications and platforms that offer technical review modules that start with the DCMA-14, and branch out into several hundred metrics, as Deltek’s Acumen Fuse does. Some are simply front-end dashboards, where others interface with companion modules that convert endless streams of data into KPI dashboards that only serve to baffle end users. What really matters is not so much how visually appealing the dashboards are, but the accessibility to end-users and their ability to make use of the information.

However, no CPM schedule oversight platform can determine errors and omissions or the endless nuances of sequences of operations that must be baked in to give an accurate representation of project logic. Thus, in addition to assessing technical aspects,  there are both errors and omissions to also consider. The following examples are taken from my personal top-10  greatest-hits list of E&Os for typical structures. They are not meant to be comprehensive, and are in no particular order:

Common Errors in Project Logic

1. Improper representation of drywall: whatever the duration: it’s never a single continuum
2. Adequate separation between working deck and workers below: typically two or three decks separation
3. Failure to correctly assess duration and verify project logic: did you query your estimator and resources?
4. Inadequate submittal review duration and cycles: very few submittals are approved after just one cycle Submittal/review durations should vary according to trade
5. Installation of MEPs out of sequence, e.g., lighting before duct, ceiling grid before branch piping: if you conducted MEP coordination – you’re halfway there. All of your schedules include MEP coordination – right?
6. MEP insulation before testing and inspection: you can’t inspect what you can’t see
7. Testing & inspection of MEPs before closures: make a list that is comprehensive. Don’t forget fire alarm
8. Ceiling trades working over deck trades: is your ceiling grid scheduled to be installed while floor tiles are installed below
9. Overloading individual trades: have certain trades been spread to thin as a result of continual resequencing
10. Trade stacking or congestion: is there enough room for all the trades to increase presence at the same time?

Common Omissions

1. Time for concrete curing: durations include time to strip and reshore, and time to pass compression
2. Strip and reshore of slab: typically not represented
3. Underdefined steel sequences: a scheduler unfamiliar with steel erection will miss these altogether
4. Mock-ups: make a preconstruction list 
5. Blocking or grounding at substrates: those 22g studs alone will never support those heavy stone slabs and wood panels 
6. Separation of distinct MEP trades: all MEP trades should be separated but linked
7. Low-voltage programs: piping, wiring, terminations, testing: low-voltage frequently lumped together with fire-alarm or vice-versa
8. Firestopping: not to be confused with fireproofing. Don’t forget partitions
9. Systems integration and programming: stakeholders might not know what this is, but the scheduler should. Integration should never be accelerated
10. Commissioning: should be broken down by trade – not a single activity for all

Many measures can be taken to minimize errors and omissions in a CPM schedule:

• The first and wisest measure is to utilize a trained scheduler – even better if he or she has worked ‘the’ tools other than pencil sharpeners and fax machines
• Provide consistent maintenance of the schedule as it is impacted and driven out of sequence, so to avoid an increasingly broken network of logic
• Use colleagues, trades, and resources, to source and verify information that goes into the schedule in the development stage
• Stakeholders must invest in their own oversight consultant, or blindly abdicate total control of the schedule to their contractor
• Invest in a robust forensic and analysis platform, such as Deltek’s Acumen Fuse

What DCMA doesn’t tell you

DCMA-14 just scratches the surface of schedule oversight. In order to up your oversight review, consider keeping an eye out for the following shortcomings that DCMA-14 does not take into consideration:

• Dangling activities  

Dangling activities occur as a result of a FF or SF predecessor link (open start) or SS or SF successor link (open finish) and not when there are any missing predecessors or successors. The successor ends up with an open start and the predecessor ends up with an open finish. (Deltek)

• ‘Excessive total float

• Merge hot-spots (logic density)

Merge hotspots, where multiple links converge on an activity, can lead to delays and resource bottlenecks. While some milestones may require multiple predecessor tasks, excessive merge hotspots may indicate an attempt to patch missing logic rather than accurately sequencing activities (Deltek)

• Leads (negative lag)

With these approaches in mind, you can not only develop sound oversight methodologies, but you can upgrade your planning skills, thereby enhancing schedule quality, and minimizing the number of revisions. Any company that features sound scheduling and oversight capabilities will set itself apart from the rest of the pack, who don’t value CPM schedules.