Schedule Risk Analysis With Acumen: Effects of Floats And Lags on Results

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 effects of the schedule total floats and lags on SRA results or the P-values (P0, P50, P100) are investigated.  Four simple schedules were developed using Primavera P6 to understand how results varied when the same single risk was applied to a critical activity, non-critical activity, and to an activity whose criticality was driven by a lag.

The analysis proves that Acumen considers the total float in the output.  Meaning, the total float is “consumed” first before driving the linked successors to their probabilistic dates.

See also:

Variable

  • Risk Mapping, Primavera P6 Schedule Critical Activities (Case 06).

Input

  • A single risk is assigned to a critical activity (criticality driven by logic).
  • A single risk is assigned to a non-critical activity with different total float.
  • A single risk is assigned to a critical activity (criticality driven by lag).
  • 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 with Different Criticalities and Activity Risk Mapping.

Table 1.  Risk Mapping to Activities with Varying Criticalities.

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

Due to the risk assigned to a critical activity, the P100 date adds 100 work days to the deterministic date (DT) in C06A. This 100 days is also the max duration set on the risk register for C06B, C06C, and C06D.

The total float in C06B to which the risk was assigned is 150 days. With the max duration input of 100 days, the completion date did not move from its DT value. It seems the risk duration consumed the total float first.

To further prove C06B, C06C has less total float than the risk max duration (50 days vs. 100 days). This resulted to the P100 date shifting 50 working days from the DT. The risk duration does consume the total float first before the probabilistic completion date drifts away from the DT.

In C06D, the risk is assigned to a critical activity. But unlike C06A wherein the criticality is driven by logic, in C06D the criticality is driven by the assigned lag. The results of the schedule analysis for both cases are the same.

Takeaways

  1. When the risk is assigned to a critical activity, regardless whether the criticality is caused by logic or by lag, the P100 date drifts from the deterministic date by the same max duration in the assigned risk.
  2. Acumen considers the total float. It is “consumed” first before driving the succeeding activity to its probabilistic completion date.
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?