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

TIA Sample Review: Why Time Impact Analyses Fail and How to Validate Them

Learn how to perform a TIA sample review with clarity and confidence. This guide breaks down the key steps in reviewing Time Impact Analysis (TIA), helping project managers, planners, and schedulers identify errors, validate logic, and assess delay impacts accurately. Discover best practices, common pitfalls, and expert tips to improve schedule analysis and support stronger claims. Whether you’re handling construction delays or reviewing forensic schedules, this article provides practical insights to enhance your TIA review process and ensure reliable results.

Read More »
Marty Fuentes March 15, 2026
MLR Project Management & Consultancy

Emotions in Decision Making: Why Rational Thinking Alone Fails in Strategic Decisions

Effective decision making is essential in project management, particularly in complex construction projects. This article explores practical decision-making strategies to improve outcomes, reduce uncertainty, and support better project planning. Learn how structured thinking, data-driven insights, and clear communication help project managers make faster, more confident decisions. From scheduling to risk management, these techniques enhance your ability to solve problems and deliver successful project results.

Read More »
Marty Fuentes January 14, 2026

Build Better Projects With Expert Guidance

MLR Subscription - Browsing

Where to send the file?