8/18/2019 10 Most Common Mistakes Schedulers Make
1/2
10 Most Common Mistakes
Schedulers Make
Good schedulers are hard to come by. Most of them have either IT
or field experience,
but few have both skill sets. Practical, or field experience, is
invaluable to a scheduler,
because it enables him to see the project from a builder’s
standpoint. Experience with
scheduling programs is a prerequisite of a solid schedule: if
you don’t’ know how to
substantially use the program, it won’t matter what field
experience you possess.
That being said, a scheduler optimally has both field and
schedule programming
experience. With these tools a scheduler can do his best work,
as his expertise
encompasses both the practical and theoretical. Nevertheless;
regardless of
background, there are some basic pitfalls that any scheduler
must be wary of. Technical
errors are plainly evident in the schedule, and can be readily
identified in the oversight
process, whereas practical, or non-technical mistakes are more
generic. Here are 10 of
the most common type of non-technical mistakes that schedulers
make:
1. Failure to solicit or incorporate the builder’s input: the
builder is the
best resource for determining the sequence of installations.
Quite often,
he is the only one who really knows this sequence, as it
pertains directly
to his means and methods. It is therefore eigent not only to
solicit this
data from the builder, but also to ensure that his data set is
complete.
!any builders assume that the scheduler will determine the
pro"ect
logic independently. It is incumbent on the scheduler to educate
the
builder as to what is required of him.
#. Failure to study the pro"ect drawings, or incorporate
knowledge from a
proper plan re$iew into the schedule.
%. Failure to be cogni&ant and obser$ant of pro"ect
speci'cation
requirements that are stated in the pro"ect manual. ($ery public
agency
seems to ha$e its own scheduling standards, thus it is e$er
important to
consider each pro"ect independently.
8/18/2019 10 Most Common Mistakes Schedulers Make
2/2
). Inability to correctly eecute mitigation measures * or to
conduct
mitigation without the builder’s input. !itigation and reco$ery
e+orts
require interface with the contractor. nilateral measures only
ensure
that the schedule will ha$e to be reworked once the contractor
has his
say.
-. (rrors and omissions: a theoretician is more likely to not
reali&e many
of the subtasks that compose the more comple acti$ities, and
to
generate a broad stroke schedule that will require ma"or
etrapolation.
/. Inability to generate and obtain owner appro$al of the
schedule before
the pro"ect starts. In this way, it is not possible for updates
to keep pace
with actual progress.
0. missions of interrelated sequences: many acti$ities ha$e
se$eral
relationships with other acti$ities. 2oo often, these are not
represented.
2he mistake becomes e$ident in the update process, when
acti$ities
that cannot be performed show positi$e 3oat 4they appear to be
ready
to perform5.
6. nderrepresentation of the submittalappro$al process. ften,
a
scheduler does not allow enough time for the detailing,
preparation,
issuance of submittals * especially resubmittals, and a su7cient
window
for the appro$al process, e$en though the term for re$iew is
typically
found in the pro"ect speci'cations.
8. 9ack of contingency and o$ercompression: more aggressi$e
schedules
ha$e less 3oat. ontractors often allow themsel$es to get roped
in to
such pro"ects well knowing that there is a good chance they may
not
meet the substantial completion date.
1;. Inability to track change orders and their e+ect on the
critical path.
