Scheduling a predecessor activity to finish later than its successor milestone goes against the principles of logical sequencing and dependency management that underlie CPM scheduling. It can lead to confusion, misinterpretation, reduced accountability, and inaccurate critical path analysis, ultimately hindering effective project management. It is essential to establish and adhere to logical dependencies in project schedules to maintain transparency and accuracy in project planning and execution.
- Logical Inconsistency - CPM scheduling relies on logical relationships between activities, where the start and finish of activities are linked in a sequence. If a predecessor activity is scheduled to finish later than its successor milestone, it creates a logical inconsistency.
- Disrupted Dependency: - When a predecessor finishes after a successor starts, it can imply that the successor activity does not actually depend on the completion of the predecessor. This disrupts the accurate representation of the project's flow and can lead to incorrect expectations.
- Risk of Misinterpretation - Scheduling a predecessor to finish later than its successor milestone can confuse project stakeholders. It may lead to misinterpretation, as it suggests that the successor can proceed without waiting for the predecessor to be completed.
- Reduced Accountability - Team members may assume they can move ahead with their work even if the necessary inputs from a predecessor are not available, potentially leading to project delays and problems.
- Compromised Critical Path Analysis: The critical path in a CPM schedule represents the longest path of dependent activities that determines the project's overall duration. Scheduling a predecessor to finish later than a successor milestone can create false critical paths and mislead project managers about where potential delays may occur.