I have reviewed the National Defense Industrial Association
Integrated Program Management Division's
Planning & Scheduling Excellence Guide (PASEG) to try to establish if any scheduling tenants are being violated by having multiple tasks exceeding any reasonable thresholds limiting the number of predecessor and successor tasks without sucess. Can you please offer any thoughts or suggestions on how to steer the contractor to producing a more robust and useful integrated master schedule?
Principally speaking, it is not the number of the linkages but the logic that should drive one's behavior in developing and managing a schedule as an effective management tool.
It seems pretty odd to have that many number of successors and processors at multiple points, but it is not in violation of any scheduling standard.
If I saw a schedule like this, it would prompt a lot of questions at the Integrated Baseline Review (IBR). Can all of these over 400 tasks start currently as soon as the contract award? Do you have enough resources (people, material, etc.) to perform all these tasks simultaneously? Are there truly no other missing dependencies?
The best option for the government is to objectively evaluate and document the contractor baseline risks during the IBR (technical risk, cost risk, resource risk, schedule risk, and management process risk). This baseline schedule may be rated high in one or more of these risk categories.