Schedule Risk Analysis With Acumen: Different Activity Status

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, different activity status (completed, in progress, not started) are investigated on how each affects the SRA output.  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 analysis yields information that risks should not be assigned on completed activities.  They can, however, be mapped onto activities with status as not started and in progress.

See also:

Variable

  • Activity Status (Case 07).

Input

  • Risk assigned to an activity with different status (not started, in progress, completed).
  • 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 Status.

Table 1.  Risk Input for Different Activity Status.

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 cases C07A and C07B have the same outputs after running the schedule risk analysis in Acumen.  The risk is assigned to a n activity that has yet to start for C07A while in C07B, the risk is on an activity with “in progress” status.

As should be expected, the risk is not accounted when it is assigned to a completed activity as in C07C.

Takeaways

  1. Risks can be assigned to activities with status of “not started” and “in progress.” In these cases, the results will be the same.
  2. Risks should not be assigned to a completed 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?