Mar 19, 2024 6:04 PM
Replying to Keith Novak
...
Out of sequence events may be very problematic, but that is how most complex schedules usually start out.
Usually, the first pass of the schedule is very conservative to save time and unnecessary effort. Tasks are planned in series rather than parallel. Standard flows are used for sub-tasks. When you plug all that into a tool like Primavera, it points out all the logical errors in your constraints. Then you know what assumptions you need to revisit and potentially challenge. A review step might be 10 days on the standard template but really you know it can be done in 2 if it's prioritized. Events scheduled finish to start might be changed to finish to finish.
That review process is important not just to having a schedule that is logical as opposed to building something before the raw materials arrive, but it also tells you where you had to sharpen your pencil and strip out the padding. If I know we are extensively using custom flows rather than standard, then I also know I need to provide more oversight to information hand-offs and let people know a hot package is coming rather than dropping it in someone's queue unannounced and assuming that business as usual is good enough. That not only keeps the project moving on track, but it also directly affects my own capacity as a PM and I won't take on additional work during my anticipated busiest times managing the critical path.
