Our Analysis Methodology
How ScheduleLens assesses construction schedule quality — grounded in published industry standards.
Analysis Approach
ScheduleLens performs an automated assessment of construction schedule files against published industry standards. Each finding in the report traces to a specific rule in one or more recognised standards.
The analysis is deterministic — the same file always produces the same results.
The role of AI. Every finding, score, and number in your report is computed by deterministic analysis code — not generated by an AI model. Each result traces to a specific rule in a published standard. AI is used in exactly one place: turning those computed findings into readable narrative prose. It is optional — you can switch it off at upload, in which case your report uses template prose and nothing about your schedule is sent to the AI provider. Either way, the findings are identical and the analysis never depends on it.
The tool identifies quality issues; it does not determine fault, entitlement, or cause of delay. Where a report shows a net EOT position, it is an arithmetic aggregation of responsibility classifications you assigned yourself on the delay register — the tool suggests (clearly labelled as preliminary) but never classifies for you, and events you have not classified are always shown as Unclassified, widening the stated range rather than being excluded.
What We Check
Ten categories of schedule quality assessment, each grounded in published standards.
Logic Completeness
Verifies every activity is connected by predecessor and successor relationships.
Gaps in logic mean the schedule cannot properly calculate the critical path.
DCMA 14-Point, AACE RP 29R-03, PMI Practice Standard
Relationship Quality
Assesses the distribution of relationship types and identifies unusual patterns such as Start-to-Finish links or excessive lag.
Unusual relationships can mask real schedule behaviour and mislead stakeholders.
DCMA 14-Point, AACE RP 29R-03, PMI Practice Standard
Float Analysis
Examines total float distribution to identify activities at risk, near-critical paths, and potential missing logic.
Understanding float is essential for prioritising management attention on at-risk activities.
DCMA 14-Point, AACE RP 29R-03, PMBOK Guide
Constraint Audit
Identifies hard constraints that override logic-driven dates, potentially masking true schedule risk.
Constraints can hide the real critical path and give a false sense of schedule health.
DCMA 14-Point, AACE RP 29R-03, SCL Protocol, PMBOK Guide
Calendar Validation
Checks for calendar anomalies, cross-calendar relationships, and configuration issues that can distort working-day calculations.
Calendar errors silently corrupt duration and date calculations across the entire schedule.
AACE RP 29R-03, PMI Practice Standard, PMBOK Guide
Critical Path Integrity
Validates that the critical path stored in the schedule matches an independently traced longest path.
Discrepancies indicate stale or unreliable data that cannot support delay analysis.
DCMA 14-Point, AACE RP 29R-03, PMBOK Guide
Duration Checks
Flags activities with zero remaining duration while in progress, and activities with unusually long planned durations.
Duration anomalies indicate data entry errors or activities that should be decomposed.
DCMA 14-Point, PMI Practice Standard
Progress Assessment
Identifies activities that are behind their planned finish or have started without recording progress updates.
Missing progress updates mean the schedule no longer reflects reality on site.
DCMA 14-Point, SCL Protocol, PMBOK Guide
Out-of-Sequence Detection
Flags activities that have progressed before their predecessors completed, which distorts the schedule's calculated dates.
Out-of-sequence progress undermines the reliability of forecast dates.
AACE RP 29R-03, PMI Practice Standard
Redundant Logic
Identifies relationships that have no scheduling effect because a longer path already exists.
Removing redundant logic simplifies the network for clearer analysis and reporting.
AACE RP 29R-03, PMI Practice Standard
Reference Standards
The published standards that inform our analysis checks.
| Standard | Full Title | Scope |
|---|---|---|
| AACE RP 29R-03 | AACE International Recommended Practice 29R-03: Forensic Schedule Analysis | Delay analysis methodologies, schedule quality indicators |
| DCMA 14-Point | US Defense Contract Management Agency 14-Point Schedule Assessment | Schedule quality metrics and thresholds. Every failing item lists its offending activities (full lists in the Excel appendix). On tracked projects the contested numeric limits can be tuned to the project — a tuned scorecard is always labelled “(custom thresholds)” and never presented as the canonical DCMA assessment; zero-tolerance checks are not configurable. |
| PMBOK Guide | PMI — A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), 8th Edition, 2025 | Schedule Performance Domain (§2.3) |
| PMI Practice Standard | PMI — Practice Standard for Scheduling, 2nd Edition, 2011 | Schedule model construction, network logic, calendars |
| CIOB Guide | CIOB Guide to Good Practice in the Management of Time in Major Projects | Schedule management best practices |
| SCL Protocol | Society of Construction Law Delay and Disruption Protocol, 2nd Edition | Delay analysis, concurrent delay, EOT assessment |
Bounded What-If Scenarios
On tracked projects, ScheduleLens can answer one bounded question about a retained snapshot: what is the network consequence of a single change — an activity taking N more working days, or a duration restored to the prior submission's observed value? The engine recomputes the schedule twice through its own calendar-aware critical-path model — once as submitted, once with the change — and reports the difference. Results are always movements relative to the engine's own base run, never absolute dates, and never a prediction of what will happen.
The model includes
- Per-activity calendars, including exceptions
- FS / SS / FF / SF relationships with lag
- Start-No-Earlier-Than, Start-On and Must-Start-On constraints
- Finish-No-Later-Than / Must-Finish-On late-date caps (float only)
- Data date, actuals, and in-progress remaining work under Progress Override or Retained Logic
The model does not include
- Expected Finish date forcing
- Start-No-Later-Than and As-Late-As-Possible constraints
- Imposed project finish dates
- Resource levelling
- Sub-day precision (durations are whole working days)
Every scenario result carries this disclosure, plus a fidelity note: on single-calendar, unconstrained schedules the engine reproduces the source tool's float exactly; on complex schedules the result is a bounded scenario, not a measurement.
What We Don't Do
- We do not perform a full critical-path method recalculation.
- We do not assess contractual entitlement or determine fault.
- We do not replace the judgement of a qualified delay analyst.
- Reports are analytical output, not expert opinion or legal advice.
- We recommend professional review before relying on findings for formal submissions.
References to published standards are bibliographic citations indicating the analytical basis for each check. ScheduleLens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or certified by AACE International, the Project Management Institute, DCMA, the Chartered Institute of Building, or the Society of Construction Law.