Schedule Baselines, Updating and Performance Control

Introduction

A project schedule is not merely a list of activities and dates. It is a time-based model of how scope will be transformed into deliverables through the coordinated use of people, equipment, information, money, and external dependencies. Once approved, the schedule becomes a management baseline: a reference against which actual progress, emerging risk, forecast completion, and proposed changes can be evaluated.

Schedule control is therefore a continuous management process rather than a one-time comparison of planned and actual dates. It requires the project team to preserve the approved plan, record actual performance, estimate remaining work, analyse deviations, forecast outcomes, and decide whether corrective or preventive action is justified. In complex projects, schedule control must also be integrated with cost control, risk management, resource management, procurement, quality assurance, and formal change control.

This chapter explains how to establish and maintain schedule baselines, status activities using actual and remaining data, analyse slippage and variance, forecast completion dates, integrate the Critical Path Method (CPM) with Earned Value Management (EVM) and Earned Schedule (ES), and design recovery schedules without compromising governance or realism.

Learning Objectives

By the end of this chapter, the reader should be able to:

1. Explain the purpose and characteristics of a schedule baseline.
2. Distinguish baseline data from current schedule forecasts and actual performance data.
3. Status activities consistently using actual start, actual finish, remaining duration, and progress information.
4. Calculate and interpret critical-path slippage, float consumption, schedule variance, Schedule Performance Index, and earned-schedule indicators.
5. Forecast completion dates using CPM and performance-based methods.
6. Evaluate recovery alternatives, including fast-tracking and crashing.
7. Apply integrated change control and maintain an auditable schedule history.
8. Identify the governance, ethical, technological, and practical limitations of schedule performance control.

1. The Schedule Baseline as a Management Commitment

A schedule baseline is the approved version of the time-phased project plan against which schedule performance is measured. It normally includes activity definitions, logic relationships, calendars, constraints, planned durations, planned start and finish dates, milestones, resource or cost assignments where relevant, and the planned sequence of work.

The baseline is not a prediction that will remain permanently accurate. It is a controlled management commitment. The project team is expected to manage within it, while the change-control authority determines when an approved change justifies revising it.

Three distinctions are essential:

A schedule may also contain a forecast finish date. The forecast is not the baseline; it is the current estimate based on actual performance, remaining work, logic, calendars, risks, and assumptions.

1.1 Baseline quality criteria

An effective baseline should be:

• Scope-aligned: every significant deliverable and work package is represented.
• Logic-based: activities are connected by meaningful relationships rather than arbitrary dates.
• Resource-informed: durations reflect realistic resource availability and productivity.
• Calendar-consistent: working days, holidays, shifts, and access restrictions are correctly represented.
• Measurable: progress can be assessed objectively.
• Traceable: each activity can be related to a work-breakdown-structure element, responsible owner, and acceptance condition.
• Approved: the appropriate sponsor, client, or governance body has accepted it.
• Version-controlled: its approval date, revision identifier, assumptions, and change history are recorded.

A baseline with excessive mandatory constraints, missing logic, hidden duration assumptions, or activities that are too large to status reliably may appear stable while providing weak control information.

1.2 Baseline approval and freezing

Baseline development usually follows this sequence:

1. Confirm scope, deliverables, assumptions, and acceptance criteria.
2. Decompose scope into work packages and activities.
3. Establish activity logic, calendars, resources, and estimated durations.
4. Perform forward and backward CPM calculations.
5. Review constructability, procurement lead times, interfaces, risks, and resource feasibility.
6. Identify milestones, contractual dates, and schedule-compliance requirements.
7. Obtain stakeholder review and formal approval.
8. Record the approved baseline and prevent informal alteration.

A baseline should be frozen at a meaningful control point, such as contract award, notice to proceed, or the end of detailed planning. Freezing too early creates a weak reference plan; freezing too late delays management control.

2. CPM Foundations for Schedule Control

The Critical Path Method calculates the earliest and latest permissible timing of activities, assuming activity durations and logic are represented adequately. For an activity with duration d, earliest start ES, earliest finish EF, latest start LS, and latest finish LF, the basic relationships are:

Total float is:

Here, duration and all time variables must use the same unit and calendar convention. In a finish-to-start network without lags, an activity's earliest start is controlled by the latest earliest finish of its predecessors:

where activity j has predecessors i. The project’s earliest completion is the maximum earliest finish of its terminal activities. The critical path is the sequence of activities governing that completion under the model assumptions. In a simple deterministic network, activities with zero total float are commonly identified as critical, although multiple critical paths, negative float, calendar effects, constraints, and progress updates require careful interpretation.

CPM is especially important during control because a delay to a non-critical activity may consume float without immediately delaying the project, whereas a smaller delay to a critical or near-critical activity may affect the completion date. Control therefore examines not only activity variance but also changes in path structure, float, logic, and forecast completion.

3. Statusing the Schedule Correctly

Status collection is the disciplined recording of what has actually happened and what remains. A reporting period should have a defined status date, sometimes called the data date. All actuals and forecasts must be interpreted relative to that date.

3.1 Core status fields

For each activity, the scheduler may need to record:

• actual start date;
• actual finish date;
• remaining duration;
• physical or technical percentage complete;
• actual resource or cost usage;
• remaining resource or cost estimate;
• quantity installed or produced;
• forecast finish date;
• explanation of variance and corrective action.

An activity that has started but is not finished should normally have an actual start and a defensible remaining duration. A completed activity should have an actual finish and zero remaining duration. An activity that has not started should not be marked partially complete merely because preparatory effort has occurred elsewhere unless the activity’s measurement rules explicitly permit that treatment.

3.2 Percentage complete is not a single concept

Three measures are often confused:

• Duration percent complete: elapsed duration relative to planned duration. It is easy to calculate but may not represent physical accomplishment.
• Physical percent complete: objective progress against measurable output, such as metres installed, drawings approved, or test cases passed.
• Earned value percent complete: the proportion of budgeted value earned, often based on an approved earning rule.

For example, a design activity planned for ten working days may be 80% complete by elapsed time but only 50% complete by approved deliverables if major review comments remain unresolved. Statusing rules should favour observable accomplishment over subjective optimism.

3.3 The status-date principle

A schedule update should be made as of the status date. Future work should not be shown as completed simply because an actual report was received late. Similarly, actual starts and finishes should be supported by evidence such as timesheets, inspection records, approved documents, delivery receipts, system logs, or supervisor confirmation.

A common control error is to move incomplete activities forward until they fit the baseline. This conceals delay and damages the credibility of the schedule. Another error is to enter actual progress without recalculating logic and forecasts. The result is a schedule that records history but fails to predict the future.

4. Measuring Variance and Slippage

Schedule variance can be described at several levels. The selection of metric must match the management question.

4.1 Date variance

For an activity or milestone, a simple finish-date variance is:

where AF is actual or forecast finish and BF is baseline finish. Positive values indicate lateness when dates are represented numerically as elapsed time from a common origin. The same idea can be applied to start dates. Calendar conventions must be consistent; a five-day variance should not be interpreted without knowing whether weekends and holidays are included.

For an incomplete activity, a forecast finish rather than an actual finish is used. The variance should be labelled forecast variance to distinguish it from historical actual variance.

4.2 Float consumption

If an activity originally had total float of 8 working days and now has 2 working days, float consumption is 6 working days, or 75% of the original float. A proportional expression is:

where TF₀ is baseline float and TFₜ is current float. This measure is meaningful only when the denominator is positive and the logic, calendar, and scope remain comparable. It should not be used alone because float may change when approved scope, calendars, logic, or constraints change.

4.3 Critical-path movement

A schedule may remain on time at the project level while its critical path changes. A formerly non-critical procurement activity may become critical after a supplier delay. Therefore, each update should examine:

• current critical and near-critical paths;
• changes in total and free float;
• activities with negative float;
• open constraints and lags;
• logic changes;
• milestone forecast movement;
• resource conflicts that may not be represented in a pure CPM model.

5. Earned Value and Earned Schedule Integration

CPM explains the logical cause of a date forecast. Earned Value Management adds a time-phased value perspective that connects scope accomplishment with planned and actual cost.

Let:

• PV = Planned Value, the budgeted value of work scheduled by the status date;
• EV = Earned Value, the budgeted value of work actually accomplished;
• AC = Actual Cost, the cost incurred for accomplished work;
• BAC = Budget at Completion.

The principal cost and schedule indicators are:

Cost variance CV and schedule variance SV are expressed in value units, not calendar time. A positive SV means more budgeted work has been accomplished than was planned by the status date; it does not directly mean that the project is ahead by a particular number of days. Similarly, SPI below 1 indicates that earned value is less than planned value, but its numerical interpretation as a time ratio is limited.

EVM assumptions include a valid performance-measurement baseline, consistent earning rules, reliable actual-cost data, and meaningful time-phasing. It is particularly weak when value is earned in large discrete increments or when activities have long durations and subjective completion rules.

5.1 Forecasting cost and schedule

A common estimate at completion, assuming current cost efficiency continues, is:

where EAC is Estimate at Completion. This is a management forecast, not a law. If remaining work is expected to follow the original budget but past cost variance is considered atypical, another approximation is:

The choice must be justified by the project’s causal conditions.

5.2 Earned Schedule

Earned Schedule translates earned value into time. Let AT be actual time elapsed at the status date. Let ES be the point on the planned-value curve at which the current earned value would have been achieved. Then:

and:

A practical interpolation for ES is:

where C is the last completed time period whose planned value is no greater than EV, PV_C is planned value at that period, and PV_C+1 is planned value at the next period. This assumes the planned-value curve is sufficiently well behaved between the two periods. Earned Schedule is generally more interpretable as a time indicator than traditional SV, especially late in a project when traditional schedule variance tends toward zero as planned value approaches the budget at completion.

Worked example: EVM and Earned Schedule

Suppose at the end of month 6 a project has PV = $600,000, EV = $510,000, and AC = $540,000. The budget at completion is $1,000,000.

The indicators are:

SV = $510,000 − $600,000 = −$90,000, so accomplished value is below planned value.

SPI = $510,000 ÷ $600,000 = 0.85.

CV = $510,000 − $540,000 = −$30,000.

CPI = $510,000 ÷ $540,000 ≈ 0.944.

If current cost efficiency continues, EAC = $1,000,000 ÷ 0.944 ≈ $1,059,322. This forecast is conditional and should not be presented as a guaranteed final cost.

Assume planned value at month 5 was $480,000 and at month 6 was $600,000. Since $510,000 lies between these values:

ES = 5 + ($510,000 − $480,000) ÷ ($600,000 − $480,000) = 5.25 months.

Therefore, SVₜ = 5.25 − 6 = −0.75 months and SPIₜ = 5.25 ÷ 6 = 0.875. The project has earned approximately 0.75 month less planned schedule than the time elapsed, subject to the quality of the earning rules and planned-value curve.

6. Forecasting Completion Dates

Forecasting should combine network logic, remaining duration, resource availability, risk, and performance evidence. No single indicator is sufficient in every circumstance.

6.1 CPM-based forecast

After inserting actual starts and finishes and updating remaining durations, the schedule is recalculated. The resulting longest path determines the modelled forecast completion. This approach is strongest when remaining durations and logic are credible.

6.2 Performance-based forecast

A simplified performance-based estimate can use a planned duration divided by a time-performance index. For example:

This is only an approximation. It assumes that the observed time efficiency is relevant to the remaining work and that the index is stable. It should not replace a logic-based schedule forecast. A project can have a poor historical index because of a completed one-time disruption and still have a realistic remaining plan.

6.3 Three-point and risk-informed forecasting

Where uncertainty is material, remaining duration can be represented using optimistic, most likely, and pessimistic estimates. The traditional beta-style expected duration is:

where a, m, and b are optimistic, most likely, and pessimistic durations. This formula is an approximation and assumes the estimates are meaningful and the chosen distribution is appropriate. It should not be used to create false precision. Monte Carlo simulation may be more appropriate for a network with correlated risks, multiple paths, and uncertain durations, provided the input distributions and correlations are defensible.

7. Recovery Schedules

A recovery schedule is a controlled plan for reducing or containing forecast delay. It is not simply a revised schedule with an earlier finish date. It must state the cause of delay, the actions proposed, the assumptions, the resources required, the risks introduced, and the authority for implementation.

7.1 Recovery options

Resequencing changes the order of work where technical and safety conditions permit. It may release work fronts but can increase interface risk.

Fast-tracking overlaps activities that were previously sequential. It can shorten elapsed time but increases rework, coordination, design-maturity, and safety risks.

Crashing adds resources, shifts, equipment, subcontract capacity, or overtime to shorten durations. It increases direct cost and may reduce productivity through congestion or fatigue.

Scope or specification clarification may eliminate unnecessary work, but only through approved scope change. Unauthorised omission is not recovery; it is non-compliance.

Constraint removal addresses access, permits, information, procurement, decisions, or interfaces that prevent planned work.

Resource reallocation moves scarce resources to critical or near-critical activities, while assessing the effect on other paths.

A recovery analysis should compare alternatives on duration reduction, cost, risk exposure, quality impact, safety, resource feasibility, contractual acceptability, and reversibility. The cheapest option is not necessarily the best option.

7.2 Illustrative crashing analysis

Suppose a critical activity can be completed normally in 12 days at a direct cost of $24,000, or in 9 days at $30,000. If the relationship is treated as linear over this range, the cost slope is:

Thus, cost slope = ($30,000 − $24,000) ÷ (12 − 9) = $2,000 per day.

This calculation is applicable only if the activity can actually be shortened by three days, the cost relationship is sufficiently stable, and the activity remains critical after each reduction. Crashing a non-critical activity may provide no project-completion benefit.

8. Change Control and Baseline Maintenance

A baseline should not be changed merely because performance is poor. If every adverse variance is absorbed into a new baseline, performance information disappears. Baseline change is justified when the approved project scope, strategy, contractual requirement, external condition, or authorised execution approach has materially changed.

A controlled change process generally includes:

1. submission of a change request;
2. description of the scope, schedule, cost, risk, quality, resource, and contractual effects;
3. impact analysis against the current baseline;
4. review by authorised stakeholders;
5. approval, rejection, or deferral;
6. incorporation into the schedule and related baselines;
7. communication and implementation;
8. preservation of the superseded baseline and decision record.

The original baseline should remain available for historical analysis. A revised baseline should have a new version, effective date, approval authority, reason for change, and traceable relationship to the approved change request.

Schedule changes must also be assessed for entitlement and liability. In contractual projects, a delay may arise from client change, force majeure, contractor performance, concurrent delay, late information, or a combination. Schedule analysis should be evidence-based and should not manipulate logic or status data to manufacture entitlement.

9. Governance, Ethics, and Data Quality

Schedule control involves professional judgement and can affect payments, claims, bonuses, safety decisions, and public commitments. Ethical practice therefore requires:

• honest reporting of actual progress and forecast dates;
• separation of factual status from management optimism;
• transparent assumptions and uncertainty;
• protection against retaliation for reporting bad news;
• preservation of audit trails;
• avoidance of hidden constraints, excessive lags, or artificial activity splits;
• escalation of safety, quality, and regulatory threats even when escalation worsens the reported forecast.

A schedule should never be accelerated by suppressing inspection, testing, rest periods, permit requirements, or quality gates. A mathematically earlier date is not a valid project outcome if it violates law, contract, safety, or acceptance conditions.

Data quality problems commonly include inconsistent calendars, duplicate activities, incomplete actuals, inaccurate resource availability, incorrect status dates, excessive use of constraints, and subjective percentage complete. Governance should define data owners, update frequency, approval responsibilities, naming conventions, threshold rules, and correction procedures.

10. Technology and AI in Schedule Performance Control

Modern scheduling platforms can calculate networks, identify float changes, compare baselines, integrate cost and resource data, and produce dashboards. Digital twins, field applications, sensor data, building-information models, and procurement systems may provide near-real-time evidence of progress.

Artificial intelligence can assist with anomaly detection, likely delay prediction, text extraction from progress reports, and comparison of current patterns with historical projects. However, AI outputs are forecasts or recommendations, not authoritative facts. Their reliability depends on data quality, model transparency, representative training data, and appropriate treatment of uncertainty. Human experts must validate activity status, causal explanations, and proposed recovery actions.

Good practice includes recording the source and date of data, retaining the model version, testing for systematic bias, protecting commercial and personal information, and ensuring that automated recommendations do not override safety or contractual controls.

11. Illustrative Case: Hospital Expansion Project

Background

A fictional project involves a six-storey hospital expansion scheduled for 24 months. The baseline includes design, permitting, procurement, foundations, structural frame, building services, medical-equipment installation, commissioning, and regulatory approval. The approved completion milestone is the date on which the facility can legally open.

Problem

At month 10, the project team reports that overall physical progress is 42% against a planned 48%. The structural frame is six working days late because of delayed reinforcement deliveries. Mechanical design is apparently 90% complete, but several hospital-user approvals remain outstanding. The current CPM forecast shows a 19-day delay to commissioning. SPIₜ is 0.88 and CPI is 0.96.

Analysis

The scheduler first validates the status date, delivery records, approved drawings, and actual installation quantities. The mechanical activity is remeasured using approved design packages rather than elapsed time. Its remaining duration increases by eight working days. Logic is checked to ensure that regulatory commissioning cannot begin until systems testing and user approval are complete.

The structural delay initially consumes available float, but a procurement-to-installation path becomes critical. The update also identifies a hidden assumption: equipment delivery dates had been treated as fixed constraints rather than risk-exposed activities. The project manager therefore distinguishes historical delay from forecast risk.

Approach and solution

The team evaluates three alternatives:

1. Add a second reinforcement crew, reducing structural recovery time by five days at additional cost.
2. Overlap selected mechanical rough-in activities with structural completion in released zones, subject to engineering approval.
3. Escalate hospital-user reviews through scheduled decision workshops, while preserving mandatory clinical and regulatory checks.

The team rejects a proposal to remove testing steps because it would compromise safety and legal acceptance. The approved recovery plan combines additional reinforcement capacity, zone-based resequencing, and formal approval workshops. A risk allowance is retained for equipment delivery, and all recovery assumptions are documented.

Outcome

After two reporting periods, the structural path recovers four days, user approvals are current, and the forecast delay reduces from 19 to 8 working days. The project does not claim that the baseline was met; instead, the team reports the original variance, the approved recovery actions, the remaining exposure, and the revised forecast. A formal change request is raised because the added crew and revised access plan alter the approved cost and execution strategy.

Learning points

The case demonstrates that reliable control depends on evidence-based status, logic validation, integration of schedule and cost information, and disciplined change governance. It also shows why apparent percentage complete can be misleading and why recovery should address causes rather than merely move dates.

12. Best-Practice Control Cycle

An effective periodic control cycle is:

1. Establish and communicate the status date.
2. Collect verified actual starts, finishes, quantities, costs, and constraints.
3. Record remaining durations and forecasts with responsible owners.
4. Recalculate the network using approved calendars and logic.
5. Compare current results with the baseline and prior update.
6. Analyse critical-path movement, float consumption, milestone variance, EVM, and ES indicators.
7. Identify causes, impacts, risks, and decision points.
8. Develop corrective, preventive, or recovery alternatives.
9. Obtain approvals through change control where required.
10. Publish an integrated report with assumptions and action owners.
11. Preserve the update file, evidence, baseline version, and decision record.
12. Review whether the control process itself is producing reliable information.

Challenges and Limitations

Schedule models are representations, not reality. CPM often assumes fixed durations and deterministic logic, while actual projects contain uncertainty, resource competition, weather, learning effects, quality rework, political decisions, and correlated risks. A network may also omit informal coordination work or represent complex production with unsuitable activity structures.

EVM can be distorted by poor earning rules, front-loaded budgets, large discrete milestones, or costs recorded in a different period from the work performed. Traditional schedule variance is a value measure and should not be interpreted as days. Earned Schedule improves time interpretation but still depends on the planned-value curve and reliable earned value.

Forecasts can create self-fulfilling expectations, especially when managers pressure teams to report optimistic remaining durations. Recovery plans can transfer delay into quality, safety, cost, or operational risk. Finally, frequent baseline changes can destroy accountability, while excessive refusal to revise a genuinely changed plan can make the baseline irrelevant. Professional judgement and transparent governance are therefore indispensable.

Chapter Summary

A schedule baseline is an approved reference plan used to measure performance and support decisions. It must be scope-aligned, logically connected, measurable, calendar-consistent, approved, and version-controlled. Current forecasts and actual performance data must remain distinct from the baseline.

Reliable schedule updating requires a defined status date, evidence-based actual starts and finishes, defensible remaining durations, and objective progress measures. CPM reveals the effects of logic, durations, float, and critical-path movement. Date variance, float consumption, and milestone movement provide direct time information, while EVM provides value-based indicators such as SV, SPI, CPI, and EAC. Earned Schedule converts earned value into a more interpretable time-based perspective.

Recovery schedules should address causes of delay and evaluate resequencing, fast-tracking, crashing, resource changes, and constraint removal against cost, risk, quality, safety, and contractual effects. A poor variance is not itself a reason to rewrite the baseline. Approved baseline changes require formal impact analysis, authorisation, version control, and preservation of historical information.

Ultimately, schedule performance control is a governance discipline. Its value depends less on sophisticated software than on sound logic, accurate data, honest reporting, integrated analysis, and decisions that protect the project’s real objectives.

Key Terms

Baseline: The approved reference plan used to measure project performance.

Status date: The date through which actual performance has been recorded.

Current schedule: The latest operational model containing actuals, approved changes, and forecasts.

Actual start: The verified date on which activity work began.

Actual finish: The verified date on which activity work was completed.

Remaining duration: The estimated time required to complete unfinished activity work.

Total float: The amount of time an activity can slip without delaying the relevant project completion or imposed date.

Critical path: The path governing the calculated project completion under the schedule model.

Schedule variance: Difference between planned and actual or forecast schedule performance; its precise meaning depends on the metric used.

Float consumption: Reduction in available float between two schedule states.

Planned Value (PV): Budgeted value of work scheduled by a specified date.

Earned Value (EV): Budgeted value of work actually accomplished.

Actual Cost (AC): Cost incurred for accomplished work.

Schedule Performance Index (SPI): Ratio of earned value to planned value.

Earned Schedule (ES): Time at which the current earned value was planned to have been achieved.

Recovery schedule: A controlled plan intended to reduce or contain forecast delay.

Fast-tracking: Overlapping activities that were previously planned sequentially.

Crashing: Adding resources or expenditure to shorten activity duration.

Baseline change: An authorised revision to the approved reference plan.

Data date: Another term for the schedule status date.

Review Questions

Short Answer Questions

1. What is the difference between a schedule baseline and a current schedule?
2. Why should actual progress be recorded as of a defined status date?
3. What does total float represent in CPM?
4. Why is traditional EVM schedule variance not directly expressed in calendar days?
5. State two risks associated with fast-tracking.

Long Answer Questions

1. Explain the process for establishing, approving, and maintaining a credible schedule baseline.
2. Discuss how actual starts, actual finishes, remaining duration, and physical progress should be used together when updating a schedule.
3. Compare CPM-based forecasting, EVM indicators, and Earned Schedule as methods of assessing project time performance.
4. Explain the governance requirements for changing a schedule baseline and preserving historical accountability.
5. Evaluate the advantages and limitations of crashing and fast-tracking as recovery strategies.

Analytical / Application Questions

1. At a status date, a project has PV = $600,000, EV = $510,000, and AC = $540,000. Calculate SV, SPI, CV, and CPI, and interpret the results.
2. A critical activity has a normal duration of 12 days and cost of $24,000, and a crash duration of 9 days and cost of $30,000. Calculate the cost slope and explain the conditions under which crashing would be justified.
3. A project’s original critical path remains on schedule, but a procurement activity has lost most of its float and a regulatory approval is forecast late. Explain how the project manager should analyse and report this situation before deciding on recovery action.

Multiple Choice Questions with Answers

Question 1

Which statement best describes a schedule baseline?

A. The latest forecast produced after every schedule update

B. The approved reference plan used to measure performance

C. A list of completed activities only

D. A risk register converted into dates

Correct Answer: B. The approved reference plan used to measure performance

Question 2

If an activity has ES = 10 working days and duration = 6 working days, what is its EF?

A. 4 working days

B. 10 working days

C. 16 working days

D. 60 working days

Correct Answer: C. 16 working days

Question 3

Which data combination is most appropriate for an activity that has started but is unfinished?

A. Actual finish and zero remaining duration

B. Actual start and a defensible remaining duration

C. Baseline start only and 100% complete

D. Forecast start only and no remaining estimate

Correct Answer: B. Actual start and a defensible remaining duration

Question 4

A project has EV = $510,000 and PV = $600,000. What is its schedule variance in value terms?

A. $90,000 favourable

B. −$90,000

C. $1,110,000

D. 0.85 months

Correct Answer: B. −$90,000

Question 5

If EV = $510,000 and AC = $540,000, which is the approximate CPI?

A. 0.85

B. 0.944

C. 1.06

D. 30,000

Correct Answer: B. 0.944

Question 6

What is the principal purpose of Earned Schedule?

A. To replace all CPM logic relationships

B. To convert earned-value information into a time-oriented indicator

C. To calculate the project’s tax liability

D. To eliminate the need for actual cost data

Correct Answer: B. To convert earned-value information into a time-oriented indicator

Question 7

Which action is an example of fast-tracking?

A. Adding a second crew to an activity

B. Removing a required inspection

C. Overlapping activities previously planned sequentially

D. Changing the project sponsor

Correct Answer: C. Overlapping activities previously planned sequentially

Question 8

When is a baseline change generally justified?

A. Whenever an activity is late

B. Whenever a manager dislikes an adverse variance

C. When an authorised change materially alters scope or execution conditions

D. At every reporting period regardless of performance

Correct Answer: C. When an authorised change materially alters scope or execution conditions

Question 9

A normal activity costs $24,000 for 12 days and can be crashed to 9 days for $30,000. What is the linear cost slope?

A. $500 per day

B. $1,500 per day

C. $2,000 per day

D. $6,000 per day

Correct Answer: C. $2,000 per day

Question 10

Which practice most improves the ethical reliability of schedule control?

A. Moving unfinished work into the past to protect the forecast

B. Suppressing safety activities to achieve an earlier date

C. Maintaining evidence, transparent assumptions, and an auditable change history

D. Changing the baseline after every unfavourable update

Correct Answer: C. Maintaining evidence, transparent assumptions, and an auditable change history