Please login or join to subscribe to this thread
Fast tracking is doing things that were not in parallel, it increases risk. Crashing is adding resources, adds cost. The answer should be A, in that crashing should be done on the critical path, otherwise it is useless. Crashing increases cost. Fast Tracking start activities in parallel. This link may help: https://www.pmlearningsolutions.com/blog/f...-pmp-concept-19
Crashing is usually used when fast-tracking is not sufficient. Adding resources to improve the schedule is an art. Too little resources and you're simply increasing costs without affecting the schedule. Too many resources and you will delay the schedule because of the overhead associated with the additional resources. (Read Frederick Brooks' Mythical Man Month.)
I'm not thrilled with any of these answers but "a" is the least objectionable to me. As Stephane says, you can combine crashing & fast tracking but if you look at it in isolation, "a" would be the most common choice as it is rare you'd crash non-critical path activities...
I go for A too.
B is wrong, as crashing indeed adds resources and cost, as stated in PMBoK.
C is wrong to, you always can have starting activities in parallel in a network, if you crash or not.
I too agree with Kiron. More importantly your following statement cleared my confusion on item (c) (thank you):
"...you always can have starting activities in parallel in a network, if you crash or not".
Please login or join to reply