On Track Issue 5 – Schedules

A schedule is one of the first things a project builds — and one of the first to fall out of date. When it is built too optimistically, or left un-updated once work begins, it quietly stops being a planning tool and becomes a record of what the team once hoped would happen. A schedule is only useful when it reflects reality closely enough that people trust it to make decisions. This issue looks at two things that keep a schedule honest: a realistic baseline at the start, and a simple habit of comparing planned against actual as you go.

The Practical Project Management Methodology (PPMM) treats a schedule as a forecasting tool, not a static plan. Its value is not in how detailed it looks at kickoff. It is in how well it answers one question throughout the project: are we still on track to finish when we said we would? A good schedule is built to be updated — and is updated often enough to be trusted.

Two practices do most of the work. The first is a realistic baseline: durations and dependencies the team agrees are achievable, with the key assumptions recorded so everyone knows what the dates depend on. The second is a regular planned-versus-actual comparison that shows not just where you are, but the rate at which you are moving. On a construction program that rate matters in money — every extra month of delay can add supervision costs, overheads, and contractor claims — so an early signal is worth far more than a precise one that arrives too late.