Personal blog. I write about what I learn as I am learning it

Resource Leveling vs Resource Smoothing, Measured

Resource leveling vs resource smoothing is usually taught as a pair of definitions to memorise for an exam: leveling may push the finish date out, smoothing may not. Both true, both useless the moment you are standing in front of a schedule that needs fixing, because neither tells you which one your plan can actually give you.

They are not two techniques. They are one trade-off, read from opposite ends. I solved the same 21-task renovation both ways and the two answers landed on exactly the same curve.

Line chart: with 3 general crew the renovation finishes 2 December, with 4 it finishes 30 November, and with 5 or more it finishes 25 November. — Resource leveling picks the left end and lets the date move. Resource smoothing wants the right end — and on this plan that means five people, not three.

Fast Tracking vs Crashing: I Measured Both

Every project management course teaches fast tracking vs crashing in the same order and with the same moral: if the date is at risk, fast track first, because overlapping tasks costs nothing but risk, and crash second, because crashing costs money. I have repeated that advice myself. Then I put both through a solver on the same plan and got the opposite of what the order implies.

Fast tracking pulled eight working days off the schedule and one day off the job. Crashing pulled six off the schedule and eleven off the job. Same 21-task renovation, same solver, same afternoon.

Grouped bar chart: fast tracking pulls 8 working days off the finish with unlimited crew but only 1 with the real crew, while crashing pulls 6 on paper and 11 in reality. — Fast tracking wins on paper and loses on site. Crashing is the only one of the two that gains more in reality than it does on the network.

Project Crashing: How Many Days Can You Actually Buy?

Project crashing is what you do when the date is wrong and the work is not going to shrink on its own: you pick tasks and do them a different, faster, more expensive way. Rent the spray rig. Order the wall panels prefabricated instead of stick-framing them. Hand the drywall to a subcontractor. The version in the textbooks is a tidy table of crash cost per day, and in twenty years of doing this for a living I have never once had a job hand me that table.

So I ran it properly instead of describing it. Same 21-task house renovation I have been using all series, three general crew, six alternatives a real builder could actually buy, and a solver that has to choose which ones are worth it. Here is what crashing bought, change by change, with nothing rounded in my favour.

Step chart: with no changes the renovation finishes 2 December; subcontracting drywall alone pulls it to 25 November, adding prefab framing to 19 November, and adding a roofing subcontractor to 17 November. — Every step down costs one more argument with a subcontractor. The first one buys the most days.

Continue reading “Project Crashing: How Many Days Can You Actually Buy?”

A Critical Path Method Template That Does Both Passes

Most of what gets offered as a critical path method template is a Gantt chart with a column called Start that you fill in yourself. That is not the critical path method. The whole point of CPM is that you never type a date — you type durations and predecessors, and the dates are computed. If the template makes you enter the start, it has quietly handed the work back to you and kept the chart.

So this is what an honest one has to do, which half of it a spreadsheet handles well, which half it fights you on, and the file I ended up with. Numbers throughout come from the same 21-task renovation plan the template ships with.

Table of early start, early finish, late start, late finish and total float for 21 tasks, with the zero-float critical path rows shaded. — What the method actually produces. Four dates and a float per task; the shaded rows are the critical path.

Free Float vs Total Float, and the Third Kind

Free float vs total float sounds like the kind of distinction that exists to be asked about in an exam. It is not. They answer two genuinely different questions, they disagree on real plans, and the one your software prints by default is the one that will get you a phone call from a subcontractor.

I ran both numbers over a 21-task house renovation — the sample plan I use for all of this — and then a third number that no CPM tool prints, because it needs information the critical path method throws away. Here is all three, on the same plan.

Bar chart comparing total float, free float and crew-constrained float for the eleven tasks where the three measures disagree. — Eleven of the twenty-one tasks. Three measures of slack, and they rarely agree.