Hello,
A year and a half into our project, we finally have an approved baseline and are being allowed to submit a Recovery Schedule that will reflect the actual planned sequence of the work. We have not been able to submit any monthly updates, other than to status the baseline as of the data date we will be using for the Recovery Schedule.
While considering various recovery scenarios, I developed a simplified schedule to expedite implementing revisions and reviewing the outcome. Now that we've decided upon our recovery plan, it is time to revise the original Baseline to match the new plan.
The Baseline has 4,000 activities and 10,300 relationships. An inordinant number of those relationships redundant or incorrect logic ties. (I inherited this schedule).
In making modifications, I instinctually began "cleaning up" the logic to remove some of these superflous and confusing logic ties, as I normally would if I were preparing a Basline Schedule. But about a week into this process, I suddenly realized the tremendous amount of work that might be required if I have to explain each and every logic change to the schedule reviewer.
Do you think it would be easier to simplify the schedule to make it less cumbersome, hoping that the Recovery Schedule will be reviewed on whole as one would review a new Baseline Schedule?
Or, would it be easier to go back and add the deleted logic back in, live with the overly complicated logic, and try to only remove the invalid ties that could potentially affect successors somewhere down the road?
I am preparing an agenda to go over this and many other aspects of the schedule, but wanted to pose this particular question to the Planning Planet community as well.
Thanks!
Greg
PS. I've read through AACE's RP 54r-07 Recovery Scheduling, which is helpful, but does not speak directly to the issue of "cleaning up" logic.