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

Mitigation vs acceleration in construction scheduling, illustrating how recovery terminology affects delay analysis, cost and contractual entitlement.

Mitigation vs Acceleration: The Scheduling Terms That Shape Delay Analysis and Contractual Entitlement

Understand the critical difference between mitigation and acceleration in construction scheduling and why terminology can affect delay analysis, recovery programmes, cost responsibility, and contractual entitlement. This article explains how mitigation typically involves reasonable steps to reduce delay impacts, while acceleration may require additional labour, overtime, equipment, or shifts to recover time. It also explores how planners, contract managers, and project controls professionals should frame Primavera P6 updates, schedule narratives, and client instructions to protect entitlement and support defensible delay claims.

Read More »
Marty Fuentes July 16, 2026
Interactive project planning and controls dashboard using Power BI and Primavera P6 for construction schedule tracking, earned value analysis, Gantt charts, and project performance monitoring.

The Ultimate Project Planning and Controls Dashboard Using Power BI and Primavera P6

Explore a fully interactive Project Planning and Controls Dashboard built using Power BI and Primavera P6. This article demonstrates how modern construction project controls can integrate earned value management, schedule performance tracking, Gantt chart visualization, progress photos, historical schedule submissions, and Window Analysis-based delay analysis into one centralized digital reporting environment. Discover how dynamic dashboards improve project visibility, stakeholder communication, forensic schedule analysis, and decision-making while simplifying monthly reporting workflows for complex construction and infrastructure projects.

Read More »
Marty Fuentes May 17, 2026

Build Better Projects With Expert Guidance

MLR Subscription - Browsing

Where to send the file?