CII challenged Research Team 362 (RT-362) to consider methods of scheduling beyond the industry’s standard, the critical path method (CPM). Other industries have begun using newer, apparently more collaborative methods, and RT-362 considered how these other methods might be used with or as a replacement for the CPM method. The team came to focus on collaborative scheduling (CS), which it defined as “a comprehensive process that aligns and engages stakeholders throughout the life cycle of the project in order to coordinate activities and resources and to achieve its goal.”
RT-362’s initial consideration of the drivers of and obstacles to the development and implementation of CS enabled it to identify influences and key components to CS, and ultimately to build a maturity model. The team used a survey to collect practitioners’ perceptions about CS practices in real-life projects and to gauge the impact these practices have on key performance indicators (KPIs), such as cost, schedule, quality, safety, and teamwork. With this knowledge, the team developed an interview protocol and used interviews to collect contextual information about how schedules are currently developed in the industry. These findings informed the team’s recommendations for improving CS. Building on its efforts, CII Best Practices, published literature, and the knowledge of subject matter experts (SMEs), the team developed a three-tiered maturity model, which became the heart of Final Report 362 (FR-362), Challenges and Opportunities to Promote Collaborative Scheduling.
With the support of the SMEs, the team developed a weighted system to identify which pillars and lanes have the most influence or impact in the maturity model as organizations move from one level to the next. In parallel, the team created a weighting system for the maturity model practices, a separate analysis that used survey responses and the KPIs to reveal chains of practices that have the potential to influence specific KPIs. An organization starts its CS journey by aiming to improve its CS process based on the recommendation of RT-362’s maturity model, use CS practices to improve KPIs, and/or follow practical recommendations for the different stages of planning, scheduling, and building a project.
The maturity model enables an organization to benchmark itself against CS practices, gauge its progress toward the development and implementation of CS, and/or understand how specific CS-related practices are perceived to impact specific KPIs. RT-362’s maturity model allows an organization to assess its CS process and prioritize its actions according to specific areas (lanes) distributed into three levels (bronze, silver, and gold) across the five pillars that support the CS effort (Scheduling Significance, Planners & Schedulers, Scheduling Representation, Goal Alignment with Owner, and Communication). Each pillar contains specific actions with specific practices organized into a total of 23 lanes arranged in three levels according to their ability to support CS. For instance, the Goal Alignment pillar has three lanes – Alignment, Interaction, and Expectations – and offers descriptions for the bronze, silver, and gold levels of collaboration.