More problematically, because neither of the above methods are CPM driven, as project delays mount from various scopes the “Pull Planning wall wizards” and the graphical schedule practitioners have no immediate knowledge for the exact quantification of delay on the project’s longest path at the end of the subcontractor meeting – and in many cases which of the competing delays drives the project’s completion path. Think for example of a vertical construction structure in which the exterior, roofing and wet rough-ins are all ongoing simultaneously but where each experiences its own delays from one schedule update to the next. All have an impact on achieving overhead dry-in and the start of dry rough-ins (duct board and electric pulled wire) that drive the dependent downstream tasks. Without CPM calculation, there’s no immediate indication for the controlling delay path after targets have been obtained at the subcontractor meeting. Discussion aimed to obtain improved subcontractor commitments devoid of CPM calculation is akin to flying at night with no GPS, prompting doubt as to whether the “Pull was full” – or at all effective.

We maintain that “actual Pull Planning” aims to do just what it implies, to pull the end of the schedule back as far as practically achievable. Hence, an actual Pull Planning undertaking requires schedule management in CPM tools and represents the third and final step in our routine schedule maintenance process that unfolds as follows: First, task status is processed into a CPM tool and the schedule is updated to reflect the current commitments obtained at the subcontractor meeting. Second, after the subs have been dismissed, the logic of in-progress tasks is quickly reconciled from the previous as-planned logic to the current as-built logic. Third, the schedule is grouped and sorted to illustrate the project’s multiple completion paths in order of their delay criticality.