An over-reliance on simple Finish-to-Start relationships creates a very rigid network. When changes occur, there is little flexibility or float in the sequence to absorb delays without immediately impacting the critical path. This increases the schedule’s sensitivity and vulnerability to disruptions, as activities have minimal independent float. While other options may be secondary effects, the primary practical risk is the reduction of schedule resilience.

The PSP’s role is to analyze and communicate impacts. The immediate professional step is to perform impact analysis—determining how this delay affects successor activities, the critical path, and the project completion date. This analysis provides the factual basis for any discussions about corrective actions, change orders, or recovery plans. Taking formal contract action (A) or implementing recovery (C) without this analysis is premature, and simply waiting (D) is passive and not proactive schedule management.

The most professional approach is to build the detailed schedule (ensuring logic and duration integrity) and then use the software’s summary or roll-up functionality, typically based on the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). This ensures the high-level view is directly tied to and supported by the underlying detailed plan. A hammock (B) can be useful but is for specific groupings, not the entire project. A simple bar chart (A) or Gantt without logic (C) lacks the analytical foundation of a CPM-based summary.

A Start-to-Start (SS) relationship with a 3-day lag correctly models the real-world scenario where the successor (‘Install Rebar’) can begin 3 days after the predecessor (‘Formwork’) starts. This is a classic example of fast-tracking or overlapping tasks. Using a constraint (C) is inflexible and doesn’t maintain a dynamic logical link. Modifying durations (B) misrepresents the work. Breaking the activity (D) adds unnecessary complexity when a simple SS lag achieves the goal.

Negative total float is a clear mathematical indicator that the activity’s required finish date (often driven by a constraint or the project completion date) is earlier than its calculated early finish date based on the network logic and progress. This means the activity is already late relative to the target, and the negative value quantifies how many time units it is behind. It is a status indicator, not necessarily a cause (like A or D). Option B describes an impossible scenario for an activity with negative float.

Best practice and professional standards require assessing the impact of a change before implementing it. A Time Impact Analysis (TIA) is the methodical process of inserting the new work into the current schedule model to determine its effect on the critical path and completion date. This analysis informs negotiations and decisions. Simply logging it (A) is insufficient. Managing it separately (B) defeats the purpose of an integrated schedule. Rebaselining (C) should only be done after the impact is understood and formally approved, as it changes the performance measurement benchmark.

For a simple, repetitive task with little uncertainty, a triangular distribution with a narrow range (where the optimistic and pessimistic values are close to the most likely) is practical and reflects high confidence. The normal distribution (D) is symmetric and can allow for negative times. The uniform distribution (A) implies high uncertainty. While the beta distribution (C) is traditional for PERT, the triangular is more commonly used in modern Monte Carlo simulations due to its simplicity and intuitive inputs (min, most likely, max).

The Critical Path Index (CPI) less than 1.0 indicates the critical path is deteriorating (taking longer than planned). The Schedule Performance Index (SPI) greater than 1.0 indicates that, overall, work is being completed at a faster rate than planned (likely on non-critical paths). This is a classic scenario where the project appears efficient overall (good SPI) but is facing specific delays on the most important sequence of tasks (poor CPI), which threatens the final completion date. The indices relate to schedule, not cost (A, D). Option B confuses SPI with cost efficiency.

Using a repeating/recurring activity (or activity template) that is logically tied to other floor-specific predecessor tasks (like framing, plumbing) best models the real-world repetitive nature of the work. It maintains clear logical ties per floor, allows for progress tracking at the floor level, and is more efficient to create and update than ten manually created activities (B). One large activity (A) loses tracking granularity. Summary activities (C) are for reporting, not detailed execution tracking.

An over-reliance on simple Finish-to-Start relationships creates a very rigid network. When changes occur, there is little flexibility or float in the sequence to absorb delays without immediately impacting the critical path. This increases the schedule’s sensitivity and vulnerability to disruptions, as activities have minimal independent float. While other options may be secondary effects, the primary practical risk is the reduction of schedule resilience.0