Choosing CPM scheduling platforms is a matter of integrity and scale. You want to have the right tool box for the needs of your organization and the projects it manages. That means you have to do a bit of sorting out of the platforms that are too bare bones for your needs, and those that are too cumbersome and sophisticated, and likely out of budget. Options include everything from platforms for the lay-person to collaborative AI and AI assist models.

It’s easy to become disoriented or disillusioned in the presence of so many CPM scheduling platforms and options that choosing the right one to suit your needs may seem tricky. You don’t want to launch a platform that is too bare bones to carry out basic operations, yet complex platforms require a lot more training and know-how. A side-by-side comparison of basic options can help you make the right choice.

In choosing CPM scheduling platforms, it helps to define your needs and expectations according to meeting your needs, goals and ambitions before you shop. 

Primary Level: front-ends

Many primary level platforms are only intended to give a general sense of schedule composition sans the bells and whistles that more developed platforms offer. They are not industry specific.

You may want to only represent a simple bar chart graphic or GANTT that conveys a given timeline in a general sense or high level. This output can be generated on graph paper – like the original Hoover Dam, or in digital spreadsheet format – such as MS Excel. These front end models can suffice for basic graphic representation, but will be of limited use. It’s important to pick the right tool for the job.

Primary level platforms include  freeware or SAAS models and front end platforms of which there are countless – for example TeamGantt, SmartGantt, and InstaGantt. These models allow several members of a team to collaborate online and build a schedule of perhaps one page together. In theory, that should happen in development, yet there will be limitations based on the skill and acumen of the team constituents. 

An advantage and disadvantage of primary level platforms is their versatility and utility: they are not industry specific, and therefore not limited in application. They require little training, are inexpensive to maintain, and are an easy and simple way to share data. Output is user friendly and graphically enhanced in a way that more technical programs may not be. Point and click operations and handy drag and drop tools make changes remarkably easy to do.

However, primary level – or front-end platforms are limited in their capabilities: they only cover general basic operations and input and little theory. It is important to know what these limitations are and to not expect too much. Most notably, front-end platforms are insufficient for enterprise or industrial scale solutions, and are best used as supplemental tools to more rigorous methodologies such as CPM, Scrum/Agile, Lean, or for your high-level deck presentations.

Intermediate Level: some bells and whistles 

Beyond first appearances, the upgrade from front-end to intermediate level scheduling platforms may be considered a quantum leap. My shortlist of intermediate level CPM scheduling platforms includes MS Project and Primavera (MSP and P6.) Of course, there are numerous intermediate platforms, but these two seem to occupy most of the market share – even specified in project requirements.

There are some basic differences between P6 and MSP. MSP is a more general scheduling platform whereas P6 is industrial based – even specific to a number of industries: Engineering & Construction, Aerospace, Manufacturing, Technology, and Oil and Gas. P6 provides comprehensive templates geared toward these industries. MSP is a more open-ended generalized platform that utilizes its own terminology that is not lingua franca to the industry as is P6, for example, ‘free-slack’ (MSP) v. free-float’ (P6,) ‘task’ v. activity,’ ‘dependency’ v. relationship.’ The latter discrepancy is unfortunate as it conflates relationships with constraints (P6.)

MSP development and reporting modules are far less broad and user friendly than P6, which itself has never been regarded as user friendly. MSPs graphics are greatly limited in contrast to P6, which again, is not the most supple interface available – ironically front-end platforms boast more enticing graphics.

Somewhere in between the intermediate and advanced platforms are programs like Spider Project and Deltek Cobra. These more enhanced platforms allow resource driven schedules that are more accurate and supple than intermediate range platforms, yet do not utilize AI engines in the way that InEight and Alice do (see below.) Spider has one of the most robust resource loading modules available. Cobra focuses on earned value management (EVM) inputs – earned value v. planned. 

Advanced

My top advanced CPM scheduling platforms include ALICE and InEight, both of which utilize AI engines. ALICE is known as a “generative scheduling” platform. It is exponentially more powerful and sophisticated than intermediate level platforms in ways that could never have been imagined just a few years ago. InEight features a cloud based collaborative tool that makes use of its own historical database of past performances, as well as an AI engine to generate its own builds.

AI assisted driven platforms can remodel, optimize, accelerate complex networks in a fraction of the time any human could ever dream of. In ALICE, the emphasis is on the concept of “optioneering,” or parametric scheduling, where an infinite number of scenarios can be modeled according to any number of different constraints or parameters, with the result of the most viable alternatives proposed.

ALICE Core works with native MSP and P6 files, taking them and analyzing them for the purpose of finding the shortest possible avenue to completion without disrupting resources, or it can generate its own timelines. Providing project variables and constraints allows these AI platforms to generate countless scenarios that are qualified according to risk level and return of investment. Output will be 4D, where a 3D model is integrated into the project.

Of greater interest, ALICE Pro prepares schedules from BIM models, obviating the need for a scheduler or prepared schedule. In that sense, it is more self-sustaining than AI assist models. Given the feckless state of more organic or simplified platforms, there is a convincing argument to forgo a P6 or MSP model altogether in lieu of a BIM-based model.

Outputs and graphics of project variables, such as time and cost, are sharp and concise, and super-responsive to what-if scenarios and modeling of recovery schedules. ALICE provides a generous portfolio of examples – an impressive early track record I recommend you peruse. The interface is geared toward ease of use and team collaboration: buy-in and push back.

Conclusion

Most basic level CPM scheduling platforms are of limited use, and simply not in themselves a means to an end in scheduling needs. Intermediate level platforms, with a few exceptions, lack robust resource driven modules that can make other endeavors seem somewhat futile. The Advanced assisted-AI driven programs are more useful for capital construction and complex build-outs, however, they can also be scaled for more modest size enterprises that make them nimble enough to compete and impact in the mainstream, soon to make user driven platforms obsolete.