The Garrison Report #2006-8

Is Your Schedule a Tool or Has It Become a Tourniquet?

For many project managers, the project schedule has become a tourniquet hindering their performance instead of a tool to improve their performance. Jesting with an audience of project managers, the author said, "Sometimes I think we should just throw away our computers." To the author's shock, he received a standing ovation. Not about to give up his computer, the author asked his audience why they had cheered. The project managers responded they often must spend up to two hours a day updating the schedule and other reports. The consequences are that project managers are becoming frustrated and demoralized because they are forced to waste time on low-priority tasks. It's difficult to understand what could require two hours of documentation per day. The only explanation is micro management and an overly controlled and audited environment.

The author certainly appreciates the importance of a schedule. It's an important planning tool. However, it's not a claim generator or a tracking tool of daily activities. A schedule is the equivalent of a map over time compared to a regular map over land. Then why do some managers demand that project schedules be revised on a daily basis? The author asks his audiences, "If you come to a detour on a highway, do you pull over and redraw the map? People laugh and respond, "Of course not." Then why do people think the schedule must be redrawn every time there is bump in the road? For example, let's assume you're scheduled to start a task on Monday and finish on Friday. However, you don't start until Tuesday, but you still must finish by Friday. What's the benefit of redrawing the schedule and showing a four-day task versus the original five-day task? Everyone already knows they must be done by Friday. This isn't any different than a detour. In this case the schedule is being used improperly. It's being used as a tracking device instead of a planning tool.

Unfortunately, as scheduling software has added more bells and whistles, the scheduling process has become more complex. Instead of asking, "What do I need?" too many managers ask, "What can the software do?" The secret is we don't need to use all the features of the software. We should use only the features that add true value to the process.

The real question is, "Does a complex schedule improve a project's scheduling performance?" The evidence doesn't indicate there has been any significant improvement, if any improvement, in project completion dates as a result of sophisticated schedules. Of course, some new functions add value, but when you consider the cost invested in data input, software, software training, reporting time, and the project manager's time, the author suggests the increased cost wipes out any added value. In fact, the value may actually have been reduced. Keep in mind the primary purpose of a schedule is for planning; let's not lose sight of that.

The author can illustrate this point with two projects from his own career. The first was the 1,200-room Hilton Hotel in New Orleans. This project was built in the 1970s, before most projects had access to scheduling software. Therefore, the schedule consisted of a bar chart created on a drafting table. The scheduler had to redraw it a few times during the 30-month project. The total cost on scheduling for this major project was about $5,000. In contrast, when the author was the director of construction on the Pennsylvania Convention Center in early 1990s, the schedule took on a life of its own. Despite the author's objection, the commonwealth, through its consultant, and Philadelphia, through its consultant, combined to dictate very elaborate scheduling requirements. Both projects were completed on time, but the cost figures for scheduling were significantly different. Despite the fact that the convention center is actually smaller than the multi-use hotel (1,350,000 square feet versus 1,300,000 square feet) the convention expenses for scheduling exceeded $500,000. Since both projects were finished on time, how does one justify the additional $495,000 on scheduling costs? Besides, this figure doesn't include the consulting fees the commonwealth and city spent for their consultants to review the schedule.

Two major influences driving complex schedules are consultants and attorneys. The attorneys justify all the extra detail from a claim's perspective. In the author's opinion, this approach is absurd. First, if you accept the author's favorite definition of a client as "someone under the protection of," then it's the contractor's responsibility to eliminate the claims, not create them. Too many attorneys encourage a confrontational approach and use scheduling as one of their main tools in justifying the claim. It's the author's position that they are generating business only for themselves, not the contractor. Since attorneys are supposed to protect their clients, attorneys who take this approach should be fired. The author knows many attorneys agree with him because they have told him so.

However, don't take the author's point out of context. Of course, there are occasions where contractors must file a claim. The difference is the contractor should not establish a process to look for claims. The reason is simple, if you look for a claim, you might find one. Instead, the contractor should do everything possible to eliminate all claims. When the author is challenged on this position, he simply asks, "How much repeat business do you get from clients you sue?" If you sue all your clients, you will eventually put yourself out of business.

Consultants offer another problem. Unfortunately, many consultants offer their clients poor value. In fact, Dean Kashiwagi, director of the Performance Based Studies Research Group, would argue that the entire consulting oversight process only increases project inefficiency and increases project cost. Instead you should hire a high-performing contractor and let him do his job. Make the contractor responsible for delivering the project on time; then get out of the contractor's way. Granted, a simple schedule might be beneficial to a property owner because it would allow the owner to plan his work, not the contractor's. Yet consultants advise property owners to demand elaborate schedules from their contractors. This is not a surprise because how much could a "scheduling consultant" charge his client to review a simple 8½-by-11-inch bar chart? However, if the schedule wraps around the room, the poor building owner is overwhelmed and is willing to pay almost anything for someone to protect him. The problem is the building owner doesn't need it interpreted; he just wants to make the contractor responsible for performance.

While some property owners want to control the process and are willing to pay extra for the privilege, many property owners would take a different approach if they understood the facts and realized the cost of this approach. The author suggests high-performing contractors should inform their prospects in the following way: "We guarantee we will deliver the project on schedule. We don't need to be told how to schedule the project by your consultant. We don't need someone looking over our shoulder, requesting information. We will simply deliver the project on time. Further, if you allow us to do it our way, we will reduce our project cost by $XXX, and you wouldn't have the pay the consultant either." Then sit back and see what the client says. You may be surprised.

This report is certainly not about bashing the use of schedules; they are essential. However, it is about bashing the exercises the industry uses that offer little value, especially to the client. When consultants charge thousands of dollars to review schedules yet have little impact on the schedule, they are artificially raising the cost of projects. That hurts everyone in the industry. Don't tell me some contractors don't know what they are doing so oversight is necessary. The answer is simple: don't hire that contractor. In the long run, you will be better off hiring the right contractor. Keep in mind the 80-20 rule. If you apply this principle to 20 percent of the remaining benefits, you realize that 36 percent of what you do will generate 96 percent of the results. This is certainly true in today's scheduling. Therefore, stick to the 36 percent that generates the benefits, and forget the other 64 percent, which is just nonsense. The construction industry is there to build, not support scheduling experts, consultants and attorneys. They all have their place, but let's use them wisely.

 

* * * * * THE END * * * * *

Previous: The Garrison Report #2006-7
Next: The Garrison Report #2006-9

original site by jack out of the box designs inc. | © Copyright 2010 Ted Garrison | Site Map