PM 585 Week 5 Monitoring and Controlling the Schedule Example

Behind by Three Blocks in July: Monitoring and Controlling the Schedule of a Lead Line Replacement Project

[Student Name]

University of Phoenix

PM/585: Project Scheduling and Value Management

Week 5 Assignment

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The water authority, its progress data, causes and recovery options are composites written for a model paper.

The lead line program at Allegheny Ridge, the invented utility in this course, began construction on April 7 with eight contractor crews working through 60 planned blocks. By mid-July the scheduler's weekly line-of-balance plot showed the installation line falling away from the plan. This paper examines how the authority monitors the schedule, what the data showed, why the work was late and what the project manager, Nora Kessler, recommended.

How Progress Is Captured

Each inspector records completed replacements daily in a tablet form that feeds the asset system: address, line type, start and finish times and any problems. Every Friday the scheduler pulls these records, updates actual progress against the baseline, redraws the line-of-balance plot and prepares the two-week look-ahead for crews. The current standard emphasizes that measurement should be timely and accurate enough to support decisions and that teams should look for trends as well as single variances (Project Management Institute [PMI], 2021). A review of analytical models and decision tools for monitoring and control (Hazır, 2015) noted that effective control depends on reliable progress data and on tools that help managers decide when and how to intervene, not just on measuring deviations.

What the Data Showed

As of July 18, 9 blocks were complete, against 12 in the baseline, and 455 replacements were done against 560 planned, about 81 percent of planned progress. The slope of the installation line had been close to plan through May but flattened from early June, averaging about 3.1 blocks a month instead of 4.1. Cost per completed line was running about 6 percent above estimate. If the June to July rate continued, the first season would finish with about 23 blocks instead of 30, and the second season would need to absorb seven extra blocks, which its capacity cannot do without added crews.

Finding the Causes

Kessler's team analyzed the records by address and crew. Two causes stood out.

First, access agreements. The scope assumed 85 percent of property owners would sign; the actual rate was 78 percent, and in rental-heavy blocks it was below 70. Crews arriving at a block found addresses without agreements, skipped them and returned later when agreements arrived, each return costing a half-day of setup.

Second, interior work. The estimate assumed 8 percent of lines would need work in finished basements; the actual share was 11 percent, concentrated in older neighborhoods. These lines took about twice as long as average.

Crew productivity on ordinary lines was on target, and weather losses were within the allowance. The problem was not effort but constraints and mix.

More crews would only have meant more trucks parked outside houses whose owners had not yet signed.

Protecting Crews From Blocked Work

Ballard and Howell (1998) argued that construction crews should be shielded from uncertainty by releasing only work whose prerequisites are complete, a practice that became part of the Last Planner system. The authority adopted this principle. From late July, a block is released to a crew only when at least 90 percent of its addresses have signed agreements, the street permit is issued, utility locates are marked and materials are staged. Blocks that fail the check stay in a ready queue while outreach staff work on agreements. A dedicated outreach team of three, two of them bilingual, now visits non-responding addresses in the evenings, when owners and tenants are home.

Reading the Trend Before It Became a Variance

In hindsight, the trend was visible in early June, when the installation line began to flatten, but the weekly report showed only the cumulative variance, which was still small. The team now reports the rate of progress over the last four weeks alongside the cumulative figure, so that a change in slope is noticed when it starts rather than when it has accumulated into a gap. This matters most on repetitive work, where small daily losses compound across many crews and blocks.

Recovery Options

The team compared four options to recover the three-block deficit before the November paving deadline:

Add a tenth crew from August: recovers about 1.5 blocks by October; costs about $310,000; risk that the contractor's new crew is inexperienced and slower at first.

Saturday shifts for all crews in August and September: recovers about 1.7 blocks; costs about $260,000 in overtime; risk of fatigue and complaints about weekend noise.

Resequence: move four high-agreement blocks forward and push lower-agreement blocks to the second season: recovers about one block of lost time by eliminating return trips; costs little; risk that lower-agreement neighborhoods, often lower-income, wait longer, which conflicts with equity goals.

Specialist interior crew: assign one crew only to the interior-work lines, using staff with plumbing experience: recovers about one block by speeding those lines and freeing other crews; costs about $40,000 in training and equipment.

Recommendation

Kessler recommended the specialist interior crew, Saturday shifts in August only and limited resequencing that moves high-agreement blocks forward while keeping the two lowest-income neighborhoods in the first season with extra outreach. Together these recover about three blocks at about $170,000, within contingency, while protecting the program's equity commitment. A tenth crew was held as a fallback if the October check showed the deficit still above two blocks.

What the Recommendation Gives Up

The combination is not free of cost beyond dollars. Limited resequencing means some residents in higher-agreement blocks get their new lines earlier than promised while a few in other blocks wait a few weeks longer. Saturday work in August adds noise on weekends in residential streets and asks crews for six-day weeks during the hottest month. The specialist crew removes one crew from the general rotation, so its benefit depends on keeping it supplied with interior jobs. Kessler set a review at the end of August to confirm that the specialist crew was fully used and to cancel Saturday shifts early if the deficit had closed.

Change Control and Communication

The resequencing changes the order of blocks but not the scope, cost baseline or milestones, so Kessler approved it under her authority. Saturday overtime draws on contingency and was approved by the engineering director. The board received the line-of-balance plot, the causes, the options and the recommendation in its monthly report. Affected residents received updated block calendars, and the city council member for the deferred blocks was briefed before the change was announced. The baseline itself was not changed.

Preventing Recurrence

For the second season, the authority will begin outreach for each block four months ahead instead of six weeks, update the line type model with first-season data and set the release rule from day one. The scheduler will add a weekly chart of agreements signed against blocks scheduled, a leading indicator the first season lacked.

Conclusion

Monitoring showed the program falling behind; analysis showed why. The causes were access agreements and interior work, not crew effort, so the response focused on removing constraints and speeding the hardest lines rather than simply adding crews. A release rule, targeted resequencing, a specialist crew and limited overtime recover the deficit within contingency, and earlier outreach and a new leading indicator should keep it from recurring.

References

Ballard, G., & Howell, G. (1998). Shielding production: Essential step in production control. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124(1), 11-17. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1998)124:1(11)

Hazır, Ö. (2015). A review of analytical models, approaches and decision support tools in project monitoring and control. International Journal of Project Management, 33(4), 808-815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.09.005

Project Management Institute. (2021). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) (7th ed.). Project Management Institute.