MYTH 1:
MY PLAN WILL ALWAYS BE BETTER
The brutal truth is that side schedules wouldn’t exist if everyone had enough confidence in the master schedule. All too often, though, field teams view CPM schedules as difficult to use and hard to trust. In their view, such schedules don’t accurately include their knowledge about how their own role will affect the project. And the resulting lack of buy-in gives rise to the belief that “my plan will always be better,” and thus to the side schedules that make accurate tracking of progress difficult, make it harder to collaborate with other specialties, and further erode the usefulness of the master schedule.
MYTH VARIATIONS:
From the perspective of field teams, traditional CPM schedules represent an idyllic, best-case scenario. They don’t accurately reflect the real world and the risk and uncertainty it brings, not to mention the expertise of field execution teams.
Field teams may also view master schedules as little more than a software output. Someone pushes the button, and the computer produces something that checks a box for the office staff, but lacks the necessary detail. Viewed this way, schedules don’t contribute to the downstream success of a project.
37% of construction projects exceed both budget and schedule projections.3
BEHIND THE MYTH
The misconception that a side schedule plan is always better than the master schedule reflects a nugget of truth: Most CPM schedules don’t capture the expertise of field teams. That’s because traditional scheduling tools make it difficult to gather iterative, comprehensive feedback and input. Schedulers can’t incorporate expert insights into their work as extensively as they’d like, and that means schedules aren’t as realistic as they could be. So it’s no wonder that field teams don’t have confidence in master schedules, and they have data on their side. Less than of all construction projects finish on time, and 37% exceed both budget and schedule projections.3
Though side schedules are created to address a shortcoming, they also compound the problem they aim to address. When each team works from its own side schedules, communication between field teams and the existing CPM breaks down, causing serious misalignment. Field teams’ willingness to pivot from the plan compromises trust between the scheduler and the field execution teams. That, in turn, creates siloed pockets across the project as each discipline operates based on their own point of view. When project contributors aren’t bought into the same schedule, project consistency and cohesion can’t develop. Inaccurate reporting to stakeholders – another unfortunate downstream result of side schedules – also undermine ongoing trust and accountability.
MOVING PAST THE MYTH
The best way to dispel a misconception is to create a new reality. So what does it take to create a new scheduling reality in which field teams aren’t tempted to create side schedules by a belief in their superiority? Organizations must change how they think about the scheduling process and enable two key changes.
AI ON YOUR SIDE
Collaboration between experts forms the core of great scheduling. But AI can help, too. InEight Schedule includes AI-driven analytics and suggestion engines to help scheduling experts spot challenges and opportunities. Learn about practical AI tools.
MAKE CHANGE HAPPEN:
CONNECTING VIEWPOINTS WITH COLLABORATIVE MARKUP
Soliciting input from field execution teams is critical to a more collaborative and reliable capital construction process. It’s time to retire cumbersome, manual processes for allowing stakeholders to provide their feedback. Instead, these four strategies can simplify the markup experience and help teams come to a consensus faster:
TRANSFORMATIONAL SCHEDULING DELIVERS:
- Find the right stakeholders. While every leader in the organization is likely to have their thoughts, not every opinion is necessary to generate consensus. Identify contributors with the right experience to give valuable input. Of course, keep other leaders in the loop, but don’t overcomplicate the feedback process with unnecessary eyes.
- Be clear. Ensure stakeholders understand exactly where their attention is needed. There’s a considerable difference in the time commitment necessary to assess an entire CPM schedule versus a specific phase.? Without clear instruction, stakeholders are far more likely to push off the task until they have adequate time to understand the need.
- Set a time. Most contributors are far more likely to engage with projects outside of their typical routine when schedulers or project managers designate a specific time for those experts to submit focused and thoughtful feedback.
- Make collaboration easy. No one outside of the scheduling team knows how to use P6, and it’s not set up for feedback anyway. InEight Schedule offers a collaborative markup tool that helps teams build more accurate schedules by emailing stakeholder invitations, consolidating their input, sharing those details across the team, and allowing for seamless revisions.