10

Most
Common
Schedulers Make

Mistakes

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 builders standpoint. Experience with
scheduling programs is a prerequisite of a solid schedule: if you dont know how to
substantially use the program, it wont 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 builders 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 exigent not only to solicit this
data from the builder, but also to ensure that his data set is complete.
Many builders assume that the scheduler will determine the project
logic independently. It is incumbent on the scheduler to educate the
builder as to what is required of him.

2.

Failure to study the project drawings, or incorporate knowledge from a

proper plan review into the schedule.

3.

Failure to be cognizant and observant of project specification

requirements that are stated in the project manual. Every public agency
seems to have its own scheduling standards, thus it is ever important to
consider each project independently.

4.

Inability to correctly execute mitigation measures or to conduct

mitigation without the builders input. Mitigation and recovery efforts
require interface with the contractor. Unilateral measures only ensure
that the schedule will have to be reworked once the contractor has his
say.

5.

Errors and omissions: a theoretician is more likely to not realize many

of the sub-tasks that compose the more complex activities, and to
generate a broad stroke schedule that will require major extrapolation.

6.

Inability to generate and obtain owner approval of the schedule before

the project starts. In this way, it is not possible for updates to keep pace
with actual progress.

7.

Omissions of inter-related sequences: many activities have several

relationships with other activities. Too often, these are not represented.
The mistake becomes evident in the update process, when activities
that cannot be performed show positive float (they appear to be ready
to perform).

8.

Under-representation of the submittal-approval process. Often, a

scheduler does not allow enough time for the detailing, preparation,
issuance of submittals especially resubmittals, and a sufficient window
for the approval process, even though the term for review is typically
found in the project specifications.

9.

Lack of contingency and over-compression: more aggressive schedules

have less float. Contractors often allow themselves to get roped in to
such projects well knowing that there is a good chance they may not
meet the substantial completion date.

10. Inability to track change orders and their effect on the critical path.
Without proper tracking and projection, contractors are often hard-put
to generate schedules to support delay claims.