Invisible Activities, Visible Risks: The Hidden Cost of Filtering Project Schedules

I am bringing you an interesting topic. I have brought this to some professional discussion platforms but was not able to get any substantial assessment or suggestion. LinkedIn might provide some good traction.

It is nothing new, but it is important to be aware of, especially for upcoming project professionals. Please put on your Project Management, Risk Management, Planning, and Scheduling Subject Matter Experts hat and comment on this situation.

SITUATION:

Mark Whocare (not his real name), an experienced planner/scheduler consultant across various industries, particularly oil and gas (O&G) and infrastructure, was hired as a consultant at a mid-sized O&G company, reporting to a Lead Project Planner/Scheduler. It was all good until one beautiful day when their idea sort of collided. Mark discovered that a large number of activities in the schedules of all 20 large projects he is administering (large is relative here, i.e., $30M to $100M) were coded as either "Show" or "Not Show." The Lead created what he calls a Standard P6 Reporting Layout, which filters out a significant number of activities based on the premise described below. He calls it rolling wave planning and scheduling, a form of progressive elaboration in which work to be accomplished in the near term is planned in detail, while future work is planned at a higher level and does not appear in the Overall Lookahead. He advanced the following benefits:

Enables realistic planning when the full scope is not yet known.
Improves schedule accuracy and stakeholder confidence.
Supports agile and adaptive project environments.
Reduces rework from premature detailing of uncertain tasks.
Hides activities that might confuse the execution group

Mark accidentally learned about this in the second month, when the Construction Manager and his team started complaining that they did not see several activities in the schedule that were already underway in the field. He was surprised by being blindsided.

Mark investigated what happened and found that the project scheduling approach implemented hid activities that did not yet have a supporting Field Installation Work Package, despite the scope having been identified, estimated, and baselined through their corresponding Engineering Work Package (EWP). Unfortunately, the Lead failed to code those upcoming activities promptly, despite the FIWP having been issued a week prior to execution.

Apparently, that was the logic behind the practice. Hundreds (if not thousands) of downstream activities are not being displayed in the schedule and in the other Lookahead reports. The idea was that these activities are not yet well-defined for execution, and their forecast dates are still unreliable. What is happening is that the project stakeholders, particularly the construction group and commissioning group, do not see those activities removed from the overall schedule and the Look Ahead report.

Mark was concerned that such a practice would adversely affect how the project views its goal posts, resource management, critical path calculations, and the overall understanding of the entire scope.

Let me hear your take

How about you? Do you have strong concerns about the practice? If so, kindly identify the five critical concerns that must be addressed regarding this practice and outline the available solutions. Whether you agree or disagree with the Lead, please explain why.

<<Disclaimer: The situation presented is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to actual events, people, or places, living or dead, is purely coincidental. The roles, characters, and situations depicted are entirely imaginary and not based on specific real-life individuals or occurrences. The sole intention is to invoke insightful learning, thereby improving the profession.>>

e-Learning Courses at PM Solution ProCONTED & TRAINING - PM Solution Pro

About the Author

Rufran C. Frago, P. Eng., PMP, CCP, PMI-RMP, aka. UPANOG is the Founder of PM Solution Pro and KATHAKO, trade names (trademarks) of Risk-based Management and Services Inc., a Canadian company focusing on project/business risk-based management consulting, business development, creative products, and training services. Risk-based Management Professional, Planner & Scheduler, and Project Control Specialist with over 30 years of extensive experience delivering large-scale projects in O&G, LNG, Utilities, Refining, Power, Renewables, Nuclear, T&D, Oleochemicals, Petrochemicals & Manufacturing sectors.

As UPANOG, he sidesteps the purely technical and adopts an imaginative persona, that of a children’s book author and digital creator who values the finer things in life. He recognizes the power of storytelling and illustrations to impart important life lessons to children and those with a childlike heart. Whether it's kindness, empathy, resilience, or understanding diversity, he knows these themes often find their way into children's literature. Young readers learn by weaving these lessons seamlessly into the narratives while enjoying captivating stories.

Blog