C ERTIFICATION PAPER

The Necessity of Project Schedule Updating/Monitoring/Statusing

Jeffrey D. Kursave, CCC
ABSTRACT: Many people and companies have learned the value of planning and scheduling for management of projects. However, some fall short when it comes to committing resources, time and money, to periodically check a properly planned schedule to see if everything is being done according to the original plan. This missing link causes a lot of unnecessary worry that could be avoided if project updating, also known as monitoring or statusing, is used at periodic intervals to record a more accurate completion of the work and also to review any changes that were not anticipated and which have disrupted the original plan of work. These snapshots of progress will give all the parties involved a better feeling of the true project status, which reduces the guessing as well as the risk involved with the project. In addition, once time and resources have been expended to create the original plan then the additional resources are minimal to insure the timely completion of the task. KEY WORDS: Planning, project management, project updating, and CPM scheduling

ust as project planning and scheduling are necessary to ensure that a project is properly and logically organized, it should also be equally necessary to properly monitor the project progress to ensure that all changes are incorporated into the original plan and that the completion date has not been jeopardized. Without this proper monitoring, the projects completion and the ripple effect upon succeeding projects is uncertain. The predecessor to this updating or monitoring is that a project has to have been properly planned out in a network logic format with interdependent relationships between work activities and proper estimation of duration made for each activity. From there, it is up to the person managing the project to determine at what intervals they want to evaluate progress. Project updating or monitoring does not have to be too time-consuming; however, on the other hand it can be as complex as the manager needs. A simple update would involve evaluating progress made on the activities involved between the last update and the current one being performed. This usually involves dates that work activities were started and completed and also percentages of work on the activities that are currently being performed. At the other extreme, a manager can monitor quantities completed or resources expended to obtain a percent

complete for a work activity; thereby, giving him or her a more accurate picture of the completed work. This article will basically examine three different levels of project monitoring/updating to meet a managers needs. And will look at the information needed, the accuracy of the information, the results from this process, and the best methods recommended. A schedule is a time-phased plan for accomplishing the tasks that make up a project. It is based on specified logical relationships between the tasks and on estimated task durations. It is very unlikely that the actual task durations will be exactly as estimated. It is also unlikely that the actual construction sequence will be exactly as depicted in the logic diagram. Furthermore, there may be additions or deletions to the scope of a project that will affect the dates that tasks can be started and completed. Reliance on the original project schedule throughout the duration of a project after additional information has become available is very much like using a road map that you purchased in an antique bookstore [4]. There are three main reasons for updating project schedules. One reason is to reflect current project status. All the parties involved in a project have vital interest in knowing the completion status. Periodic progress payments on a project relate to a specific claimed percent complete for the work, which if not
Cost Engineering Vol. 45/No. 7 JULY 2003

accurate, then the parties may suffer financial troubles. Another reason is to restore the projects use as a management tool. This allows the parties to make informed decisions, such as deliveries of important items and to plan future events involving the project being tracked. Another reason is to evaluate the work procedures and performances, and any delays and associated causes. This documentation may justify time extensions and relieve the parties from damages and claims [4]. The CPM (critical path method) network can be used as the basis for monitoring project progress. The network can be posted on the wall at the jobsite and progress marked right on it with colored markers. This process of keeping the network up to date familiarizes the field office with the logic diagram. The object of updating the network is to introduce the project status, as well as any logic revisions into a new computation of the completion date. To do this, all completed activities are given a duration of zero. Activities in progress are assigned the time durations required to complete them. Activities are removed, added, or assigned new activity numbers to recognize any logic revisions. When the updated information has been entered in the network, a new computation is made from the present date. This new run must be checked for errors. After the run has been validated, the results are analyzed. The critical path and float are reviewed. A key part of any competent update is a narrative report describing, at the least, the following. the critical path; activities started, in progress, complete; and problems, milestone status, and problem areas [5]. When you determine the project status by the logic plan, you can forecast the expected completion date. The general rule is that 95 percent of the original network logic will not change, so only five percent will actually change. And any logic changes recommended or implemented should be documented in the narrative report accompanying the update [5]. There is no single rule for setting the update intervals. On fast-moving jobs with short duration, an updating every other week is recommended. On long-term jobs

lasting over one year, monthly updates will suffice. Any unexpected revision in work sequence, delivery, or activity estimates could be the cause for a new updating. Another advantage of updating is that it gives management an objective look at the project at regular intervals [5]. As mentioned in the introduction, there are three possible approaches one can take in relation to project updating. These are just common sense approaches and are highly dependent upon the project manager. The first is to have no schedule updates. Some managers believe that the original schedule is what should be used to measure performance. I would agree that it should be used to measure against, but without updating no real progress or planned completion is known. This method of thinking is out-of-date and is not recommended for any fair to large size project. With the new, simplistic software on the market today, there is no reason to let a project schedule go unmonitored. The second approach to project updating says to do it only as-needed. The intention here is that no updates are being planned; however, if the project falls behind schedule, then an update will be performed to evaluate progress. This approach is definitely better than no updates, but it tends to follow the same thought process. What I mean is that the manager is thinking more of no updates than of any specific number of them. So usually by the time the manager agrees that an update is needed, the project is considerably behind and recovery is very difficult or impossible. The last and final approach involves pre-determined periodic updates. This is the method that I highly recommend. The reason why is because the updates are planned from the start of the project and they will give a more accurate picture of how work progressed, as well as a record of actual performance when complete. It also serves to answer questions and eliminate problems as work moves through phases. As an example of this process, lets examine some changes through the life of a project. The following project, Design & Build Project X, will be our model. Figure 1 depicts our minimally determined 12 activities to accomplish this project. This schedule is setup on 10/01/01 and is planned to start on 11/12/01 and to be completed on 11/08/02, almost one entire calendar year (actually 361 calendar

days). For this example, lets assume that the durations for the activities have been planned according to proper historical data and current productivity rates. So this is the project schedule that is agreed upon by all parties involved, and it becomes our official baseline schedule to complete Project X (see Figure 1).

From here we move forward to 12/31/01, which is 91 calendar days since 10/01/01 when we planned the work. We decide to update or status the project schedule. So we plug in the actual start dates and finish dates for the activities and change the Rem Dur column to reflect the remaining duration in workdays for each activity involved during these 91 days.

Figure 1Original Project Schedule (PRJX)

Figure 2Updated Schedule on 12/31/01 (PRJ1)

Figure 3Updated Schedule on 02/25/02 (PRJ2)

Cost Engineering Vol. 45/No. 7 JULY 2003 9

The result is Figure 2, and it reflects that we are only one day behind (Total Float is -1) on completing our project on 11/08/02. This means that we have only lost one day on the project schedule. Not bad! If other changes are not known at this time, as we are assuming, then this schedule is published and distributed to project parties. As a reminder for recording work progress, it is recommended to obtain as a minimum, the following. actual start dates; actual finish dates; percent complete; and remaining durations per schedule activity.

Getting all parties involved in these changes is an excellent way of getting their approval and support for the adjustments. Figure 6 reflects the schedule after incorporation of the adjustments, which is now back on schedule to finish on 11/08/02. This schedule is now ready to publish as a revised update. As a note, modifications or adjustments to the

schedule as we just did need to be documented and thoroughly discussed and monitored so that they become reality. All parties involved need to discuss and agree on these adjustments. Update #5 on 08/05/02 (Figure 7) reflects the project has fallen behind again by five days. It appears that this delay is because of procuring the equipment and

The accuracy of this information needs to be highly credible, so it is recommended that someone who is responsible for the project furnish it. On 02/25/02 we decide to update again, which is update #2. Repeating the above process shows that we are now five Figure 4Updated Schedule on 04/22/02 (PRJ3) days behind schedule, (see Figure 3). Update #3 on 04/22/02 (Figure 4) reflects a compounding effect on lost time, because the project completion has now slipped to 10 days behind schedule. Depending upon the project float time that the owner has this may not be too bad; however, because of the project structure being only 28 percent complete may be a warning that more time may be lost during dry-in (closing up the structure), and interior finishes for the project. However, for this example we will assume that we can make up the lost time and get back on schedule, so no adjustments are make at this time. Update #4 on 06/10/01 (Figure 5) reveals bad news. We have now dropped to Figure 5Updated Schedule on 06/10/02 (PRJ4) 15 days behind schedule and must take action. All parties meet and review the project plan (schedule) and decide on the following logic changes. reduce activity #1060 project structure remaining duration by five days; reduce finish-to-finish relationship lag time from activity #1060 project structure to #1070 roof and close-up from 10 days down to five; reduce start-to-start relationship lag time from #1070 roof and close-up to #1090 interior finishes from 20 days down to 15.

Figure 6Revised Updated Schedule on 06/10/02 (PRJ4)

10

Cost Engineering Vol. 45/No. 7 JULY 2003

does not involve the structure. However, the next update #6 on 09/16/02 (Figure 8) is reflecting a finish date that is 20 days after our plan. So we repeat the earlier process. We meet with all the parties and discuss the remaining work to see where we can save time and allow the project to finish as originally planned (see Figure 9). In this case it appears that roof and closeup is the driving work that must be reduced to save time. In addition, set and connect equipment is also linked to our negative float, so we need to explore the cause. This becomes our most extensive, and expensive, schedule change and they are agreed as follows.

on track. Management does not realize all the problems that were avoided and the adjustments that might have gone unnoticed, if the project had not been updated. For further review, lets look at the following tables comprised in a spreadsheet with information from our original schedule and updates.

Table 1 reflects the early or actual start dates from the schedules. Each column represents a schedule update reflecting the adjusted early start or actual (if started) date of each activity with a row under each activity reflecting changes from the previous update. This Table quickly shows the schedule slippage on PRJ1, 2, 3, and 4, and then the recovery of PRJ4Rv.

pay overtime wages (extended weekday hours and weekends) for roofing work (to reduce duration by five days) and interior finishes work (to reduce duration by 10 days), and maybe for equipment hook-ups (to reduce duration by five days); change the finish-to-start relationship Figure 7Updated Schedule on 08/05/02 (PRJ5) between activity #1070 roof close-up and #1100 set and connect equipment to a finish-to-finish relationship with 15 days of lag (time between their finishes); change the finish-to-start relationship between activity #1040 procure equipment and #1100 set and connect equipment to a start-to-start with 20 days of lag and a finish-tofinish relationship with 10 days of lag.

If we choose, we can collect these extra costs separately so that we will know how much the adjustments cost us. The last two updates, 10/11/02 (Figure Figure 8Updated Schedule on 09/16/02 (PRJ6) 10) and 11/11/02 (Figure 11), reflect no further slippage and the project completes one day ahead of the original plan. One of the misleading thoughts on schedule updating is that nothing changes during the process. What I mean is that a project that was on-schedule before an update is suddenly three or four weeks behind schedule after statusing the current progress and updating the schedule; however, the project manager then makes some logic revisions and duration adjustments and the project is back onschedule. Management then looks at the project and says, why do we need to keep updating these schedules because they are

Figure 9Revised Updated Schedule on 09/16/02 (PRJ6)

Cost Engineering Vol. 45/No. 7 JULY 2003 11

Table 2 has the same format but it reflects the early or actual finish dates per activity. As with Table 1, we can see the specific dates for each activity at each update during the project. Then, Table 3 reflects the duration between the early start and early finish dates, and then shows the change from the previous update. These tables are helpful in presenting the effects of each update upon each schedule activity and how adjustments were made to get back on-track. In addition, there are companies and software that help with schedule changes by comparing schedules. One such software is Schedule Analyzer Pro by Ron Winter Consulting of Rancho Cordova, California. This software can compare the original schedule with the revised or updated one. These programs will evaluate a schedule and run easy-to-read reports on any errors, inconsistencies, coding, or problem areas from the schedule [2]. Basically, project controls is needed for periodic reviews of the work completed to date, together with revisions of the network model as necessity demands. This technique has been compared to that for guided missiles: formerly one aimed at a target, applying all known corrections before firing the shot; with CPM (critical path method scheduling) the trajectory may be continually changed, so that the project is consistently steered to its completion date [1]. The general procedure is to review and revise the project schedule (network) periodically, replacing the original planned dates with actual dates. The network is

analyzed to determine if the critical path and the project duration (completion) have been affected. If the project is running behind, the network may be amended and

future activities crashed to restore the time lost. Crashing may take the form of overtime work, additional resources, adding shifts, etc. Usual causes of time

Figure 10Updated Schedule on 10/11/02 (PRJ7)

Figure 11Updated and Completed Schedule on 11/11/02 (PRJ8)

Table 1Schedule RecordsEarly or Actual Start Date

12 Cost Engineering Vol. 45/No. 7 JULY 2003

delays on projects (primarily construction) the magnitude of the project; the time to completion; and include the following. the troubles encountered. incorrect estimates of activity durations; These are all factors influencing the unforeseen weather conditions or site frequency of periodic reviews [1]. hazards; From our example schedule, the unpredictable delays in material following results can be noted. First of all, deliveries; the project, as usual, shows many changes added or reduced quantities of work; from our original plan. Some in network strikes or other labor trouble; and logic relationships and some in activity unexpected site conditions. durations, but all in agreement with all Project reviews may depend on the project parties and all realistic in approach. following. As a note, all project plan changes need to be relayed to all parties, especially occurrence of specific control events; subcontractors performing the work, so that the degree of uncertainty;

the real project status is known to all. This project could have suffered a two or three week or more completion delay, which may have cost the owner millions of dollars in delays on revenue. Keeping everyone informed helped us to keep the project under control. Other major factors of schedule control include the following. Precedent ActivitiesThe first factor is the completion of prerequisite activities, which are activities that precede other work activities that must be completed before the next ones can commence.

Table 2Schedule RecordsEarly or Actual Finish Dates

Table 3Schedule RecordsActivity Duration

Cost Engineering Vol. 45/No. 7 JULY 2003 13

Material RequirementsThe second major prerequisite is having the necessary materials at the actual site of the work for placement by the workforce. The check-off list should include materials, tools, and equipment. Workforce RequirementsThe third major consideration in control is workforce availability and proper crew mix. Supervision and Construction Details Two other significant factors involved in project control are lack of specific information or detail and inadequate supervision [3]. Schedule updates are performed by using a turnaround document, which is a report that is printed for site personnel to enter progress on. The data on the turnaround document reflects the current state for each activity, which has been either started, worked on, or completed. Schedule monitoring occurs as a result of the data captured on actual performance on the turnaround document. Schedule monitoring provides a clear indication of schedule performance; however, schedule monitoring alone is not sufficient. The schedule must be updated at frequent intervals to maintain validity and a realistic relationship to what is taking place on the project. Each schedule update carries with it, to some degree, a reimplementation of the schedule, especially when significant changes are occurring as a result of actual project performance. Part of the schedule monitoring process is to detect adverse trends while they are correctable. Any project activity falling outside the expected performance dates must be examined in detail and the reasons for delays clearly identified. Corrective action for project performance must be based on current valid information. A combination of the following techniques may result in a better process: schedule monitoring and updating, weekly progress meetings, project action checklist, and good cooperation and communications from all the team members for the project [3]. The accuracy of the project information used is vital. This information becomes the historical data for the company, as well as documentation in case of any legal disputes. A good method to follow is to take the information from the official project reports. The best is

probably the daily report at the jobsite. This cross use of information will mean that the information is backed up by the reporting system. If the accuracy of the information used is ever proved to be different than other project reports, then it loses some validity. Since we have shown why project updating is necessary on projects, we must offer some other recommendations. The update frequency is usually determined by the project manager, however, for medium to large-size project, it is definitely recommended to update monthly as a minimum, to avoid changes and problems escalating out of control. In addition, keep all the project parties informed and seek their agreement to all changes and revisions. And finally, keep good documentation of all the schedule changes and modifications for future use if needed.

questions or disputes come up about the progress of the work. The project schedule will change because no one can predict the future with 100 percent accuracy; however, the way we manage the project and the processes we use should not change. CPM scheduling and project updating should always be a part of that process. x
REFERENCES 1. Antill, James M., Ronald W. Woodhead. Critical Path Methods in Construction Practice. John Wiley & Sons, (1982): Chapter 9, 223-224. Mueller, Frederick W. Integrated Cost and Schedule Control for Construction Projects. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, (1986): Chapter 26, 407-416. OBrien, James J. 1984. CPM in Construction Management, Third Edition. McGraw-Hill, (1984): Chapter 12, 175-197. Willis, Edward M. Scheduling Construction Projects. John Wiley & Sons, (1986): Chapter 12, 269-293. Winter, Ron. Schedule Analyzer Pro. Ron Winter Consulting, 11100 Gingerwood Way, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670. Phone (916) 852-6987. [http://www.ronwinterconsulting.com/sapr ochu.htm].

2.

3.

roject planning and scheduling is a necessity of proper management. Project updating is equally as important. Periodic monitoring and updating progress is necessary in order to evaluate if the original plan was correct and if the project completion date is still good. Project updating also serves as a documented record of actual work progress. If the original plan gets off track then a revised plan needs to be made in order to meet any agreed completion requirements. This involves adjustments in the schedule network logic relationships or in activity durations. Without proper monitoring and updating, project changes go unnoticed until they impact the completion date, and then it is usually too late to get the project back on track. Proper updating is achieved by performing periodic updates on the project schedule to evaluate work completed, work progress, and work remaining. Using computer software programs for scheduling allows for easier updating of the project. And, if the project gets behind schedule, simple adjustments can be made to activity durations or relationships to get the project back on schedule. However, all of the changes need to be agreed upon by all parties involved with the project. The use of graphics, figures, and tables can help in relating the information to the parties. Once a process of updating is worked out, all the parties will see the simplicity of keeping this process up. And then, it will become another record of progress in case

4.

5.

About the Author:

Jeffrey D. Kursave, CCC, is a senior project controls specialist for SAIC in St. Louis, MO. He is currently the program controls manager for the US Army's Corps of Engineers' FUSRAP program out of the St.Louis District.

Certification Papers - Each candidate seeking certification as a Certified Cost Consultant/Certified Cost Engineer (CCC/CCE) is expected to write a professional paper of a minimum of 2,500 words on a cost engineeringrelated subject and must be submitted before or at the time of the examination. Published are some of the top scoring entries as an example of what constitutes a good entry. Other members and readers will also gain insights on current industry trends and projects with the publication of these papers in the Cost Engineering journal.

14

Cost Engineering Vol. 45/No. 7 JULY 2003