Digital Project Controls · Schedule Assurance
Schedule Quality: 25% to 83%
How automated, rules-based schedule assurance lifted contractor programme quality from a quarter to over four-fifths conformance — and kept it there.
01 — The Position
Contractor programme quality on the works sat at around 25% conformance — schedules that could not be relied on for progress measurement, forecasting or management decisions.
02 — The Evidence
Each contractor Primavera P6 submission, cycle by cycle, and the assurance outputs run against it. Confidential project records limit the level of detail that can be published.
03 — The Programme Analysis
Every submission was scored against the 100-Point Employer Schedule Assurance Framework — a bespoke Employer methodology applied through Python and Primavera P6, using the DCMA 14-point checks as a recognised schedule-quality reference within a broader, programme-specific assurance structure. Neither is an externally certified standard.
04 — Event Mapping
The deficiencies were mapped across the six assurance dimensions — baseline, logic and network, progress, forecast, critical path and float, governance and reporting — so weakness could be located, not merely noted.
05 — Cause & Effect
Open logic, constraint-driven dates, inconsistent progress and unreliable forecasts meant the programme could not answer the basic management question: when will this finish, and can I trust the answer?
06 — Critical Path
A critical path driven by constraints rather than logic was among the core deficiencies. Until the driving path was sound, no forecast built on it could be trusted.
07 — Entitlement / Assessment
The starting assurance score was around 25% against the 100-point framework — a defined, repeatable measure of how far the programme fell short of a reliable control baseline. It is not a DCMA score, an industry benchmark, or an externally certified standard.
08 — The Decision
Score every submission the same way each cycle, surface the exceptions, and target corrective action at the weakest dimensions — then monitor the same measure, repeatedly.
09 — The Outcome
Conformance rose from around 25% to over 83% against the 100-point Employer Schedule Assurance Framework, and held there. Operationally: greater schedule reliability, clearer visibility of programme condition, more consistent contractor assessment, and stronger support for management decisions.
10 — Director’s Lesson
Schedule quality is not an aesthetic — it is whether the programme can be trusted to govern the job. A defined, repeatable assurance score turns ‘is this programme any good?’ from a monthly argument into a measurement.
Follow the thread
Case study → method → evidence → decision: 100-Point Framework · Digital Project Controls · Schedule Health Check · Director’s Playbook. See the decision framework behind it in My Approach.
This case study describes Rishi Javeri's professional project-controls role and methodology; it does not disclose confidential parties, contracts, schedules or commercially sensitive material, and does not imply sole delivery of the programme. It describes professional practice, not legal advice.
Related