Schedule Risk Analysis With Acumen: Different Calendars

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 activity calendars in the SRA outputs are investigated.  Activities are assigned with different calendars while holding all other parameters constant.  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 output shows that the duration as inputs in the risk register represents working days and NOT calendar days.  Furthermore, Acumen takes into account the activity calendars in determining the probabilistic completion dates of the activities.

See also:

Variable

  • Activity Calendars (Case 04).

Input

  • Risk assigned to a project with different activity calendars.
  • 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 with Different Activity Calendars.

Table 1.  Risk Input for Different Activity Calendars.

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

Though C04A and C04B have the same parameters in the risk input, the difference in the calendar used affected the worst case scenario (P100) date with the former finishing later (23-Sep-20) than the later (14-Aug-20).  C04A has a 5-day workweek calendar while C04B is working on a 7-day workweek schedule.

Due to a year of non-working period between 01-Jun-20 to 31-May-21, this affected the P100 of C04C to complete on 23-Sep-21. Compared to C04A, this is also a year late with both cases using the 5-day workweek calendar with the difference on the 1-year non-working period for C04C.

C04D and C04E use the same calendars with work period on 1 & 2-Aug-19, 1 & 2-Oct-19, 1 & 2-Dec-19 and from 1-Aug-20. During the non-working days, no hits were accounted in the risk exposure diagram.

Takeaways

  1. The duration in the risk register represents workdays and NOT calendar days.
  2. Acumen takes into account the workdays or the activity calendars when determining the probabilistic completion dates (P-dates) of an 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?