Schedule Risk Analysis with Acumen: Varying Activity Constraint Type

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 constraint type is varied 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 hard constraints should not be used in the Primavera P6 schedule when used for SRA.  Soft constraints, on the other hand, have an impact on the deterministic dates and can be used in the schedule for SRA.

See also:

Variable

  • Activity Constraint (Case 08).

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 with Different Activity Constraints.

Table 1.  Risk Input for Different Activity Constraints.

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 C08B and C08C have deterministic dates (DT) differing from C08A driven by varying constraints on a start milestone activity, all returns the same P-dates as if ignoring the effect of the soft constraints assigned (start on or before, start on, and start on or after).  The same can be said of cases C08D, C08E, and C08F with the assigned different kinds of finish milestone constraints (finish on or before, finish on, and finish on or after).

However, when a mandatory constraint is assigned, the schedule stopped from flowing resulting to P-dates the same with the DT.

In the last case, C08J, an As Late As Possible constraint is used.  This constraint was just ignored by Acumen and the 50 working days (not visible in the schedule due to the effect of the constraint) total float when unconstrained buffered the deterministic date to shift by just 50 work days at P100.

Takeaways

  1. Acumen analyzes the schedule as if there are no soft constraints assigned (start on, start on or before, start on or after, finish on, finish on or before, finish on or after, and as late as possible).
  2. The resulting P-dates (P0, P50, P100) are residual to the max duration and the total float along the path being analysed in the schedule. The total float can be determined by removing the soft constraints.  However, regardless of whether there are soft constraints assigned or not, the results will have the same P-dates.
  3. Hard constraints (mandatory start and mandatory finish) “stop the flow” of the schedule and should not be used in Schedule Risk Analysis.
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?