Schedule Variance Analysis and Corrective Actions

Correct Answer: Analyze fast tracking opportunities first, then consider crashing if needed

Fast tracking first, followed by crashing as needed, is the most effective sequence for schedule compression because: 1. Fast tracking is typically less costly and less risky than crashing, as it involves overlapping activities that would normally be done in sequence 2. If fast tracking alone achieves the desired schedule recovery, there's no need to incur the additional costs associated with crashing 3. Starting with the least expensive and least risky option preserves budget and maintains better control over project risks Other approaches are incorrect because: - Resource leveling actually tends to extend project duration rather than compress it - Using crashing as the primary method unnecessarily increases costs when faster, less expensive options might work - Attempting compression and resource optimization simultaneously can create confusion and potentially lead to resource conflicts Best practice is to evaluate and implement the least costly and least risky options first, then escalate to more aggressive measures only if necessary.

Correct Answer: Fast tracking may be applied to activities with minimal dependencies, while crashing requires additional resources

The best approach to schedule compression uses the most cost-effective technique first. Fast tracking is a technique that involves performing activities in parallel that would normally be done in sequence. This can be done with minimal dependencies and typically has no additional cost. Crashing involves adding resources to activities to speed them up, which increases costs. This makes it a less preferred initial option compared to fast tracking. The other answers are incorrect because: - Applying fast tracking only after crashing is inefficient and unnecessarily expensive, as it uses the more costly method first - Applying compression techniques equally to all activities is inefficient since only activities on the critical path impact the overall schedule - Applying crashing to non-critical path activities first makes no sense as these activities have float and do not impact the project end date

Correct Answer: Perform detailed root cause analysis of the schedule variances on critical path activities

When faced with significant schedule overruns in critical path activities, the most appropriate first step is to perform a detailed root cause analysis of the schedule variances. This approach allows for: 1. Understanding the true causes of the delays 2. Identifying patterns or systemic issues 3. Developing targeted and effective corrective actions 4. Making informed decisions based on data Other options are premature and potentially wasteful: Applying fast tracking and crashing techniques before understanding the root causes could worsen the situation and waste resources. Adding overtime and resources across all delayed activities is a reactive approach that may be unnecessary and costly if the real issues lie elsewhere. Requesting a complete baseline revision is an extreme measure that should only be considered after understanding and addressing the root causes, as it can mask performance issues and complicate project tracking.