CII Scheduling Success 2

BREAKING THROUGH TO
COLLABORATIVE SCHEDULING:
Approaches and Obstacles
Final Report 362

CII Member Companies
OWNERS Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) PCL Constructors, Inc.

AdvanSix SABIC - Saudi Basic Industries POWER Engineers, Inc.
Albemarle Corporation Corporation Primus Builders, Inc.
American Transmission Company Shell Global Solutions US Inc. Richard Industrial Group
LLC Smithsonian Institution Senaat
Anheuser-Busch InBev Southern Company SNC-Lavalin Constructors Inc.
Aramco Services Company TC Energy Techint Engineering & Construction
Archer Daniels Midland Company Tennessee Valley Authority TechnipFMC plc.
Architect of the Capitol The Dow Chemical Company thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions
Ascend Performance Materials The Procter & Gamble Company (USA), Inc.
AstraZeneca The Williams Companies, Inc. United E&C, Inc.
BHP Billiton U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Victaulic
Cargill, Inc. U.S. Department of Commerce/ Wood
Chevron NIST/EL Worley
ConocoPhillips U.S. Department of Energy Zachry Group
Consolidated Edison Company of U.S. Department of State
New York U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Covestro LLC U.S. General Services SERVICE PROVIDERS
DTE Energy Administration Accenture
DuPont Zachry Corporation Alvarez & Marsal
Eastman Chemical Company ASITE, LLC
Entergy Corporation CONTRACTORS Atlas RFID Solutions
ExxonMobil Corporation Alfred Miller Contracting Autodesk, Inc.
General Electric Company APTIM AVEVA Solutions Ltd.
GlaxoSmithKline Baker Concrete Construction Inc. Bentley Systems Inc.
Global Infrastructure Partners Barton Malow Company Command Alkon Inc.
Honeywell International Inc. Bechtel Group, Inc. Construct-X, LLC
INEOS Group Holdings S. A. Black & Veatch Continuum Advisory Group
Johnson & Johnson Brown & Root Industrial Services Dassault Systèmes SE
Kaiser Permanente Burns & McDonnell Deloitte
Koch Industries, Inc. Chiyoda Corporation Detect Technologies
Los Alamos National Laboratory Clough USA Inc. DyCat Solutions
LyondellBasell CRB ePM
National Aeronautics & Space Day & Zimmermann Group ASI
Administration Digital Construction Works Hilti Corporation
Naval Facilities Engineering Emerson I.M.P.A.C.T.
Command Fluor Corporation iConstruct
NOVA Chemicals Corporation H+M Industrial EPC Insight-AWP Inc.
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority Hargrove Engineers + Constructors O3 Solutions
Nutrien Hatch Oracle USA, Inc.
Occidental Petroleum Corporation JGC Corporation Pathfinder, LLC
ONEOK, Inc. KBR PTAG, Inc.
Ontario Power Generation Kiewit Corporation T. A. Cook Consultants Inc.
Petronas MasTec Power Corporation Trillium Advisory Group Ltd
Phillips 66 Matrix Service Company Valency Inc.
Public Service Electric & Gas McCarthy Building Companies, Inc. Verum Partners
Company McDermott International, Inc. Zurich
Cover photograph by Landon Blake | Unsplash

BREAKING THROUGH TO
COLLABORATIVE SCHEDULING:
Approaches and Obstacles
Construction Industry Institute

Research Team 362, Challenges and Opportunities to Promote Collaborative Scheduling
Final Report 362 | March 2021

© 2021 Construction Industry Institute™
The University of Texas at Austin
CII members may reproduce and distribute this work internally in any medium at no cost to internal recipients. CII members are
permitted to revise and adapt this work for their internal use, provided an informational copy is furnished to CII.
The work is available to non-members by purchase; however, no copies may be made or distributed and no modifications may be made
without prior written permission from CII. Contact CII at http://construction-institute.org/catalog.htm to purchase copies. Volume
discounts may be available.
All CII members, current students, and faculty at a college or university are eligible to purchase CII products at member prices. Faculty
and students at a college or university may reproduce and distribute this work without modification for educational use.
Printed in the United States of America.

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES TO PROMOTE COLLABORATIVE SCHEDULING
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Traditional scheduling methods deliver mixed results. CII benchmarking data show that more
than half of all projects are delivered behind schedule and the majority of megaprojects
are delivered late. When measured in terms of duration and sequencing, the execution of
construction activities is rarely a success if project participants simply follow a master schedule
developed at the beginning of the project by using the Critical Path Method (CPM).
Capital projects across all industry sectors involve a number of interconnected processes and
functions, including planning, financing, designing, procuring, constructing, and commissioning
structures for business purposes. Given the uncertain and interdependent environment of
construction projects, a single person (the scheduler) cannot perform reliable scheduling, even
if he or she defines detailed work packages well in advance of execution.
To address these issues, the industry has observed that collaborative scheduling practices
have emerged to address the current shortcomings in capital project management. Although
CPM has been the capital project industry’s standard for scheduling, other industries are using
new, apparently more collaborative methods. Given the power of collaborative scheduling
(CS) to address the industry’s pressing needs, the construction industry needs guidance to
encourage project participants to implement it.
CII asked Research Team 362 (RT-362), Challenges and Opportunities to Promote Collaborative
Scheduling, to answer the following essential question:
What are the drivers of and obstacles to the development and implementation of
collaborative scheduling?
As a starting point, the research team adopted the following definition of collaborative
scheduling:
Collaborative Scheduling is a comprehensive process that aligns and engages stakeholders

throughout the life cycle of the project in order to coordinate activities and resources on a
project and achieve its goal.
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RT-362 examined collaboration in project scheduling and identified opportunities for

improvement and barriers to CS, based on an industry analysis. The team gathered its findings
into a series of strategies that could be applied to implement CS across an organization. These
strategies are the focus of Chapter 2, a high-level introduction to CS for organizations that are
willing to adopt collaboration.
The team also developed a Maturity Model for Collaborative Scheduling (MMCS) to organize
the team’s recommendations for implementing CS. Chapter 3 explains how the maturity model
identifies the current state of a project’s CS. The MMCS provides practical recommendations
and examples of how projects can be improved by increasing collaboration across five pillars:
scheduling significance, planners and schedulers, scheduling representation, goal alignment
with owner, and communication. Chapter 3 also offers scenarios that illustrate how CS can be
applied to current construction projects, and Appendix A contains the MMCS questionnaire and
scoring rubric.
Finally, as Chapter 4 describes, RT-362 developed ways to understand the benefits of and
barriers to CS implementation across multiple projects. It identified collaboration improvement
opportunities at the project level in terms of five key performance indicators (KPIs): cost,
schedule, safety, quality, and teamwork.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................... iii
CHAPTER 1
Introduction...........................................................................................................................................1
CHAPTER 2
Strategy and Organization for Collaborative Scheduling...................................................................5
CHAPTER 3
Using the Maturity Model for Collaborative Scheduling....................................................................9
CHAPTER 4
CS Practices to Improve Key Performance Indicators and an Identification of Drivers................45
and Barriers to CS
CHAPTER 5
Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................59
REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................................65
APPENDIX A
Maturity Model for Collaborative Scheduling...................................................................................67
APPENDIX B
Maturity Model – Recommendations for Project Improvement.................................................... 77
APPENDIX C
Method – Creation of a Maturity Model for Collaborative Scheduling...........................................83
APPENDIX D
Method – Information Theory Analysis: Chow-Liu Trees and KPIs................................................95
APPENDIX E
Method – Survey...............................................................................................................................109
APPENDIX F
Method – Survey Demographics..................................................................................................... 117
APPENDIX G
Method – Interviews......................................................................................................................... 119
v
1 INTRODUCTION
Research Team 362 (RT-362), Challenges and Opportunities to Promote Collaborative

Scheduling, investigated the barriers to collaborative scheduling (CS) and uncovered strategies
for overcoming those barriers to establish and sustain CS in construction projects. Most
importantly, the team’s research findings supported effective strategies built from the real
experiences of project managers, superintendents, and schedulers who have successfully
worked to develop CS. The model, results, and recommendations included in this report are
based on the cross analysis of multiple data sources, including a focus-group study with the
team’s subject matter experts, a nationwide survey with 241 usable results, and 24 interviews.
This research provided both strategic insights and actionable information that can help
organizations drive CS. Based on these data and analyses, RT-362 proposes three approaches
to implementing collaborative scheduling. An organization has the choice to start its CS journey
in one of three ways:
1. Strategy and Organization

Follow practical recommendations for the different stages of planning, scheduling, and
building a project.
Chapter 2 offers approaches to implementing CS that the team gathered during its
interviews. The team organized these proven recommendations into several themes that
support high-level strategizing of how to implement CS practices on projects across an
organization.
2. Scoring Projects and Recommendations

Improve collaboration in scheduling by applying a maturity model.
Chapter 3 explains how RT-362 developed the Maturity Model for Collaborative Scheduling
(MMCS) by building upon team members’ subject matter expertise and iterative feedback.
The MMCS encompasses five pillars of collaborative scheduling: Scheduling Significance,
Planners and Schedulers, Scheduling Representation, Goal Alignment with Owner, and
Communication.
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The team used survey data and interdisciplinary principles from decision analysis,
including multiple objective decision analysis, to weight the model to account for attribute
values and collaboration contributions. The tool assesses the value of each pillar’s
contribution to CS, and then sums these scores to assess the overall level of collaboration
currently occurring in the project. Projects leaders can use the model to score a project
and follow the team’s recommendations to guide how they can improve collaboration
within the separate attributes and also across the overall project.
RT-362 advises construction engineers and managers to use the maturity model
in Appendix A to score their projects’ current CS maturity and then apply the
recommendations in Appendix B to improve their project collaboration. The research
team purposefully made the model and scoring system so they could be utilized at any
point during the project life cycle, based on individual need. The maturity model could
work most effectively as a benchmarking tool at a phase inflection point during project
execution, as well as when a project is complete. Additionally, if the model is used to score
a project more than once, a comparison of the scores could give the project team insights
on additional areas of improvement for future projects.
3. Industry Analysis and CS Practices to Improve KPIs

Improve collaboration-related metrics by using key performance indicators.
As Chapter 4 reports, RT-362 identified the impacts of CS practices on five Key

Performance Indicators (KPIs): cost, schedule, quality, safety, and teamwork. The
researchers’ industry-level analysis presents opportunities to prioritize team activities
based on their corresponding impacts on KPIs, driving CS improvement even with
limited resources. Specific actions that support collaborative scheduling include
designing information systems that promote inter- and intra-project learning and sharing
information between project participants; recognizing the need for leaders that support
the development of collaborative schedules; using simulations to teach collaborative
scheduling basics; and using processes that require teams to collaborate to develop
schedules (i.e., the Last Planner System™, pull planning, interactive planning sessions).
The team identified that three priority CS practices had the highest impact on KPIs:
1. Schedule alignment with owner’s expectations throughout the life cycle of the
project, which the team shortened to “Meet Owner’s Expectations” in the model.
2. Sufficient and consistent interactions between project stakeholders, which became
“Maintain Sufficient and Consistent Interaction” during use.
3. Scheduling visibility across the entire project, or “Have Clear Schedule Visibility.”
The following sections present an overview of the research method RT-362 used to
conduct the study, analyze the data, and report the findings.
2
Research Method and Objectives
This section presents an overview of the research questions, related outcomes, and working
hypotheses defined by the team, along with a discussion on how they contributed to the research
outcomes. RT-362 used a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods to develop the study and
different methods to collect and analyze data (see Appendices C and D for details). Figure 1
summarizes each question the team considered, the outcomes of each consideration, and any
related working hypotheses that the team defined with the support of its subject matter experts.
Question Outcomes Hypothesis
What are the limitations of

Inventory of limitations of
current scheduling practices
A current scheduling practices N/A
with regard to the development
regarding collaboration.
and implementation of CS?
Collaborative schedules are

developed by making use
of methods that promote
Which practices are being Inventory of collaborative communication.
used in the industry at large scheduling tools and practices
B (EPC and elsewhere) to from the industry at large, There are types of methods
promote the development and including their capabilities and (e.g., weekly meeting, pull
implementation of CS? obstacles. planning meeting) used
throughout a project that
support collaborative
scheduling.
What practical guidelines can Implementation guide,

C support the development and including a collaborative N/A
implementation of CS? scheduling maturity model.
Figure 1. Research Questions, Outcomes, and Related Hypotheses
RT-362 began with focus group discussions, and it conducted literature reviews throughout this
research effort. Working with small focus groups enabled the team to created affinity diagrams,
which helped later when the group drafted a collaborative scheduling maturity model. Next, the
team developed an industry survey that helped it refine the maturity model’s pillars and levels.
The survey responses simultaneously informed the collaboration maturity levels and gave greater
context to the current state of CS across the construction industry. (Chapter 4 briefly summarizes
the industry survey and Appendices E and F offer survey details and its complete findings.) The
researchers simultaneously conducted interviews with industry practitioners, gathering their
experiences on how to develop schedules, learning whether they use collaborative methods, and
also identifying challenges to CS and opportunities for improvement.
The team’s combined efforts resulted in its recommendations to guide practitioners to reach the
next level of performance, regardless of their current CS maturity. The total research effort used
the framework published in the Scrum Guide™ (Sutherland and Sutherland 2014). Scrum is an
3
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
agile process that allows people working in a team to focus on delivering the highest business
value in the shortest time.
This report is organized into the following sections (summarized in Figure 2):
• Chapter 2 provides an overview of strategies that organizations can apply to implement

collaborative scheduling (CS).
• Chapter 3 describes the main outcome of this research, the Maturity Model for
Collaborative Scheduling (MMCS), and steps through how to use it on a project. The
chapter also provides examples of how actual projects have applied the model.
• Chapter 4 presents an industry-level analysis of the benefits of applying CS across
multiple projects, drawing on the team’s investigation of the barriers and drivers to
CS. It discusses how CS practices can affect key performance indicators (KPIs) and
recommends strategies that had the greatest impact. The team also explored the
barriers and drivers and how consistently specific practices are being implemented and
found instances where high-impact practices are not being used in industry.
• Chapter 5 discusses the project’s findings and gives recommendations for implementing
CS practices.
• Appendix A offers the Maturity Model for Collaborative Scheduling, a series of
questionnaires and scoring rubrics for users who want to score their projects.
• Appendix B contains recommendations for improving a project’s CS maturity.
• The remaining appendices detail the team’s methodology for conducting this research.
Scoring Projects and Industry Analysis and CS

Strategy and Organization Recommendations Practices to Improve KPIs
Chapter 2 Chapter 3 and Appendix A Chapter 4 and Appendix D

CS implementation strategies Use the MMCS Understand the impact of
CS practices on KPIs
Identify current level of CS
Understand consistency
Recognize CS areas and of practice implementation
practices that are perceived across the industry
to have a greater impact
Chapter 3 and Appendix B Chapter 4 and Appendix G

Identify recommendations Understand the drivers of
for improvement and barriers to CS
Figure 2. The Three Main Components of this Report
4
STRATEGY AND ORGANIZATION FOR

2 COLLABORATIVE SCHEDULING
The true worth of an idea is found in its implementation. Each of the collaborative scheduling
(CS) methods described in this report can be implemented in a range of circumstances and
produce value for the enterprise; however, these methods should be applied deliberately:
• Not all practices will work for all projects all of the time.
• In order for the project team to have CS success, one team member must have authority
and be accountable for the effectiveness of the strategy implemented. This person will
be able to correct the course of the team as required to maintain the CS environment.
• Management buy-in and embracing a collaborative mindset are necessary for an
organization to implement and improve upon any CS practice. Cultural and environmental
adjustments are required for management to successfully adapt to collaboration.
The most effective tactic applies two approaches simultaneously: top-down (the
organization’s leadership adopts principles for implementing CS) and bottom-up (project
managers and team members embrace CS and engage in collaborative practices).
• CS should start with clear concepts on general collaboration at all levels. The successful
organization is clear about the parameters for collaborative efforts, provides clear
guidelines, and supports project team members – in particular project managers.
The following sections provide high-level strategies for implementing CS practices. These
concepts are useful for implementing the practices identified in the maturity model, which is the
focus of the next chapter.
Organize Project Teams from Day 1 to Support

Collaborative Scheduling Practices
» Both owners and contractors should develop standard communication plans in their own
organizations to serve as the templates for alignment on a project. Ensure that these plans
work well together to sustain a clear communication vision and practice.
» Carefully consider reporting lines when developing organization charts for projects,
establishing and communicating appropriate reporting lines. It is important to convey
to the stakeholders how the organization is meant to function. This is especially true for
matrix organizations.
5
CHAPTER2: STRATEGY AND ORGANIZATION FOR COLLABORATIVE SCHEDULING
» In the communication plan, establish lines of communication to the scheduler. It is important

that these lines be understood by all team members, and especially by those closest to the
work and the planning efforts.
» Reporting lines upward through management must also be understood to prevent
unnecessary intervention and/or a lack of communication to management. This is imperative
for the handling of exceptions (decisions).
» Through its interviews (detailed in Appendix G), the team identified the following
communication routines and mechanisms that support CS:
During Preconstruction
› Hold early meetings with the objective of alignment.
› Hold kick-off, pre-flight, and risk assessment meetings to align the team.
During Master Phase

› Define an electronic repository to store and maintain schedule updates.
› Define which project control metrics the team will use to assess project performance with
respect to schedule.
› Define how frequently project participants can expect schedule reviews.
During Pull Planning

› Use AWP to define a mechanism for developing phase plans, including when meetings are
held and who participates in them.
› Frequently check up with trades, using visual and tactile means to develop plans.
› Clearly publicize milestones, making them available to project stakeholders in reports, on
boards, and in distributed documents.
During Lookahead
› Work on constraint identification and removal by assigning responsibilities and keeping
people accountable for tackling any roadblocks that might prevent tasks from being
completed.
› Visualize the plans, illustrating the flow of work and handoffs between trades.
During Operational Phase (Weekly or Short-term)

› Develop boards that display the weekly tasks assigned to trades as a result of pull planning
sessions.
› Deploy tactile methods to develop a schedule (e.g., arranging stickies on a wall or a board
at the office).
› Define which measurable increments of work can be tracked and checked for progress and
completion.
6
On a Daily Basis
› Hold daily huddles.
› Conduct daily coordination meetings with superintendents and/or supervisors for
each trade.
Establish Expectations for Project Leadership

that Support these Practices
» Project teams should consider having (or requiring) leadership team meetings or workshops.
These events are often more effective when held offsite. Meet at the start of the job to
establish alignment on key topics, including the CS effort.
» Leaders must understand the communication plan and actively advocate for it to ensure that
their reports are acting in accordance with the plan and that they understand its importance.
» Leaders must also be prepared to intervene when they see a lack of communication – and to
take the lead in bringing the project team back on track.
Educate the Team on Effective Planning and Its Importance
» At the beginning of the project, the team should conduct a workshop or series of meetings
to reinforce the idea of having a planner’s mindset and to plan how the team can work most
effectively with the scheduler.
» Project team members must understand the importance of sharing their plans and execution
strategies with the scheduler, while the scheduler must understand their role in bringing the
schedule together.
» Team members must be prepared to give and receive feedback on their plans, empowering
the scheduler to make decisions and share concerns that are in the project’s best interest,
even if they might not serve the immediate needs of the individual.
» The key to establishing a CS culture is for team members to follow the practices, and not just
for political reasons or job security; they must believe that these practices are necessary for
the success of the job.
» During the interviews (detailed in Appendix G), RT-362 identified the following CS drivers and
positive interactions. These drivers can be used as starting points during alignment sections
to help teams focus on how to recognize important levers of CS.
7
CHAPTER2: STRATEGY AND ORGANIZATION FOR COLLABORATIVE SCHEDULING
CS Drivers Specifically Identified by Interviewees

› Constant communication
› Gather feedback on the schedule for validation
› Gather feedback on the schedule to identify additional risks and constraints
› Interactive planning sessions
› Jointly define and work on critical milestones and constraints
› The Last Planner System
› Pull Planning
› Respect the knowledge of those already working with the owner
› Set the times and the means for daily check-ins and updates
› Promote transparency and visibility
› Psychological safety to report issues
› Honesty
Positive Interactions Identified from the Interviews

› Request input from a broader group of project participants to develop schedules.
› Schedule interactive planning sessions with trade partners to align the schedule and receive
input from designers, trade partners, and/or suppliers.
› Have the contract state the contractor’s level of participation in schedule meetings and/or
define the level of schedule detail and reporting.
› Have the owner provide a first schedule with milestones, the let the contractor detail the
other milestones in that schedule.
› Use BIM to develop collaborative schedules.
Require and/or Incentivize these Behaviors Contractually
» Add specific language to contracts, defining Collaborative Scheduling and requiring

stakeholders to develop a plan for how it will be implemented.
» Consider requiring a meeting, ideally in a workshop format, to establish key leadership
milestones. This allows for clear alignment at the beginning of the project.
» While liquidated damages have historically been a method for pursuing schedule milestones,
project teams should consider incentive-based programs.
» Where multiple contractors are involved on a project, the project team should consider
shared incentives that promote collaboration, rather than having each individual company
pursue independent incentive programs.
This chapter presented high-level strategies to create an environment that is conducive to CS

efforts. The next chapter discusses specific CS practices and introduces the maturity model for
collaborative scheduling, along with practical recommendations for improving a project.
8
USING THE MATURITY MODEL FOR

3 COLLABORATIVE SCHEDULING
This chapter introduces the elements of the Maturity Model for Collaborative Scheduling
(MMCS) and provides examples of the elements associated with each pillar. After the maturity
model has been introduced, this chapter gives an example to illustrate how the entire model can
be used to score the CS efforts of a project.
When RT-362 developed the MMCS, the team’s initial discussion of drivers and obstacles
allowed it to identify influences and key components of collaborative scheduling (CS). These
research efforts unveiled ways to identify current CS levels and provide guidelines to both
project teams and enterprises to increase it. The research methods the team explored allowed it
to build a maturity model with industry practices that are known to increase CS.
The Elements of the MMCS
The MMCS provides specific actions that support collaborative scheduling, including designing
systems to promote inter- and intra-project learning and sharing information. The maturity
model details actions, illustrating how project team members need for CS leaders to support
the development of collaborative schedules and showing how using these processes requires
teams to collaborate to develop schedules.
The MMCS enables a project organization to assess its CS process and prioritize its actions
across the five pillars that support the CS effort:
Scheduling Significance
The value the project team and stakeholders place on the creation, use, and management of
the project schedule
Planners and Schedulers

The roles, responsibilities, and interactions between collaborative planners and schedulers
Scheduling Representation
The ability to grade a project based on appropriate schedule detail, proper tools and
methods used during schedule creation, and proper control metrics and quality checks to
effectively maintain the schedule
9
CHAPTER 3: USING THE MATURITY MODEL FOR COLLABORATIVE SCHEDULING
Goal Alignment with Owner

The project team’s alignment with the owner’s expectations with respect to the schedule
Communication
The need for defined communication plans: who is expected to participate in different
meetings, communication channels, and the frequency of updates
As this section describes, each pillar contains specific actions organized into a total of 23
attributes (shown in Figure 3). A team can assess the specific attributes associated with each
pillar and assign each attribute to one of three levels (bronze, silver, and gold) based on its
ability to support CS (see Figure 4).
1 Scheduling
Significance 2 Planners and
Schedulers 3 Scheduling
Representation 4 Goal Alignment
with Owner 5 Communication
Culture Planning Mindset Level of Detail Expectations Communication

Plan
Creation Cross-Discipline Tools and Methods Alignment
Interactions Engagement
Stakeholders Quality Checks Interactions
Job Role Psychological
Adaptability Agility Safety
Understanding
Accuracy Control Metrics Coordination
Visibility Channels
Figure 3. The Pillars and Attributes of the Maturity Model for Collaborative Scheduling
Least Moderately Most

Collaborative Collaborative Collaborative
SCORE SCORE SCORE

54 or less 55 to 76 77 or higher
Figure 4. The MMCS Levels of Maturity
10
Each pillar can be assessed separately against the three levels of implementation maturity:
bronze, silver, and gold. The aggregated score of all five pillars can also be summarized into the
same three levels, and this assessment can provide a single overall summary of the project’s CS
maturity (as shown in Figure 4).
The team’s focus group discussions with SMEs revealed which pillars and attributes of the
maturity model are more relevant to CS, and thus carry more weight during their implementation.
Figure 5 shows the pillars and attributes of the MMCS with their respective weights.
Scheduling Planners and Scheduling Goal Alignment Communication

Significance Schedulers Representation with Owner Weight: 65
Weight: 90 Weight: 50 Weight: 75 Weight: 100
Attribute Weight Attribute Weight Attribute Weight Attribute Weight Attribute Weight
Culture 100 Planning 100 Level of Detail 100 Expectations 100 Communication 100
Mindset Plan
Creation 95 Cross-Discipline 80 Tools and 95 Alignment 90 Engagement 90

Interactions Methods
Stakeholders 85 Job Role 75 Quality 90 Interactions 65 Psychological 85

Checks Safety
Adaptability 75 Understanding 55 Agility 85 Coordination 60
Accuracy 70 Control 80 Channels 50

Metrics
Visibility 50
Figure 5. Maturity Model Pillars and their Respective Weights as Defined by SMEs – Which Practices or Actions
Should Be Taken First
The weighting reveals the relative importance of each pillar and attribute when compared to its
counterparts. Managers can use these weights to inform a potential order of implementation
of the practices indicated in the MMCS.
Note that the SMEs singled out Goal Alignment with Owner as the most important pillar
(assigning it a weight of 100) and Expectations as the most important attribute within that
pillar (and so also receiving a weight of 100). The Scheduling Significance pillar followed (at 90)
with its Culture attribute as the most important (weighted at 100 within that pillar). Scheduling
Representation came third, with its Level of Detail attribute rated as most important. The pillars
for Communication and Planners and Schedulers also have weight within the model, taking the
fourth and fifth places respectively. The following section defines these pillars, recommends how
each can improve a project, and provides a project case or two to illustrate how each is applied.
11
Pillar 1: Scheduling Significance
Table 1. Attributes of Pillar 1 – Scheduling Significance
Bronze (Level 1) Silver (Level 2) Gold (Level 3)

Culture (100)
Project scheduling culture Project scheduling culture

Project scheduling culture does
somewhat supports supports accountability,
not support accountability,
accountability, timeliness, and timeliness, and collaboration
timeliness, and collaboration (5)
collaboration (60) (100)
Schedule created primarily

Creation (95)
Schedule created primarily to Schedule created primarily to

to enable strong project
define contractual expectations define contractual expectations
management communication
and responsibilities but not and responsibilities but was not
and collaboration throughout
used (20) used by entire project team (65)
project team (100)
Stakeholders (85)
Attributes (by Relative Weight)
Stakeholders were not involved Stakeholders were involved All appropriate stakeholders
early enough or considered in early enough but not all were were involved early enough in
schedule creation (10) appropriate and necessary (50) creating the schedule (100)
Adaptability (75)
The project schedule was

The project schedule was static, The project schedule was
mixed; responsibilities were
solely defined by contract dynamic, a living document
defined but not widely shared
expectations (10) (100)
(65)
Accuracy (70)
There were no schedule

There were substantial There were few schedule
inaccuracies that adversely
schedule inaccuracies (15) inaccuracies (80)
impacted performance (100)
Visibility (50)
Visibility was high into the

Visibility was poor across the Visibility was moderate across
schedule and its creation for
project team (20) the project team (60)
project team (100)
The first pillar is Scheduling Significance. Table 1 lists its attributes and describes the bronze,
silver, and gold levels. This table includes the relative weight of each attribute and shows the
scores for its bronze, silver, and gold levels of maturity. (The remaining pillars are summarized
12
by similar figures in their overviews later in this chapter). Each weight and score has meaning in
the context of the model and each is used to determine the overall contribution of that attribute
to value, or achievement of collaboration, for a project that exhibits gold, silver, or bronze
characteristics.
To develop the relative weights in the columns, RT-362 asked an industry team focus group to
rank the relative importance of each attribute in terms of its ability to measure the pillar and its
contribution to collaborative scheduling. For example, in Table 1, the primary position of Culture
indicates that culture is the most important attribute of Scheduling Significance. Then the focus
group assigned points – similar to scoring an exam – to reflect the overall contribution of each
attribute to that value.
In the same way, the group assigned points for each attribute within each level of collaboration
(i.e., gold, silver, and bronze). For example, a project exhibiting a Silver (or moderate) level of
collaboration with respect to Accuracy would have few schedule inaccuracies, and that project
would earn 80 points. The earned points are identified in parentheses after each element. To
find that score in Table 1, read across the Accuracy row to the Silver column and find that 80
points have been assigned to the attribute at that level of maturity.
The research team worked with the SMEs to elicit the weights assigned to each level of
collaboration and each attribute, using multiple objective decision analysis (MODA) and
utility theory techniques. Broadly speaking, higher amounts of points correspond to greater
collaboration; the points are aggregated through a weighted average calculation.
To understand the level of CS maturity in a project, the project team must identify the current
state of practice (gold, silver, or bronze) for each attribute of that project and assign the
corresponding points. Next, the team modifies those points with the relative weight of the
attributes to earn a score for each pillar. The pillar scores are then aggregated for a total
collaboration score.
The aggregation equations are given as the MODA formulas in Appendix C. The weights for
each attribute and level of collaboration were assessed by the industry team focus group using
multi-objective decision analysis and the Delphi Method and verified using sensitivity analysis.
Details of the elicitation process are in Appendix C. A rubric to score projects – using the MMCS
to determine the current level of collaboration – can be found in Appendix A.
Pillar Description/Definition:
Scheduling Significance reflects how much value the project team and stakeholders place on
the creation, use, and management of the project schedule.
13
Attribute Definitions:
Culture
The schedule supports strong project culture associated with accountability, timeliness, and
collaboration.
Creation
The contractual intent of the project schedule reflects objectives and ensures interactive
accessibility for vital feedback.
Stakeholders
The timing and involvement of project major stakeholders throughout the project lifecycle.
Adaptability
Is the project schedule static or dynamic in nature? How adaptable is the schedule to
accommodate changes that result from team collaboration or project needs?
Accuracy
The schedule represents the current state and status of the project at any given time.
Visibility
The accessibility of the schedule to the project team
Thus, given these definitions, levels of collaboration can then be defined. For example, for the
Creation attribute:
• A project that is Bronze, or least collaborative, would have “a schedule created primarily
to define contractual expectations and responsibilities but not used.” Such a project
would earn 20 points.
• A project that is Silver, or moderately collaborative, would have “a schedule created
primarily to define contractual expectations and responsibilities but was not used by the
entire project team.” Such a project would earn 65 points.
• A project that is Gold, or most collaborative, would have “a schedule created primarily
to enable strong project management communication and collaboration throughout the
project team.” Such a project would earn 100 points.
It is therefore implied that a project that has no schedule creation would earn 0 points. It was
not practical to add a selection for the absence of collaboration, and therefore definitions of
zero value are omitted from the figures.
14
Next, Table 2 lists the MMCS recommendations to improve Pillar 1 from Bronze to Silver, from
Silver to Gold, and from Gold to Gold+.
Table 2. Recommendations to Improve Pillar 1 – Scheduling Significance
Move to Silver Move to Gold Gold+
Use project schedule every Use the project schedule to hold team
Incorporate the schedule
day and ensure scheduling members accountable for progress,
within project culture
Culture
is a part of the daily culture updates and communication of

– project teams should
– project teams live by the schedule issues. Implement technology
support and be supported by
schedule and are constantly (i.e., mobile/live updates) to foster a
the schedule.
updating it with progress. strong project scheduling culture.
Create the schedule as a

Define not just contractual Require constant communication
baseline to be used by all
obligations but also job (good or bad) among all project team
project team members to
roles, responsibilities and members during the creation of the
Creation
measure performance. The

expectations throughout the project schedule and show that their
schedule is the roadmap and
project. Give opportunity for communication efforts are valid and
guide to a successful project
feedback from project team will be met respectfully from other
and solicit feedback from all
members in the creation of team members to ensure psychological
stakeholders to gather buy-in
the schedule. safety.
for collaboration.
Pillar 1 – Scheduling Significance Attributes
Require all stakeholders to be involved

Begin project scheduling Involve all stakeholders early
and to provide input throughout the
with a kick-off of all and often in schedule creation
Stakeholders
entire process of the creation of the

stakeholders to gather for feedback. Receive buy-in
project schedule. Require buy-in on the
initial feedback on creating for the updated schedule from
baseline schedule from all stakeholders
the schedule; stakeholders all parties and continue to
as well as provide progress updates
understand information monitor progress throughout
and reporting to stakeholders on a
provided. the project.
constant basis.
Create a schedule that is highly

Adaptability
Create a schedule that is Create a schedule maintained

flexible and can be used to efficiently
able to be updated and with minimal effort and
manage change as project conditions
improved rather than only a used by all appropriate
dictate. Must be used by all project
record of the past. stakeholders when necessary.
stakeholders.
Periodically audit controls Put in place continuous audit controls

Accuracy
Implement quality controls to help with scheduling for accurate scheduling. Use historical
for schedule accuracy and accuracy. Use timely audit audit data to perform predictive
audit progress. data to validate forecasted analytics on potential schedule impacts
schedule completion dates. instead of reacting to schedule slips.
Ensure project schedule is always

Accessible and timely accessible to all project team members
Ensure project schedule is
distribution of project at any time and accurately shows
Visibility
accessible at regular intervals

schedule and major progress and forecasted completion.
to core project team members
milestone progress to Incorporate business analytics and
and accurately shows
entire project team to track business intelligence to enable end-
progress of completion.
progress. users to digest information grounded
in data.
15
Scheduling Significance – Spotlight Example
Project Background
This is a $25-million piping installation project located in Nashville, Tennessee. The
baseline schedule was created by the project scheduler with minimal involvement from
the site management team. The site management team was not aware of the benefits
of being engaged and collaborating on the creation of the project baseline schedule.
Because the management team was not involved, the scheduler did not think a hard
deadline was relevant. The schedule was built with a significant amount of float in
order to achieve the completion of the project easily. Additionally, management did
not receive or ask for updates on the schedule due to the perceived lack of interest.
This behavior led to the poor performance of the project being a surprise to upper
management, who did not receive this news favorably. Thus, behavior and culture
ultimately resulted in a baseline schedule with no buy-in from the site management
team, and the schedule could not be used to hold the project team accountable. This
project was delivered three months late and $5 million over budget.
Related Attribute and Discussion

Culture, demonstrate Maturity Model movement up from Bronze to Silver.
Executive management decided that the company could no longer operate profitably
and keep clients satisfied with such a weak culture in regards to the use and
management of the project schedule. Moving forward, it was mandated that all projects
must have interactive planning sessions with all project stakeholders to help aid in the
development of the baseline schedule.
The intent of implementing this process was to create a culture of the site management
team owning the project schedule and making it a living document. In addition to the
planning sessions, all relevant owner and contractor team members were required to
sign the schedule, thus agreeing to the goals stated within.
The executive management team was rewarded by this decision, because the first
project to use this new process yielded success by completing the project on time
and on budget. The behaviors of the site management team changed toward the use
and the management of the project schedule. The team had complete ownership of
the baseline schedule and was held accountable for executing its scope of work in
accordance with the baseline plan. Having this accountability led to more effective
collaboration during schedule updates, which resulted in enhanced coordination among
piping installation crews and other building contractors. Having the full involvement
of all project stakeholders from the beginning of the creation of the project schedule
helped to promote a strong culture in the use of the project schedule.
16
Pillar 2: Planners and Schedulers
The second pillar is Planners and Schedulers. Table 3 lists its attributes and describes the
bronze, silver, and gold levels.
Table 3. Attributes of Pillar 2 – Planners and Schedulers

Mindset (100)
Schedulers and project team

Planning
Schedulers and project team Schedulers and project team exhibit a planning mindset,
exhibit a poor planning mindset partially exhibit a planning meaning they are actively
and are reactive (10) mindset (60) engaged, timely, and forward-
looking (100)
Cross-Discipline
Interactions (80)
Schedulers have clear access

Schedulers are siloed and only Schedulers have partial access across disciplines and are
have the technical ability to to other disciplines and are not empowered to have input into
create (15) fully empowered (60) both planning and scheduling
(100)
Job Role (75)
A facilitator, scheduler
A creator/recorder, scheduler An organizer, scheduler seeks
facilitates the creation of the
single-handedly creates the inputs from trades before
schedule via interactions with
schedule (20) creating the schedule (75)
trades (100)
Understanding (55)
There was a superior

There was no understanding of There was a partial
understanding of the difference
differences between planning understanding of planning and
between planning and
and scheduling (10) scheduling differences (50)
scheduling difference (100)
Planners and Schedulers concerns the roles, responsibilities, and interactions between
collaborative planners and schedulers. A project scheduler is a person who organizes and
maintains the schedule and works with the project team to update it. A planner is a person who
organizes project resources into work sequences and phases, and balances project logistics to
enable workflow to deliver a completed project.
Planning Mindset
The scheduler and project team will either exhibit reactive or proactive behaviors in their
approach to planning and scheduling, and their belief and commitment to the right behaviors
will largely determine the level of collaboration in the scheduling process.
17
Cross-Discipline Interactions
While a project team may have an experienced scheduler and may be proactive in planning, it is
equally important to empower it to work with multiple members of the project team and reflect
their feedback in the schedule.
Job Role
The impact a scheduler can make on a project is closely related to the individual’s
understanding of their responsibilities, as well as the project team and company’s recognition of
their job description and contributions.
Understanding
The degree to which team members recognize that there are distinct differences between
planning and scheduling, and that these activities are not just reserved for schedulers.
Table 4 lists the recommendations for improving each attribute of Pillar 2 from Bronze to Silver,
from Silver to Gold, and from Gold to Gold+.
Table 4. Recommendations to Improve Pillar 2 – Planners and Schedulers
Implement processes and Actively reinforce processes Require project leadership (e.g.,
identify opportunities that that support a “planning managers, superintendents)
Planning
Mindset
enable proactive behavior mindset” and constantly to develop their own plans and
(i.e., workshops, small group engage in opportunities regularly align these work plans
discussions, interactive supporting collaborative and through formalized workshops
planning sessions). proactive planning approaches. or interactive planning.
Pillar 2 – Planners and Schedulers Attributes
Enable and encourage

Cross-Discipline
schedulers to work across Reinforce the importance of Require specific and regular
Interactions
departments and with other consistent cross functional communications between

stakeholders to shape a access to schedulers, enabling Project Team members and the
schedule that will be more clear communication and scheduler and actively break
accurate and can be utilized scheduling insights from all down silos between functions
throughout the life of the disciplines. at a management level.
project.
Provide the scheduler the
Allow the scheduler to be Allow the scheduler to facilitate autonomy to not only own
Job Role
involved and use experience the creation and management creation and management of
to organize the schedule in a of the schedule from inception the schedule but also use their
common-sense manner that to progress updates throughout role to influence the decision
makes sense for all parties. the life of the project. making of others on the Project
Team.
Engage in planning and

Contractually require that
Understanding
scheduling activities unique to

Have defined responsibilities these terms are aligned on
each project. Verify that there
and definitions of planning and understood between all
is a clear difference between
and scheduling unique to each interested parties on the Project
Planners and Schedulers, and it
company and project. to ensure these differences are
is understood by all in schedule
respected.
creation.
18
Planners and Schedulers – Spotlight Example 1
Project Background
This is a capital project for the construction of a $300-million platforms complex. The
project exhibited poor schedule execution performance during construction. Initially,
the schedule was not capturing accurate progress updates from the construction site.
The lack of proper updates negatively affected the overall planning effort, resulting in
significant delays on needed materials at site and schedule inaccuracies that caused
conflicts with the heavy lift contractor.
The schedule forecast was not properly depicted on the schedule; therefore, main
activities were systematically behind schedule throughout the project’s duration. Key
stakeholders were in constant denial of the input provided by the construction managers
on site, not taking into consideration the challenges the execution phase was facing.
Poor communication between parties and deviation due to lack of proper reporting at
the organization level went unnoticed. Consequently, fundamental changes were not
implemented to make corrections.

Culture, demonstrate Maturity Model movement up from Bronze to Silver.
First, the team needed to assess the difference between planning and scheduling and,
subsequently, to review and evaluate why their inputs were important to maintaining
an accurate schedule. Defining these terms or holding multi-discipline workshops was
helpful to build understanding and awareness for the project’s challenges. Likewise, the
project scheduler was empowered to collaborate across the various groups to elevate
and check the clarity on the project’s schedule issues. The project scheduler acted as a
central point of contact, giving specific insights with the intention of improving the flow of
information, and simultaneously increasing the team’s engagement among disciplines.
Planners and Schedulers – Spotlight Example 2
Project Background
This project is a $35-million chemical plant expansion. Since the initiation of the project
planning and during execution, the schedule was continuously capturing, depicting,
and projecting actual and accurate information on progress of the construction site.
The project management team was clear and forthright during the weekly construction
progress meetings.
19
Those meetings were consistently attended by all key members, making it possible for
all parties represented (i.e., project management, construction, operations, contractor,
and subcontractors) to exercise critical planning and to effectively identify corrections
and solutions to be reflected in the schedule. The forecast of the multiple construction
activities was properly depicted on the schedule; therefore, main activities with more
impact on the schedule were systematically identified and addressed in a timely manner.
This approach allowed key stakeholders to be consistently open in accepting

and addressing changes coming from relevant input provided by construction
representatives on site, hence permitting all key members to tackle challenges during the
execution phase. As a result, the main schedule was updated appropriately on a monthly
update interval. In general, this project exhibited regular and effective communication
among key parties (i.e., offsite managers, construction managers, general contractor,
and subcontractors) at construction levels during execution, and adequate reporting was
regularly elevated to higher levels of the organizations for validation purposes.

Cross-Discipline Interactions, demonstrate Maturity Model movement up from Gold to
Gold+.
The main factor that had significant impact on the success of this project was the
mindset and dynamic communication process. That approach included regular, honest,
and active participation from the operations team, who were key stakeholders (as
final owners and users of the facility). The operations team regularly communicated
the project’s progress and challenges during construction. Since the operations team
normally had a long-term vision of its final product, truthful and open input enabled
important corrections, changes, and deviations from scope to be satisfactorily
addressed to make corrections when needed. Consequently, legitimate field change
orders – normally a point of contention for many projects – were promptly notified,
processed, and reasonably either approved or denied.
Finally, the project was completed on time and under budget, primarily due to a
successful collaborative scheduling mindset. The project team members adopted and
exhibited a collaborative planning mindset during planning discussions, recognizing
the importance of everyone’s inputs into developing a solution and promoting valuable
feedback from each individual team’s party to further increase collaborative scheduling.
20
Pillar 3: Scheduling Representation
The third pillar is Scheduling Representation. Table 5 lists its attributes and describes the
Table 5. Attributes of Pillar 3 – Scheduling Representation

Detail (100)
Schedules did not contain Schedules contained adequate Schedules were appropriately
Level of
sufficient detail to be useful for detail to a reasonable work plan detailed to successfully
team or individual (10) for team and individual (70) complete the project (100)
The schedule was updated

frequently across the project
Methods (95)
Few to no use of scheduling

Tools and
Additional tools and methods and was a living, integrated

tools and methods were utilized
supported collaboration during document that used appropriate
across the company (beyond
schedule development (70) tools and methods (e.g., LPS,
scheduling software) (20)
BIM, 4D, AWP, Takt Planning)

(100)
Checks (90)
Quality checks were conducted

Quality
Few to no quality checks were Some quality checks were

regularly and appropriately
conducted (5) conducted (50)
(100)
The schedule was interactive

The schedule was static and
Agility
The schedule was flexible to and represented an accurate

(85)
could not be changed easily

accommodate changes (70) and obtainable projection that
(20)
could be easily updated (100)
Control Metrics
Some appropriate and Appropriate and sufficient

No control metrics were used
sufficient control metrics were control metrics were used such
(80)
to monitor and control the

used to monitor and control the as CPI and SPI to monitor and
schedule (10)
schedule (50) control schedule (100)
Scheduling Representation is the ability to grade a project based on appropriate schedule detail,
proper tools and methods used during schedule creation, and proper control metrics and quality
checks to effectively maintain the schedule.
Level of Detail
Determines if there is adequate detail in the schedule and if it contains clearly defined
projections to success for all schedulers.
21
Tools and Methods

Looks at what tools and methods were used to create the schedule. Do the tools and methods
support collaboration? Schedules that are updated frequently across the organization; living,
integrated documents with appropriate tools and methods are considered gold standard.
Quality Checks
The quality refers to the schedule health. The goals are attainable, the logic is sound, and the
schedule is made visible to stakeholders.
Agility
Determines whether the schedule is reactive, proactive, or interactive.
Control Metrics
Reviews what control metrics were used on the project. Used to determine if the project is
performing per the plan. Some examples would be CPI (Cost Performance Index) and SPI
(Schedule Performance Index) to gauge where the project is currently at and to help forecast
where the project is heading.
Table 6 lists the recommendations for improving from Bronze to Silver, from Silver to Gold, and
from Gold to Gold+ for Pillar 3.
Table 6. Recommendations to Improve Pillar 3 – Scheduling Representation

Level of Detail
Schedule is built with input from

Evaluate current schedule to
the project team and enough Removing unnecessary detail
identify areas with minimal
detail to allow team members from the schedule to make the
detail; specifically look to better
Pillar 3 – Scheduling Representation Attributes
to successfully manage the schedule more manageable.

define project activities.
project.
Tools and Methods
In conjunction with scheduling Engage workface leaders,

software, implement people on the team responsible
Implement at least one
collaborative team meetings to for making the final assignment
scheduling tool/method that
review and re-plan the project of labor and resources, for
supports team collaboration for
schedule including regular more integrated schedules
planning and scheduling.
distribution across project that communicate the plan and
stakeholders. production.
Utilize techniques and tools

Increase frequency of quality
Quality Checks
such as scheduling analysis

Identify attainable scheduling checks based on identified
software to determine better
goals that can be utilized to attainable goals to ensure
solutions to enable successful
maintain schedule health going schedule in consistently healthy
on-time completion via higher
forward through quality checks. and visible to all necessary
schedule performance for
stakeholders.
productivity.
22
Table 6 Continued. Recommendations to Improve Pillar 3 – Scheduling Representation
Utilize techniques and tools

Pillar 3 – Scheduling Representation Attributes
such as scheduling analysis

Update the schedule to reflect
Conduct regular interactive software to determine better
current state of the project
team meetings seeking solutions to enable successful
Agility
based on work in place

feedback and ideas to better on-time completion via higher
progress (e.g., for example
plan and schedule remaining schedule performance for
weather impacts, major change
work. productivity or pull planning
orders).
methods like the Last Planner
System® of Production Control.
Control Metrics
Implement control metrics

Make planning adjustments Increase schedule monitoring
that will enable controlling and
based on control metrics to frequency such as checking
monitoring schedule progress
improve schedule performance. weekly instead of monthly.
throughout the project.
Scheduling Representation – Spotlight Example 1
Project Background
This project is a $20-million boiler installation for a refinery located in New Jersey. The
home office made the original schedule in isolation and without any input from the
project team. That schedule was part of the original contract. After the initial on-site
schedule review attended by the project manager, the superintendent, and the scheduler,
they agreed to significantly modify the original schedule (e.g., resequence activities,
logic, durations). The team persuaded the client – with significant effort over several
meetings – to accept the revised schedule. The team maintained the contract end date,
but the sequence was significantly changed.

Agility, demonstrate Maturity Model movement up from Silver to Gold.
The schedule was updated and presented as a new baseline schedule with sequences
and logic matching an improved workflow and progress made to date. The team
continued improving and updating the schedule. The team successfully moved the
project to Gold, primarily by setting up daily meetings with the core project team.
These feedback sessions allowed the core team to review the two-week look-ahead
schedule every day. The project manager helped drive the dialogue among team
members to follow the plan and sequence for the remaining work. It also improved the
communication and trust, resulting in enhanced camaraderie.
23
Scheduling Representation – Spotlight Example 2
Project Background
This project is a $60-million five-tank installation in Ohio for crude oil storage. The home
office made the original schedule in isolation and without any input from the project
team. That initial schedule was part of the original contract. After initial on-site schedule
review with the project manager, superintendent, and scheduler resulted in an agreement
to significantly change the original schedule (e.g., resequence activities, logic, durations).
Ultimately, a revised, completely new schedule was created.
The main problem with this schedule was that the on-site field crews were doing what
they were accustomed to doing in terms of work sequencing instead of following
the new schedule. When the scheduler became aware of the variation, she met with
the superintendent and project manager to engage with the installation crews and
begin working on the critical path activities. This new dynamic helped increase the
effectiveness of the weekly meetings with the client and allowed the work on-site to
anticipate potential problems. For example, the team identified that allocating adequate
cover to the tanks had less impact on weather-related potential delays than adjustments
that allowed for scheduled work inside the tanks to be completed first, to mitigate
weather impacts.

Control Metrics and Quality Checks, demonstrate Maturity Model movement up from Silver
to Gold.
The team improved its control metrics by implementing a percent complete curve from
its critical path method scheduling software. Also, the early and late curves were plotted
along with actual performance to gauge schedule progress. For quality checking, the
team began reviewing schedule variance daily, engaging in dialogue with the foreman
about schedule progress, and circling back with the project manager to share feedback
from the field. These checks and feedback further increased collaboration by increasing
the frequency to daily interactions. As a consequence, the project progressed more
efficiently. The project owner expressed satisfaction when the project sequence followed
the critical path for the installation’s completion. Weekly client meetings reviewing
details on the schedule became more fluid as the installation progress followed the plan.
24
Pillar 4: Goal Alignment with Owner
The fourth pillar is Goal Alignment with Owner. Table 7 lists its attributes and describes the
Table 7. Attributes of Pillar 4 – Goal Alignment with Owner

Expectations
The owner’s expectations The owner’s expectations The owner’s expectations fully
(100)
were poorly represented in the partially represented in the identified and represented in
schedule (10) schedule (55) the schedule (100)
Alignment (90)
Major owner-defined Major owner-defined

Major owner-defined
milestones were communicated milestones were clearly
milestones were communicated
with moderately frequent communicated with frequent
with infrequent check-ups (25)
check-ups (70) check-ups (100)
Interactions (65)
There was poor interaction There was some interaction There was sufficient interaction
between contractor and owner between owner and contractor between owners and
(20) (60) contractors (100)
Goal Alignment reflects a project’s alignment with the owner’s expectations with respect to
schedule.
Expectations
The owner’s objectives, as represented in the schedule, are met throughout the execution of the
project from design through construction and commissioning.
Alignment
All stakeholders need to understand and commit to the owner’s expectations with regard to the
schedule, such as milestones, resource loading, updates, quality checks, and other collaboration
activities.
Interactions
The frequency, the form, and content of the schedule collaboration that exists between the team
and the owner
25
Table 8. Recommendations to Improve Pillar 4 – Goal Alignment with Owner
Clearly identify owner’s

Based on an integrated
expectations within key Bring expertise of all
schedule inclusive of clear
milestone conversations, stakeholders (contractors/
Expectations
owner expectations, ensure

ensuring that expectations are engineers) to the table
owner’s expectations are
initially represented throughout for schedule creation and
regularly revisited and
Pillar 4 – Goal Alignment with Owner Attributes
the life of the project. The expectation alignment to ensure

evaluated when making key
owner’s expectations need expectations are reasonable,
project decisions to maintain
to be part of the integrated realistic, and obtainable.
stakeholder alignment.
schedule.
Utilize scheduling tools to

Create opportunities to clearly not only clearly define owner Utilize predictive analytics
Alignment
define owner expectations and expectations but to also and historical data to clearly
ensure those expectations are schedule consistent check-ups define owner expectations and
being met through constant with owner to ensure project continuously ensure milestones
tracking of project milestones. milestones continuously align align proactively.
with expectations.
Create regularly scheduled

Create open lines of
Interactions
interactions between
communication between Require constant and full
contractors and owners,
contractor and owner to collaboration across the project
allowing constant, full
collaboratively align on initial team.
collaboration between both
schedule inputs.
parties.
Goal Alignment with Owner – Spotlight Example 1
Project Background
This project is a disrupted refinery facility that required substantial reconstruction
of assets to bring a damaged unit back online. Due to lack of a clear scope, the
development of the schedule was complex, requiring continuous scope redefinition and
updates. Because this is not a standard planning practice, the contractor had to closely
interact with the owner’s team to define milestones while managing scope ambiguity at
the same time. Significant trust between both teams was required to achieve milestone
definitions. The financial impact of operational downtime allowed for a high focus on
alignment between operational needs and construction efforts. The team required a
significant increase in the cadence of communications and meetings to ensure that the
schedule alignment on milestones was not only achieved but also sustained.
26

Alignment, demonstrate Maturity Model movement up from Silver to Gold.
Little time was allowed for schedule refinement before construction execution, so
the project team established meetings twice a week for the project controls and the
project leadership team to facilitate schedule definition and refinement. Milestones
and activities were reviewed and updated collectively; new tasks were added as scope
was defined; and some tasks were removed as some work was de-scoped. Meetings
were short, tactical, and concise. Many stakeholders attended, but only the core group
responsible for people and resources interacted to avoid off-topic discussions. Other
team members attended to stay informed of the project progress and help with any
escalation issues. For example, follow-up topics were placed on hold to be addressed
earlier on successive meetings. These meetings illustrated the true collaborative
approach to scheduling where owner and contractor representatives worked collectively
to identify obstacles, solve problems, and achieve objectives. The project was completed
three days earlier than planned. The project team moved from Silver to Gold by
increasing the schedule check-in frequency, communication, and collaboration, resulting
in continued use of the project schedule as a planning and reporting tool to aid in project
stakeholder alignment.
Goal Alignment with Owner – Spotlight Example 2
Project Background
This project is a new facility already under construction completed on a modified
integrated project delivery contracting approach with the stated goal of improving
cost and schedule performance through greater alignment of stakeholder objectives.
This integrated team shared in the risk and rewards via a profit pool that the contract
enabled. Previous projects did not meet cost and schedule expectations, a trend that
the leadership teams were keenly focused on reversing. The team quickly realized that
the siloed communication channels that were common on previous projects needed
to be eliminated, specifically to develop, maintain, and update the project schedule. To
accomplish this, owner team members and contractor team members were situated
in shared offices, thereby creating the ability to directly communicate with their project
counterparts. The team literally removed the “walls” between each group, empowering
in-the-moment communications and real-time collaboration.
27

Interaction, demonstrate Maturity Model movement up from Gold to Gold+.
The colocation approach was heavily resisted at first. However, after the first weeks of
implementing this approach, there was a general agreement that the new colocation
effort fostered the communications needed to solve problems quickly for the benefit
of the project. Schedule development was expedited between the owner and the
contractor teams. Gantt charts were printed and posted in conference rooms and offices
and were used as a shared collaboration tool for routine conversations and planning
sessions. The project was completed two months later than planned; however, this was
an improvement over the previous three projects delivered. The project team increased
collaborative scheduling interactions from Gold to Gold+ by challenging traditional
expectations of how the owner and contractor personnel should interact, engage, and
execute the project schedule management efforts.
Pillar 5: Communication
The fifth pillar is Communication. Table 9 lists its attributes and describes the bronze, silver, and
gold levels.
This pillar focuses on the need for defined communication plans to show who is expected to
participate in different meetings, to develop communication channels, and to establish the
frequency of updates.
Communication Plan
The content and effectiveness of a communication plan to drive coordinated action.
Engagement
The awareness of all stakeholders of their roles and responsibilities, as well as their appropriate
engagement.
Psychological Safety
The level of freedom to express thoughts and ideas related to the work and work environment.
28
Coordination
The effectiveness of communication to promote change and provide benefit.
Channels
The intent and purpose of the information gathered and distributed and the inclusion of
appropriate stakeholders.
Table 9. Attributes of Pillar 5 – Communication

Communication Plan (100)
No clearly defined A communication plan was in A communication plan was

communication plan was in place, but it was inaccurate or clearly defined and effective
place (20) not followed by all (50) (100)
Engagement (90)
Communication was not Communication was

Communication was somewhat
productive: considered only productive: open-minded and
productive: limited stakeholders
a few direct stakeholders, included all stakeholders with
and was not very flexible (55)
gathered no other feedback (15) frequent feedback (100)
Psychological Safety (85)
Stakeholders felt comfortable

Stakeholders did not feel safe Stakeholders shared their and were open and honest
enough to share their ideas and thoughts and ideas but held with all thoughts and ideas
opinions (10) back in certain situations (60) throughout the project under
any circumstances (100)
Coordination (60)
Schedule-related information Schedule-related information Schedule-related information

was ineffective and did not was somewhat clear but failed was clear and concise for
drive coordinated action (10) to drive coordinated action (50) driving coordinated action (100)
Channels (50)
Communication was Communication was clear with Communication was organized

disorganized with no clear defined channels but not fully with clearly defined channels
channels defined (15) utilized (65) (100)
29
Table 10. Recommendations to Improve Pillar 5 – Communication
Evaluate the current

Communication
The communication plan is

Define a preliminary, high-level communication plan to ensure
fit-for-purpose, followed by
communication plan that allows it is clear and stakeholder
Plan
the stakeholders and key

all stakeholder roles to be roles are defined and key
performance indicators are
clarified. performance indicators are
met.
identified.
Provide stakeholders an
opportunity to voice comments
Engagement
Provide for all direct and concerns about the project. Provide an opportunity
stakeholders to give Provide for open dialogue and mandate feedback for
feedback within the current and collaborative discussion stakeholders to gain timely
Pillar 5 – Communication Attributes
organizational structure. among stakeholders and feedback and see results.

opportunities to impact their
work environment.
Psychological
Promote recognition of and

Expect and condition
Provide a forum for reward open dialogue. Offer
Safety
stakeholders to express ideas

stakeholders to safely express numerous ways for members of
that measurably improve the
their ideas and opinions. the project team to raise their
business.
concerns.
Request feedback from direct

Require feedback from
Coordination
Provide structured stakeholders and address all

stakeholders and acknowledge
opportunities for feedback comments and concerns in
feedback while verifying
from stakeholders regarding an organized, open dialogue.
alignment among stakeholders
potential areas of improvement. Implement a defined plan for
using performance indicators.
coordination.
Use feedback, performance
Use key performance metrics results, and compliance
to evaluate communication auditing to measure
Channels
Create regularly scheduled time

channels and ensure all critical improvement in communication
for collaborative discussion
stakeholders are included; performance metrics. From
among critical stakeholders.
communicate information these metrics, develop
accurately and efficiently. and implement plans for
improvement.
Communication – Spotlight Example 1
Project Background
This project is a multi-billion-dollar petrochemical complex delivered by a joint venture
owner organization, with the EPC effort directed by a program management contractor
(PMC). This asset was delivered through design and construction contractors sourced
from various countries, which placed high demands on communication effectiveness.
Time zones, travel requirements, and the physical dispersion of project stakeholders
30
challenged coordination efforts and required robust communication channels. Further,

the joint venture nature of the owner arrangement and the blending of numerous national
cultures created an atmosphere ripe for much miscommunication and many subtle
misunderstandings that could have hindered a psychologically safe environment. The
challenge was to create and implement a communication plan that served the needs
of the project yet remained flexible enough to accommodate the changing nature of
stakeholder participation and schedule requirements.

Communication Plan, demonstrate Maturity Model movement to Gold+.
Early on, some participants – especially some in middle management – considered the
extensively developed and documented approach to the project communication plan to
be “overkill.” The plan placed hard requirements on soft deliverables that the skeptics
typically viewed as part of their managerial “style,” such as written progress reports with
captioned photos. However, with strong support and participation by the joint venture
owners and the PMC, as well as a communication focal point for team integration
efforts, the communication plan was embraced and well executed.
The key to the communication plan was treating it similarly to a performance

specification – an approach that was readily understood by stakeholders who mostly
came from engineering backgrounds. The plan focused on measurable goals and
specific communication requirements. By plan design, the methods of realizing many
of those goals were subject to individual managerial preference. The backbone of the
plan at a project level (e.g., major project milestones and schedule coordination, key
performance indicators, safety messaging, large initiatives, and overall recognition
plans) was modeled by senior project leaders. The day-to-day delivery of flexible
elements of the plan (e.g., personnel announcements, recognition events, team events,
and “local” schedule collaboration) was the responsibility of the middle management
(e.g., project managers, discipline leaders, and team leaders).
Communication – Spotlight Example 2
Project Background
This chemical production facility was engineered in one country and built in another.
The owner and contractor had little prior experience in working together. Given the
complexity of the project, their leadership agreed early in the project life cycle to spend
considerable effort on team engagement, coordination, and alignment. They were
31
looking for clarity of goals, alignment of a high-performance culture, psychological

safety, stakeholder enrollment, and coordinated action (schedule collaboration).

Engagement and Coordination, demonstrate Maturity Model movement to Gold.
The project held regularly scheduled team coordination and alignment meetings. These
events followed a specific protocol that began more generally: addressing major scope
aspects of the project, the schedule milestones, safety, the organization structure,
stakeholders, project goals, and key performance indicators. Subsequent meetings
went further in open dialogue: goal setting and alignment, performance improvement,
schedule collaboration, and recognitions and rewards. In addition to regularly scheduled
meetings, the project held frequent events to acknowledge meeting milestones and
performance goals and to recognize the high-performing teams that were critical to
meeting those objectives. This open and engaged culture led to more regular and honest
feedback among project stakeholders. After this high-performance culture became
well embedded at the engineering office, it had the added benefit of extending to the
construction effort at the jobsite. Construction contractors were often able to embrace
these team behaviors and realize broad benefits in their own performance.
Full Scoring Example using the Maturity

Model for Collaborative Scheduling
This section presents an example of using the entire model to score all five pillars to determine
the CS level of a project. Project Alpha is located in an active campus of a large, multi-
acre manufacturer site. The project started a year ago, designing and building additional
manufacturer product line facilities. The project is in construction and about 30% complete. The
team realized that it needed to work on aligning its priorities over the next few months, because
it had missed a couple of milestones and completed two others later than planned, which
involved making early decisions to release long lead items into procurement for project delivery.
The project team recently decided to go through some reorganization to improve its scheduling
and planning practices. After using the CII Knowledge Base and identifying Alignment as one of
the CII Best Practices, the team also decided to use RT-362’s Maturity Model for Collaborative
Scheduling (MMCS) as a tool to identify areas of improvement, prioritize high-value action
steps, and begin some initiatives now to improve completion of upcoming key project
milestones. Considering the current situation of the project, the team used the questionnaire
and rubric provided in Appendix A to finalize the scoring process and determine the CS
maturity of its project.
32
Pillar 1 – Scheduling Significance
Culture
Did the project schedule support a strong culture
associated with accountability, timeliness, and Yes No Partially
collaboration?
Creation
Was the project schedule created primarily as a contractual
Yes No Partially
deliverable?
Stakeholders
Were the appropriate major stakeholders involved early
Yes No Partially
enough in the project schedule input?
Adaptability
Which term best describes the project’s schedule? Dynamic Static Mixed
Accuracy
At any given time, did the schedule accurately represent the
Yes No Partially
current state of the project?
Visibility
Was scheduling always visible across the entire project
Yes No Partially
team?
Figure 6. Project Alpha’s Pillar 1 Questionnaire
The team started with a review of practices related to the first pillar, Scheduling Significance.
Figure 6 shows how the team answered the questionnaire, recognizing that the following
practices were already in place:
• The teamwide project culture viewed the schedule as a document to somewhat support
accountability and timeliness, but not as a collaboration tool. This is something the team is
looking forward to improving. (Culture – Silver; scored as “Partially” in the questionnaire.)
• The original schedule the team received was created to define contractual expectations
and responsibilities but was not used by the entire team. It had multiple parallel schedule
sequences. To date, the team only used major milestones as references coming from
this original project schedule. (Creation – Silver; scored as “Partially”)
• A group of project stakeholders including the general contractor, main designers,
facilities users, and suppliers worked together early on to develop the schedule.
(Stakeholders – Gold; scored as “Yes”)
• Regarding the adaptability of the schedule, the team rated it as moderate or mixed.
Sometimes responsibilities were defined but not widely shared with others in the team.
Team members felt that the schedule was developed and managed, but not nimble
enough to adapt to changes the team had been facing recently in the project, like
weather delays. (Adaptability – Silver; scored as “Mixed”)
• The team was proud of its schedule accuracy. Due to the early involvement of
stakeholders, the milestones indicated with the detailed schedule activities were accurate
33
and did a good job in capturing the owner’s wishes for the different phases of the project
like tie into existing utilities and commissioning. (Accuracy – Gold; scored as “Yes”)
• On the schedule visibility front, the schedule was not visible across disciplines, trades,
and vendors. As was mentioned under Creation, only major milestones were used as
references. Few players understood or knew about the details laid out on the original
schedule developed for the project. (Visibility – Bronze; scored as “No”)
Figure 7 shows how the team applied its questionnaire answers to the rubric to arrive at a CS
maturity score for Pillar 1.
Attribute Value of Each Selection Score

Culture
Yes No Partially
associated with accountability, timeliness, and 12.63
21.05 1.05 12.63
collaboration?
Creation
Was the project schedule created primarily as a contractual Yes No Partially
deliverable? 20 4 13
13
Stakeholders
Were the appropriate major stakeholders were involved Yes No Partially
early enough in the project schedule input 17.89 1.79 8.95
17.89
Adaptability
Dynamic Static Mixed
Which term best describes the project’s schedule? 10.26
15.79 1.58 10.26
Accuracy
At any given time, did the schedule accurately represent the Yes No Partially
current state of the project? 14.74 2.21 11.79 14.74
Visibility
Was scheduling always visible across the entire project Yes No Partially
team? 10.53 2.11 6.32
2.11
Scheduling Significance Subtotal (Sum response scores here) 70.63
Multiply by variable × 0.2368
Scheduling Significance Total 16.7
Figure 7. Scoring Pillar 1 – Scheduling Significance
The team moved on to the next pillar and scored the project practices associated with Planners
and Schedulers (Figure 8 shows the team’s selections in the questionnaire and Figure 9 shows
how the rubric delivered a score for these answers):
• Some team members, including the new scheduler, were very protective of their
schedules and did not understand the value of planning. Updates to the schedule were
made to react to changes on site rather than proactively managing changes, and there
34
were limited discussions with other project participants. (Planning Mindset – Bronze;
scored as “No”)
• Cross-discipline interactions were missing at this point. The trades and designers were
working in silos and not exchanging information about their tasks and how they could
help each other. (Cross-discipline interactions – Bronze; scored as “No”)
• The original scheduler for this project was proactive in the sense that he looked for input
from trade contractors when the schedule was created at the beginning of the project.
However, this attitude faded away with each monthly schedule update. The scheduler
got busier with numerous updates on multiple projects. As of late, project stakeholders
Pillar 2 – Planners and Schedulers
Planning Mindset
Did the project team exhibit a “planner mindset,” where the team was
Yes No Partially
actively engaged, timely, and forward-looking regarding schedule issues?
Were schedulers empowered to collaborate across the project? Yes No Partially
Job Role
Creator or
Which term best describes the scheduler’s role on the project? Facilitator Organizer
Recorder
Understanding
Was there a difference in specifically defined and assigned roles for a
Yes No Partially
planner and a scheduler?

Planning Mindset
Did the project team exhibit a “planner mindset,” where the
Yes No Partially
team was actively engaged, timely, and forward-looking 3.23
32.26 3.23 19.35
regarding schedule issues?
Were schedulers empowered to collaborate across the Yes No Partially
project? 25.81 3.87 15.48
3.87
Job Role
Creator or
Which term best describes the scheduler’s role on the Facilitator
Recorder
Organizer
project? 24.19 18.15 4.84
4.84
Understanding
Was there a difference in specifically defined and assigned Yes No Partially
roles for a planner and a scheduler? 17.74 1.77 8.87
1.77
Planners and Schedulers Subtotal (Sum response scores here) 13.71
Planners and Schedulers Total 1.8
Figure 9. Scoring Pillar 2 – Planners and Schedulers
35
have not had much input on the schedule. The team rated itself in the Bronze category,
even though the schedule had indeed been created with input from the trades.
(Job Role – Bronze; scored as “Creator or Recorder”)
• The team discussed the role of planners and schedulers. Team members believed
that people in the field should do what it takes to follow the schedule and make
it happen. They did not see the differences between planners and schedulers.
(Understanding – Bronze; scored as “No”)
Puzzled by how their practices were matching against the MMCS categories and by the
conversations they were having along the way, the team members moved on to score the
Scheduling Representation pillar. The team was confident that its project was using the best
scheduling software available in the industry and that there should not be much to change
in this area. The team was not aware of how its project execution processes and methods
influenced CS. (Figure 10 shows the completed questionnaire and Figure 11 demonstrates how
the answers translated into scores.)
Pillar 3 – Scheduling Representation
Level of Detail
Did the project schedule contain sufficient detail for the team to
Yes No Partially
successfully complete the project?
Did the schedule contain the appropriate level of detail to fulfill

Yes No Partially
your work role and needs?
Tools and Methods
Did the project use software tools and packages specifically

Yes No
designed and purposed for building project schedules?
Did the project use Building Information Modeling (BIM) to

Yes No
support the scheduling effort?
Did the project use additional techniques and methods (e.g., Last
Planner System, Advanced Work Packaging, Takt Planning) to Yes No
represent and communicate schedules throughout its duration?
Quality Checks
Were quality checks (checking milestones and accuracy) regularly All of the
Never Sometimes
conducted throughout the project timeline? Time
Agility
At any given time, did the schedule have enough flexibility to

Yes No Partially
accommodate changes in the project?
Control Metrics
Did the project visibly use program control metrics (e.g., Schedule
Yes No Partially
Performance Index and/or Cost Performance Index)?
36

Level of Detail
Did the project schedule contain sufficient detail for the Yes No Partially
team to successfully complete the project? 3 1 2
Did the schedule contain the appropriate level of detail to Yes No Partially
fulfill your work role and needs? 3 1 2
Level of Detail Subtotal 4
Calculate the Level of Detail Total based on its Subtotal If ≤ 3, enter If 4, enter If ≥ 5, enter
Level of Detail Total 2.22 15.56 22.22
15.56
Tools and Methods
Did the project use software tools and packages specifically Yes No
designed and purposed for building project schedules? 2 1
Did the project use Building Information Modeling (BIM) to Yes No
support the scheduling effort? 2 1
Did the project use additional techniques and methods
(e.g., Last Planner System, Advanced Work Packaging, Yes No
Takt Planning) to represent and communicate schedules 2 1
throughout its duration?
Tools and Methods Subtotal 3
Calculate the Tools and Methods Total based on its Subtotal If ≤ 4, enter If 5, enter If 6, enter
Tools and Methods Total 4.22 14.78 21.11
4.22
Quality Checks
All of the
Were quality checks (checking milestones and accuracy) Time
Never Sometimes
regularly conducted throughout the project timeline? 1 10
20
20
Agility
At any given time, did the schedule have enough flexibility to Yes No Partially
accommodate changes in the project? 18.89 3.78 13.22
3.78
Control Metrics
Did the project visibly use program control metrics (e.g.,
Yes No Partially
Schedule Performance Index and/or Cost Performance 17.78
17.78 1.78 8.89
Index)?
Scheduling Representation Subtotal (Sum response totals here) 61.34
Scheduling Representation Total 12.1
Figure 11. Scoring Pillar 3 – Scheduling Representation
• The team was tied to the original project schedule by the contract, which had milestones
that were inadequately detailed to support the development of plans. The schedule
needed to be updated to reflect real-world changes to construction activity: complexities
like weather, coordination, and design updates. To a certain extent, the work of the
original scheduler did pay off in terms of how the project schedule was laid out, but now
in this first 30% of the project being in the construction phase, activities had shifted.
The schedule needed to be reviewed with broader input from the team. (Level of
Detail – Bronze; both questions scored as “Partially”)
37
• Even though the team used the latest software tools available on the market to develop
schedules and support project controls, these tools alone without communication
processes were not sufficient to promote collaboration in the project. (Tools and
Methods – Bronze; all three questions scored as “No”)
• Quality checks were conducted regularly, and that is what caused the team to realize that
it needed to work on adapting the schedule to face the realities it was encountering on
site on a daily basis. The reports were predicting serious delays ahead if team members
did not work together now on a new and updated schedule and all of the related plan
changes. (Quality Checks – Gold; scored as “All of the Time”)
• The team noted that there was not much input from or interaction with other project
partners. The schedule was considered somewhat static and could not be changed
easily. This frustrated the field teams when they needed alternative solutions to address
last-minute changes and still meet milestones. Without the participation and input of
building trade contractors, changes were noted as difficult to implement because not
much was known about what the trades could realistically commit to, and that deviated
from their contracted labor and material plans. (Agility – Bronze; scored as “No”)
• Finally, the control metrics used at the site were highly regarded by the team. The prime
contractor’s project controls group had been using advanced, artificial intelligence-
backed tools to produce reports with scheduling metrics and total project time, including
scenarios for upper management that included probabilities of forecasted completion
using multiple critical paths. However, these reports were not shared with the planners to
inform their next steps. (Control metrics – Gold; scored as “Yes”)
The leader of the scoring exercise reminded everyone to focus on finalizing the analysis, and
that led the team into the conversation to score the Goal Alignment with Owner pillar (with the
results reflected in Figures 12 and 13):
• The team felt that the owner’s expectations were properly represented on the current
schedule. Team members identified that better communication with the owner and project
stakeholders would improve this even further. (Expectations – Gold; scored as “Yes”)
• The team discussed how the original schedule was well aligned with the owner’s goals,
they were very proud and encouraged to see that in the MMCS. However, as of late, they
missed some milestones key for the owner and almost missed a few others related
to procuring long lead items because of infrequent communication with the owner’s
representatives on the project. (Alignment – Silver; scored as “Partially”)
• The team realized that the lack of proper interaction between the prime contractor and
the owner representatives on the project was a major issue. Members conceded that
proper interactions were missing and needed to be improved. (Interactions – Bronze;
scored as “No”)
38
Pillar 4 – Goal Alignment with Owner
Expectations
Were the owner’s expectations met throughout the life cycle of the
Yes No Partially
project from design through construction and commissioning?
Alignment
Were the major owner-defined milestones clearly defined and
Yes No Partially
communicated throughout the course of the project?
Interactions
Was there sufficient and consistent interaction between project
Yes No Partially
stakeholders?

Expectations
Were the owner’s expectations met throughout the life
Yes No Partially
cycle of the project from design through construction and 39.22
39.22 3.92 21.57
commissioning?
Alignment
Were the major owner-defined milestones clearly defined Yes No Partially
and communicated throughout the course of the project? 35.29 8.82 24.71
24.71
Interactions
Was there sufficient and consistent interaction between Yes No Partially
project stakeholders? 25.49 5.1 15.29
5.1
Goal Alignment with Owner Subtotal (Sum response scores here) 69.03
Goal Alignment with Owner Total 18.2
Figure 13. Scoring Pillar 4 – Goal Alignment with Owner
Finally, Project Alpha team reached the Communication pillar. The team was pleased that it had
made it this far into the analysis with a mix of good and better CS levels, and members were
curious to see what else they could do on their journey to develop and implement more effective
CS practices (see Figures 14 and 15 for the scoring):
• After reviewing the communication plan attribute, the idea struck the team like a
lightning bolt: the project had no communication plan in place. The team had routines
in place, but those were neither formal nor comprehensive for a project of this size.
What types of meetings and their frequency, who should attend, and what level of
responsibility or accountability should participants have – these details were not known
across the project. The team frequently faced long meetings without proper definition
and/or commitment to action items because those with the power to decide and commit
were not present in the room. (Communication Plan – Bronze; scored as “No”)
39
• The team rated the engagement of the team as somewhat productive because the
main project stakeholders were in the loop to receive communication related to the
project. However, those closest to the work installation were not fully aware of the
decision reasons made nor how changes would impact their crews in the field on
upcoming work sequences. Also, decisions made by the owner and the prime were
shared, but the trades did not have a chance to provide their input during the process.
(Engagement – Silver; first question scored as “Some Stakeholders” and the other
questions scored as “Partially” or “No”)
• Next, the team came across the Psychological Safety attribute, a new phrase for the
whole team. After reviewing this attribute, the group realized that it had not done a good
job of making people feel that their comments were welcomed and valued. Some of
the younger team members scoring the project shared that they had held back sharing
their honest opinions in meetings for fear of being ridiculed by more experienced
project members. They also shared that they would often hear representatives from
the trades downplaying their assessment of problems in the field. Often these impacts
would in turn be ignored until they became big problems because the trades did not feel
comfortable bringing up issues. (Psychological Safety – Bronze; scored as “Unsafe”)
• Coordination was considered somewhat clear to drive action. Interestingly, however, the
prime recognized that the trade partners would do whatever they needed to do to reach
the milestones, so sometimes tasks were only accomplished by using overtime, and
some work was being done outside the scheduled sequences. (Coordination – Silver;
scored as “Sometimes” and “Partially”)
• Finally, the team agreed that the channels of communication needed to be better defined
and improved. The team followed the contractual lines of communication, limiting or
minimizing informal channels like reviewing work in progress in the field rather than
reading reports and email responses. The team did not experiment with other forms of
communication needed to quickly adapt to changing conditions it sometimes faced in the
project, using daily stand-up meetings or huddles. (Channels – Bronze; scored as “No”)
40
Pillar 5 – Communication
Communication Plan
Was there an effective communication plan for

Yes No Partially
the project?
Engagement
Did communication within the project include all All Few Some
stakeholders? Stakeholders Stakeholders Stakeholders
Were there sufficient opportunities to gather

feedback from the team throughout the project Yes No Partially
life cycle?
Were you able to provide input into the initial project

Yes No Partially
schedule?
Considering how project meetings contributed to effective collaboration:
Did appropriate participants attend meetings? Yes No Partially
Was there an appropriate frequency of meetings? Yes No Partially
Were meeting content and agendas appropriate? Yes No Partially

Which term best describes your experience with

Safe Unsafe Sometimes Safe
sharing project feedback?
Coordination
Did the team collaborate effectively on schedule

Always Never Sometimes
updates?
Did you receive sufficient schedule-related

information to effectively gauge performance Yes No Partially
throughout the project?
Channels
Were clear communication channels of information

delivery utilized throughout the duration of the Yes No Partially
project?
41

Communication Plan
Was there an effective communication plan for the Yes No Partially

project? 25.97 5.19 12.99
5.19
Engagement
All Few Some
Did communication within the project include all
Stakeholders Stakeholders Stakeholders
stakeholders?
3 1 2

Yes No Partially
feedback from the team throughout the project life
3 1 2
cycle?
Were you able to provide input into the initial Yes No Partially
project schedule? 3 1 2

Yes No Partially
Did appropriate participants attend meetings?
3 1 2
Yes No Partially
Was there an appropriate frequency of meetings?
3 1 2
Yes No Partially
Were meeting content and agendas appropriate?
3 1 2
Engagement Subtotal 10
Calculate the Engagement Total based on its Subtotal If ≤ 13, enter If 14–16, enter If ≥ 17, enter
Engagement Total 3.51 12.86 23.38
3.51
Which term best describes your experience with Safe Unsafe Sometimes Safe
sharing project feedback? 22.08 2.21 13.25 2.21
Coordination
Did the team collaborate effectively on schedule Always Never Sometimes

updates? 3 1 2

Yes No Partially
information to effectively gauge performance
3 1 2
Coordination Subtotal 4
Calculate the Coordination Total based on its
If ≤ 3, enter If 4, enter If ≥ 5, enter
Subtotal 7.79
1.56 7.79 15.58
Coordination Total
Channels
Yes No Partially
delivery utilized throughout the duration of the 1.95
12.99 1.95 8.44
project?
Communication Subtotal (Sum response totals here) 20.65
Communication Total 3.5
Figure 15. Scoring Pillar 5 – Communication
42
Table 11 shows that when the Project Alpha team combined the results it had obtained for the
five pillars, it achieved a process score of 52.3. By comparing this value with the MMCS levels
shown in Figure 16, the team could see that its score was less than the 55-point cutoff for
Silver projects. These results placed Project Alpha’s CS maturity at the Bronze level. (Note that
attribute scores should not be rounded, so the most accurate maturity level can be identified
from the calculated score.)
Table 11. Final Scores for Project Alpha
Pillar Score
Scheduling Significance Total 16.7
Planners and Schedulers Total 1.8
Scheduling Representation Total 12.1
Goal Alignment with Owner Total 18.2
Communication Total 3.5
Collaborative Scheduling Total Score 52.3

SCORE SCORE SCORE

Figure 16. The MMCS Levels of Maturity
Next, the team will use the recommendations for improvement provided in Appendix B to move
its project maturity up to the Silver level in its journey to develop and implement collaborative
schedules in Project Alpha.
43
Final Remarks
This chapter presented the maturity model for collaborative scheduling (MMCS) and introduced
its main components: the pillars and attributes used to assess the level of maturity of CS
efforts in a project, and the maturity levels indicated in the model. The discussion introduced
each pillar and its related attributes in turn, giving examples to illustrate how each pillar would
be scored. Finally, this chapter presented an example to show how to score a project using the
questionnaire and rubric (score sheet) provided in Appendix A.
Industry Analysis
CS PRACTICES TO IMPROVE
4 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
AND AN IDENTIFICATION OF DRIVERS
AND BARRIERS TO CS
Introduction
This chapter offers a higher-level view as it discusses how the project data, including survey and
interviews, shed light on the current state of CS practices across the industry. The ultimate goal
of this chapter is to support managers as they make decisions about which practices to adopt
on their journey toward mature CS development, and to identify opportunities (drivers) and
obstacles (barriers) for CS improvement.
The practices included in the Maturity Model described in the previous chapter are instrumental
here since the analysis presented in this chapter correlates these practices to performance
indicators. These practices are also related to the drivers and barriers discussed below.
RT-362 used the survey results as a basis for developing inferences about the use of the CS
practices identified for the maturity model and their potential impact upon key performance
indicators (KPIs). The survey asked industry practitioners about their experiences with, and
perception of, the use of CS practices on a recent project. (The full survey is presented in
Appendix E.)
Data from interviews supported an industry-level analysis of the drivers and barriers to CS,
adding another layer of detail to the team’s research into how survey respondents experience
and perceive CS practices in their projects.
The reader should note that the information presented and the recommendations made are
based on the experience and perceptions of the participants of the study. The team did not
collect actual project data on KPIs to support the analysis presented.
45
CHAPTER 4: CS PRACTICES TO IMPROVE KPIS; IDENTIFICATION OF CS DRIVERS AND BARRIERS
Background
The team obtained the results presented in this chapter by applying multiple data collection
methods during the study, and the interplay between these overlapping results yielded data-
driven actions. When survey respondents were asked, “Do you think your project had an adequate
level of collaboration in scheduling?” they indicated the following: 41% yes, 34% maybe/partially,
24% no, and 1% not sure. This indicates that for about 60% of respondents, something could be
done to improve schedule collaboration in their projects.
To address the problem, the study relied on the input of multiple practitioners who participated
in different stages of the project:
• Twelve subject matter experts (SMEs) participated during the focus group phase, when
the RT-362 developed its maturity model. The SMEs represented owners, contractors,
consultants, and suppliers. Appendix C presents details about the participants of the
focus groups and the development of the maturity model.
• Over 400 respondents interacted with the survey (i.e., opened it, partially or fully
answered it), out of which the team obtained 241 usable responses that represented all
five CII industry sectors (i.e., Power, Utilities, and Infrastructure; Upstream, Midstream,
and Mining; Facilities and Healthcare; Downstream and Chemicals; and Manufacturing
and Life Sciences). The team analyzed the survey results using the information theory
methods discussed in Appendix D. The survey participants’ demographics are available
for reference in Appendix F.
• The team interviewed 26 practitioners who represented owners, contractors, and
consultants. The 24 sessions totaled 1,285 minutes of interviews. Details about the
interview process, its participants, and the results are presented in Appendix G.
The research methods used by the team pointed to important foundational aspects related
to the development and implementation of CS as outlined in the maturity model and the
recommendations provided. What follows is a cross analysis of the results, which reveals
patterns observed during the project to aid project managers in making decisions about the
most appropriate paths and practices for their CS journey.
Revisiting the Maturity Model for Collaborative Scheduling:

Weights and Survey Questions
Before proceeding with additional recommendations, it is worth revisiting the pillars and
attributes of the MMCS, which are discussed in detail in Chapter 3. Figure 17 displays the
weights assigned to each pillar and the pillars’ respective attributes.
46
Scheduling Planners and Scheduling Goal Alignment Communication

Significance Schedulers Representation with Owner Weight: 65
Weight: 90 Weight: 50 Weight: 75 Weight: 100
Attribute Weight Attribute Weight Attribute Weight Attribute Weight Attribute Weight
Culture 100 Planning 100 Level of Detail 100 Expectations 100 Communication 100
Mindset Plan
Creation 95 Cross-Discipline 80 Tools and 95 Alignment 90 Engagement 90

Interactions Methods
Stakeholders 85 Job Role 75 Quality 90 Interactions 65 Psychological 85

Checks Safety
Adaptability 75 Understanding 55 Agility 85 Coordination 60
Accuracy 70 Control 80 Channels 50

Metrics
Visibility 50
Figure 5. Maturity Model Pillars and their Respective Weights as Defined by SMEs – Which Practices or Actions
Should Be Taken First
After considering the pillars and attributes of the MMCS and their descriptions (presented in
Chapter 3), the team designed a survey instrument to gauge the use of these CS practices in
the industry in order to identify their perceived impact on key performance indicators (KPIs). For
example, to study the use of practices related to Goal Alignment with Owner, the survey asked
the following questions:
» Alignment (Q47): Throughout the course of the project, the major owner-defined milestones
were clearly defined and communicated.
› Yes, no, or partially
» Interactions (Q48-49): There was sufficient and consistent interaction between project
stakeholders.
If no or partially was selected for Q48, where did the interaction breakdowns occur? Select all
that apply.
› Contractor to designer; contractor to owner; contractor to supplier/subcontractor; designer
to owner; designer to supplier/subcontractor; supplier/subcontractor to owner; or other
» Expectations (Q51): The owner’s expectations were met throughout the life cycle of the
project from design through construction and commissioning.
47
Similarly, the team used other questions to evaluate the use of the other CS practices in the
industry. The team derived the perceived impact of these practices on KPIs by comparing the
survey answers related to their use and how respondents rated their projects across the five
KPIs (i.e., cost, schedule, quality, safety, and teamwork). The next section presents these results.
Recommendation of CS Practices to Improve KPIs
After considering the results it had obtained from an information theory analysis detailed in
Appendix D, RT-362 summarized the impacts the CS practices outlined in the maturity model
have on the five KPIs. Figure 18 lists the practices beneath each KPI in rank order according to
their impact on that KPI as reported by respondents. As the key on the right side of the figure
shows, the text colors reflect which MMCS pillar each practice belongs to. Managers can
use this ranking to decide which CS practices to implement, based on their impacts on the
different KPIs.
Based on the analysis it carried out using information theory methods, and the practices and
definitions it outlined for the maturity model, the research team recommends that project
managers who seek to improve project cost performance should address the CS practices in
the following sequence:
1. Meet owner’s expectations

2. Maintain sufficient and consistent interaction with project stakeholders
3. Have clear scheduling visibility among project stakeholders
4. Make schedule support a project culture associated with accountability, timeliness,
and collaboration
5. Exhibit a planner mindset within the team
6. Have effective collaboration during the scheduling process
7. Have effective communication within the project inclusive of project stakeholders that
can contribute to the schedule development
8. Maintain clear communication channels
9. Have appropriate participants in meetings
To improve project schedule and quality performance, the first six recommended CS practices
remain the same as those listed for the cost performance, which highlights the importance
of practices that are perceived to consistently impact multiple KPIs. The remaining three
recommended practices for schedule performance were:
1-6. Same as those listed for cost performance

7. Have sufficient schedule-related information to gauge performance
8. Have appropriate meeting content
48
CS Practice Pillar
1. Meet Owner’s Expectations P4: Goal Alignment with Owner
2. Maintain Sufficient and Consistent Interaction P4: Goal Alignment with Owner
3. Have Clear Schedule Visibility P1: Scheduling Significance
4. Make Schedule Support a Project Culture P1: Scheduling Significance
Cost
5. Exhibit a Planner Mindset within the Team P2: Planners and Schedulers
6. Have Effective Collaboration During Scheduling P5: Communication
7. Have an Effective Communication Plan P5: Communication
8. Maintain Clear Communication Channels P5: Communication
9. Have Appropriate Participants in meetings P5: Communication

Schedule
7. Have Sufficient Schedule-related Information P5: Communication
8. Have Appropriate Meeting Content P5: Communication
9. Have Appropriate Participants in Meetings P5: Communication

Quality
7. Ensure Opportunities to Gather Feedback P5: Communication
1. Have an Effective Communication Play P5: Communication

Safety

7. Involve All Stakeholders in Communication P5: Communication

2. Have a Clear Schedule Visibility P1: Scheduling Significance
Teamwork

Figure 18. CS Practices and Their Perceived Relative Influence on KPIs
49
The remaining three practices for improving project quality performance are:

7. Ensure there are sufficient opportunities to gather feedback
The team recommended the following CS practices for improving safety performance:
1. Have an effective communication plan

and collaboration
7. Involve all stakeholders in communication
9. Have effective communication within the project
In order to improve project teamwork, the team recommended the following CS practices:

and collaboration
2. Have clear schedule visibility among project stakeholders
Practice Implementation Consistency
The team analyzed the survey results using the information theory methods described in
Appendix D. This investigation showed which practices identified in the maturity model are most
and least commonly used, and their perceived impact on the five KPIs considered in the study.
The results of this analysis aim to support managers as they decide which CS practices to
implement, based on the practices’ perceived impact on KPIs.
50
Table 12. Consistent Implementation vs. Impact of CS Practices
HIGH IMPACT
Consistently Not
Consistently Implemented Inconsistently Implemented
Implemented
• Have appropriate level of detail • Make schedule support a project culture
in schedule for the team associated with accountability, timeliness,
and collaboration
• Have clear schedule visibility among project
stakeholders
• Involve major stakeholders early in the
project scheduling process
• Ensure the schedule accurately represents
the current state of the project
• Exhibit a planner mindset within the team
• Maintain sufficient and consistent
interaction with project stakeholders
• Meet owner’s expectations
• Have an effective communication plan
• Maintain clear communication channels
• Have appropriate participants in meetings
• Have sufficient schedule-related information
LOW IMPACT
Consistently Not
Consistently Implemented Inconsistently Implemented
Implemented
• Have dynamic project schedule • Develop schedule as a contractual • Use BIM for
• Use software for project deliverable scheduling
scheduling • Use control metrics like SPI or CPI • Use additional
• Have sufficient detail for the • Have schedule flexibility for changes technique (e.g., LPS,
schedule • Set schedulers’ role as facilitator of CS AWP, Takt Planning)
• Have regular quality checks • Schedulers were empowered to collaborate for schedule
• Define major project • Have different roles for planners and
milestones clearly schedulers
• Have appropriate frequency of • Team collaborate effectively on schedule
meetings updates
• Ensure there are opportunities • Allow stakeholders to provide input for
to gather feedback project schedule
• Provide psychological safety • Involve all stakeholders in communication
for stakeholders to share their
feedback
The analysis also offers an overview of how consistently or inconsistently implemented some of
these practices might be, given the diversity of projects in the construction industry:
• Practices that were found to be commonly implemented in the industry at large might be
more easily understood, and thus potentially easily implemented in projects that are not
yet using them, considering that the knowledge on how to use these practices is already
in place in the industry at large.
51
• Conversely, practices that are inconsistently implemented might demand more time and
effort to be implemented, because project participants might not be familiar with them
and/or the practices might simply be more difficult to implement.
• In either case, the analysis categorized these practices based on how widespread their
use is based on the survey respondents’ perceptions, and this ordering might offer
insights in terms of which practices might be easier or harder to implement.
Further, the team considered how significantly these same practices can affect CS
implementation. Some of the practices that were identified as not consistently implemented
in current practice also have a high impact on KPIs (see the top center segment of Table 12).
Interestingly, these underutilized practices align with practices coded from the interviews as
drivers of CS and/or considered as supporting positive interactions in CS. This represents
another opportunity to address practices that are viewed to have a positive impact on CS, yet
that teams are not taking advantage of.
Practices recognized as drivers but not consistently implemented hold major

potential to support the CS process and have a positive influence on KPIs.
Drivers and Barriers to CS
The team analyzed the findings from the interviews regarding the main drivers and obstacles
to CS. Drivers are elements or conditions that support the development of CS. They act as
levers to the CS process. Barriers are obstacles that hamper the progress toward CS or make
it difficult for teams to consistently develop collaborative schedules. The barriers and drivers
identified for the MMCS provide managers with specific issues to address in their journey to CS.
Managers should institutionalize the drivers that support CS and work to alleviate or eliminate
the barriers identified by a diverse group of industry practitioners during the interviews.
Additional details and results related the interview process are available in Appendix G.
RT-362 categorized statements as drivers or barriers by borrowing themes already discussed

in this report and mostly based on the maturity model pillars. The analysis also included a few
additional statements that surfaced during the analysis. The entire list of statements follows
with each process accompanied by an example of what was documented during the interviews
to illustrate it:
52
Alignment
Denotes actions and decisions to promote alignment.
• An example of this category: Early involvement with construction was very key.
Communication
Forms of communication (meetings, displays of information, entries that refer to
communication explicitly as a driver or barrier).
• An example: There was no lack of good collaboration and quantity of communication
between the team.
Contract
Items indicating contractual expectations (also speaks to Expectations, under the Goal
Alignment pillar, but refers specifically to language or references made to contracts).
• An example: Clearly defined scheduling responsibilities with EPC contractor and
contractual expectations.
Culture
Refers to organizational practices, collective behaviors and forms of action, received traditions
(e.g., “that’s the way things have been done”).
• An example: Transparency to fully disclose what was going on as things happened so they
could act on issues; for instance, things that went wrong or resource issues allowed for
schedule adjustment and staying on track.
Resource/Supply Chain Management

Relates to specific resources and supply chain issues reported by interviewees (a very small
percentage pointed to that).
• An example: Geography, the project team/supply chain is all over the world. People are not
physically in the same place.
Tools and Methods

Specific tools and methods used to develop schedules.
• An example: Externally hosted version of P6; hired a firm to host the latest version of P6.
Tools and Methods was the top driver suggested by owners, contractors, and consultants. It
comprised about half of the drivers indicated by all interviewees (53%), compared to the other
three categories coded: Culture (17%), Alignment (15%) and Communication (15%). Figure 19
illustrates these findings.
53
Alignment 15%
Communication 15%
Tools and Methods 53%
Culture 17%
Figure 19. Drivers Identified by Interviewees, Organized by Major Categories
Interviewees focused on specific tools and methods (e.g., scheduling software packages,
methods to develop schedules, use of indicators) as drivers of CS. However, People (21%),
Alignment (21%), and Culture (17%) comprised the top three barriers to CS (see Figure 20).
This indicates that interviewees viewed tools and methods as solutions, but people and culture
issues as barriers to CS.
Resource/Supply Alignment 21%

Chain Management 8%
Communication 14%
People 21%
Contract 11%
Culture 17%
Figure 20. Barriers Identified by Interviewees, Organized by Major Categories
54
Other findings from this discussion were related to Goal Alignment with Owner. In both the
maturity model and the survey analysis, goal alignment practices were deemed essential to
achieving higher levels of CS and better KPI performance.
As Figures 21 and 22 show, during the interviews owners identified Alignment as one of the
top two drivers and a top barrier. Although contractors did not mention any drivers related to
alignment, they did mention alignment as a barrier. Contractors’ top barrier was People-related
issues. Consultants listed Culture as the top barrier for CS.
15 15
9 9
8
6
5
3
2 2
0 0
Consultant Contractor Owner
Alignment Communication Culture Tools and Methods
Figure 21. Interviews – Drivers by Employee Type (N=26)
10
8 8
8
7 7
6
6
5 5
4 4 4 4 4 4
4
3
2 2 2 2
2
1 1
0
0
Alignment Communication Contract Culture

People Resource/Supply Chain Management Tools and Methods
Figure 22. Interviews – Barriers by Employee Type (N=26)
55
While the categories of People, Culture, and Alignment are all interconnected (see their
definitions in Appendix G for a more complete consideration), they all speak to organizational
issues that need to be addressed to support CS. The different points of view shared by
interviewees reveal a disconnect in terms of what needs to be done to support CS and what
practitioners perceive as the most pressing issues to be addressed. By any rate, the results from
this study support addressing Alignment-related issues first.
There is a disconnect in terms of what owners, contractors, and consultants

view as drivers and barriers to CS. RT-362 recommends focusing on practices
related to Goal Alignment (i.e., Alignment, Interactions, and Expectations) first,
followed by Scheduling Significance and Scheduling Representation, which
address the importance of using the schedule as a mechanism to drive the
expected culture in the project and to provide visibility to the schedule via tools
and methods that support CS.
Tools and Methods are viewed as drivers of CS whereas People- and Culture-
related issues are viewed as barriers, revealing an underlying assumption that
tools are the answer and people are the problem on the way to CS.
The sub-themes or practices more frequently associated with the drivers of CS, as shared by
interviewees, are summarized below. Please note that the research team first categorized the
statements into main themes, as previously described, and later further grouped them into
sub-themes that pointed to specific practices identified in the maturity model. The following
practices are more often associated with drivers that can support CS:
• Constant communication
• Gather feedback on the schedule to validate the schedule
• Gather feedback on the schedule to identify additional risks and constraints
• Interactive planning sessions
• Jointly define and work on critical milestones and constraints
• The Last Planner System® (some interviewees suggested the use of the entire LPS)
• Pull Planning (some interviewees pointed specifically to Pull Planning only, which is a
component of the LPS)
• Respect the knowledge of those already working with the owner
• Set times/means for daily check-ins and updates
• Promote transparency/visibility
• Psychological safety to report issues
• Honesty
56
Finally, in general, Building Information Modeling (BIM) was one of the practices that
respondents viewed as holding great potential; however, its potential to support CS might have
yet to be fully realized. Considering the importance of BIM, which has been gaining widespread
adoption and is considered to be a major game changer in the construction industry, the team
was surprised with the results it obtained regarding the use of BIM.
BIM is commonly used for design and visualization purposes and supports a host of activities
related to the generation of what-if design scenarios, supply chain integration, and 4D
scheduling to name a few. However, despite the respondents’ apparent belief in tools and
methods, when asked, “Did the project use Building Information Modeling (BIM) to support the
scheduling effort?” the following answers were obtained: 66% no, 22% yes, and 12% not sure.
During the interviews, 75% of the interviewees indicated that their projects used BIM. However,
when asked if BIM was used for planning, only about half of those using BIM indicated that
it was used to support the scheduling effort (see Figure 23). Analyzing these results with
Information Theory showed the team that BIM is not consistently implemented. Likely because
of this, BIM was perceived as having a low impact on the KPIs considered in this study.
No 26% No 48%
Use of BIM for

BIM Planning
Yes 74% Yes 52%
Figure 23. Interviews – Use of BIM in General and for Planning Purposes
BIM is still underutilized to support the scheduling effort, despite the multiple
advantages attributed to its use in construction projects.
57
Closing Remarks
Based on the data and its related analysis, RT-362’s number-one recommendation for
successfully developing CS is to increase Goal Alignment with the Owner, since practices
related to that topic were found to support higher levels of CS maturity, as indicated in the
maturity model discussion (in Chapter 3), as well as higher expected KPI performance for cost,
schedule, quality, safety, and teamwork, as indicated in the KPI discussion (in this chapter).
The road to CS involves different paths, which can be selected using a combination of practices
outlined in the maturity model. However, future research is needed to understand the reasons
for the lack of alignment between what different respondents indicated as drivers and barriers
for the development of CS, and how different practices are implemented across the industry, as
indicated in the KPI analysis.
58
5 CONCLUSION
In closing, consider again the essential question of the study: What are the drivers of and
obstacles to the development and implementation of collaborative scheduling? RT-362
addressed this question, along with additional research questions and outcomes, with help from
the participation of three main groups:
• Twelve subject matter experts (SMEs) who represented owners, contractors,

consultants, and suppliers. These SMEs participated during the focus groups phase,
when the maturity model was developed.
• Over 400 respondents interacted with the survey, and from them the team obtained 241
usable responses that represented answers from practitioners in all five CII industrial
sectors (i.e., Power, Utilities, and Infrastructure; Upstream, Midstream, and Mining;
Facilities and Healthcare; Downstream and Chemicals; and Manufacturing and Life
Sciences).
• Twenty-six practitioners who represented owners, contractors, and consultants
participated in 24 interviews totaling 1,285 minutes of interviews.
From its interactions with this diverse set of industry participants, RT-362 was able to pursue
three research questions.
Research question A: What are the limitations of current scheduling practices with regard to the
development and implementation of collaborative schedules?
Outcome A: Inventory of limitations of current scheduling practices regarding collaboration.
The team addressed this question and its related outcome by using information theory to
analyze survey results, as Appendix D discusses. The results suggested that some CS practices
are inconsistently implemented or not implemented at all. Additionally, Appendix G provides
additional context for the limitations of CS by drawing on interviewees’ identification of barriers
and considering the potential negative interactions that they identified during their discourse
about how planning and scheduling happened on their projects.
59
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
Research question B: What are the practices used in the industry at large (EPC and elsewhere)
that promote the development and implementation of collaborative schedules?
Outcome B: Inventory of collaborative scheduling tools and practices from the industry at large,
including their capabilities and obstacles.
The team first identified the drivers and related practices to support CS while it developed a
maturity model. It consulted with an industry focus group to assign weights to the model’s
different pillars and attributes. As discussed in Chapter 4, the work continued to identify
which practices were perceived as influential to key performance indicators (see details in
Appendix D). Finally, interviewees indicated which practices were recognized as drivers, and
additional interview analyses identified which practices industry practitioners currently use to
support collaborative schedules.
Research question C: What are the practical guidelines that can support development and
implementation of collaborative scheduling?
Outcome C: Implementation guide including a collaborative scheduling maturity model.
Finally, the team combined the totality of its results and related outcomes in this report, which
defines practical guidelines to support the development and implementation of collaborative
schedules and related examples of how a maturity model can be used to improve projects.
Appendix A lays out the maturity model’s questionnaire and scoring rubric, and Appendix B
gives recommendations so teams can move their projects up the maturity levels toward the
Gold+ standard.
The following sections present the team’s final insights and recommendations based on the study.
Practical Insights Gained from the Project
Industry practitioners who participated in the team’s survey identified a number of the practices
in the maturity model as high-impact, yet simultaneously not consistently implemented. Survey
results indicate the following insights:
• Teams neglect the cultural aspects of the project – developing a strong project culture,
exhibiting a planner mindset, and supporting the early involvement of stakeholders and
sufficient interaction among them.
• Several effective scheduling-related practices are under-implemented – promoting
schedule visibility across the project, developing effective communication plans and
clear communication channels, and providing sufficient schedule-related information.
60
• Six out of ten survey respondents indicated that something could be done to improve
schedule collaboration in their projects. A surprising two out of ten indicated that the
level of collaboration in scheduling was not adequate. Further analysis of the survey
results discovered that respondents did not equate on-time project delivery with their
perception of schedule success. People apparently tend to think that their projects are
performing better than their own self-reported schedule information shows. That very
surprising finding was observed again later in the interviews.
• Goal Alignment with Owner seems to be an obvious practice to implement, yet it was
not among the practices that project teams typically use due to the siloed nature of
the construction industry and other factors like contract incentives. The survey and
interview data confirmed that teams that actively align project goals with the owner tend
to be more successful in each KPI. The use of one type of scheduling software over
another had no measurable impact on project schedule performance, nor did the use of
BIM for scheduling. Factors that have a high impact on CS yet that were scored low by
respondents included culture, alignment, and communication.
• Additional areas that the team perceived to have high potential to support collaborative
scheduling but that respondents surprisingly ranked as low-impact and not consistently
implemented in the survey included the use of BIM and the use of additional planning
techniques such as the Last Planner System®, Takt Planning, and Advanced Work
Packaging (a CII Best Practice). This finding was consistent with data obtained from the
survey and the interviews.
What Should CII and CII Members Pay Attention to Going Forward?
Moving forward, as teams seek to achieve higher maturity levels of collaborative scheduling,
RT-362 emphasizes the importance of Goal Alignment with Owner, the attribute in the maturity
model that focus groups considered to be most effective. Survey respondents also considered
practices in this category to have the greatest impact on the cost, schedule, and quality KPIs.
RT-362 recommends the use of the maturity model as a team exercise for project members to
score their projects and learn which areas of their efforts might be lagging.
Moving Forward as an Industry
This study supports previous CII research and other studies available in the literature at large
that considered the collaborative delivery of projects. However, unlike previous studies that
identified practices, RT-362’s results aimed to identify which practices industry participants
perceived to play a major role, both to support teams as they embark in their journeys toward
more collaborative environments and more specifically as they develop collaborative schedules.
61
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
Questions still remain as to why some of the practices that were touted as the most beneficial
to support the scheduling process are also not consistently being used, despite the agreement
among survey respondents that these practices had great impact. It will be incumbent on
industry practitioners to continue sharing experiences and positive outcomes of collaborative
scheduling to reinforce the need for these practices, and the benefit that is realized from them.
The scheduling process is ripe with the potential to be supported by machine learning
applications. Machine learning algorithms capable of processing large amounts of data
and rapidly generating alternatives can enable teams to explore multiple solutions before
committing to a course of action, and to act with greater confidence. It is very likely that within
the next 10 years, schedule development supported by machine learning will be a reality for
many projects. In fact, currently available commercial software already exists supports this
process. Tools that utilize past data and experiences to predict future outcomes are becoming
increasingly common and will become a key part in improving schedule predictability and
supporting collaborative discussions during the planning phase of projects. Large amounts of
data will be collected, prepared, and analyzed in real time by professionals trained to handle
machine learning and data science applications.
However, if the development and use of BIM during the past 15–20 years is any indication, in
spite of their benefits, schedules generated with the support of machine learning applications will
not be fully embraced in every industry, project, or corner of the world. Studies suggest that trust
in the models and solutions generated continues to play a major role in the use of BIM and will
likely play the same role in the adoption of schedules generated by machine learning algorithms.
Diligent effort is needed to address how data will be collected, processed, and used to train
machine learning algorithms. The industry will start to employ professionals trained in the
areas needed to support these applications, but it is worth remembering that the models and
solutions generated will only be as good as the data feeding them. Collaboration will be very
much needed to support the definition of the data that support these models, as well as the
experience to calibrate the models to match reality.
Another important area of work is communication related to schedule development and

its representation via visual and accessible schedules, deliverables, and main indicators
as appropriate for different levels and project participants. Scheduling software abounds
in the industry; however, tactile and accessible schedules that use low-tech solutions to
promote conversations are important to support impromptu conversations among project
stakeholders. Utilizing whiteboard sessions or other interactive planning tactics often
enables collaborative scheduling and results in the alignment necessary to make these other
scheduling tools effective.
62
Finally, the visualization and accessibility of schedules are key, but not every project manager
or superintendent is able to fully manipulate schedules and their links to building information
models. In fact, some interviewees pointed to the high cost of keeping the schedule aligned with
BIM. 4D scheduling is another major frontier that the industry has to cross, and it appears at the
moment that cost and easy-to-manipulate 4D schedules are major challenges to support the
widespread use of 4D.
63
REFERENCES
Alencar, Marcelo, S. (2015). Information Theory. New York: Momentum Press.
Ballard, H. G. (2000a). “Phase Scheduling.” LCI White Paper #7. Arlington, VA: Lean Construction
Institute. Available at http://www.leanconstruction.org.
Ballard, H. G. (2000b). “The Last Planner System of Production Control.” Thesis (PhD).
Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham.
CII (2015). Effective Project Alignment for Construction Success. Implementation Resource 310-2.
Austin, TX: Construction Industry Institute.
CII (2019). Integrated Project Delivery for Industrial Projects. Final Report 341. Austin, TX:
Construction Industry Institute.
Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory (4th Edition). Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publications, Inc.
Cover, T. M. and Thomas, J. A. (2006). Elements of Information Theory. 2nd Edition.

New York, NY: Wiley.
Dalkey, N. and Helmer, O. (1963). “An Experimental Application of the DELPHI Method to the Use
of Experts.” Management Science, 9(3), 458-467.
Dillon-Merrill, R. L., Parnell, G. S., Buckshaw, D. L., Hensley, W. R., and Caswell, D. J. (2008).
“Avoiding Common Pitfalls in Decision Support Frameworks for Department of Defense
Analyses.” Military Operations Research, 13(2), 19–31.
Evans, J. R. (2015). Business Analytics: Methods, Models, and Decisions (4th Edition). Harlow,
Essex, UK: Pearson.
Everitt, B. S., Landau, S., and Leese, M. (2001). Cluster Analysis (4th Edition). London, UK: Arnold.
Helmer-Hirschberg, O. (1967). Analysis of the Future: The Delphi Method. RAND

Report P-3558. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from
https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P3558.html
Jensen, F. V. and Nielsen, T. D. (2007). Bayesian Networks and Decision Graphs.

New York, NY: Springer.
65
REFERENCES
Keeney, R. L. and Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value
Trade-Offs. New York, NY: Wiley.
Kirkwood, C. W. (1997). Strategic Decision Making: Multiobjective Decision Analysis with

Spreadsheets. Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.
Langford, J. and McDonagh, D. (2003). Focus Groups: Supporting Effective Product Development.
London, UK: CRC Press.
O’Brien, W. J., Menches, C. L., Yi, J., and Ali, S. (2009). Global Project Control and Management
Systems. Research Report 244-11. Austin, TX: Construction Industry Institute.
O’Brien, W. J. and Ponticelli, S. (2016). Transforming the Industry: Advanced Work Packaging as a
Standard (Best) Practice. Research Report 319-11. Austin, TX: Construction Industry Institute.
Parnell, G. (2007). “Value-focused thinking using multiple objective decision analysis.” In A.

G. Loerch and L. B. Rainey (Eds.), Methods for Conducting Military Operational Analysis
(pp. 619–656). Alexandria, VA: Military Operations Research Society.
QSR International (2020). “NVivo.” Available at: https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-

qualitative-data-analysis-software/home (Accessed on 08/18/2020)
Schaffernicht, E., Stephan, V., and Groß, H.-M. (2007). “An Efficient Search Strategy for Feature
Selection Using Chow-Liu Trees.” In J. Marques de Sá, L. A. Alexandre, W. Duch, and D.
Mandic (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks 2007
(pp. 190-199). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
Schwartzman, H. (1989). The Meeting: Gatherings in Organizations and Communities.

New York, NY: Springer.
Shannon, C. E. (1948). “A Mathematical Theory of Communication.” The Bell System Technical

Journal, 27 (3), 379–423.
Sutherland, J. and Sutherland, J. J. (2014). Scrum: The Art of Doing Twice the Work in Half
the Time (1st Edition). New York, NY: Currency.
Tan, P., Steinbach, M., and Kumar, V. (2006). Introduction to Data Mining. Boston, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Twin, A. (2020). “Delphi Method.” Retrieved from

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/delphi-method.asp
66
APPENDIX A
Maturity Model for Collaborative Scheduling
This appendix contains the elements of the Maturity Model for Collaborative Scheduling
(MMCS). A project team can use the questionnaire to rate its current level of collaboration, and
then use the rubric to score the results. The team can compare the total score for its project
against three ranges of scores to determine whether the project’s maturity falls under the
Bronze, Silver, or Gold level of schedule collaboration.
Project scheduling collaboration has been identified as an area of great opportunity within
today’s construction industry. The numerous benefits of project scheduling collaboration (e.g.,
increased alignment across all stakeholders, improved decision-making based on agreed-upon
project KPIs) greatly help to improve a project’s end results. However, to date few studies have
examined collaborative scheduling (CS), so industry professionals have had no tools to self-
assess their CS maturity.
Collaboration has not been a key focus within many companies’ project scheduling
processes, yet CS offers significant benefits. It is the objective of the Collaborative Scheduling
Questionnaire to bring collaboration to the forefront of project planning and to help participants
recognize areas where their project teams have opportunities to collaborate.
RT-362 created this questionnaire and its scoring rubric based on inputs from team members,
the results of an industry survey, and the qualitative interview responses of industry
professionals. These inputs allowed a group of subject matter experts to determine five key
areas within CS where teams can review their projects in order to identify opportunities for
improvement:
• Scheduling Representation
• Planners and Schedulers
• Scheduling Significance
• Goal Alignment with Owners
• Communication
67
APPENDIX A: MATURITY MODEL FOR COLLABORATIVE SCHEDULING
Collaborative Scheduling Questionnaires
To self-score your project team’s level of collaboration, begin with the following questionnaires.
Read each statement and circle or highlight the term that corresponds with your response.
Culture
associated with accountability, timeliness, and Yes No Partially
collaboration?
Creation
Was the project schedule created primarily as a contractual
Yes No Partially
deliverable?
Stakeholders
Were the appropriate major stakeholders involved early
Yes No Partially
enough in the project schedule input?
Adaptability
Which term best describes the project’s schedule? Dynamic Static Mixed
Accuracy
At any given time, did the schedule accurately represent the
Yes No Partially
current state of the project?
Visibility
Was scheduling always visible across the entire project
Yes No Partially
team?
Planning Mindset
Did the project team exhibit a “planner mindset,” where the team was
Yes No Partially
actively engaged, timely, and forward-looking regarding schedule issues?
Were schedulers empowered to collaborate across the project? Yes No Partially
Job Role
Creator or
Which term best describes the scheduler’s role on the project? Facilitator Organizer
Recorder
Understanding
Was there a difference in specifically defined and assigned roles for a
Yes No Partially
planner and a scheduler?
68
Level of Detail
Did the project schedule contain sufficient detail for the team to
Yes No Partially
successfully complete the project?
Did the schedule contain the appropriate level of detail to fulfill
Yes No Partially
your work role and needs?
Tools and Methods
Did the project use software tools and packages specifically
Yes No
designed and purposed for building project schedules?
Did the project use Building Information Modeling (BIM) to
Yes No
support the scheduling effort?
Did the project use additional techniques and methods (e.g., Last
Planner System, Advanced Work Packaging, Takt Planning) to Yes No
represent and communicate schedules throughout its duration?
Quality Checks
Were quality checks (checking milestones and accuracy) regularly All of the
Never Sometimes
conducted throughout the project timeline? Time
Agility
At any given time, did the schedule have enough flexibility to
Yes No Partially
accommodate changes in the project?
Control Metrics
Did the project visibly use program control metrics (e.g., Schedule
Yes No Partially
Performance Index and/or Cost Performance Index)?
Expectations
Were the owner’s expectations met throughout the life cycle of the
Yes No Partially
project from design through construction and commissioning?
Alignment
Were the major owner-defined milestones clearly defined and
Yes No Partially
communicated throughout the course of the project?
Interactions
Was there sufficient and consistent interaction between project
Yes No Partially
stakeholders?
69
Communication Plan
Was there an effective communication plan for the
Yes No Partially
project?
Engagement
Did communication within the project include all All Few Some
stakeholders? Stakeholders Stakeholders Stakeholders
feedback from the team throughout the project life Yes No Partially
cycle?
Were you able to provide input into the initial project
Yes No Partially
schedule?
Did appropriate participants attend meetings? Yes No Partially
Was there an appropriate frequency of meetings? Yes No Partially
Were meeting content and agendas appropriate? Yes No Partially
Which term best describes your experience with
Safe Unsafe Sometimes Safe
sharing project feedback?
Coordination
Did the team collaborate effectively on schedule
Always Never Sometimes
updates?
information to effectively gauge performance Yes No Partially
Channels
delivery utilized throughout the duration of the Yes No Partially
project?
Scoring Rubrics
After completing the questionnaire, enter its results into the corresponding areas of the
scoring rubric.
» For each selected cell, add the number to the rightmost column, “Score.”
» If the section has a subtotal requirement (as with Level of Detail under Scheduling
Representation), sum all circled or highlighted responses for that area of the questionnaire
and record the total number in the area labeled “Subtotal.” Use the range of scores to
calculate the appropriate number for that subtotal, then add the number to the Score column
beside that attribute.
70
» Sum the recorded values in the Score column and enter that number as the “Subtotal” for
that pillar.
» Multiply the subtotal by the variable in the cell below it to determine that pillar’s “Total Score.
» Enter the five pillars’ totals in the colorful table at the bottom of the rubric, then sum the
five key areas to calculate the overall Collaborative Scheduling project score. Based on the
calculated score, the project will fall under one of the following categories:
› Bronze (Least Collaborative): 0–54
› Silver (Moderately Collaborative): 55–76
› Gold (Most Collaborative): 77–100

Culture
Yes No Partially
associated with accountability, timeliness, and
21.05 1.05 12.63
collaboration?
Creation
Was the project schedule created primarily as a contractual Yes No Partially
deliverable? 20 4 13
Stakeholders
Were the appropriate major stakeholders were involved Yes No Partially
early enough in the project schedule input 17.89 1.79 8.95
Adaptability
Dynamic Static Mixed
Which term best describes the project’s schedule?
15.79 1.58 10.26
Accuracy
At any given time, did the schedule accurately represent the Yes No Partially
current state of the project? 14.74 2.21 11.79
Visibility
Was scheduling always visible across the entire project Yes No Partially
team? 10.53 2.11 6.32
Scheduling Significance Subtotal (Sum response scores here)
Scheduling Significance Total
71

Planning Mindset
Did the project team exhibit a “planner mindset,” where the
Yes No Partially
team was actively engaged, timely, and forward-looking
32.26 3.23 19.35
regarding schedule issues?
Were schedulers empowered to collaborate across the Yes No Partially
project? 25.81 3.87 15.48
Job Role
Creator or
Which term best describes the scheduler’s role on the Facilitator Organizer
Recorder
project? 24.19 18.15
4.84
Understanding
Was there a difference in specifically defined and assigned Yes No Partially
roles for a planner and a scheduler? 17.74 1.77 8.87
Planners and Schedulers Subtotal (Sum response scores here)
Planners and Schedulers Total
72

Level of Detail
Did the project schedule contain sufficient detail for the Yes No Partially
team to successfully complete the project? 3 1 2
Did the schedule contain the appropriate level of detail to Yes No Partially
fulfill your work role and needs? 3 1 2
Level of Detail Subtotal
Calculate the Level of Detail Total based on its Subtotal If ≤ 3, enter If 4, enter If ≥ 5, enter
Level of Detail Total 2.22 15.56 22.22
Tools and Methods
Did the project use software tools and packages specifically Yes No
designed and purposed for building project schedules? 2 1
Did the project use Building Information Modeling (BIM) to Yes No
support the scheduling effort? 2 1
Did the project use additional techniques and methods
(e.g., Last Planner System, Advanced Work Packaging, Yes No
Takt Planning) to represent and communicate schedules 2 1
throughout its duration?
Tools and Methods Subtotal
Calculate the Tools and Methods Total based on its Subtotal If ≤ 4, enter If 5, enter If 6, enter
Tools and Methods Total 4.22 14.78 21.11
Quality Checks
All of the
Were quality checks (checking milestones and accuracy) Time
Never Sometimes
regularly conducted throughout the project timeline? 20 1 10
Agility
At any given time, did the schedule have enough flexibility to Yes No Partially
accommodate changes in the project? 18.89 3.78 13.22
Control Metrics
Did the project visibly use program control metrics (e.g.,
Yes No Partially
Schedule Performance Index and/or Cost Performance
17.78 1.78 8.89
Index)?
Scheduling Representation Subtotal (Sum response totals here)
Scheduling Representation Total
73

Expectations
Were the owner’s expectations met throughout the life
Yes No Partially
cycle of the project from design through construction and
39.22 3.92 21.57
commissioning?
Alignment
Were the major owner-defined milestones clearly defined Yes No Partially
and communicated throughout the course of the project? 35.29 8.82 24.71
Interactions
Was there sufficient and consistent interaction between Yes No Partially
project stakeholders? 25.49 5.1 15.29
Goal Alignment with Owner Subtotal (Sum response scores here)
Goal Alignment with Owner Total
74

Communication Plan
Was there an effective communication plan for the Yes No Partially
project? 25.97 5.19 12.99
Engagement
All Few Some
Did communication within the project include all
Stakeholders Stakeholders Stakeholders
stakeholders?
3 1 2
Yes Yes Yes
feedback from the team throughout the project life
3 1 2
cycle?
Were you able to provide input into the initial Yes Yes Yes
project schedule? 3 1 2
Yes Yes Yes
Did appropriate participants attend meetings?
3 1 2
Yes Yes Yes
Was there an appropriate frequency of meetings?
3 1 2
Yes Yes Yes
Were meeting content and agendas appropriate?
3 1 2
Engagement Subtotal
Calculate the Engagement Total based on its Subtotal If ≤ 13, enter If 14–16, enter If ≥ 17, enter
Engagement Total 3.51 12.86 23.38
Which term best describes your experience with Safe Unsafe Sometimes Safe
sharing project feedback? 22.08 2.21 13.25
Coordination
Did the team collaborate effectively on schedule Always Never Sometimes
updates? 3 1 2
Yes No Partially
information to effectively gauge performance
3 1 2
Coordination Subtotal
Calculate the Coordination Total based on its
If ≤ 3, enter If 4, enter If ≥ 5, enter
Subtotal
1.56 7.79 15.58
Coordination Total
Channels
Yes No Partially
delivery utilized throughout the duration of the
12.99 1.95 8.44
project?
Communication Subtotal (Sum response totals here)
Communication Total:
75
Pillar Score
Scheduling Significance Total
Planners and Schedulers Total
Scheduling Representation Total
Goal Alignment with Owner Total
Communication Total
Collaborative Scheduling Total Score

SCORE SCORE SCORE

Chapter 3 includes a step-by-step example of how a project team worked its way through the
Collaborative Scheduling questionnaire and scoring rubric.
Appendix B offers recommendations that a project team can follow to improve each pillar from
Bronze to Silver, from Silver to Gold, and from Gold to Gold+.
76
APPENDIX B
Maturity Model – Recommendations for Project Improvement
Use project schedule every day Use the project schedule to hold team
Incorporate the schedule and ensure scheduling is a part members accountable for progress,
Culture
within project culture – project of the daily culture – project updates and communication of
teams should support and be teams live by the schedule and schedule issues. Implement technology
supported by the schedule. are constantly updating it with (i.e., mobile/live updates) to foster a
progress. strong project scheduling culture.
Create the schedule as a

Define not just contractual Require constant communication
baseline to be used by all
obligations but also job (good or bad) among all project team
project team members to
roles, responsibilities and members during the creation of the
Creation
measure performance. The

expectations throughout the project schedule and show that their
schedule is the roadmap and
project. Give opportunity for communication efforts are valid and
guide to a successful project
feedback from project team will be met respectfully from other
and solicit feedback from all
members in the creation of the team members to ensure psychological
stakeholders to gather buy-in
schedule. safety.
for collaboration.
Require all stakeholders to be involved
Involve all stakeholders early
Begin project scheduling with and to provide input throughout the
and often in schedule creation
Stakeholders
a kick-off of all stakeholders entire process of the creation of the

for feedback. Receive buy-in
to gather initial feedback project schedule. Require buy-in on the
for the updated schedule from
on creating the schedule; baseline schedule from all stakeholders
all parties and continue to
stakeholders understand as well as provide progress updates
monitor progress throughout
information provided. and reporting to stakeholders on a
the project.
constant basis.
Create a schedule that is highly

Adaptability
Create a schedule maintained

Create a schedule that is able to flexible and can be used to efficiently
with minimal effort and used
be updated and improved rather manage change as project conditions
by all appropriate stakeholders
than only a record of the past. dictate. Must be used by all project
when necessary.
stakeholders.
Periodically audit controls to Put in place continuous audit controls

Accuracy
Implement quality controls for help with scheduling accuracy. for accurate scheduling. Use historical
schedule accuracy and audit Use timely audit data to audit data to perform predictive
progress. validate forecasted schedule analytics on potential schedule impacts
completion dates. instead of reacting to schedule slips.
Ensure project schedule is always

accessible to all project team members
Accessible and timely Ensure project schedule is
at any time and accurately shows
Visibility
distribution of project schedule accessible at regular intervals

progress and forecasted completion.
and major milestone progress to core project team members
Incorporate business analytics and
to entire project team to track and accurately shows progress
business intelligence to enable end-
progress. of completion.
users to digest information grounded
in data.
77
APPENDIX B: MATURITY MODEL – RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROJECT IMPROVEMENT

Planning Mindset
Implement processes and Actively reinforce processes Require project leadership (e.g.,
identify opportunities that that support a “planning managers, superintendents)
enable proactive behavior mindset” and constantly engage to develop their own plans and
(i.e., workshops, small group in opportunities supporting regularly align these work plans
discussions, interactive planning collaborative and proactive through formalized workshops or
sessions). planning approaches. interactive planning.
Enable and encourage schedulers Reinforce the importance of Require specific and regular
to work across departments consistent cross functional communications between
and with other stakeholders to access to schedulers, enabling Project Team members and the
shape a schedule that will be clear communication and scheduler and actively break
more accurate and can be utilized scheduling insights from all down silos between functions at
throughout the life of the project. disciplines. a management level.
Provide the scheduler the

Allow the scheduler to be involved Allow the scheduler to facilitate
autonomy to not only own
Job Role
and use experience to organize the creation and management of

creation and management of the
the schedule in a common-sense the schedule from inception to
schedule but also use their role to
manner that makes sense for all progress updates throughout the
influence the decision making of
parties. life of the project.
others on the Project Team.
Engage in planning and

Contractually require that
Understanding
scheduling activities unique to

Have defined responsibilities these terms are aligned on
each project. Verify that there
and definitions of planning and understood between all
is a clear difference between
and scheduling unique to each interested parties on the Project
Planners and Schedulers, and it
company and project. to ensure these differences are
is understood by all in schedule
respected.
creation.
78

Level of Detail
Evaluate current schedule to Schedule is built with input from

Removing unnecessary detail
identify areas with minimal detail; the project team and enough
from the schedule to make the
specifically look to better define detail to allow team members to
schedule more manageable.
project activities. successfully manage the project.
Tools and Methods
In conjunction with scheduling Engage workface leaders, people

software, implement on the team responsible for
Implement at least one
collaborative team meetings to making the final assignment
scheduling tool/method that
review and re-plan the project of labor and resources, for
supports team collaboration for
schedule including regular more integrated schedules
planning and scheduling.
distribution across project that communicate the plan and
stakeholders. production.
Increase frequency of quality Utilize techniques and tools such

Quality Checks
Identify attainable scheduling checks based on identified as scheduling analysis software

goals that can be utilized to attainable goals to ensure to determine better solutions
maintain schedule health going schedule in consistently healthy to enable successful on-time
forward through quality checks. and visible to all necessary completion via higher schedule
stakeholders. performance for productivity.
Utilize techniques and tools such

as scheduling analysis software
Update the schedule to reflect to determine better solutions
Conduct regular interactive team
current state of the project based to enable successful on-time
Agility
meetings seeking feedback and

on work in place progress (e.g., completion via higher schedule
ideas to better plan and schedule
for example weather impacts, performance for productivity
remaining work.
major change orders). or pull planning methods like
the Last Planner System® of
Production Control.
Control Metrics
Implement control metrics

Make planning adjustments Increase schedule monitoring
that will enable controlling and
based on control metrics to frequency such as checking
monitoring schedule progress
improve schedule performance. weekly instead of monthly.
throughout the project.
79
APPENDIX B: MATURITY MODEL – RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROJECT IMPROVEMENT
Clearly identify owner’s

Based on an integrated schedule
expectations within key milestone Bring expertise of all stakeholders
inclusive of clear owner
Expectations
conversations, ensuring that (contractors/engineers) to the

expectations, ensure owner’s
expectations are initially table for schedule creation and
expectations are regularly
represented throughout the expectation alignment to ensure
revisited and evaluated when
life of the project. The owner’s expectations are reasonable,
making key project decisions to
expectations need to be part of realistic, and obtainable.
maintain stakeholder alignment.
the integrated schedule.
Utilize scheduling tools to

Create opportunities to clearly not only clearly define owner Utilize predictive analytics
Alignment
define owner expectations and expectations but to also schedule and historical data to clearly
ensure those expectations are consistent check-ups with owner define owner expectations and
being met through constant to ensure project milestones continuously ensure milestones
tracking of project milestones. continuously align with align proactively.
expectations.
Create open lines of Create regularly scheduled

Interactions
communication between interactions between contractors Require constant and full

contractor and owner to and owners, allowing constant, collaboration across the project
collaboratively align on initial full collaboration between both team.
schedule inputs. parties.
80

Communication Plan
Evaluate the current

Define a preliminary, high-level The communication plan is
communication plan to ensure
communication plan that allows fit-for-purpose, followed by
it is clear and stakeholder roles
all stakeholder roles to be the stakeholders and key
are defined and key performance
clarified. performance indicators are met.
indicators are identified.
Provide stakeholders an
opportunity to voice comments
Engagement
Provide an opportunity
Provide for all direct stakeholders and concerns about the project.
and mandate feedback for
to give feedback within the Provide for open dialogue and
stakeholders to gain timely
current organizational structure. collaborative discussion among
feedback and see results.
stakeholders and opportunities to
impact their work environment.
Promote recognition of and

Expect and condition
Provide a forum for stakeholders reward open dialogue. Offer
stakeholders to express ideas
to safely express their ideas and numerous ways for members of
that measurably improve the
opinions. the project team to raise their
business.
concerns.
Request feedback from direct

Require feedback from
Coordination
Provide structured opportunities stakeholders and address all

stakeholders and acknowledge
for feedback from stakeholders comments and concerns in
feedback while verifying
regarding potential areas of an organized, open dialogue.
alignment among stakeholders
improvement. Implement a defined plan for
using performance indicators.
coordination.
Use key performance metrics Use feedback, performance
to evaluate communication results, and compliance auditing
Channels
Create regularly scheduled time channels to ensure all critical to measure improvement in
for collaborative discussion stakeholders are included; communication performance
among critical stakeholders. ensure that information is being metrics. From these metrics,
communicated accurately and plans for improvement are
efficiently. developed and implemented.
81
APPENDIX C
Method – Creation of a Maturity Model for Collaborative Scheduling
Research Method
One outcome from RT-362 was the creation of a maturity model for collaborative scheduling. To
develop a practical model that the construction industry can use to assess the current state of
collaboration and also to provide recommendations on how to improve a project’s collaboration,
the team followed a four-step process:
1. Work with focus groups to develop a maturity model for collaborative scheduling.
2. Weight the maturity model through MODA and the Delphi Method.
3. Determine the level of collaboration in industry projects that use the maturity model.
4. Propose recommendations to continuously improve collaboration in construction projects.
RT-362 designed each step of this method with input from its industry members, and
development of the maturity model began at the team’s first meeting at the CII Offices in Austin,
Texas, during January 2019. The industry members served as an ongoing focus group that
predominantly consisted of 17 professionals who attended at least one research team meeting
from January to September of 2019. In Table 13, participation in the maturity model focus group
is identified by an “ ” in the MM column.
The research team also created a focus group to elicit weights for the maturity model. This
focus group took place during a team meeting in November 2019 and participation in it is
denoted by an “ ” in the SC column of Table 13. Each step of the maturity model is described
below.
Finally, participants who worked with the team to develop the survey discussed in Appendix E
are identified with an “ ” in the SURV column of Table 13.
83
APPENDIX C: METHOD – CREATION OF A MATURITY MODEL FOR COLLABORATIVE SCHEDULING
Table 13. Background of Research Team Members and Their Participation in Focus Groups
Employer Industry Years

Area of Expertise Roles MM SC SURV
Type Sector(s) * of Exp.
Organizational Consulting Consulting Principal

Consultant A, B, C, D, E 43
– Major Capital Projects and Practice Leader
Engineering Project & Construction Project Engineering

A, E 20
Firm Engineering Management
Project Controls
Owner A 10 Project Controls
Manager
Project Planning & Director of Project

Owner A, B, C, D 40
Scheduling Services (Retired)
Manager, Project
Contractor D 14 Cost/Schedule
Controls
Owner Project
Owner E 39 Project Management
Manager
Planning and
Owner A, E 6 Planning & Scheduling
Scheduling Lead Group
Owner D 20 Renewable Energy Manager
Supplier/
A, B 34 Technology Integration Business Development
Vendor
Contracting Subject
Owner A, E 22 Contracting
Matter Expert
Project Controls
Contractor D 13 Project Controls
Manager
Director of Lean
Contractor A, B, C, D 20 Business Strategy and Business
Practices
Supplier/ Heavy Industrial

A, D, E 35 Industry Advisor
Vendor Construction
Project Controls and Project Controls

Contractor E 18
Scheduling Manager
Continuous Improvement Director of Project

Contractor D 21
& Project Controls Support
National Director of
Consultant A, B, C, D, E 47 Project Controls Program and Project
Control
Consultant A, D 18 Project Planning CEO
* CII’s industry sectors: A. Downstream and Chemicals; B. Facilities and Healthcare; C. Manufacturing and Life Sciences; D. Power, Utilities, and
Infrastructure; E. Upstream, Midstream, and Mining
84
Step 1: Development of a maturity model for collaborative scheduling through focus groups
At the first project meeting in January 2019, the industry members were asked six questions
that had framed an initial CII study on the topic, undertaken in 2016. Because that preliminary
effort also examined collaborative scheduling, RT-362 used the questions to assess how the
current state of practice might have shifted during the intervening years. Each industry team
member was asked to respond to each question with words or phrases that he or she felt
related to collaborative scheduling:
1. Has the schedule become a deliverable for contracting and litigation rather than a
tool for collaboration (among owners, designers, contractors, and trade partners),
commitment, and accountability?
2. Is scheduling effort focused on justifying the baseline schedule because of contract
requirements, or is it put toward better solutions?
3. Are schedulers now merely computer technicians or do they facilitate team planning and
subsequent re-scheduling?
4. Is it understood that planning and scheduling are two different skill sets?
5. How significant are the differences between level of detail through cycle of project?
6. Do project teams perform life cycle planning and scheduling from the owner’s
perspective, integrating and aligning schedules with important owner milestones?
The responses and phrases to each question were organized from most collaborative to
least collaborative, as agreed upon collectively by the research team. The primary goal of the
activity was to spend ample time discussing each phrase and response to make sure that all
ideas related to collaborative scheduling were given consideration. At the end of the in-person
meeting, the research team determined that a maturity model would have three levels of
collaboration based on least, moderately, and most collaborative.
In the spring of 2019, the research team met in Las Vegas, Nevada, and later in Raleigh, North
Carolina, to further develop the model through an iterative process. This included dividing the
model into pillars, defining attributes, and identifying how the attributes related to the pillars.
In Las Vegas, the research team examined the data collected in January 2019 in Austin, Texas,
and discussed the definition of the different attributes that related to each of the six discussion
questions. The attributes became the contents of the pillars within the collaborative scheduling
maturity model. Following the activity in Las Vegas, the pillar model went through a series of
three iterations leading up to the in-person meeting in Raleigh.
In Raleigh, the pillars were formally established, and the introduction of attributes was proposed
to the research team, to further organize and define the attributes proposed at the Las Vegas
meeting. The team classified attributes horizontally across the pillars, which aided in the
development of survey questions with quantifiable responses due to the differentiation in
statements. The discussion and data collection from the Raleigh meeting led to three more
iterations of the model being refined during summer 2019.
85
The tenth iteration of the model was presented to the research team in San Diego, California, in
August 2019; this was concurrent with the release of the RT-362 survey. There were no major
revisions to the model in San Diego. For the final iteration, presented in September 2019 at a
team meeting in Detroit, Michigan, the model was finalized to include each attribute as well as
the corresponding question in the survey to assess level of collaboration. Figure 24 depicts
the iterations in the creation of the pillar maturity model. Figure 25 identifies the pillars of the
maturity model along with the attributes that further define and provide context to each area of
collaboration.
Pillars from PostIt Refinement of Pillars, Refinement of Final typo fixing Completed and
Activity in Las Vegas Implementation attributes, Strictly by research team, Solidified
of attributes, and defined narrative alignment of all
Introduction in agreed on by the attributes to match
Raleigh research team across pillar levels in
San Diego
March 2019 May 2019 Summer 2019 August 2019 September 2019
Figure 24. Development of the Collaborative Scheduling Maturity Model
Scheduling Planners and Scheduling Goal Alignment

Communication
Significance Schedulers Representation with Owner
Culture Planning Mindset Level of Detail Expectations Communication

Plan
Creation Cross-Discipline Tools and Methods Alignment
Interactions Engagement
Stakeholders Quality Checks Interactions
Job Role Psychological
Adaptability Agility Safety
Understanding
Accuracy Control Metrics Coordination
Visibility Channels
Figure 25. The Pillars and Attributes of the Maturity Model for Collaborative Scheduling
The pillars of the model represent the aspects that the research team established as the most
crucial elements of a project for assessing scheduling collaboration. The attributes create more
specific sub-topics that are essential to success within each corresponding pillar. A description
of each pillar follows:
86
Scheduling Significance
The research team defined this as the value that the project team and other stakeholders
place on creating, using, and managing the project schedule. Within this pillar, there were six
additional attributes. The first attribute was creation, which was defined as the contractual
intent of the project schedule that reflects objectives and ensures interactive accessibility
for vital feedback. The second attribute was culture, defined as the schedule’s ability to
support strong project culture associated with accountability, timeliness, and collaboration.
The third attribute was visibility, defined as the accessibility of the schedule to the project
team. The fourth attribute was stakeholders, defined as the timing and involvement of major
stakeholders throughout the project lifecycle. The fifth attribute was accuracy, defined as
the schedule’s representation of the current state and status of the project at any given time.
The sixth and final attribute was adaptability, defined as static or dynamic in nature, how
adaptable is the schedule to accommodate schedule changes that result from the team
collaboration or project needs.
Planners and Schedulers

The research team defined this as the roles, responsibilities, and interactions between
collaborative planners and schedulers. Within this pillar, there were four additional attributes.
The first attribute was job role, defining how the impact a scheduler can make on a project
is closely related to the individual’s understanding of their responsibilities as well as to the
project team and company’s recognition of their job description and contributions. The
second attribute was cross-discipline interactions, stating that while a project team may
have an experienced scheduler and may be proactive in planning, empowerment to work
with multiple members of the project team and reflect their feedback in the schedule is
equally important. The third attribute was understanding, stating that for a project team to
share a collaborative planning mindset, the team members also must recognize distinct
differences between planning and scheduling; these activities are not just reserved for
schedulers. The fourth and final attribute was planning mindset, stating that the scheduler
and project team will either exhibit reactive or proactive behaviors in their approach to
planning and scheduling; their belief and commitment to the right behaviors will largely
determine the level of collaboration in the scheduling process.
Scheduling Representation
The research team defined this as the ability to grade a project based on appropriate
schedule detail, proper tools and methods used during schedule creation, and proper control
metrics as well as quality checks to effectively maintain the schedule. Within this pillar, there
were five attributes. The first attribute was control metrics, which determines if the project
is performing per the plan. Some examples of control metrics include Cost Performance
Index (CPI) and Schedule Performance Index (SPI) to gauge where the project is currently
and to help forecast where the project is heading. The second attribute was agility, which
reviews and determines if the schedule is reactive, proactive, or interactive, and if so, where.
87
The third attribute was tools and methods, which examines the tools and methods used to
create the schedule and evaluates if they support collaboration. This includes consideration
of how frequently the schedules were updated across the organization as well as the
degree to which they represent living, integrated documents with appropriate tools and
methods. The fourth attribute was level of detail, which determines if the schedule contains
appropriate detail and clearly defined projections of success for all schedulers. The fifth
attribute was quality checks, which refers to the schedule health and determines if the goals
in the schedule are attainable with sound logic while being made visible to all stakeholders.
Schedule Alignment with Owner

The research team defined this as alignment with owner’s expectations with respect to the
schedule. Within this pillar, there were three attributes. The first attribute was alignment,
stating that all stakeholders need to understand and commit to the owner’s expectations
with regard to the schedule, such as milestones, resource loading, updates, quality checks,
and other collaborative activities. The second attribute was interactions, defined as the
frequency, form, and content of schedule collaboration that exists between the team and
the owner. The third attribute was expectations, defined as the degree to which owner’s
objectives, as represented in the schedule, are met throughout the execution of the project,
from design through construction and commissioning.
Communication
The research team defined this as focusing on the need for defined plans regarding who is
expected to participate in different meetings, communication channels, and frequency of
updates. Within this pillar, there were five attributes. The first attribute was communication
plan, which was defined as the content and effectiveness of a communication plan to drive
coordinated action. The second attribute was delivery, defined as the intent and purpose
of information gathered and distributed and the inclusion of appropriate stakeholders.
The third attribute was engagement, defined as the awareness of all stakeholders of their
roles and responsibilities as well as their appropriate engagement. The fourth attribute was
coordination, which determines the effectiveness of the communication plan to promote
change and provide benefit. The fifth and final attribute was psychological safety, defined
as the level of freedom to express thoughts and ideas related to the project and project
environment.
Step 2: Weight the Maturity Model through MODA and the Delphi Method
Once the pillars and attributes of the maturity model were defined, the team used multi-objective
decision analysis (MODA) and the Delphi Method to gain research team consensus regarding
the relative importance of each pillar and attribute. The elicitation process for these data
occurred during a team meeting in Spring, Texas, in November 2019.
88
MODA is a decision analysis technique that is grounded in utility theory. MODA assesses value
and measures the relative importance between the attributes under consideration. For the
maturity model, RT-362 considered three groups of attributes or measures: pillars, attributes,
and levels of collaboration. For more information on the MODA process, see Keeney and Raiffa
(1976), Kirkwood (1997), Parnell (2007), Dillon-Merrill et al. (2008).
MODA can be used with an individual decision maker or in a group decision-making setting; in
this case, the industry team members served as the group of decision makers. Within MODA,
weights for attributes follow a 0-100 scale, where 100 represents the best-case scenario and
0 is the worst-case scenario. Attributes that are not the best-case or worst-case scenario then
receive scores between 0 and 100, relative to their importance or impact to the considered
objective. In this case, the objective is the level of collaboration within a project schedule.
Because group consensus for the elicited weights was needed among the members of the
research team, the Delphi Method allowed for multi-round discussion and agreement within a
structured process.
The Delphi Method is “a forecasting process framework based on the results of multiple rounds
of questionnaires sent to a panel of experts” (Twin 2020); the seminal works on the method
are Helmer-Hirschberg (1967) and Dalkey and Helmer (1963). This method of aggregation
consists of multiple rounds of questionnaires distributed among the research team and then
anonymously shared with the broader group. In this case, the research team voted on relative
ordinal importance and then assigned an initial 0-100 weight to each attribute. Then, responses
from each research team member were read aloud by a proctor without attribution; one of
the PIs served as proctor at the team meeting. The research team experts then adjusted their
answers after comment sessions between rounds, returning their adjusted responses to the
proctor between each session. As the group potentially becomes more aligned in its thought
process regarding the attributes, the proctor then decides whether another round is necessary
based on the consensus reached. After sharing results with the broader group, if the experts
are still not aligned, the proctor can execute as many rounds as deemed necessary to gain total
group consensus (Twin, 2020).
The Delphi Method was used to rank and weight the five pillars in terms of their relative
importance to assessing collaboration in a schedule. The method was then used five more
times, one set of iterations for each pillar’s attributes. Finally, the method was used 23
additional times to assign the relative weight of gold, silver, and bronze levels of collaboration
for each attribute in each pillar (there are 23 total attributes in the model). All 0-100 elicited
weights obtained from each use of the method were then normalized, so each set of weights
added up to 100.
89
The normalized elicited weights for the five pillars are broken down as follows:
• Scheduling Significance = 23.68

• Planners and Schedulers = 13.16
• Scheduling Representation = 19.74
• Goal Alignment with Owner = 26.32
• Communication = 17.11
The initial weighting activity considered which pillars were the most important relating to
collaborative scheduling for scoring the model:
• Although Goal Alignment with Owner contained the smallest number of attributes, the
team weighted it highest because stakeholders across the entire hierarchy need to be
working toward the same goal in order to have true collaboration.
• A strong interactive and accessible schedule is significant to project completion and
thus would weigh highly on successful development and implementation of collaborative
scheduling practices.
• The most collaborative projects – those ranked gold – were given a weighting of 100,
representing that that aspect of collaborative scheduling was exceptionally present
in the project. Least collaborative projects would have very low scores indicated at
the bronze level, and the moderately collaborative projects would fall somewhere in
between.
Table 14 illustrates the attributes and level of collaboration weights for each categorical pillar, in
addition to the pillar weights.
90
Table 14. Elicited Weights for Pillars, Attributes, and Levels of Collaboration
Pillar Pillar Attribute Raw

Pillars Attributes Normalized Bronze Silver Gold
Raw Wt. Normalized Raw Wt. Add
Creation 95 0.2 20 65 100
Visibility 50 0.1053 20 60 100
Significance
Scheduling
Stakeholders 85 0.1789 10 50 100

90 0.2368 475
Culture 100 0.2105 5 60 100
Adaptability 75 0.1579 10 65 100
Accuracy 70 0.1474 15 80 100
Job Role 75 0.2419 20 75 100
Planners and
Schedulers
Planning Mindset 100 0.3226 10 60 100

50 0.1316 Cross-Discipline 310
80 0.2581 15 60 100
Interactions
Understanding 55 0.1774 10 50 100
Level of Detail 100 0.2222 10 70 100
Representation
Tools and
Scheduling
95 0.2111 20 70 100
Methods
75 0.1974 450
Control Metrics 80 0.1778 10 50 100
Agility 85 0.1889 20 70 100
Quality Checks 90 0.2 5 50 100
Alignment 90 0.3529 25 70 100
with Owner
Alignment
Interactions 65 0.2549 20 60 100

Goal
100 0.2632 255

Expectations 100 0.3922 10 55 100
Communication
100 0.2597 20 50 100
Plan
Communication
Channels 50 0.1299 15 65 100

65 0.1711 Engagement 90 0.2338 385 15 55 100
Psychological
85 0.2208 10 60 100
Safety
Coordination 60 0.1558 10 50 100
Step 3: Determine the Level of Collaboration in Industry Projects Using the Maturity Model
To establish gold, silver, and bronze levels of collaboration, projects from RT-362’s industry
survey were scored using the elicited weights and MODA scoring formulas. Each of the 241
projects in the survey was evaluated and scored, and then the k-means clustering algorithm
from data mining was used to define three distinct groups within the 241 survey responses:
groups that corresponded to the gold, silver, and bronze levels of collaboration.
91
To score projects, the following established MODA formulas were used:

mp
• Weighted average sub-scores sap for each project a and each pillar p: sap = ∑i=1 wi via
where wi is the normalized weight of attribute i and via is the bronze, silver, or gold weight
for attribute i and project a as indicated by the survey responses, with m total attributes
within pillar p.
• Total project score ta: ta =∑ p=1 xp sap where the sub-scores for each pillar and project sap
5
were weighed by the normalized elicited pillar values xp , summed over the five pillars.
Essentially, a sub-score was found for each attribute, and those sub-scores were then summed
to find a pillar score. The pillar scores were then multiplied by the pillar weights and summed to
solve for the project’s total score, which is out of 100 points. Each MODA formula was a weighted
average. Each of the 241 survey-based project scores ranged from a minimum of 24 collaborative
points to a maximum of 98 collaborative points, with no two scores being the same.
To understand whether the project scores indicated gold, silver, or bronze levels of collaboration
(corresponding to most, moderate, or least collaborative), the team conducted additional analysis
to properly cluster the projects into three groups that corresponded to levels of collaboration.
The team conducted k-means analysis on the projects via IBM SPSS Software and then validated
the results using Analytic Solver by Frontline Solutions, which is an add-in for Microsoft Excel
(www.solver.com). k-means is an established data mining clustering algorithm and is broadly
used in industry due to its speed and accuracy. Further details on the k-means algorithm can be
found in Everitt, Landau, and Leese (2001); Tan, Steinbach, and Kumar (2006); and Evans (2015).
Table 15 depicts the results of the k-means clustering of the survey-based projects.
Table 15. k-means Scoring Results
Collaboration Level Minimum Score Maximum Score

Level 3 (Gold) 76.76 100
Level 2 (Silver) 55.54 76.31
Level 1 (Bronze) 0 52.97
When rounded, these results indicated that projects that score 77 and above are considered
to be at the gold level of collaboration; projects that score 55 to 76 are considered to be at the
silver level, and projects that score 54 and below are considered to be at the bronze level of
collaboration. These scores and guidelines are one of the main contributions of this research team.
92
Overall scoring determined that 129 projects (53.5%) were considered most collaborative,
gold-level projects; 32.8% of projects were considered moderately collaborative, or silver level;
and 14.7% were considered least collaborative, or bronze level. Feedback from the research
team determined that these cutoffs were reasonable. Sensitivity analysis on the elicited
weights indicated that the model was robust; the weights did not have to be revisited, as they
were not influencing or skewing the model. Even though many projects scored as gold level
of collaboration, there still could be aspects of collaborative scheduling development and
implementation that could be uniquely improved for each project.
Step 4: Propose Recommendations to Continuously Improve Collaboration

in Construction Projects
Step 4 directly addressed how the model may be used in practice. Practitioners, construction
engineers, and construction managers could score their projects using the RT-362 industry
survey questions, calculate the MODA equations using their questionnaire responses and
elicited weights in Table 14, and then identify their project’s level of collaboration. To facilitate
this, Appendix A offers a maturity model that asks project scoring questions, then provides a
rubric that translates the MODA equation-weighted values into scores. Practitioners can then
use their final score to identify their project’s current level of collaboration. An instruction sheet
at the start of the rubric in Appendix A details the process and Chapter 3 gives a step-by-step
example of how a representative team scored its project.
Based on the scores and levels of collaboration obtained via the maturity model, practitioners
can then identify areas of CS improvement in their projects. Appendix B contains a set of
recommendations for every pillar, attribute, and level of collaboration. Practitioners should
identify their current state of practice and level of collaboration, and then employ the listed
recommendations to stimulate an increase in collaboration and move their projects to the next
level of collaboration within that attribute. Even projects that score at the Gold level can still
benefit from continuous improvement, so recommendations are also given to improve a project
to the Gold+ or exemplary level of collaboration.
RT-362 advises that construction engineers and managers utilize the maturity model rubric
in Appendix A to score their projects and then apply the recommendations in Appendix B to
improve their project collaboration. The model and scoring system are made purposefully to be
utilized at any point during the project life cycle, based on individual need. The maturity model
could work most effectively as a benchmarking tool at a phase inflection point during project
execution, as well as when a project is completed. Additionally, if the model is used to score a
project more than once, analyzing the comparison between the two scores could provide insight
on additional areas of improvement for the project team in future projects.
93
APPENDIX D
Method – Information Theory Analysis: Chow-Liu Trees and KPIs
Research Method
Survey Design
At the early stage, RT-362 used a focus group approach to gather practices that facilitate CS.
The focus group method is beneficial in creating a collaboration atmosphere for discussing a
topic, and it is suitable for bringing up unexpected perspectives shared by participants during
the research process (Langford and McDonagh 2003). RT-362’s focus group participants
included owners, contractors, EPC contractors, consultants, and suppliers. Table 13, described
in Appendix C, lists the demographics of the focus group members and shows who helped
develop the survey.
The survey was designed to include four parts. (The complete survey is reproduced in
Appendix E.) The first part of the survey had 14 questions about project background, to learn
about the last project each respondent had completed. The second part had four questions
for background information about the respondents, such as job title, responsibility, and years
of experience in construction. The third part addressed the five key performance indicators
(KPIs) – cost, schedule, quality, safety, and teamwork – that served as a proxy to evaluate
the respondents’ perceptions about project KPIs. The respondents evaluated each KPI by
considering four possible answers: “Above target,” “On target,” “Below target,” or “Not sure.”
The last part of the survey included 37 questions related to the practices identified in the
maturity model, to evaluate their level of implementation in the respondents’ reference projects.
For this final part, most answer options reflected three levels represented by “Yes,” “No,” and
“Partially,” but some answers showed three levels of implementation of the practices identified
in the maturity model or only offered “Yes” or “No.” The survey obtained a total of 241 usable
responses; Appendix F shows the demographics of its respondents.
Information Theory
RT-362 used Information Theory as a technical framework to measure the uncertainty and
information share between CS practices and project KPIs perceived from the survey. Proposed
by Shannon (1948), Information Theory is a probabilistic theory-based approach to quantify
the amount of information being stored and transmitted in communication (Cover and Thomas
2006, p. 21). It has been applied in various domains including biomechanics and medical
science, as well as construction.
95
APPENDIX D: METHOD – INFORMATION THEORY ANALYSIS: CHOW-LIU TREES AND KPIS
Information Theory has a natural advantage in measuring mutual relationship among

variables compared with traditional correlation/regression analysis. In traditional approaches,
observations are assumed to have a specific distribution, and the approaches are used to
measure the likelihood of such distribution. However, Information Theory does not assume any
pattern of a variable; it investigates the level of disorder, or the intrinsic uncertainty of a variable.
Through Information Theory, the extent of connection between the patterns of two variables
can be obtained (Alencar 2015, p. 39) by capturing the relationship between the patterns of two
factors with minimal interference.
Because the survey was developed based on the maturity model practices (defined in
Chapter 3) and designed to have respondents answer questions with either two or three options,
the data were categorical, and therefore it would have been challenging to identify data patterns
using traditional regression analysis techniques. In addition, correlation or regression analysis
is not capable of establishing a causal chain structure to illustrate the ways to influence KPIs,
step by step. Based on probability distribution patterns, the Information Theory approach
uses mutual information between two variables to measure their connections. It can also use
greedy algorithms to build Chow-Liu trees, which organize the variables based on the mutual
information they share with one another, and thus could identify the common dominant
practices that affect project KPIs.
The research team used entropy to measure the amount of information, or level of uncertainty,
within a random variable (such as CS practice responses or project performance responses).
Mutual information identifies the amount of information shared between two variables. For a
random discrete variable X with multiple outcomes xi , p(xi) is the probability that X will have the
outcome xi. Then the amount of entropy for variable X can be calculated by equation 1:
1
H(X) = ∑ p(xi) log2 bits (1)
p(xi)
Entropy measures the level of uncertainty of a variable. The maximum entropy value can be
captured when a variable has equal probability for both of its outcomes. For example, if a CS
practice X has two outcomes x1 and x2 , and both have a probability of 50%, then the entropy for
this practice reaches the maximum value of 1.00 bits. If either x1 or x2 is 100% assured, that
means there is no uncertainty in this practice, and the industry has an extremely consistent
perception about it. At this point, the minimal entropy value of 0 bits can be achieved.
In information transmission, if two variables have a relationship between each other, the
uncertainty of one variable can be decreased if some of the knowledge in the other variable
is obtained. Mutual information is an indicator of such shared knowledge among a pair of
96
datasets. For discrete variables X (e.g., CS practice) and Y (e.g., project performance), the
mutual information can be calculated according to equation 2:
1
I(X, Y) = ∑x ∑ y p(xi ,yj ) log2 p(xi yj )
bits (2)
Where p(xi ,yj ) is the joint probability of X and Y. The research team used entropy to proxy the
level of uncertainty in each CS practice and the mutual information to proxy the impact of
one practice on project performance. With this assumption, the team calculated the extent
of consistency within CS practices and their impact on project KPIs, as shown in Figure 26.
This finding helps managers to have an overall idea about the relationship between dominant
components, which is indispensable to facilitate collaboration.
RT-362 used the binary Chow-Liu tree approach to build each model with two branches. The
procedure for building a Chow-Liu tree is well documented in literature (Jensen and Nielsen,
2007; Schaffernicht et al., 2007). In this binary tree model, the root node represents the project
KPIs that need to be improved, and each node linked below it shows the maximum mutual
information, or impact on its predecessor. As Figure 26 shows, each corresponding project
KPI was first selected as a root node. The CS practice that had the highest mutual information
with that KPI was identified as the first node on the left branch connected to the KPI. Next, the
practice with the highest mutual information using the first practice was identified and linked as
the next node, and so on, until six practices had been selected. Using the same procedure, the
research team selected which of the remaining practices had the highest mutual information
with the KPI. The values displayed in the Chow-Liu tree are the mutual information for the
sequential pairs of variables (practices) shown.
As a result, Chow-Liu tree models provide a clear visualization for project managers to
prioritize the CS practices to improve KPIs. They can also be used as a convenient tool for
construction professionals to discover the dynamic relationship between CS practices and their
implementation.
97
Figure 26. Chow-Liu Tree for Improving the Five KPIs
98
Recommendations on the Most Effective

CS Practices to Improve KPIs
Using the Information Theory approach, the research team developed Chow-Liu trees to identify
the chains of the most effective CS practices to improve each of the five KPI performances. As
Figure 30 depicted, Chow-Liu trees include a short list of CS practices selected for improving
each KPI. The team selected each first practice because it had the strongest connection with
the associated KPI’s performance, and then selected each next practice because it had the
strongest connection to the prior one. For instance, for the Cost KPI, the practice with the
strongest connection to the indicator was “meet owner’s expectations,” followed by “maintain
sufficient and consistent interaction with project stakeholders.” The level of connection was
measured by the shared information between the two variables and indicated on the Chow-Liu
tree. The higher the value, the stronger the connection shared between the two practices linked.
Consider the analysis carried out using Information Theory methods and the practices and
definitions outlined for the maturity model. In order to improve project cost performance, the
research team recommends that project managers should address the CS practices in the
following sequence:

and collaboration
7. Have effective communication within the project inclusive of project stakeholders that
can contribute to the schedule development
To improve project schedule and quality performance, the first six recommended CS practices
were the same as those listed for the cost performance, which highlights the importance of
practices that are perceived to consistently impact multiple KPIs. The next three recommended
practices for schedule performance are:

99
The remaining three practices for improving project quality performance are:

7. Ensure there are sufficient opportunities to gather feedback
The recommended practices for improving safety performance are:

and collaboration
7. Involve all stakeholders in communication
9. Have effective communication within the project
In order to improve project teamwork, the team recommends the following sequence of
CS practices:

and collaboration
2. Have clear schedule visibility among project stakeholders
Figure 27 summarizes the recommended CS practices for all KPIs and also cross-references
them with the five pillars of the maturity model. It should be noted that these practices are
connected with each other to support project performance, as illustrated by their impact on
multiple KPIs. In Figure 27, the first six CS practices are from the left branch of the Chow-Liu
tree analysis results. The CS practices ranked from seven to nine are the ones identified in the
right branch of the Chow-Liu tree figure (Figure 26). To facilitate CS, teams should implement
multiple practices together in a systematic approach, as recommended by the maturity model.
100
CS Practice Pillar
Cost
9. Have Appropriate Participants in meetings P5: Communication

Schedule
9. Have Appropriate Participants in Meetings P5: Communication

Quality
7. Ensure Opportunities to Gather Feedback P5: Communication
1. Have an Effective Communication Play P5: Communication

Safety

7. Involve All Stakeholders in Communication P5: Communication

2. Have a Clear Schedule Visibility P1: Scheduling Significance
Teamwork

Figure 27. CS Practices and Their Perceived Relative Influence on KPIs
101
Recommendations on Which CS Practices Achieve

Better Overall Project Performance
RT-362 identified which CS practices were beneficial for improving project KPIs based on
their relationship within survey responses. This analysis linked the practices that respondents
reported they used with their resulting performance, as evaluated by using the five KPIs shown
in the survey as a proxy for project performance. Given limited resources and available time,
managers would benefit from identifying the set of CS practices that can help them to improve
overall project performance most effectively. To support this process of prioritizing the most
helpful practices, the research team plotted Figure 28 based on the CS practices’ perceived
impact on the five KPIs investigated and the level of consistency of practice implementation
across the industry, as indicated by the survey respondents
Group 1: High impact and high uncertainty

Overall Impact of Five KPIs
Group 3: Low impact and low uncertainty
Group 2: Low impact and high uncertainty
Level of Consistency of Practice Implementation
Figure 28. Overall Project Impact and Implementation Status of the CS Practices
As Figure 28 shows, RT-362 identified three groups of practices. Group 1 contained the
practices that respondents reported having a high impact on KPIs; however, survey respondents
reported that these practices were highly inconsistent in terms of their level of implementation
across the industry. This high inconsistency of implementation indicated that a portion of the
industry had been implementing these practices in projects. According to an analysis that
102
the team developed based on the survey data, these practices were also the most effective
ones for improving overall project performance. Therefore, the research team recommends
that managers should first focus on the CS practices in Group 1 to improve overall project
performance.
The practices in Group 1 are:
• Meet owner’s expectations.

• Make schedule support a project culture associated with accountability, timeliness, and
collaboration.
• Have an effective communication plan.
• Maintain sufficient and consistent interaction with stakeholders.
• Exhibit a planner mindset within the team.
• Maintain clear communication channels.
• Ensure appropriate stakeholders’ involvement during the schedule process.
• Have sufficient schedule-related information.
• Have clear scheduling visibility among project stakeholders.
Although they had a level of industry implementation similar to the practices in Group 1, the CS
practices in Group 2 had a lower overall impact on KPIs. Therefore, managers should consider
the practices in Group 2 after they have focused on the set in Group 1. Group 2 contains the
following practices:
• Use SPI (Schedule Performance Index) or CPI (Cost Performance Index) in scheduling.
• Use schedules not merely as contractual deliverables but as enablers of collaboration.
• Promote the scheduler’s role in the project as facilitator of CS.
• Have a different role between planner and scheduler and encourage schedulers to
develop a planner mindset.
• Have enough schedule flexibility to adapt to the changing environment of projects.
The practices in Group 3 had high consistency and low impact on the KPIs. They showed neither
strong impact on the KPIs nor large potential for improvement. This is because respondents
perceived most of these practices to be consistently implemented but they did not display a
high impact on KPIs when used, as indicated by survey responses. As a result, they were the last
group of practices recommended to managers. For example, the research team found that most
projects already had an appropriate frequency of meetings, so the potential to improve KPIs by
changing this practice was low.
Note that no practice had both high impact on the KPIs and high-level consistency of
implementation. In other words, no CS practice was perceived to be highly effective and already
consistently being implemented or not implemented in the industry.
103
Figure 33 includes five color-coded columns that indicate the relative impact of the overall top
five practices on the five KPIs:
1. Meet owner’s expectations.

2. Make schedule support a project culture associated with accountability, timeliness, and
collaboration.
3. Have an effective communication plan.
4. Maintain sufficient and consistent interaction with project stakeholders.
5. Exhibit a planner mindset within the team.
The percentages in each column of Figure 29 sum to 100%. Horizontally, the percentages atop
the color-coded boxes show the relative impact of the five CS practices on each KPI. These
percentages sum to 100% as well. A higher percentage value indicates that the five practices
had a stronger impact on that particular KPI.
Impact from Overall Five Top CS Practices 29% 30% 7% 11% 23%
18%
23%
Meet Owner’s Expectations 30% 28% 28%
17%
Make schedule support a project culture
23%
associated with accountability, timeliness, 15%
24% 23%
and collaboration
30%
Have an effective communication plan 19%
22%
13%
16%
Maintain sufficient and consistent 18%

23% 14% 21% 13%
interaction with stakeholders
18% 17% 19%

Exhibit a planner mindset with the team 13% 14%
Cost Schedule Safety Quality Teamwork
Figure 29. The Impact of the Top Five CS Practices on Project KPIs
104
By using the Information Theory approach, the research team calculated the mutual information
between each practice and each KPI. The percentages in each color-shaded column reflect
the normalized mutual information share of the practices for that KPI. These percentages
represent the level of contribution from each practice to improve a specific KPI. And again,
the percentages shown above the color-coded boxes are the normalized impact for each KPI
received from the overall five practices. A higher percentage means that that KPI is more subject
to CS practice changes.
Figure 29 shows that project cost, schedule, and teamwork are more subject to the changes
of CS practices (with a normalized level of contribution from CS practices to each KPI at
29%, 30%, and 23% respectively), while project safety and quality are not. Safety and quality
are two “must” criteria in a contract, and their performances are relatively independent.
Therefore, according to these results, CS was found to be more effective in improving project
cost, schedule, and teamwork, but less significant for project safety and quality. In addition,
the top three practices – (1) meet owner’s expectations, (2) make schedule support a project
culture associated with accountability, timeliness, and collaboration, (3) have an effective
communication plan – were perceived to be essential to almost every project KPI, indicating
that applying such practices is advantageous to improve the level of collaboration in a project.
Specifically, an effective communication plan is especially beneficial to improve project safety,
but it is not so prominent for quality performance. The reason could be that a team with a
poor communication plan still can achieve the quality target through rework, which was rarely
scheduled and may exchange or document little information throughout the process.
Consistency Level of CS Practices Implementation
The research team measured the amount of uncertainty associated with the CS practice and
project performance. Based on the findings, the team divided the CS practices into three groups:
Consistently Implemented, Inconsistently Implemented, and Consistently Not Implemented (see
Table 16). High uncertainty of a CS practice meant that a significant percentage of respondents
indicated that they had used this practice on their projects, while another significant percentage
of respondents said they did not use the same practice (thus revealing a lack of consistency or
agreement across the industry respondents). On the other hand, if a practice displayed relatively
low uncertainty, that meant that the industry either consistently implemented or consistently did
not implement it.
105
Table 16. Consistent Implementation vs. Impact of CS Practices
HIGH IMPACT
Consistently Implemented Inconsistently Implemented Consistently Not Implemented
• Have appropriate level of detail • Make schedule support a
in schedule for the team project culture associated with
accountability, timeliness, and
collaboration
• Have clear schedule visibility
among project stakeholders
• Involve major stakeholders early
in the project scheduling process
• Ensure the schedule accurately
represents the current state of the
project
• Exhibit a planner mindset within
the team
• Maintain sufficient and
consistent interaction with project
stakeholders
• Meet owner’s expectations
• Have an effective communication
plan
• Maintain clear communication
channels
• Have appropriate participants in
meetings
• Have sufficient schedule-related
information
LOW IMPACT
Consistently Implemented Inconsistently Implemented Consistently Not Implemented
• Have dynamic project schedule • Develop schedule as a contractual • Use BIM for scheduling
• Use software for project deliverable • Use additional technique (e.g.,
scheduling • Use control metrics like SPI or CPI LPS, AWP, Takt Planning) for
• Have sufficient detail for the • Have schedule flexibility for schedule
schedule changes
• Have regular quality checks • Set schedulers’ role as facilitator
• Define major project milestones of CS
clearly • Schedulers were empowered to
• Have appropriate frequency of collaborate
meetings • Have different roles for planners
• Ensure there are opportunities and schedulers
to gather feedback • Team collaborate effectively on
• Provide psychological safety schedule updates
for stakeholders to share their • Allow stakeholders to provide
feedback input for project schedule
• Involve all stakeholders in
communication
106
According to the survey data, the CS practices in the first column have been commonly applied
in the industry. The team also allocated CS practices to areas of Table 16 based on their high
or low impact on the five KPIs. Although only one had strong impact, all of the consistently
implemented practices have had a positive impact on KPIs. Therefore, the research team
encourages project managers to keep implementing these practices, which follow:
• Have appropriate level of detail in schedule for the team.

• Have dynamic project schedule.
• Use software for project scheduling.
• Have sufficient detail for the schedule.
• Have regular quality checks.
• Define major project milestones clearly.
• Have appropriate frequency of meetings.
• Ensure there are opportunities to gather feedback.
• Provide psychological safety for stakeholders to share their feedback.
In order to outperform the industry average, project managers need to implement the CS
practices that have been inconsistently implemented by their peers. The research team
recommends for managers first to implement the practices on the High Impact section of the
Inconsistently Implemented column:
• Make schedule support a project culture associated with accountability, timeliness, and
collaboration.
• Have clear schedule visibility among project stakeholders.
• Involve major stakeholders early in the project scheduling process.
• Ensure the schedule accurately represents the current state of the project.
• Exhibit a planner mindset within the team.
• Maintain sufficient and consistent interaction with project stakeholders.
• Meet owner’s expectations.
• Have an effective communication plan.
• Maintain clear communication channels.
• Have appropriate participants in meetings.
• Have sufficient schedule-related information.
The next group of CS practices to consider are the ones in the Low Impact section of the
inconsistently implemented column. Respondents only perceived that two CS practices were
consistently not implemented: (1) project uses BIM to support scheduling, and (2) project uses
additional techniques to represent and communicate schedules. Respondents also perceived
that these practices had low impact on KPIs. Therefore, those are the last practices the team
recommended for implementation due to their low impact and the great effort required to make
a change.
107
APPENDIX E
Survey
Collaborative Scheduling – CII RT-362
Dear Participant: Researchers at San Diego State University, Towson University, North Carolina
State University (namely, Dr. Thais Alves, Dr. Natalie Scala, Dr. Min Liu, respectively) are
conducting a study to investigate Collaborative Scheduling practices. The goal of this research
is to identify drivers of and obstacles to the development and implementation of collaborative
scheduling. Because of your experience with construction management, we ask for your
participation in this study by completing a short survey. Your participation is voluntary, and you
may discontinue your participation at any time. It should take you about 15 minutes to answer
this survey. Your responses will be kept anonymous and will only be shared in an aggregated
format with the answers of other respondents. Neither anyone reading the results of the survey
nor the researchers will be able to identify you. Please do not include your name or any other
identifying marks in the survey form.
Any data collected during this survey will be solely used for this study that investigates
Collaborative Scheduling practices. Please respond below that you understand the purpose
of this survey and consent to providing your responses. If you have any questions regarding
this study, please contact Dr. Thais Alves ([email protected]) at San Diego State University, Dr.
Natalie Scala ([email protected]) at Towson University, and/or Dr. Min Liu (mliu2@ncsu.
edu) at North Carolina State University. You may also contact the Institutional Review Board at
SDSU (619-594-6622) or [email protected] to report problems or concerns related to this study. This
research was reviewed by the San Diego State University Institutional Review Board.
• I agree to take the survey. (1)

• Thanks, but I do not agree to take the survey. (2)
109
APPENDIX E: METHOD – SURVEY
Part I: Background Q5 Please indicate the delivery method used

for the reference project:
Q1 Please choose the answer that you think • Design-Bid-Build – Serial sequence of
is most appropriate based on your experience design and construction phases: owner
with the most recently completed project contracts separately with designer and
(reference project). Your answer refers to constructor. (1)
only your own scope of responsibility on that • Construction Manager at Risk –
project. The answer is for research purposes Owner contracts with designers and
only and the survey will remain anonymous. construction manager (CM). CM holds
the contracts. (2)
Please indicate the project sector that best • Construction Management with
describes your reference project: Multiple Prime Contracts/Parallel
• Downstream and Chemicals (1) Primes – Owner contracts separately
• Facilities and Healthcare (2) with designer and multiple prime
• Manufacturing and Life Sciences (3) constructors. (3)
• Power, Utilities, and Infrastructure (4) • Design-Build – Owner contracts with
• Upstream, Midstream, and Mining (5) Design-Build (Engineering, Procurement,
and Construction) contractor. (4)
Q2 What was the reference project duration in • Integrated Project Delivery – A project
months? delivery approach that integrates
people, systems, business structures
Q3 In what country(s), state(s), or province(s) and practices into a process that
was the reference project located? collaboratively harnesses that talents
and insights of all participants to reduce
Q4 About what was the reference project cost waste and optimize efficiency through
in millions USD? all phases of design, fabrication and
construction. (AIA definition) (5)
• Other (6)
Q6 If other was chosen, please describe

the delivery method used for the reference
project.
110
Q7 What was your company’s role in the Q12 If no was selected for Q11, please
reference project? choose any and all obstacles to collaboration
• Public Owner (1) that the reference project had (please check
• Private Owner (2) all that apply):
• General Contractor (3) • Lack of leadership support (1)
• Engineering-Procure-Construct • Lack of training (2)
Contractor (4) • Improper Communication (3)
• Owner-Builder (5) • Poor Communication among
• Subcontractor (6) stakeholders (4)
• Engineering Firm (7) • Limited time in scheduling (5)
• Consultant Company (8) • Lack of structure (6)
• Other (9) • Other (7)
Q8 If other was selected, please describe Q13 If other selected for Q12, please
your company’s role in the reference project. describe the obstacles to collaboration in the
reference project.
Q9 Scheduling personnel in the reference
project were mostly: Q14 Did the project use Building Information
• Co-located with the team at the project Modeling (BIM) to support the scheduling
site (1) effort?
• Based at the company’s headquarters (2) • Yes (1)
• Part-time on-site schedulers (6) • No (2)
• Other (3) • I am not sure (3)
• I am not sure (4)
Part II: Demographics
Q10 If other was selected, please describe
where the scheduling personnel were located Q15 What was your responsibility on the
during the reference project. reference project?
• Project Manager (1)
Q11 Do you think your project had adequate • Assistant Project Manager (2)
level of collaboration in scheduling? • Project Engineer (3)
• Yes (1) • Scheduler (4)
• Maybe/Partially (2) • Superintendent (5)
• No (3) • Foreman (6)
• I am not sure (4) • Other (7)
Q16 If other was selected for Q15, please

describe your responsibility on the reference
project.
111
Q17 What is your cumulative years of Q22 How was the completed reference
experience in capital projects? project’s quality performance?
• Better than target (1)
Q18 Please identify the schedule level of • On target (2)
detail that you (or your company) received for • Worse than target (3)
the project schedule (check all that apply). • I am not sure (4)
• Master schedule (Long term
milestones) (1) Q23 Would you like to work on a similar
• Phase schedule (Phase-specific) (2) project with the same team again?
• Look ahead schedule (Medium term, • Yes (1)
interval of 2-4 months) (3) • No (2)
• Operations schedule (Short term, weekly, • I am not sure (3)
daily, hourly) (4)
Part IV: Collaborative Scheduling
Part III – Performance Metrics
Q24 The project schedule was created
Q19 How was the completed reference primarily as a contractual deliverable.
project’s cost performance? • Yes (1)
• Better than target (1) • No (2)
• On target (2) • Partially (3)
• Worse than target (3)
• I am not sure (4) Q25 The schedule used within the project
supported strong project culture associated
Q20 How was the completed reference with accountability, timeliness, and
project’s schedule performance? collaboration.
• Better than target (1) • Yes (1)
• On target (2) • No (2)
• Worse than target (3) • Partially (3)
• I am not sure (4)
Q26 There was always scheduling visibility
Q21 How was the completed reference across the entire project team.
project’s safety performance? • Yes (1)
• Better than target (1) • No (2)
• On target (2) • Partially (3)
• Worse than target (3)
• I am not sure (4) Q27 The appropriate major stakeholders
were involved early enough in the project
schedule input.
• Yes (1)
• No (2)
• Partially (3)
112
Q28 The project visibly used program control Q33 Schedulers were empowered to
metrics like Schedule Performance Index collaborate across the project.
(SPI) and/or Cost Performance Index (CPI). • Yes (1)
• Yes (1) • No (2)
• No (2) • Partially (3)
• Partially (3)
Q34 There is a difference in specifically
Q29 At any given time, did the schedule have defined/assigned roles for a planner and a
flexibility to accommodate changes in the scheduler.
project? • Yes (1)
• Yes (1) • No (2)
• No (2) • Partially (3)
• Partially (3)
Q35 The project team exhibited a “planner
Q30 At any given time, did the schedule mindset” meaning that the team was
accurately represent the current state of the actively engaged, timely, and forward-looking
project? regarding schedule issues.
• Yes (1) • Yes (1)
• No (2) • No (2)
• Partially (3) • Partially (3)
Q31 The project’s schedule was: Q36 The project used software tools/
• Static, solely defined by contract packages specifically designed and purposed
expectations (1) for building project schedules.
• Mixed, responsibilities were clearly • Yes (1)
defined but not widely shared among • No (2)
project participants (2)
• Dynamic, a living document with Q37 If yes was selected for Q36, please
constant updates (3) name some of the software tools used for
scheduling purposes:
Q32 The scheduler’s role on the reference
project is best described as: Q38 Did the project use Building Information
• Creator/Recorder – Scheduler single- Modeling (BIM) to support the scheduling
handedly creates the schedule (1) effort?
• Organizer – Scheduler seeks inputs from • Yes (1)
trades before creating the schedule (2) • No (2)
• Facilitator – Scheduler facilitates the
creation of the schedule via active Q39 If yes was selected for Q38, please name
interactions with trades (3) some of the BIM software tools used for
scheduling purposes:
113
Q40 Were additional techniques and methods Q46 The schedule contained the appropriate
(e.g., Last Planner System, Advanced Work level of detail to fulfill your work role/needs.
Packaging, Takt Planning) to represent and • Yes (1)
communicate the schedules used in the • No (2)
reference project? • Partially (3)
• Yes (1)
• No (2) Q47 Throughout the course of the project, the
major owner-defined milestones were clearly
Q41 If yes was selected for Q40, please name defined and communicated.
some of the techniques and methods used • Yes (1)
for scheduling purposes: • No (2)
• Partially (3)
Q42 The project schedule contained
sufficient detail for the team to successfully Q48 There was sufficient and consistent
complete the project. interaction between project stakeholders.
• Yes (1) • Yes (1)
• No (2) • No (2)
Q43 Were there quality checks (checking Q49 If no or partially was selected for Q48,
milestones, accuracy) regularly conducted where did the interaction breakdowns occur?
throughout the reference project timeline? Select all that apply.
• Never (1) • Contractor to Designer (1)
• Sometimes (2) • Contractor to Owner (2)
• All the time (3) • Contractor to Supplier/Subcontractor (3)
• Designer to Owner (4)
Q44 Did the team collaborate effectively on • Designer to Supplier/Subcontractor (5)
the schedule updates? • Supplier/Subcontractor to Owner (6)
• Always/Very Often (1) • Other (7)
• Sometimes (2)
• Rarely/Never (3) Q50 If other was selected in Q49, please
describe the other interaction breakdowns.
Q45 Were you able to provide input into the
initial project schedule? Q51 The owner’s expectations were met
• Yes (1) throughout the life cycle of the project
• No (2) from design through construction and
• Partially (3) commissioning.
• Yes (1)
• No (2)
• Partially (3)
114
Q52 There was an effective communication Q58 Did you receive sufficient schedule-
plan for the project. related information to effectively gauge
• Yes (1) performance throughout the project?
• No (2) • Yes (1)
• Partially (3) • No (2)
• Partially (3)
Q53 There were clear communication
channels of information delivery utilized Q59 There were sufficient opportunities to
throughout the duration of the reference gather feedback from the team throughout
project. the project life cycle.
• Yes (1) • Yes (1)
• No (2) • No (2)
Q54 Did communication within the project Q60 Which statement best describes your
include all stakeholders? experience with sharing project feedback?
• Few project stakeholders included (1) • You did not feel safe sharing your
• Some stakeholders included (2) opinions and feedback (1)
• Inclusive of all stakeholders (3) • You would share some thoughts and
ideas but would hold back in certain
Q55 When describing how project meetings situations (2)
contributed to effective collaboration, did • You were comfortable, open, and honest
appropriate participants attend meetings? with thoughts and ideas throughout the
• Yes (1) project (3)
• No (2)
• Partially (3)
Q56 When describing how project meetings

contributed to effective collaboration, was
there an appropriate frequency of meetings?
• Yes (1)
• No (2)
• Partially (3)
Q57 When describing how project meetings

contributed to effective collaboration, was
there appropriate content/agendas for the
meetings?
• Yes (1)
• No (2)
• Partially (3)
115
APPENDIX F
Method – Survey Demographics
Summary of Survey Respondents’ Demographics
Target Project Sector (within system percentage of responses in parentheses)
Total Downstream Facilities Manufacturing Power, Upstream,

Respondents and and and Life Utilities, and Midstream,
(percentage) Chemicals Healthcare Sciences Infrastructure and Mining
Project Location
Southern US 87 (36%) 35 (40%) 15 (17%) 7 (8%) 21 (24%) 9 (10%)
International 54 (22%) 12 (22%) 11 (20%) 6 (11%) 16 (30%) 9 (17%)
Western US 43 (18%) 5 (12%) 21 (49%) 3 (7%) 11 (26%) 3 (7%)
Midwestern US 32 (13%) 1 (3%) 4 (13%) 2 (6%) 22 (69%) 3 (9%)
Northeastern US 18 (7%) 2 (11%) 7 (39%) 2 (11%) 7 (39%) 0 (0%)
Project Cost
0-50 Million 96 (40%) 14 (15%) 41 (43%) 11 (11%) 25 (26%) 5 (5%)
51-100 Million 25 (10%) 5 (20%) 3 (12%) 3 (12%) 12 (48%) 2 (8%)
101-200 Million 37 (15%) 10 (27%) 6 (16%) 4 (11%) 13 (35%) 4 (11%)
201-400 Million 27 (11%) 7 (26%) 8 (30%) 1 (4%) 8 (30%) 3 (11%)
401-600 Million 14 (6%) 5 (36%) 0 (0%) 1 (7%) 5 (36%) 3 (21%)
Above 600 Million 33 (14%) 14 (42%) 0 (0%) 1 (3%) 12 (36%) 6 (18%)
Project Duration
0-12 Months 56 (23%) 11 (20%) 19 (34%) 7 (13%) 14 (25%) 5 (9%)
13-24 Months 96 (40%) 21 (22%) 23 (24%) 7 (7%) 36 (38%) 9 (9%)
25-36 Months 49 (20%) 10 (20%) 12 (24%) 4 (8%) 18 (37%) 5 (10%)
37-48 Months 19 (8%) 6 (32%) 3 (16%) 1 (5%) 5 (26%) 4 (21%)
Above 48 Months 16 (7%) 7 (44%) 1 (6%) 2 (13%) 4 (25%) 2 (13%)
Project Delivery Method
Design-Build 87 (36%) 27 (31%) 14 (16%) 5 (6%) 32 (37%) 9 (10%)
Design-Bid-Build 64 (27%) 12 (19%) 20 (31%) 7 (11%) 18 (28%) 7 (11%)
Construction
Management with
32 (13%) 7 (22%) 5 (16%) 2 (6%) 15 (47%) 3 (9%)
Multiple Prime
Contracts
Integrated Project
27 (11%) 7 (26%) 6 (22%) 6 (22%) 5 (19%) 3 (11%)
Delivery
Construction
23 (10%) 3 (13%) 13 (57%) 1 (4%) 4 (17%) 2 (9%)
Manager at Risk
Other 8 (3%) 2 (25%) 1 (13%) 0 (0%) 4 (50%) 1 (13%)
117
Summary of Survey Respondents’ Demographics (continued)
Target Project Sector (within system percentage of responses in parentheses)
Total Downstream Facilities Manufacturing Power, Upstream,

Respondents and and and Life Utilities, and Midstream,
(percentage) Chemicals Healthcare Sciences Infrastructure and Mining
Role of Respondents’ Company

General
60 (25%) 5 (8%) 29 (48%) 4 (7%) 20 (33%) 2 (3%)
Contractor
Engineering-
Procure-Construct 43 (18%) 14 (33%) 2 (5%) 6 (14%) 15 (35%) 6 (14%)
Contractor
Public Owner 36 (15%) 12 (33%) 5 (14%) 0 (0%) 13 (36%) 6 (17%)
Private Owner 32 (13%) 16 (50%) 3 (9%) 7 (22%) 3 (9%) 3 (9%)
Consultant
25 (10%) 2 (8%) 8 (32%) 1 (4%) 13 (52%) 1 (4%)
Company
Subcontractor 20 (8%) 0 (0%) 6 (30%) 1 (5%) 13 (65%) 0 (0%)
Engineering Firm 12 (5%) 3 (25%) 3 (25%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (50%)
Owner-Builder 8 (3%) 6 (75%) 0 (0%) 1 (13%) 0 (0%) 1 (13%)
Other 5 (2%) 0 (0%) 3 (60%) 1 (20%) 1 (20%) 0 (0%)
Respondents’ Years of Experience
0-5 Years 34 (14%) 7 (21%) 10 (29%) 2 (6%) 15 (44%) 0 (0%)
6-10 Years 57 (24%) 5 (9%) 15 (26%) 9 (16%) 19 (33%) 9 (16%)
11-15 Years 50 (21%) 19 (38%) 10 (20%) 1 (2%) 17 (34%) 3 (6%)
16-20 Years 24 (10%) 5 (21%) 4 (17%) 3 (13%) 9 (38%) 3 (13%)
21-25 Years 29 (12%) 9 (31%) 7 (24%) 2 (7%) 9 (31%) 2 (7%)
Above 25 Years 47 (20%) 13 (28%) 13 (28%) 4 (9%) 9 (19%) 8 (17%)
Respondents’ Job Role
Project Manager 64 (27%) 10 (16%) 19 (30%) 4 (6%) 26 (41%) 5 (8%)
Scheduler 51 (21%) 13 (25%) 5 (10%) 4 (8%) 25 (49%) 4 (8%)
Project Engineer 24 (10%) 7 (29%) 4 (17%) 1 (4%) 6 (25%) 6 (25%)
Assistant Project
18 (7%) 2 (11%) 9 (50%) 3 (17%) 3 (17%) 1 (6%)
Manager
Superintendent 10 (4%) 0 (0%) 7 (70%) 1 (10%) 1 (10%) 1 (10%)
Other 74 (31%) 26 (35%) 15 (20%) 8 (11%) 17 (23%) 8 (11%)
118
APPENDIX G
Method – Interviews
The goal of the interviews was to capture details about how schedules are developed in
construction projects and to identify common traits across projects that define this process
as less or more collaborative. The team developed analyses to answer research questions A
and B. Both are presented throughout this section and summarized at the end to support the
achievement of outcomes A and B.
• Research question A: What are the limitations of current scheduling practices with
regard to the development and implementation of collaborative schedules?
• Research question B: What are the practices used in the industry at large (EPC and
elsewhere) that promote the development and implementation of collaborative
schedules?
Table 17 lists the interview questions, which covered topics related to how, when, and by whom
schedules and plans were developed. They also included the use of learning routines potentially
related to planning and BIM use, as well as open questions in which participants listed the top
three drivers and top three barriers for the development of CS.
The team recruited interviewees by using a recruitment letter, which was part of the research
protocol (HS-2019-0156) considered exempt by the IRB at San Diego State University. The
recruitment letter was sent mostly to contacts of the PIs but also to referrals from both RT-
362 members and other interviewees. Due to IRB stipulations, the PIs could not request
emails of potential interviewees whom they did not know personally, whether suggested by
anyone inside or outside of the team, or identified via some public mechanism (e.g., email
published on a website, shared during a presentation, or in a piece of news). The PIs could
only contact interviewees with whom they already had had contact, and so could only send
the recruitment letter to potential interviewees who already knew them. This practice allowed
potential interviewees to remain anonymous and not be reached by the PIs if they chose not to
engage with this study. Once interviewees agreed to be interviewed, they received the informed
consent document that outlined the risks and benefits of the interview and additional details
about the study.
119
APPENDIX G: METHOD – INTERVIEWS
Table 17. Interview Questions
Demographics
1. Job title
2. Working for: owner, contractor, specialty contractor, consultant, engineering firm, supplier?
3. Years of experience in the industry
4. Location of the project
5. Cost of the project
6. Type of construction project? (e.g., residential, commercial, healthcare)
7. Type of contract used between different stakeholders – owner, contractors, managers, subcontractors? (e.g.,
design-build, design-bid-build, construction manager at risk)
8. Degree of owner involvement during the pre-construction and construction phases? (e.g., collocated with the
team at the site, provided the design, attended owner-architect-contractor meetings)
Planning and Scheduling Practices
9. How many planning levels do you have in this project (e.g., long-, medium-, and short-term planning levels)?
10. What is (are) the job title(s) of the individual(s) who developed the original schedule for the project? (e.g.,
project manager, scheduler, superintendent)
11. How was the schedule developed? (e.g., solely developed by the scheduler, in collaboration with trade partners,
provided by the owner)
12. How often is the schedule updated? (e.g., weekly, monthly, bi-monthly)
13. What is (are) the job title(s) of the individual(s) who develop(s) the plans in each level? That is, which
management functions (e.g., project manager, superintendent, foremen) or trades (e.g., concrete, electrical,
mechanical, dry-wall) participate in the discussions to prepare the plans?
14. How are the plans and analyses of each planning level shared with project participants? (e.g., electronically via
email or shared folder, posted at the site office, posted at the building/site, in three dimensional visualizations
over time (4D), use of line of balance or takt schedules)
15. Which indicators are used in the planning and control system in these different levels? (e.g., percent plan
complete (PPC), earned value/S-curve, highlight planned/completed areas)
16. Indicate the plan reliability level. For example, if you planned for 10 tasks to be completed next week, you
have 8 out of the 10 completed 100%. Your plan reliability will be 80%.
Contracts and Routines
17. Can you indicate any contractual arrangements and/or requirements that might influence how planning for
this project is carried out? (e.g., LEED certification of the project, use of pull planning sessions, use of target
value design during the design phase and specific cost targets shared during construction.)
18. Can you remember any example about the routines you use to plan and control the project that helped people
learn a new/different way of doing their work? (e.g., use of A3 reports, use of Building Information Modeling
(BIM), 4D simulations)
19. Were there incentives associated with the on-time delivery of this project? (e.g., financial incentives to
individual trades, bonus to management, gift cards, raffles)
20. Did the project use Building Information Modeling (BIM) to support the scheduling effort? How critical was
the use of BIM to support scheduling collaboration in the project? (i.e., use of digital visualization of the project
in different sections, phases, and points in time)
21. What was the reporting structure to the project or functional manager? Can you please explain? (i.e.,
project staff report to a project manager on site vs. report to a specific department within the company, or a
combination of both)
22. What kind of meetings did you have throughout the project that facilitated schedule collaboration? (e.g.,
stand-up meetings, daily huddles, pull planning meetings, partnering sessions)
Drivers and Barriers
23. List the top 3 most effective collaborative scheduling tools, methods, or strategies.
24. List the top 3 reasons that prevent your project from being more collaborative on scheduling. Explain why.
120
Table 18. Interviewee Demographics
Years of Duration
Subject Job Title Working for Cost
Experience (minutes)
1 Planner/Scheduler Contractor 9 70 $1 million to $500 million
Consultant – Lean
2 Consultant 14 60 $10-15 million to $1.3-1.5 billion
Implementation Coach
3 Project Manager Contractor 15 60 $41.7 million
Majority are between US$ 30-50
4 Principal Consultant Consultant 31 60 million, and some (five or six)
are bigger US$100-300 million
5 Owner/Consultant Consultant 20 55 $150 million to $350 million
6 Project Controls Manager Owner 31 35 $4,350,000
$10 million to billion-dollar
7 Lean Consultants Consultant 34 65
projects
8 Lean Consultants Consultant 20 * *
Project Controls and
9 Owner 30+ 60 $800K to $14 billion
Schedule Advisor
$7 billion; ended up being $12
10 Workface Planning Lead Contractor 40 40
billion in Canadian dollars
11 Senior Project Director Contractor 40 45 $60 million
12 Superintendent Contractor 13 60 $70-300 million
13 Project Controls Manager Owner 11 40 $2.8 million
ML Manager of AWP and
14 Owner 29 40 $60 million
Construction Excellence
15 JP Construction Manager Owner 20 * *
16 Project Controls Manager Owner 28 40 $10 million (TIC)
17 Project manager Owner 15 60 Multi-billion-dollar project
Principal Engineering
18 Consultant 50+ 65 $200 million
Consultant
Installation $30 million, just
Project Engineering, mix
execution, for the whole
between Deputy Project EPC
19 22 60 program $45 million between
Management, Engineering Contractor
engineering, procurement, and
Management Support
management
Planning and Scheduling largest $1.7 billion, smallest
20 Owner 17 60
Manager $100K
21 Senior Project Manager Owner 25 60 $120 million
Head of BIM/VDC Between $50 million to $100
22 Contractor 5 60
Department million
VP of Engineering, Group
Specialty
Manager of a Subdivision
23 Contractor 30 60 Mechanical was $15 million
of Start-up, Test, Balance
(Contractor**)
and Commissioning
For this company it was about
Supplier
24 Senior Project Engineer 20+ 50 $40 million, entire construction
(Contractor**)
about $200 million.
25 Principal Project Manager Owner 12 50 $160 million/year
Site Construction Process
26 Owner 23 30 $36 million
Owner for the Owner.
* Subjects 7 and 8, and subjects 14 and 15 were interviewed together; thus, the duration was logged in once for each of these paired interviews. The same
pattern was applied for logging their project costs.
**Categorized as a contractor for the responses per CII categorization and guidelines for reporting of data (n<5).
121
Answers given by interviewees were typed during the interviews by members of the research
team (the PIs and graduate students). Most interviews had at least two people taking notes,
but in a few cases only one PI did this task. After each individual interview, the notes taken were
combined and shared with the interviewee to give him or her a chance to validate what was
transcribed and to include comments, which would be then incorporated in the final version
of the transcription for each interview. All but one interviewee provided a final approval of the
transcription with or without comments.
The questions in the protocol were used during all 24 interviews, which included 26 subjects.
This population worked for owners, contractors, and consultants and had a combined 604 years
of experience. The most experienced interviewee had 50 years and the least experienced had
five years, with an overall average of 23 years of experience. The interviews lasted from 30 to
70 minutes, with an average of 54 minutes, and a total of 1285 minutes of interviews. Details of
the demographics and backgrounds of the interviewees are available in Table 18. A total of six
consultants, nine contractors, and 11 owners were interviewed.
Note that CII has two main categories of members: owners and contractors. Consultants
could have been categorized as contractors, but the team decided to separate their answers
in order to gain a better perspective of the consultant point of view. The supplier and specialty
contractors were categorized as contractors because only one of each category was
interviewed; this step was taken to preserve their anonymity.
Responses were initially organized using the software NVivo version 12 (QSR International
2020) to separate the answers given for each question. The combined answers for the top
three drivers, barriers provided by the interviewees, and also their responses about the use of
BIM, were shared and discussed with the team in light of the survey results. An initial review
of the answers, grouped by questions asked, helped the team to identify the main themes
and codes related to each question and the answer given. The team then coded the answers
using designations of pillars and their attributes based on the maturity model (see the detailed
description in Chapter 3), as these were relevant CS themes identified by the SMEs. The pillars
and attributes in the model do not exist in isolation – they feed to and from one another. Thus,
during the coding process, the team used common themes across the pillars and attributes to
search for patterns in the answers provided to different questions.
This interactive coding process followed recommendations by Strauss and Corbin (2015) to
develop Grounded Theory and resulted in emerging themes related to the development and
implementation of Collaborative Schedules across the different questions of the interviews.
Responses were grouped into the following recurring themes and related subcategories
described below.
122
Schedule Representation
The team’s analysis considered the different levels of scheduling and planning used by project
teams, related to the level of detail displayed in schedules and plans, as described in the Last
Planner System (Ballard 2000a). The analysis focused on two main questions:
1. How many planning levels do you have in this project (e.g., long-, medium-, and short-
term planning levels)? – This relates to when or at which level of the planning process
communication happened.
2. How was the schedule developed? – Was it developed by the scheduler or had there
been limited input from project stakeholders, in collaboration with trade partners; was it
provided by the owner; or was it developed with the owner?
The team used the following levels of planning and scheduling (Ballard 2000b):
• Master schedule – The initial schedule developed for the project, indicating major
milestones for the entire duration of the project. Developed using a forward-thinking
logic, where activities are linked and their durations are summed up accordingly to
achieve the final duration of the project. Master schedules in the construction industry
follow the Critical Path Method logic to determine the project duration.
• Phase/pull plan schedule – A detailed schedule developed for a specific phase of the
project (e.g., structure, interiors, central utility plant). The phase/pull plan schedule
is developed by using a milestone to be achieved by the project team as the starting
point for the discussion, and then having project participants develop the phase plan
by logically working backward in time. This means that, starting from the milestone,
participants who develop the phase schedule are asked what needs to be in place
for the milestone to be achieved. Durations are then added backward, starting from
the milestone. The same process is repeated for the other activities. Ballard (2000a)
provides additional detail on how this schedule is developed.
• Lookahead schedule – This intermediate schedule links the major milestones displayed
in the master schedule with weekly activities necessary to reach these milestones.
It usually comprises an intermediate time interval (e.g., six to eight weeks). It has an
important function within the LPS, acting as a gateway to activities that need to be made
ready before they are released to production. During this stage of the planning process,
tasks are screened for constraints; these constraints are listed and assigned to project
participants who will have the responsibility to address these constraints before tasks
are assigned to trades.
123
• Weekly work plan (WWP) – The WWP should indicate the list of tasks that are ready to
be done during the week in which they are assigned. At the end of the week, the percent
plan complete (PPC) calculates the proportion of tasks done versus tasks assigned as
a percentage, and the reasons for noncompletion of tasks are documented. Using an
indicator, such as the PPC, and the causes for noncompletion helps teams learn about
what is preventing their crews from completing the work as planned.
• Daily huddles – These meetings are used by project teams executing the work to
check how the work is progressing daily and if there are any roadblocks that need to be
addressed by the team to support a smooth flow of execution.
In addition to considering the different planning levels in this analysis, the team asked
interviewees a separate question: How often is the schedule updated? This category reflects
the answers related to how frequently schedules and plans are updated, and it relates to the
Quality Checks attribute under the Scheduling Representation pillar. For example, plans might be
updated weekly, biweekly, monthly, or any other period of time reported.
Communication
This category addresses how and when participants communicate during the process to
develop schedules and plans, including when in the planning process the communication takes
place and how the information is shared. The team used interview questions 14 and 22 to
obtain data related to communication routines and where they happen in the spectrum from
preconstruction through execution.
Goal Alignment
This theme represents broad actions to support alignment between those designing and those
building the project – to understand and execute the project according to owner’s expectations
– and alignment within the team designing and building the project. The main sources of entries
for this analysis were questions 10, 11, 13, 17, and 19. The team coded the entries from these
questions as statements that had a positive impact (could be a driver) or negative impact
(could be a barrier) in the development and implementation of CS. The goal of this analysis was
to identify from the experiences and practices shared during the interview what promotes or
hinders CS: based on what interviewees said they do, not what they listed in the questions about
the top three items that promote or hinder CS (which the team analyzed separately).
BIM Use
This category reflects answers related to the use of BIM to inform and develop plans. The
analysis drew upon statements from the question in the interview protocol that asked whether
the project used BIM for scheduling. The team also included in this part of the analysis any
other mention during the interview of BIM and its related tools to support the development and
124
implementation of schedules. The team further grouped statements categorized under the BIM
theme according to the following categories derived from question 20:
• Did the project use BIM?

› Yes/No
• Did the project use BIM for planning or scheduling?
› Yes/No
If the respondent answered “Yes” for the previous subgroup, then the use of BIM was
categorized into one of three categories: visualization (i.e., visualize construction elements);
understanding of the product/process (i.e., understand parts involved and relationships
between different pieces of a project); sequencing (i.e., development of installation sequences).
It is worth noting that BIM might have many additional uses not indicated here (e.g., quantity
take-off, clash detection, procurement); however, these were the main subgroups that emerged
from the interviews.

Finally, the team categorized the statements made by interviewees into recommendations
supporting the development and implementation of CS. The team also identified existing
limitations as interviewees described how the scheduling and planning process unfolded in their
projects. Questions 23 and 24 were open-ended questions in which participants were free to
indicate any driver or barrier deemed relevant.
The themes used for the drivers and barriers borrowed from the themes already discussed. They
were mostly based on the maturity model, but the team also included a few additional ones. The
entire list is presented below with an example of what was documented during the interviews to
illustrate the process:
Alignment
Denotes actions and decisions to promote alignment.
• An example of this category includes the following excerpt: Early involvement with
construction was very key.
Communication
Forms of communication (meetings, displays of information, entries that refer to
communication explicitly as a driver or barrier).
• An example was: There was no lack of good collaboration and quantity of
communication between the team.
125
Contract
Items indicating contractual expectations (also speaks to Expectations, under the Goal
Alignment pillar, but refers specifically to language or references made to contracts).
• For example: Clearly defined scheduling responsibilities with EPC contractor and
contractual expectations.
Culture
Refers to organizational practices, collective behaviors and forms of action, received traditions
(e.g., “That’s the way things have been done”).
• An example: Transparency to fully disclose what was going on as things happened so
they could act on issues; for instance, things that went wrong or resource issues allowed
for schedule adjustment and staying on track.
Resource/Supply Chain Management

Relates to specific resources and supply chain issues reported by interviewees (a very small
percentage pointed to that).
• For example: Geography, the project team/supply chain is all over the world. People are
not physically in the same place.
Tools and Methods

Specific tools and methods used to develop schedules.
• For example: Externally hosted version of P6; hired a firm to host the latest version of P6.
Interview Analysis Results
The team organized the interview results in terms of schedule and planning levels, to display the
range of options that interviewees used in their projects. The results related to schedule updates
revealed that, as with the levels of planning and scheduling, no strong pattern was found for the
reported frequency of schedule updates. The team then discussed the Communication format
and media in different planning levels, which revealed that a variety of channels were used to
communicate scheduling and planning-related issues with project participants.
The team’s analysis of the entries related to Goal Alignment with Owner focused on the
identification of positive and negative interactions during the development of schedules and
plans at different levels. Additionally, the analysis related to “BIM use” focused on interviewees’
comments about how BIM was used in their projects. Finally, the drivers and barriers section
focused on which actions and items interviewees reported as supporting or hindering the
development and implementation of collaborative schedules.
126
Table 19. Summary of communication routines in different planning levels
When (Phase) What

• Holding early meetings labeled as alignment.
Preconstruction
• Kick-off, pre-flight, and risk assessment meetings to align the team.
• Definition of an electronic repository to store and keep schedule updates.
Master • Definition of project control metrics used by the team to assess project performance.
• Definition of frequency of schedule reviews expected by project participants.
• Use of AWP; definition of a mechanism to develop phase plans including when the
meetings are held and who participates in them.
• Frequent check-ups with trades; use of visual and tactile means to develop and
Pull Planning
publicize the plans.
• Clearly publicized milestones available to project stakeholders in reports, boards, and
distributed documents.
• Work on constraint identification and removal by assigning responsibility and
keeping people accountable to tackle roadblocks that might prevent tasks from being
Lookahead
completed.
• Visualization of the plans illustrating the flow of work and handoffs between trades.
• Boards displaying weekly tasks assigned to trades as a result of pull planning sessions.
Operational • Stickies on a wall/board at the office.
(weekly/short term) • Definition of measurable increments of work that can be tracked and checked for
progress and completion.
• Daily huddles.
Daily
• Daily coordination meetings with superintendents and/or supervisors for each trade.
Communication
The team analyzed the interviews, looking for patterns in communication. The results related to
the different levels used to develop plans, how schedules were developed, how the planning and
analyses were made, which types of meetings were usually held, and how plans were shared. The
analysis also revealed some key takeaways that support communication in different levels of the
project and align with the recommendations of the maturity model, as captured in Table 19.
The key takeaways from this analysis revealed that, while no single set of rules of engagement
emerged for different levels, the interviewees reported which participants would be invited for
meetings in different planning levels. These responses complemented the recommendations
made for the Communication pillar as part of the maturity model.
Goal Alignment
The Goal Alignment pillar was supported by three attributes: Alignment, Interactions, and
Expectations. The analysis presented in this section is based on 135 entries that the team
obtained from five interview questions, as previously described, and which are related to goal
alignment with the owner and among stakeholders.
127
The analysis revealed that 41 entries (30% of the total) were categorized as actions that could
potentially have a negative impact in the development of CS:
• Within this group, 75.5% of the entries were overwhelmingly categorized as actions
related to the limited participation of project stakeholders in schedule development.
• And 10% specifically related to lack of subcontractor input into the schedule.
This lack of involvement might result in lack of schedule buy-in from project participants. It
could also mean missed opportunities to align participants and represent the alignment on the
project schedule. These categories reflect problems that the proposed maturity model seeks
to address by increasing the participation of multiple project stakeholders to collaboratively
develop schedules and related plans.
Regarding the entries categorized as positive interactions that support CS (70% of the total), the
team categorized them accordingly:
• Request input from a broader group of project participants to develop schedules –

approximately 43%
• Interactive planning sessions with trade partners to align the schedule and receive input
from designers, trade partners, and suppliers – 19.15%
• Contractual issues – about 10%
More specifically, the items related to contracts referred to: contract states the level of
participation of contractors in schedule meetings and/or schedule detail and reporting;
definition of milestones with client for contractual/payment purposes; deliverables
clearly outlined in the plans; and different meetings to address issues in different
planning horizons.
These specific actions support the development of collaborative schedules and are
considered as part of the recommendations proposed in this report.
The team’s analysis of potential positive and negative interactions, based on statements given
as answers to multiple questions during the interviews, revealed another layer of actions to
be taken to develop CS. These were in addition to those actions clearly categorized by the
interviewees as drivers and barriers to CS and discussed later in the analysis of interviews.
BIM Use
Regarding the use of BIM, interviewees indicated (see Figure 30) that they used BIM in three-
quarters of the interviews in which this question was asked. (The question was not asked in
one interview; and two other interviews had two participants each.) The results also indicated
that only half of the interviewees used BIM for planning. The team coded the three uses of
BIM that emerged from the responses when interviewees mentioned using BIM: visualization,
128
understanding, and sequencing. Figure 31 reveals that, when BIM was used to support planning,
it was used most for visualization purposes, followed by its other uses for understanding
execution and sequences.
Only five interviewees of the 23 who answered this question reported using BIM for all three
aspects (i.e., visualization, understanding, and sequencing). These numbers suggest that
BIM is still largely underutilized to support scheduling, a fact also observed in the survey and
addressed in cross-analysis. Note that the team did not code other uses of BIM that were not
tied to scheduling (e.g., clash detection, representation of the project to the owner during the
bidding stage), because this project only considered using BIM for planning.
These results aligned with the information obtained from the surveys, in which 66% of survey
responses indicated their projects did not use BIM to support the scheduling effort, followed
by 22% who indicated they used BIM for scheduling, and 12% who indicated they were not sure
whether BIM was used.
No 26% No 48%
Use of BIM for

BIM Planning
Yes 74% Yes 52%
Figure 30. Interviews – Use of BIM in General and for Planning Purposes
Sequencing 21%
BIM for
Planning
Visualization 52%
Understanding 27%
Figure 31. More Specific Uses of BIM for Planning Purposes
129

The team considered the answers to the last two questions of the interview, where participants
were requested to share the top three drivers and barriers to CS, and organized the results
into six main categories. In addition to organizing the entries based on themes, the team also
categorized them by who answered the questions – consultants, contractors, or owners – to
give some perspective on what these different stakeholders consider to be barriers and drivers.
Table 20. Overview of CS Drivers by Employee Type and Theme
Number of
Theme Percentage Consultant Contractor Owner
Entries
Alignment 11 15% 2 0 9
Communication 11 15% 0 8 3
Culture 13 17% 2 5 6
Tools and Methods 39 53% 9 15 15
Total 74 100% 13 28 33
Table 20 provides an overview of the results obtained for each interviewee and how their
answers were coded into four main themes that emerged from the answers. As Figure 32
shows, a little over half of the drivers were related to the use of Tools and Methods. While
interviewees might have been influenced to suggest tools and methods given the wording of
this question, other categories they mentioned were related to alignment, communication, and
culture. Two entries were coded as a mix of culture and people, and the team added those to the
culture category. Figure 33 offers the breakdown of answers by employee type and reveals that
Tools and Methods was the main category of drivers across all three employee types.
Alignment 15%
Communication 15%
Culture 17%
Figure 32. Drivers Identified by Interviewees, Organized by Major Categories
130
15 15
9 9
8
6
5
3
2 2
0 0
Alignment Communication Culture Tools and Methods
Figure 33. Interviews – Drivers by Employee Type (N=26)
By using feedback from its members, the research team then categorized the different drivers
based on the comments made by interviewees and sorted them out based on the specific
actions, characteristics, and tools and methods named in the answers. Table 21 summarizes
the subcategories more frequently attributed when interviewees shared the drivers of CS.
Table 21. Subcategories of Drivers of CS
Drivers
• Constant communication • Pull Planning (others pointed specifically to Pull

• Gather feedback on the schedule to validate the Planning)
schedule • Respect the knowledge of those already working
• Gather feedback on the schedule to identify with the owner
additional risks and constraints • Set times/means for daily check-ins and updates
• Interactive planning sessions • Promote transparency/visibility
• Jointly define and work on critical milestones and • Psychological safety to report issues
constraints • Honesty
• The Last Planner System (some suggested the LPS)
The analysis carried out for the barriers followed a similar format to that for the drivers. Table 22
reveals the breakdown of responses coded for the themes and employee type. Note that the
analysis for the barriers revealed two additional themes, when compared to that of the drivers:
(1) people and (2) resources/supply chain management. Figure 34 shows a breakdown of the
coded barriers themes, followed by an illustration of how the barriers differed by employee type
(in Figure 35).
131
Table 22. Barriers to Collaborative Scheduling by Employee Type
Number of
Themes Percentage Consultant Contractor Owner
Entries
Alignment 17 21% 4 6 7
Communication 12 14% 1 7 4
Contract 9 11% 5 2 2
Culture 14 17% 8 4 2
People 17 21% 4 8 5
Resources/Supply
7 8% 0 3 4
Chain Management
Tools and Methods 7 8% 2 4 1
Total* 83 100% 24 34 25
Resource/Supply Alignment 21%

Chain Management 8%
Communication 14%
People 21%
Contract 11%
Culture 17%
Figure 34. Barriers Identified by Interviewees, Organized by Major Categories
10
8 8
8
7 7
6
6
5 5
4 4 4 4 4 4
4
3
2 2 2 2
2
1 1
0
0
Alignment Communication Contract Culture

People Resource/Supply Chain Management Tools and Methods
Figure 35. Interviews – Barriers by Employee Type (N=26)
132
The barriers that interviewees indicated were more evenly distributed than their reported
drivers. Both alignment and people-related barriers scored 21%, followed by culture (17%) and
communication (14%). Owners mentioned alignment as a barrier more often than the other two
categories, whereas consultants mentioned culture more often, and contractors mentioned
people. Interestingly, judging by this categorization, these three parties do not seem to agree on
the main barriers to CS.
Comparing these results for barriers with those obtained for the drivers, the nine contractors
interviewed did not mention alignment as a driver. Alignment was only mentioned a couple
of times by the six consultants interviewed, even though it was a top concern for the 11
owners interviewed. Table 23 summarizes the subcategories most frequently attributed when
interviewees shared their barriers to CS.
Table 23. Subcategories of Barriers to CS
Barriers
People-related issues (i.e., personalities and existing culture do not support collaboration, lack of alignment
between project participants).
Lack of alignment in terms of how the schedule unfolds from the master level to execution, and how it is
represented in different levels of details to support the needs of different stakeholders.
Lack of alignment in terms of when schedules are updated as reported by the interviewees. Lack of clarity in
terms of when schedules are updated.
Final Remarks – Inventory of Drivers and

Barriers of Collaborative Schedules
This final section brings together the results of the interviews by organizing them into the main
barriers and drivers that interviewees identified regarding the development and implementation
of collaborative schedules. Tables 24 through 26 summarize the results vis-à-vis research
questions A, B, and C.
For research question B and outcome B, the team defined two hypotheses:
• Working hypothesis B1: Collaborative schedules are developed by making use of

methods that promote communication.
• Working hypothesis B2: Using certain types of methods (e.g., weekly meeting, pull
planning meeting) throughout a project will support collaborative scheduling.
133
Table 24. Summary of Interview Findings and Practical Implications – Outcome A
Research question A: What are the limitations of current scheduling practices with regard to the development
and implementation of collaborative schedules?
Outcome A: Inventory of limitations of current scheduling practices regarding collaboration.
Interview Findings Practical Implications
Barriers the interviewees identified: • The barriers and negative interactions identified
• People-related issues (i.e., personalities and are mostly related to alignment and people-related
existing culture do not support collaboration, lack of issues.
alignment between project participants). • Recommendations from the maturity model’s
• Lack of alignment in terms of how the schedule pillars and attributes to address these include: Goal
unfolds from the master level to execution, and Alignment with Owner (all attributes), Scheduling
how it is represented in different levels of details to Representation – Level of Detail, and Planners and
support the needs of different stakeholders. Schedulers (all attributes).
• Lack of alignment in terms of when schedules are • Goal Alignment practices also place high on their
updated as reported by the interviewees. Lack of KPI impact on cost, schedule, and quality. Another
clarity in terms of when schedules are updated. reason to address these issues early on in the
project.
Negative interactions – Additional practices to avoid • CII-related support includes the work of RT-310 on
as identified in the interviews: alignment as a means to guide teams toward better
• Limited participation of project stakeholders in alignment at the onset of the project, and RT-319
schedule development. on Integrated Project Delivery for a list of practices
• Lack of subcontractor input on schedule. to promote high levels of interaction among project
• Clear expectations not shown in the contract/ participants from design through construction.
schedules/purchase orders.
• People do not know how to work collaboratively.
• Prepare for claims.
• Too much oversight, too little collaboration.
Table 24 above and Table 25 on the next page support these working hypotheses by identifying
specific practices that practitioners either explicitly suggested as drivers or identified as positive
interactions that promoted collaborative schedules.
134
Table 25. Summary of Interview Findings and Practical Implications – Outcome B
Research question B: What are the practices used in the industry at large (EPC and elsewhere) that promote the
development and implementation of collaborative schedules?
Outcome B: Inventory of collaborative scheduling tools and practices from the industry at large, including their
capabilities and obstacles.
Drivers the interviewees identified: • The drivers identified are mostly related to tools
• Constant communication and practices to support schedule development and
• Gather feedback on the schedule to validate the representation.
schedule • These directly align with the following maturity
• Gather feedback on the schedule to identify model’s pillars and attributes: Scheduling
additional risks and constraints Representation (all attributes) and Communication
• Interactive planning sessions (all attributes) as schedules are represented using
• Jointly define and work on critical milestones and some of the practices identified and distributed as
constraints part of a communication plan addressing multiple
• The Last Planner System (some suggested the LPS) people in multiple levels as shown in Table 23.
• Pull Planning (others pointed specifically to Pull • Contract related issues can be linked to Goal
Planning) Alignment – Expectations, and how clear
• Respect the knowledge of those already working expectations about the development and
with the owner implementation of schedules can also be addressed
• Set times/means for daily check-ins and updates in contractual clauses.
• Promote transparency/visibility • The Planners and Schedulers (all attributes) pillar is
supported by recommendations promoting cross-
Positive interactions – Additional practices to discipline interactions.
promote as identified in the interviews: • These specific practices can be implemented as
• Request input from a broader group of project part of routines to support the achievement of the
participants to develop schedules. gold standard defined by the maturity model.
• Interactive planning sessions with trade partners to • CII-related material includes RT-244, Project
align the schedule, receive input from designers/ Controls and Management Systems; RT-310,
trade partners/suppliers. Alignment; RT-319, Advanced Work Packaging; and
• Contract states the level of participation of RT-341, Integrated Project Delivery.
contractor in schedule meetings and/or schedule
detail and reporting.
• Owner provides a first schedule with milestones.
Contractor details the other milestones in the
schedule.
• Use of BIM to develop collaborative schedules.
Table 26. Summary of Interview Findings and Practical Implications – Outcome C
Research question C: What are the practical guidelines that can support development and implementation of
collaborative scheduling?
Outcome C: Implementation guide including a collaborative scheduling maturity model.

• Table 25 explicitly links the drivers and positive • Specific practices aligned with the Maturity Model.
interactions to pillars and attributes in the maturity
model.
135
Research Team 362,
Challenges and Opportunities to Promote Collaborative Scheduling
* Ryan Altemare, ExxonMobil Corporation

* Thais Alves, San Diego State University
Chris Carson, Arcadis U.S., Inc
* Felipe Engineer-Manriquez, McCarthy Building Companies, Inc., Chair
Joe Gerweck, DTE Energy, Vice Chair
* Dominique Hawkins, Towson University
* Chuanni He, North Carolina State University
Austin Krueger, AZCO INC.
Paul Leahy, Matrix Service Company
Tannis Liviniuk, Trillium Advisory Group Ltd.
* Min Liu, North Carolina State University
Gary Orton, Trillium Advisory Group Ltd.
* Luis Rangel, Wood
Isaac Reynolds, Eastman Chemical Company
* Natalie M. Scala, Towson University
* Vince Schiavone, Towson University
Mark Triesch, ePM
Past Members
GongFan Chen, North Carolina State University
Tim Rash, Hargrove EPC
Daniel Tennison, EnLink Midstream
Anup Vedamurthy, San Diego State University
* Principal authors
Michael E. Burns, Editor
Construction Industry Institute
The University of Texas at Austin
3925 W. Braker Lane (R4500)
Austin, Texas 78759-5316
FINAL REPORT 362

CII Scheduling Success 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CII Scheduling Success 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CII Scheduling Success 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BREAKING THROUGH TO

Final Report 362

OWNERS Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) PCL Constructors, Inc.

Cover photograph by Landon Blake | Unsplash

Construction Industry Institute

Final Report 362 | March 2021

The University of Texas at Austin

Printed in the United States of America.

Collaborative Scheduling is a comprehensive process that aligns and engages stakeholders

RT-362 examined collaboration in project scheduling and identified opportunities for

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................... iii

Research Team 362 (RT-362), Challenges and Opportunities to Promote Collaborative

1. Strategy and Organization

2. Scoring Projects and Recommendations

3. Industry Analysis and CS Practices to Improve KPIs

As Chapter 4 reports, RT-362 identified the impacts of CS practices on five Key

Research Method and Objectives

Question Outcomes Hypothesis

What are the limitations of

Collaborative schedules are

What practical guidelines can Implementation guide,

Figure 1. Research Questions, Outcomes, and Related Hypotheses

• Chapter 2 provides an overview of strategies that organizations can apply to implement

Scoring Projects and Industry Analysis and CS

Chapter 2 Chapter 3 and Appendix A Chapter 4 and Appendix D

Chapter 3 and Appendix B Chapter 4 and Appendix G

Figure 2. The Three Main Components of this Report

STRATEGY AND ORGANIZATION FOR

Organize Project Teams from Day 1 to Support

» In the communication plan, establish lines of communication to the scheduler. It is important

During Master Phase

During Pull Planning

During Operational Phase (Weekly or Short-term)

Establish Expectations for Project Leadership

Educate the Team on Effective Planning and Its Importance

CS Drivers Specifically Identified by Interviewees

Positive Interactions Identified from the Interviews

Require and/or Incentivize these Behaviors Contractually

» Add specific language to contracts, defining Collaborative Scheduling and requiring

This chapter presented high-level strategies to create an environment that is conducive to CS

USING THE MATURITY MODEL FOR

The Elements of the MMCS

Planners and Schedulers

Goal Alignment with Owner

Culture Planning Mindset Level of Detail Expectations Communication

Least Moderately Most

SCORE SCORE SCORE

Figure 4. The MMCS Levels of Maturity

Scheduling Planners and Scheduling Goal Alignment Communication

Creation 95 Cross-Discipline 80 Tools and 95 Alignment 90 Engagement 90

Stakeholders 85 Job Role 75 Quality 90 Interactions 65 Psychological 85

Adaptability 75 Understanding 55 Agility 85 Coordination 60

Accuracy 70 Control 80 Channels 50

Pillar 1: Scheduling Significance

Table 1. Attributes of Pillar 1 – Scheduling Significance

Bronze (Level 1) Silver (Level 2) Gold (Level 3)

Project scheduling culture Project scheduling culture

Schedule created primarily

Schedule created primarily to Schedule created primarily to

The project schedule was