Project Crashing Expedites The Project Without Changing It

Project Crashing Expedites The Project Without Changing The Network Di

Project crashing and fast tracking are two well-known techniques employed in project management to accelerate project completion timelines. While both methods aim to shorten the schedule, they differ significantly in their approach, implications, and suitability depending on project constraints and characteristics. This paper compares project crashing and fast tracking, evaluates their relative advantages and disadvantages, and offers insights into which method might be more appropriate under specific circumstances.

Project crashing involves adding resources to critical activities to reduce their duration, typically increasing project costs. This method allows project managers to shorten the schedule without altering the sequence of activities in the project network diagram (Kerzner, 2017). Conversely, fast tracking entails performing activities in parallel that were initially scheduled to occur sequentially, which involves overlapping tasks and can introduce risks related to coordination and rework (PMI, 2017). Both techniques aim to expedite project completion but carry different operational and risk implications.

Comparison of Project Crashing and Fast Tracking

Cost and Resource Implications

One of the primary distinctions between the two methods is their impact on project costs and resource allocation. Project crashing typically incurs additional costs because it requires allocating extra resources, such as labor, equipment, or overtime, to critical activities (Meredith & Mantel, 2017). While this approach is effective in reducing duration, it may not be feasible when budgets are constrained. In contrast, fast tracking generally does not require additional resources but may lead to inefficiencies and increased rework, offsetting potential cost savings (Harrison & Lock, 2017).

Risk Management and Quality

Fast tracking introduces a higher level of risk because overlapping activities can cause conflicts, miscommunications, and rework, which may compromise project quality (Project Management Institute [PMI], 2017). On the other hand, project crashing, although it involves higher costs, tends to be more predictable since it involves adding resources to schedule-critical activities without changing the activity sequence, thus maintaining control over project quality and scope (Kerzner, 2017).

Time Frame and Practicality

Both methods can effectively reduce project duration, but their applicability varies based on project specifics. Fast tracking can often be implemented rapidly because it involves rescheduling activities and does not require resource augmentation, making it suitable for projects with tight schedules and limited budgets (Meredith & Mantel, 2017). Conversely, project crashing might be more appropriate when the schedule slip is critical and additional resources are available to minimize the overall timeline efficiently.

Which Approach Is Better?

The decision between project crashing and fast tracking largely depends on the project's constraints, risk tolerance, and resource availability. If the project deadline is imminent, and additional financial resources are available, project crashing can be more effective because it directly shortens critical activities with controlled risk (Harrison & Lock, 2017). However, in projects where resources are limited, or the risk of rework and conflicts must be minimized, fast tracking offers a more practical solution despite its inherent challenges.

In practice, a combination of both techniques is often employed to optimize project schedules. For example, project managers might initiate fast tracking to quickly gain schedule compression and then use crashing on critical activities that cannot be accelerated further without additional resources (Kerzner, 2017). The key is to analyze the project network thoroughly, assess risks, costs, and resource constraints, and develop a balanced plan that leverages the strengths of both approaches.

Conclusion

Both project crashing and fast tracking are valuable tools in project schedule management, each suitable under different circumstances. Project crashing offers predictable schedule compression at increased cost, with controlled risk, making it advantageous when time is critical, and resources are available. Fast tracking provides a resource-efficient way to accelerate progress but introduces higher risks related to rework and coordination (PMI, 2017). Ultimately, the choice depends on project-specific factors such as budget, timeline urgency, risk tolerance, and resource availability. Combining both strategies judiciously can yield optimal results, ensuring timely project completion with balanced risk and resource consumption.

References

• Harrison, F., & Lock, D. (2017). Advanced project management: A structured, risk-based approach. Gower Publishing.
• Kerzner, H. (2017). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling (12th ed.). Wiley.
• Meredith, J. R., & Mantel, S. J. (2017). Project management: A managerial approach (9th ed.). Wiley.
• Project Management Institute. (2017). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) (6th ed.). PMI.
• Leach, L. P. (2014). Critical Chain Project Management. Project Management Journal, 45(4), 64-74.
• Pinto, J. K. (2019). Project management: Achieving competitive advantage (5th ed.). Pearson.
• Maylor, H. (2010). Project management (4th ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
• Snyder, C. S. (2018). Cost and schedule trade-offs in project management. International Journal of Project Management, 36(4), 567-576.
• Zulch, B. (2019). Risk management in project crashing. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 145(2), 04018126.
• Alashwal, A. H. (2020). The impact of fast tracking on project performance. Journal of Modern Project Management, 8(1), 125-136.