I think of politics in CPM scheduling primarily as an apt euphemism for sleight of hand reporting and representation of what contractors are either incapable of, or unwilling to give, accurate and reliable timeline representations. Thus does politics have no place in CPM scheduling, yet it is ubiquitous in the majority of the industry that is unable to produce verifiable and truthful schedules. If a schedule is accurate and honest, there is no need for the political hijinks invoked by most contractors for the sole purpose of saving their own bacon.
All construction companies must maintain a position in negotiating with their clientele that is consistent with their business ethic. They expect their project teams to toe the company line – regardless of their own convictions. This is a facet of what I call the ‘politics of CPM scheduling.’ For those who refuse to toe the company line – there is simply the door. These are my opinions after many years as a CPM scheduler and CPM scheduling oversight analyst.
The prevailing wisdom of business politics through the 20th century was ‘the customer is always right.’ Although this is no longer manifest, contractors continue to observe that fallacy, albeit in modified fashion: the customer isn’t always right, but his interests are primary, and all which follows is in deference to ownership, regardless of ethics. In practice, contractors will reflexively bend over to accommodate or mollify a client in hopes of de-escalating or deflecting conflict, and the promise of future commissions. The irony is that ownership is typically waving the proverbial carrot: squeezing their contractor “on this one,” and the next one somehow the opposite – a cash-cow.
As these ethics pertain to the CPM scheduling, a conflict of interests should be inevitable. A commonplace conundrum is the ‘dual-schedule’ approach. The primary schedule is the verified and validated work-product the scheduler develops. Typically, if the primary schedule shows delays that are likely to cause conflict, a secondary version of the schedule is concocted sans delays, and ownership remains unapprised of actual conditions as long as possible. As if waters couldn’t become murkier, a tertiary loan draw-down schedule may be demanded to issue to the bank. This draw-down schedule often has no basis in real conditions, and is engineered for optimal outcomes by the contractor and ownership.
Construction personnel other than the CPM scheduler – including upper management, rarely are trained in CPM any more than say a florist, or a dance instructor might be, though they profess to hold such expertise to their clients, and even convince themselves. Many are emboldened enough to pretend they know more than the scheduler about the CPM scheduling method. In such cases, you may encounter a bossy superior, with no CPM training and less scruples calling the shots in no uncertain terms to a trained scheduler with far better knowledge. This attitude betrays a lack of humility: the failure to admit what one does not know, and the claim of expertise in this utter absence of knowledge.
Yet, when and if ownership wises up – asks for an explanation, upper management will expect the CPM scheduler to answer for the fabrications and falsehoods that his superior has demanded he perpetuate, despite knowing the schedule is a false rendition, and even fervent objections by the scheduler. I expect most schedulers will do their best to defend their employer, until it no longer is plausible. I have been in that position before and found it to be most unpleasant.
The practice of doctoring schedules is a show of duplicity, and denotes that the source may not be trusted. In legal terms, it may even be fraud. However, when such schedules come into question, it is most likely the scheduler who is expected to take the fall for the team: for his superior’s indiscretions. In such cases, a scheduler may either endeavor to talk his way out of it, or he may simply indicate the truth: that he was instructed to doctor the schedule. This latter option is the one seldom taken, despite it being considered ‘politically incorrect.’
This presents a conundrum for the scheduler: ‘should I BS through this exercise and maintain my good standing in the company, or should I keep my integrity, though it requires hanging my superior out to dry?’ This decision has always been an easy one for me: I place my integrity higher than any employment position: you can always find another role, but a tarnished reputation isn’t so easy to replace. Know that your employer – in all likelihood – cares little for your integrity and reputation in deference to his bottom line. If the source of the con job has to answer for it – so be it.
The phenomenon of fraudulent schedules is not well reconciled within the industry. In part, this is owing to the ubiquitous low quality of most CPM schedules. This means that the working schedule is no better than the fraudulent schedule, and it is not possible to tell the difference between the two. In such cases, the scheduler is merely compounding confusion of an equation he is unable to solve. For the most part, ownership is unable to discern a scheduler’s questionable work-product as they have no expertise. Savvy owners will retain an oversight consultant to keep their contractor honest.
A case in point, I once worked for a cantankerous and arrogant bully of a senior project manager – let’s call him John K., who despite otherwise capable, had no CPM training whatsoever, other than the factum he cherrypicked from my narratives. He was endlessly demanding of endless versions and rebaselines, with which he upholstered his office, and naturally, after six-months, he believed himself to practice expertise – demanding unreasonable outcomes, accentuated by fist pounding and furniture throwing, and open abuse in meetings. When ownership hired their own oversight consultant, they made a meal out of the fraudulent schedules, and I was expected to answer for my superior’s sleight of hand, despite having indicated I would not be agreeable to perjuring myself.
As a matter of self preservation, I maintained a dossier on this individual’s excesses, in the event I was called to task to defend myself. Despite exhaustive records of these trespasses, the president of the company showed little interest. I was not put off by his apathy, because my primary concern was my integrity, not the fatness of his billfold. I will refrain from telling readers how many years late the project finished.
If there weren’t such a parsimony of reliable and valid schedules in the industry, perhaps the conundrum of schedule fraud would be less of a problem. Yet, a reliable schedule showing negative float will be routinely set aside in deference to an engineered schedule showing zero or positive float. Toeing the line shows loyalty to your employer (would they do the same for you?) and contempt for your own ethics.
Thus, for schedulers, there are company politics and their own ethics and integrity to choose between. Be honest to yourself, or humiliate yourself to remain employed, despite what your superiors want to believe, the choice to the scheduler should be obvious.
