“Enhanced” PDM - Concepts & Benefits

Scott C. Herold, P.E., Black & Veatch Corporation

Introduction
The primary objective of a critical path method (CPM) schedule is to communicate the progress,
forecasted dates , and critical paths of a project to all stakeholders. If the direct output of a project schedule
is too confusing for the stakeholders to understand, or if it takes too long to prepare informative output, then
the schedule fails to communicate the health of the project in a timely manner. With the advancements that
have been made during the last two decades in both CPM scheduling software and the computer hardware
that runs these applications, it is difficult to understand why the industry has not developed “enhanced”
scheduling systems that can clearly, accurately, and quickly present the schedule data and critical paths to
the stakeholders.
There are well documented factors that contribute to the difficulty in analyzing CPM schedules.
These factors include the use of multiple calendars , the excessive use of constraint dates, the use of large
lags in relationships, out-of-sequence progressing, inadequate and sometimes misleading output from the
CPM scheduling software, and, finally, poorly conceived schedules constructed by inexperienced
schedulers.
While it is easy to blame poor quality schedules on software vendors since their software allows the
aforementioned “advanced” features, they are not entirely to blame. Software vendors incorporate as much
flexibility as possible into their software to achieve the goal of selling the greatest number of licenses to a
varied client base that employs many levels of CPM scheduling expertise.
Conversely, one could blame the inexperienced, inadequately trained, and sometimes unqualified
personnel developing and managing today’s project schedules . Although there may be some merit to this
claim, it does not solve the root problem : analyzing large, computerized CPM schedules can be difficult even
for experienced schedulers who are knowledgeable and proficient with the scheduling software.
One solution is for the industry and the software vendors to jointly develop “Enhanced” Precedence
Diagramming Method (EPDM) scheduling software that can not only perform all of the complex calculations
that currently exist, but also has the ability to sort activities into logical “as -scheduled” paths. If software can
schedule activities using multiple calendars, constraint dates, and out-of-sequence progress, then it should
be capable of sorting activities into their logically scheduled sequence, regardless of the expertise of the
scheduler.
The objective of this paper is to introduce and explain one set of calculations that is being used to
analyze and organize CPM schedules into the “as -scheduled” critical float paths. These calculations have
been developed, tested, and used in stand-alone CPM schedule analysis software since 1998.
The intent of this paper is not to teach the basic concepts of CPM scheduling; it is assumed that the
reader understands early and late dates and total float calculations. Also, since the analysis tool currently in
use interfaces with Primavera Project Planner (P3) Version 3.1 and because it is based on daily schedules
using retained logic, the examples presented in this paper will be daily schedules calculated using retained
logic in P3 Version 3.1. It is important to note that the concepts presented would apply to any type of
schedule (hourly, daily, weekly), calculated with either retained logic or progress override and using any type
of CPM software, provided the software follows classic CPM calculations .

Why CPM Schedule Analysis Can Be Confusing

The goal of the following exercise is to review, validate, and clearly report the critical paths of a
project to the project team, without spending any time manually coding activities. The sample schedule that
will be used to demonstrate the problem and explain the solution consists of 13 activities that are scheduled
on three calendars , using the retained logic calculation option in P3. Calendar 1 is a five day calendar,
Calendar 2 is a six day calendar, and Calendar 3 is a seven day calendar. In addition to the multiple
calendars, this sample network includes non-zero lags on relationships, out-of-sequence progress,
constraint dates, and float paths that have the same total float values but are independent of each other.
The data date for the schedule is Monday, June 23, 2003, and the total float values for the activities vary
from -14 to +5. Using the scheduling software’s existing filter, group, and sort functions , two possible layouts
are built as shown on Figures 1 and 2.

1
 Act Cal Orig Early Early Late Late Total 2003
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
ID ID Dur Start Finish Start Finish Float
26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 1
A-006 3 14 26JUL03 08AUG03 12JUL03 25JUL03 -14 act 6
A-009 3 21 26JUL03 15AUG03 14JUL03 03AUG03 -12 act 9
A-013 2 24 26JUL03 22AUG03 12JUL03 08AUG03 -12 act 13
A-007 2 12 09AUG03 22AUG03 26JUL03 08AUG03 -12 act 7
A-010 3 12 16AUG03 27AUG03 04AUG03 15AUG03 -12 act 10
A-011 2 6 23AUG03 29AUG03 09AUG03 15AUG03* -12 act 11
A-002 1 15 23JUN03 11JUL03 09JUN03 27JUN03 -10 act 2
A-005 1 15 16JUN03A 25JUL03 16JUN03A 11JUL03 -10 act 5
A-008 3 7 02AUG03 08AUG03 30JUL03 05AUG03* -3 act 8
A-004 1 5 09JUL03* 15JUL03 07JUL03 11JUL03 -2 act 4
A-003 1 5 30JUN03 04JUL03 07JUL03 11JUL03 5 act 3
A-001 1 10 09JUN03A 13JUN03A 09JUN03A 13JUN03A act 1
A-012 3 14 01JUN03A 14JUN03A 01JUN03A 14JUN03A act 12

Figure 1 (Sorted by Total Float, LF, LS)

Figure 1 is sorted by Total Float, then by Late Finish, and finally by Late Start. This bar chart is
difficult to analyze because it (1) mixes unrelated activities that have the same total float, (2) does not place
the out-of-sequence activities in their correctly scheduled order (due to the actual dates and the blank total
float values ), and (3) has the tendency to move activities on the 6 and 7 day calendars closer to the top (this
is because their total float values are higher than similarly delayed activities on the 5 day calendar). An
activity that is 2 weeks behind schedule on a 7 day calendar has a total float of -14, whereas the same
2 week delay on a 5 day calendar is reported in the scheduling software as -10, which is shown much lower
in the bar chart.
Without any manual activity coding, one can conclude that this bar chart (or a pure logic diagram or
network report sorted the same way) would be difficult for a project team to analyze. The layout on Figure 1
could be improved slightly if it were grouped by calendar, and then sorted by total float and late (or early)
dates . However, that layout would also be difficult to analyze if there were more than two or three calendars
or if there were numerous, independent, “same-float” paths in the schedule.

Act Cal Orig Early Early Late Late Total 2003

MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
ID ID Dur Start Finish Start Finish Float
26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 1
A-012 3 14 01JUN03A 14JUN03A 01JUN03A 14JUN03A
A-002 1 15 23JUN03 11JUL03 09JUN03 27JUN03 -10
A-005 1 15 16JUN03A 25JUL03 16JUN03A 11JUL03 -10
A-006 3 14 26JUL03 08AUG03 12JUL03 25JUL03 -14
A-013 2 24 26JUL03 22AUG03 12JUL03 08AUG03 -12
A-007 2 12 09AUG03 22AUG03 26JUL03 08AUG03 -12
A-011 2 6 23AUG03 29AUG03 09AUG03 15AUG03* -12

Figure 2 (Longest Path Filter, Sort by LS, LF)

Figure 2 uses the software’s Longest Path filter to identify the critical path, and then it is sorted by
Late Finish and Late Start. While this may seem clearer than the previous bar chart and it does show the
longest path of activities, problems still exist with this layout. The main criticism is that (1) it forces the
planner/scheduler to review only one float path at a time, which prevents him/her from visualizing how
subcritical paths may be relating to the critical path, and (2) it forces the planner/scheduler into an inefficient
analysis mode by making one change to the schedule and recalculating (often without knowing exactly how
much the change has helped alleviate the schedule problem ). Another potential problem with the Longest
Path filter is that if the network contains activities that are scheduled later than the contract completion date
of the project (e.g., the as-built drawings, warranty period work, etc.), the Longest Path filter may not retrieve
the critical path of the contract completion date.
While today’s scheduling software can recalculate a 5,000 activity schedule in only minutes,
countless hours can be wasted using the layout shown on Figure 2 by making a single change,
recalculating, refiltering, and reorganizing it over and over again. To make this inefficiency worse, more
experienced and costly project controls personnel (or worse yet, whole project teams) sometimes spend
hours performing this change/recalculate/refilter/reorganize sequence, since they are the only people who
have enough knowledge to know what appropriate changes to make to the schedule. In the past, a clerk or
technician could input changes to the schedule database, run reports for a more senior planner or project
controls manager to analyze and mark up with key team personnel, and incorporate those changes in a

2
streamlined process. Projects would be better served if experienced personnel had more time to
communicate the schedules to the team , rather than personally analyzing and inputting the data.

What Does the Solution Look Like?

EPDM scheduling systems are capable of sorting and organizing the activities into the order of
criticality and the as-scheduled sort order, and are capable of separating independent, same total float
activity paths. A bar chart layout of the same activities using an EPDM scheduling system might look like
Figure 3:

Act Rem Cal Early Early Late Late Total RANK 2003
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
ID Dur ID Start Finish Start Finish Float 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 1
0001
A-002 15 1 23JUN03 11JUL03 09JUN03 27JUN03 -10 0001 act 2
A-005 10 1 16JUN03A 25JUL03 16JUN03A 11JUL03 -10 0002 act 5
A-006 14 3 26JUL03 08AUG03 12JUL03 25JUL03 -14 0003 act 6
A-007 12 2 09AUG03 22AUG03 26JUL03 08AUG03 -12 0004 act 7
A-011 6 2 23AUG03 29AUG03 09AUG03 15AUG03* -12 0005 act 11
0002
A-012 0 3 01JUN03A 14JUN03A 01JUN03A 14JUN03A 0001 act 12
A-013 24 2 26JUL03 22AUG03 12JUL03 08AUG03 -12 0002 act 13
0003
A-009 21 3 26JUL03 15AUG03 14JUL03 03AUG03 -12 0001 act 9
A-010 12 3 16AUG03 27AUG03 04AUG03 15AUG03 -12 0002 act 10
0004
A-008 7 3 02AUG03 08AUG03 30JUL03 05AUG03* -3 0001 act 8
0005
A-004 5 1 09JUL03* 15JUL03 07JUL03 11JUL03 -2 0001 act 4
0006
A-001 0 1 09JUN03A 13JUN03A 09JUN03A 13JUN03A 0001 act 1
A-003 5 1 30JUN03 04JUL03 07JUL03 11JUL03 5 0002 act 3

Figure 3 (Grouped by "Path” and Sorted by "Rank")

The bar chart shown on Figure 3 has many advantages compared to the bar charts shown on
Figures 1 and 2. First, one can see that by looking at the “Cal ID” column (and by looking at the Total Float
values), Path 0001 has activities that are scheduled on three different calendars. Although the total float
values for the activities on Path 0001 are different, the EPDM scheduling system organizes the critical paths
in the order that they were scheduled. Second, activities started or completed out of sequence (Activities A-
005 and A-012) are placed in their proper place regardless of their actual dates or the fact that the total float
column is blank for completed activities. Third, subcritical paths (ones with more positive float than the
critical path) are shown separately, but are not excluded from the layout like they are on the Figure 2
Longest Path layout. Fourth, activity paths that have the same total float values , but are unrelated to each
other (e.g., Paths 001, 002, and 003) are shown as separate, unrelated paths.
In addition, with this layout, one can more easily see how a revision to the critical path may affect
subpaths. For example, if the first activity on Path 0001 (Activity A-002) was statused improperly, and the
correct progress was an actual start with a remaining duration of 2, it is immediately apparent that Paths
0002, 0003, and 0004 would not need to be reviewed or modified because all of those paths are successor
branch subpaths to Path 0001. Paths 0002, 0003, and 0004 are automatically fixed when Path 0001 is fixed.
Path 0005 (Activity A-004) would still need to be reviewed since it is NOT a successor branch subpath to
Paths 0001 through 0004.
The point to all of this is that more data can be clearly understood and analyzed between
recalculations, refiltering, and reorganizing, and this analysis does not have to be performed by an individual
sitting in front of a computer. “Enhanced” PDM scheduling systems are based on the core belief that the
Planner/Scheduler is a key contributor to the project’s success and that his or her time working on the
computer should be minimized. The scheduling tool is just a tool and its goal should be to minimize the
user’s time using it and analyzing output. The obvious question is “how does the EPDM scheduling system
determine the path and rank codes used to organize the bar chart shown on Figure 3?”

3
Missing Key Data
The key concept behind EPDM scheduling software which facilitates the determination of path and
rank codes is the computation and storage of the relationship early and late dates and the relationship
total float. By treating the relationships as activities and saving the relationship dates and relationship total
float, EPDM scheduling software is able to search through a CPM schedule network, identify which
predecessors or successors are driving an activity’s early or late dates , and clearly represent the float
between two activities on different float paths.
Once the relationships are converted to activities (where the duration is equal to the relationship
lag), the PDM network essentially becomes , from h t e computer’s perspective, an Arrow Diagramming
Method (ADM) network comprised of a mixture of activities and relationships, both “on-arrow.” The EPDM
scheduling software can now analyze this network because there are no missing links between the activities.
All nodes (activities and relationships) have early dates, late dates , and total float. The EPDM scheduling
system has the PDM benefits of simplicity and comprehensibility, and the ADM benefits of network
traceability and transparency. Figure 4 is a diagram of the 13 activity sample network converted to an ADM
network with the activities and relationships shown as arrows.

Sample Network Displayed as an "ADM Type" network.

A-004 0
5

A-002 0 A-005 0 A-006 0 A-007 0 A-011

15 10 14 12 6

7 A-008
7

0 A-012 0 A-013 0
0 24
0

A-001 5 A-003 0 A-009 0 A-010 0

0 5 21 12

Figure 4 (PDM Network Converted to ADM Network)

To calculate relationship dates and total float, other data must be calculated first. Obviously, the
additional time to calculate and save this data would slightly delay the schedule calculations, but performing
these calculations would make the schedule analysis easier and faster. As a side note, if the following
calculation techniques were incorporated directly into the scheduling software instead of being recalculated
after activity dates are stored, the steps involved would probably be different and, undoubtedly, more
efficient.

Remaining Lag
For each positive, non-zero relationship lag, the EPDM scheduling system must calculate the
remaining lag that is being used for date calculations. The remaining lag is the original lag minus the
difference between the data date and the predecessor’s actual start or actual finish, using the predecessor’s
calendar. An example of a remaining lag calculation is shown on Figure 5.

4
 Data Date = Day 6
Day: M T W T F S S M T W T F S S
Work Day No: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

FS 3

Act A Act B

Act A - AS Day 2, AF, Day 3

Rem Lag of Rel. A-B = Orig Lag - (DD - Pred AF - 1)

Rem Lag of Rel. A-B = 3 - (6 - 3 - 1) = 1
(Note the -1 day correction doesn't apply to SS, SF relationships)
(Note: if (DD-Pred AF-1) > Orig Lag, Rem Lag = 0)

Figure 5 (Remaining Lag Calculation Example)

When CPM scheduling software calculates the early and late dates for the activities, it includes all
the activities in the schedule (not just the unfinished ones), using activity remaining durations and
relationship remaining lags, all starting from the project data date. Once the remaining lags are calculated,
the EPDM scheduling software can calculate the relationship early and late dates and relationship total float.

Relationship Early and Late Dates and Relationship Total Float

For the next step, the early and late dates and total float for all the relationships in the schedule are
calculated. To explain how relationship dates and relationship total float are calculated, the Finish-to-Start
(zero day lag) relationship between Activities A012 and A013 will be used. Note that P3 Version 3.1 uses the
predecessor calendar for relationship date calculations, so all of the formulas below use the predecessor
calendar. The formulas are as follows:

• Relationship ES = Predecessor’s Internal EF + 1

• Relationship EF = Relationship ES + Relationship Remaining Lag – 1
• Relationship LF = Successor’s Internal LS – 1
• Relationship LS = Relationship LF – Relationship Remaining Lag + 1
• Relationship TF (RTF) = Relationship LF – Relationship EF

Note that the calculations only apply to Finish-to-Start relationships (other relationship types follow
different calculations); are calculated using the predecessor’s calendar; and use the predecessor/successor
INTERNAL dates, not the early/late dates that P3 prints or displays. The internal early and late dates for an
activity are the early and late dates of the remaining duration for that activity. Figure 6 shows the relationship
dates calculated for the Finish-to-Start relationship between Activities A012 and A013.

5
 Legend

IES Cal IEF RES REF IES Cal IEF

OD Title RD RLS RLF OD Title RD

ILS TF ILF RTF ILS TF ILF

7/26 7-Day 7/25 7/26 7/25 7/26 6-Day 8/22

14 A-012 0 7/12 7/11 24 A-013 24

7/12 -14 7/11 -14 7/12 -12 8/8

Figure 6 (Relationship Date, Relationship Total Float Example)

Resulting Successor ES/EF and Resulting Successor TF

For each relationship in the schedule, two new values must be calculated. The “resulting successor
ES/EF” (RSESEF) is defined as the hypothetical early start (or early finish for FF or SF relationships) of the
successor activity if that relationship was the driving relationship, using the successor calendar. The
“resulting successor TF” (RSTF) is defined as the hypothetical total float of the successor activity if that
specific relationship was the driving relationship, using the successor calendar. The formulas for calculating
the RSESEF and RSTF for the FS 0 relationship between Activities A012 and A013 are as follows and as
shown on Figure 7.

• RSESEF = Relationship EF + 1 (next valid workday using the successor’s calendar)

• RSTF = Successor’s Internal LS – RSESEF (using the successor’s calendar)

Legend

RSESEF (RSTF)
IES Cal IEF RES REF IES Cal IEF

OD Title RD RLS RLF OD Title RD

ILS TF ILF RTF ILS TF ILF

7/26 (-12) Link

7/26 7-Day 7/25 7/26 7/25 7/26 6-Day 8/22

14 A-012 0 7/12 7/11 24 A-013 24

7/12 -14 7/11 -14 7/12 -12 8/8

Link

Figure 7 (RSESEF & RSTF Example)

Figure 7 clearly shows how the EPDM system can “link” two activities on the same float path from
two different calendars. Predecessor activity A-012 (on a 7-day calendar) has a total float of -14 which is
equal to the Relationship Total Float (RTF) of -14 and Successor activity A-013 (on a 6-day calendar) has a
total float of -12 which is equal to the Resulting Successor Total Float (RSTF). This linkage allows the EPDM
to analyze activity predecessors and successors to determine which predecessors or successors are driving
the early or late dates of an activity.
For the reader’s convenience, the relationship early and late dates, RTF, RSESEF, and RSTF for
all the relationships in the entire example schedule network are shown on Figure 9 at the end of the paper.

6
Determination of Path and Rank
Once the relationship calculations for the entire network have been computed and stored, the
EPDM scheduling system can begin identifying the most critical path and successive subcritical paths.
Simplistically, the software identifies the activities that are “driving predecessors” (i.e., drive the early dates)
by finding the predecessor relationships where the relationship RSTF is equal to the successor’s total float.
The “driving successors” (i.e., drive the late dates) are the successor activities where the relationship TF is
equal to the predecessor’s total float. Figure 7 shows the link between the relationship total float and the
predecessor’s total float, and the link between the RSTF and the successor’s total float. This process
continues through the entire project schedule until every activity is given a numeric path to identify its float
path, and a numeric rank to identify where the activity is scheduled within the path.
It should be noted that the Relationship Total Float (RTF) and the Resulting Successor Total Float
(RSTF) values are “total float” type calculations. Relationship Free Float (RFF) and Resulting Successor
Free Float (RSFF) activities could have been calculated and used as the basis for comparing relationship
float data to predecessor/successor activity float data. However, it made more intuitive sense to the author
to use the absolute calculations of relationship total float instead of the relative calculations of relationship
free float. It can be noted that relationship free float would be an interesting and informative way to present
the data and its future calculation should be considered.
There are two different algorithms for determining the Path and Rank codes for a CPM schedule –
the “pure” float method, and the “key” ending activity method. The “pure” float method orders the float paths
in ascending order of total float. This method does compensate for the inherent changes in total float values
of activities on different calendars. The appropriate application of the “pure” float method would be the
analysis of a schedule that has many intermediate late date constraints or one that does not funnel down to
one end note activity.
The second method (“key” ending activity) allows the user to specify the end activity that represents
the completion of the project schedule. The “key” ending activity method then identifies the main
predecessor path driving the early date of the key ending activity, and less-critical predecessor sub-paths
feeding into the main path. The most appropriate application of the “key” ending activity method would be
the analysis of the early finish of the project schedule. While correct, the “key” end date method may yield
peculiar output if there are many intermediate late date constraints in the schedule or if there are multiple
“key” end nodes . Finally, both calculation methods would yield the same paths & ranks if the schedule had
no intermediate constraint dates and it had only one “key” end activity.
With the path and rank codes for each activity identified, a custom network
(predecessor/successor) report sorted by path and rank showing the activity internal dates and all the newly
calculated relationship information becomes an extremely useful schedule analysis tool. The key
advantages that this network report has over the standard network reports generated by P3 is that the data
is already sorted by path and rank, and it shows relationship dates and relationship float on predecessors
and successors. Furthermore, using the Path & Rank codes to group and sort, any report generated from P3
(such as a time-scaled-logic diagram or a pure logic diagram ) becomes much clearer to analyze and discuss
with the project stakeholders.

Relationship Float versus Activity Float

When a CPM schedule has multiple calendars, constraint dates, out-of-sequence progress, and
complex cross-ties between activity paths, it is important to calculate and save the relationship dates and
float because the predecessor’s total float values cannot be used as a quick indicator of the impact a
predecessor may have on an activity; Figure 8 below is an example of this phenomenon.

7
 Relationship Float Doesn't

Necessarily Equal Pred/Succ Activity Float

101 5 Day 115 Rel 1, RTF=RSTF=-20 116 5 Day 125

15 X1 15 10 X2 10
81 -20 95 96 -20 105

Rel 2, RTF=RSTF=+30

141 5 Day 155 156 5 Day 170

15 X3 15 Rel 3, RTF=RSTF=-30 15 X4 15
111 -30 125 Rel 4, RTF=RSTF=-10 126 -30 140

Legend
131 5 Day 135 IES Cal IEF
5 X5 5 OD ID RD
121 -10 125 ILS TF ILF

Figure 8 (Relationship Total Float may not equal Activity Total Float)
Figure 8 includes four activities scheduled on a 5 day calendar where Activities X1 and X2 are -20,
Activities X3 and X4 are -30, and Activity X5 is -10. There are Finish-to-Start relationships from Activity X1 to
X4 and from Activity X5 to X4. When analyzing the predecessors to Activity X4 using a P3
predecessor/successor report (or on-screen predecessor/successor window), one would see Predecessors
X1, X3, and X5, and their respective total float values of -20, -30, and -10. It is obvious that Predecessor X3
is the driving predecessor (because it has the same total float value, and because the driving predecessor
asterisk is present), but it is unclear what would be the “next most critical” predecessor if Predecessor X3
were deleted or progressed. In P3, the planner cannot use the total float values of Predecessors X1 or X5 to
see the impact of those predecessors on Activity X4.
The only way to analyze this scenario in P3 is to examine the predecessor relationship type
(Start-to-Start, Start-to-Finish, Finish-to-Finish, or Start-to-Finish), the relationship lag,
predecessor/successor calendar assignments , predecessor progress (has it been finished and what is the
remaining lag of the relationship), and the predecessor early start or finish (depending on the relationship
type). These inputs will then be analyzed to determine which predecessor is the “next most critical.” This is
quite difficult to do with most CPM schedules and is precisely the reason why many people have to
recalculate dates after each change; they cannot visualize what the “next most critical” path will be prior to
recalculation. Using an EPDM scheduling system, one would see the relationship dates and float and would
immediately know that Activity X5 would be the “next most critical” predecessor since the RSTF of -10 is
less than Predecessor X1 RSTF of +30. The interesting point in this example is that the activity total float
of Predecessor X1 is -20 whereas the activity total float of Predecessor X5 is only -10. Examining
predecessor activity total float does not always provide a complete analysis of the problem . “Enhanced”
PDM Scheduling Systems help you “see the logic” more easily and in a more understandable manner.

Summary and Conclusions

EPDM scheduling systems that can organize themselves into “as -scheduled” float paths are within
reach. Although additional calculations are required to determine path and rank codes for the activities, the
value of these calculations is immeasurable. In the future, scheduling software utilizing EPDM calculations
will be capable of organizing schedule data for experienced and non-experienced planners, regardless of
schedule complexity. Neither multiple calendars, constraint dates, out-of-sequence progress nor large-lag
relationships will prevent the software from presenting schedule information to the project team in a clear,
concise manner.
The greatest benefit the industry may gain from EPDM scheduling systems is the simplification of
CPM schedule analysis and delay analysis. Owners, consultants, contractors, and analysts will be able to
break away from confusing schedule output and the technical aspects of the software to clearly review and
discuss the critical paths of the project schedule. When this occurs, project schedule quality should improve
and more attention will be focused on mitigating schedule problems and issues.
.

8
 Legend

RSESEF/(RSTF)

7/9 5-Day 7/15 IES Cal IEF RES REF IES Cal IEF

5 A-004 5 OD Title RD RLS RTF RLF OD Title RD

7/7 -2 7/11 7/16 ILS TF ILF ILS TF ILF

7/14 7/15 (-2)

-2 7/15

7/11

6/23 5 Day 7/11 7/14 7/14 (-10) 7/11 7/14 5 Day 7/25 7/28 7/26 (-14) 7/25 7/26 7-Day 8/8 8/9 8/9 (-12) 8/8 8/9 6-Day 8/22 8/23 8/23 (-12) 8/22 8/23 6-Day 8/29

15 A-002 15 6/30 -10 6/27 15 A-005 10 7/14 -10 7/11 14 A-006 14 7/26 -14 7/25 12 A-007 12 8/9 -12 8/8 6 A-011 6

6/9 -10 6/27 6/30 -10 7/11 7/28 7/12 -14 7/25 7/26 -12 8/8 8/22 8/9 -12 8/15

7/14 8/8

SS 7 (7)

7/26 8/2 (-3) 8/1 8/2 7-Day 8/8 8/27

7/23 -3 7/29 7 A-008 7 8/23 (-12) 8/15

7/26 (-14) 7/30 -3 8/5 -12

-10

7/25 7/26 7-Day 7/25 7/26 7/26 (-12) 7/25 7/26 6-Day 8/22 8/23 8/27 (-10)

7/11 14 A-012 0 7/12 -14 7/11 24 A-013 24 8/9 -12

7/28 7/12 -14 7/11 7/12 -12 8/8

7/14 7/26 (-12)

-10

7/25

6/23 5 Day 6/20 FS 10 (5) 6/30 5 Day 7/4 7/11 7/26 7-Day 8/15 8/16 8/16 (-12) 8/15 8/16 7-Day 8/27 8/28

10 A-001 0 6/23 6/30 (+5) 6/27 5 A-003 5 7/7 7/5 (+9) 7/4 21 A-009 21 8/4 -12 8/3 12 A-010 12 8/16

6/30 +5 6/27 6/30 +5 7/4 7/7 +5 7/11 7/14 +5 7/11 7/14 -12 8/3 8/4 -12 8/15

Figure 9 (Relationship Dates, RTF, RSESEF, RSTF Example)