Schedule Risk Analysis With Acumen: Different Activity Types

Share
Tweet
Share
Schedule Risk Analysis by MLR

This article provides an overview on how varying inputs and parameters affect the date outputs, in particular, the P0, P50, and P100 dates, in the Schedule Risk Analysis (SRA) with software Deltek Acumen Fuse.  By understanding how Acumen behaves with respect to varying conditions, schedulers, risk managers, and key stakeholders alike will be guided on providing only realistic input values for the SRA.

In this analysis, the activity types are varied while holding all other parameters constant.  These activity types include Task Dependent, Level of Effort, WBS Summary, and Milestones.  A simple schedule was developed using Primavera P6 for a straightforward understanding of the relationship between the inputs and the SRA results generated from Acumen.

The investigation provides results that risks (threats) can only be mapped to Task Dependent and Milestone type activities.  Assigning risk to Level of Effort or WBS Summary activities will not return risk exposure dates.

See also:

Variable

  • Activity Types (Case 03).

Input

  • Risk assigned to a project with different types of activity constraint.
  • 1 risk mapped to a single activity.
  • 1,000 iterations set in Deltek Acumen Fuse.
  • All other parameters are set to be the same in each case/project shown in Figure 1 below.
Primavera Schedule for Risk Analysis
Figure 1. Primavera Schedule for Different Activity Types.

Table 1.  Risk Input for Different Activity Types.

Schedule Risk Analysis Risk Register

Output

Risk Exposure Histogram by Deltek Acumen Fuse
Figure 2. Risk Exposure Histogram Generated from Acumen (see tabulated values in Table 2).
Risk Drivers by Deltek Acumen Fuse
Figure 3. Risk Drivers Generated from Acumen (see tabulated values in Table 2).

Analysis

Tabulation of the results of Figures 2 and 3 are shown in Table 2 along with calculations for analysis.

Table 2.  Results and Calculations.

Schedule Risk Analysis

Activities in case C03A have the same deterministic dates (DT).  With the risk mapped to a Task Dependent activity  (C03A-020), both the monitored activities C03A-020 and C03A-030 do have the same risk exposure outputs.

When the risk is assigned to a Level of Effort type of an activities as in C03B, the DT of the schedule is not affected.

Similar to C03B but this time assigning the risk to a WBS Summary kind of an activity in C03C, the DT does not change as well. Accordingly, no risk exposure nor risk driver diagrams were generated by Acumen.

In C03D, the risk is mapped to a Milestone activity type and the result of the schedule analysis yielded dates similar to that in C03A.

Takeaways

  1. Risks (Threats) can be mapped to Milestone type and Task Dependent activities.
  2. Risks should not be assigned to Level of Effort and WBS Summary activities.
  3. Acumen will not generate results (no risk exposure and risk driver diagrams) if risks are mapped to a Level of Effort or a WBS Summary type activity.
Share
Tweet
Share

OTHER RECENT BLOGS

MLR Project Management & Consultancy | TIA | Forensic Schedule Analysis | Window Analysis | Delay Claims

Time Impact Analysis vs. Window Analysis: Often Confused, Fundamentally Different

Time Impact Analysis (TIA) and Window Analysis are two of the most widely used methods in construction delay analysis, yet they are often mistakenly treated as interchangeable. In reality, they serve very different purposes. TIA is a forward-looking approach used during a project to model the potential impact of a delay, while Window Analysis is a retrospective method that evaluates what actually happened over time. Understanding the distinction between these approaches—particularly in how they handle changing critical paths and concurrent delays—is essential for producing accurate, credible, and defensible delay assessments in both project management and dispute resolution.

Read More »
Marty Fuentes April 4, 2026
MLR Project Management & Consultancy | TIA | Delay Claims

Why Time Impact Analyses Fail: Lessons from a Recent Delay Claim Review

A forensic schedule review revealed that a contractor’s claimed 69‑day delay was unsupported. After correcting the schedule selection, isolating logic changes, and validating against actual progress, the final outcome was zero days of delay—demonstrating the importance of rigorous methodology and real‑world alignment in Time Impact Analyses.

Read More »
Marty Fuentes March 15, 2026
MLR Project Management & Consultancy

Rationalizing the Irrationalities in Decision-Making

Traditionally, decision-making was seen as a rational process governed by logic, with emotions viewed as disruptive. Yet, recent studies reveal emotions are essential to organizational decision-making, especially in complex scenarios. Emotions, distinct from moods, shape judgments and persist beyond the moment, influencing future decisions. They act as motivators and guide adaptive choices, with both immediate and anticipated feelings present throughout the process. Neuropsychological research further shows that lacking emotional input can impair decision quality, even if rational skills remain strong. Ultimately, emotions and rationality are intertwined, both crucial for effective decisions.

Read More »
Marty Fuentes January 14, 2026

Build Better Projects With Expert Guidance

MLR Subscription - Browsing

Where to send the file?