ExamFinch.com My Study

Study guide

1.3 Project Planning and Activity-Logic Development

Practice this exam

AACE Planning and Scheduling Professional PSP

Track your progress as you read

Finished sections get a check mark.

1 Chapter 0: Introduction & AACE PSP Exam Structure

0.1 Current AACE PSP Exam, Eligibility, and Certification Facts 0.2 Planning and Scheduling Professional Roles and Competencies 0.3 Cost Engineering and Scheduling Terminology per RP 10S-90

2 Chapter 1: Scope Definition & Planning Fundamentals

1.1 Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) Architecture & RP 33R-15 1.2 Organization & Resource Breakdown Structures (OBS, RBS, RAM) 1.3 Project Planning and Activity-Logic Development 1.4 Contract Requirements and Delivery Constraints 1.5 Stakeholder Identification, Needs, and Plan Review 1.6 Constructability Methods and Value Engineering 1.7 Resource Identification and Project Variables 1.8 Scope, Goals, Project Plan, and Phase Definition 1.9 Cost Breakdown Structure and Cost Estimate Development 1.10 Phase Relationships, Baseline Plan, Forecasts, and Risk/Recovery Planning

3 Chapter 2: Critical Path Method Mechanics & Network Logic

2.1 Activity Definition and Logic Relationships 2.2 Activity Durations, Productivity, and Work Calendars 2.3 Forward and Backward Pass Mathematical Mechanics 2.4 Float Calculations and Critical-Path Identification

4 Chapter 3: Advanced Network Techniques & Schedule Constraints

3.1 Schedule Constraints and Their Impact on Dates and Float 3.2 Advanced Logic Modeling: Ladders and Fragnets 3.3 Schedule Levels of Detail and Schedule Basis Documentation 3.4 Schedule Scope and Schedule Specification 3.5 Breakdown-Structure Relationships and the Cost Estimate Model 3.6 Stakeholder Feedback and Types of Schedules 3.7 Activities, Milestones, Schedule Quality, and Basis Documentation

5 Chapter 4: Resource Management & Leveling

4.1 Resource Planning, Allocation, and Histograms 4.2 Resource Leveling vs. Resource Smoothing 4.3 Cumulative Resource S-Curves & Productivity Tracking

6 Chapter 5: Baseline Management & Schedule Updating

5.1 Baseline Establishment, Forecasts, and Controlled Revision 5.2 Progress Measurement and Data Date Mechanics 5.3 Out-of-Sequence Logic: Progress Override vs. Retained Logic 5.4 Schedule Update Review and Quality Verification per RP 53R-06 5.5 Cost/Resource Management, Schedule Change, and Feedback 5.6 Acceleration and Recovery Scheduling per RP 54R-07 5.7 Control Schedules, Variance Analysis, Forecasts, and Management Summaries

7 Chapter 6: Schedule Risk Analysis & Monte Carlo Simulation

6.1 Schedule Risk Principles, Risk Drivers, and Three-Point Estimates 6.2 Monte Carlo Simulation, Criticality, Correlation, and Merge Effects 6.3 Risk Outputs, Confidence Dates, Sensitivity, and Contingency

8 Chapter 7: Earned Value & Earned Schedule Management

7.1 Earned Value Foundations: PV, EV, AC, and Variances 7.2 Traditional EV Performance Indices & Late-Project Quirks 7.3 Earned Schedule (ES) Theory, SV(t), and SPI(t) 7.4 Independent Schedule Forecasting & IEAC(t)

9 Chapter 8: Forensic Schedule Analysis & Delay Claims

8.1 Delay Classification, Criticality, and Contract Questions 8.2 RP 29R-03 Taxonomy, Data Validation, and Method Selection 8.3 TIA, Windowed Analysis, and Subtractive Models 8.4 Concurrency, Pacing, and Float: Technical Analysis Before Entitlement

10 Chapter 9: Executive Communication & Practical Scenario Applications

9.1 Official PSP Memo Writing Framework 9.2 Structured Technical Problem-Solving for PSP Scenarios 9.3 Current Exam Strategy and Core Calculation Review

1.3 Project Planning and Activity-Logic Development

Key Takeaways Explain This Topic AI

RP 39R-06 concerns project planning, while RP 24R-03 concerns developing activity logic; they are related but different practices.

Planning develops the execution basis before and during schedule development through scope, methods, packaging, resources, phases, interfaces, and stakeholder decisions.

Logic should represent physical and technical sequence, external and contractual interfaces, and documented preferential or resource choices as appropriate to the model.

Fragnets can help evaluate discrete changes or events, but their use and contractual effect depend on purpose, governing requirements, timing, and records.

Assumptions and basis documentation improve reviewability; they do not by themselves create legal entitlement.

Last updated: October 2026

1.3 Project Planning and Activity-Logic Development

AACE RP 39R-06 addresses Project Planning , while RP 24R-03 addresses Developing Activity Logic . Planning establishes how the project can be executed; logic development translates that plan into dependency relationships. The work is iterative: schedule calculations may reveal an infeasible sequence or resource peak that sends the team back to refine the plan.

Develop the execution basis

Planning should integrate:

  • contract requirements and owner objectives;
  • scope, goals, phases, and acceptance criteria;
  • engineering release and review strategy;
  • procurement packaging, fabrication, logistics, and delivery;
  • construction methods, work faces, access, temporary works, and constructability;
  • testing, commissioning, turnover, and operational interfaces;
  • organization, responsibility, labor, equipment, and material availability;
  • estimate quantities, productivity, cost, and cash-flow assumptions;
  • stakeholders, approvals, permits, and third-party commitments; and

risk, opportunity, contingency, and recovery options.

The project execution plan may capture much of this basis, but document names and approval paths vary. The planner should obtain input from the people responsible for performing and accepting the work rather than create a network solely from software templates.

Translate planning into schedule inputs

Map deliverables and work packages to activities and milestones. Define durations from quantities, methods, production rates, crews, review periods, procurement data, or other defensible sources. Assign calendars that reflect working time and restrictions. Connect activities through relationships representing the planned handoffs.

Physical or technical dependencies arise from the method of work. External and contractual dependencies arise from access, approvals, permits, owner-furnished items, or required dates. Preferential logic records a chosen but changeable sequence. Resource-driven sequence may be represented explicitly when it is part of the execution plan, or through resource-constrained analysis or leveling. The model should make the chosen treatment visible so reviewers understand which relationships can change.

Avoid calling a relationship a “hard constraint.” Logic relationships and date constraints are different schedule mechanisms. A physical FS relationship may be mandatory under the selected method, while a Must Finish constraint imposes a date on the calculation. Use each term precisely.

Constructability and alternatives

Constructability review tests whether the planned sequence can be performed safely and physically with available access, workfronts, temporary works, crews, equipment, laydown, and permits. It should occur early and repeat when material scope or method changes. Alternative plans—such as modularization, different packaging, work-face resequencing, or added shifts—should include their design, procurement, approval, transport, and testing effects.

Assumptions and basis

Document material assumptions such as design maturity, quantities, production rates, crew sizes, calendars, weather treatment, review durations, access dates, procurement lead times, constraints, and exclusions. RP 38R-06 concerns documenting the schedule basis. The record helps others reproduce and challenge the plan. It does not guarantee contract acceptance or independently prove entitlement.

Change and fragnet analysis

A fragnet is a small network representing the activities and relationships associated with an event or change. It can support prospective evaluation, change planning, or time-impact analysis. Build it from defined scope, durations, calendars, predecessors, successors, and resource assumptions. Insert it into an appropriate copy of the schedule and compare relevant milestone results.

The correct schedule version, status date, method, and approval path depend on the contract and purpose. Modeling a fragnet does not itself authorize baseline revision or establish responsibility. Label potential, proposed, approved, and implemented changes separately.

Planning-to-schedule review

Before baselining, test whether:

  • every material deliverable and interface is represented;
  • activities and milestones are measurable;
  • relationships match the selected execution method;
  • durations, calendars, resources, and cost assumptions reconcile;
  • major stakeholders reviewed their commitments;
  • milestone paths can be traced and explained; and

assumptions, risks, and exclusions are documented.

Planning precedes detailed schedule calculation conceptually, but it continues throughout the project. Updates, forecasts, and recovery plans should feed field evidence back into the planning assumptions.

Applied review: test the plan with a milestone trace

Choose a required completion or turnover milestone and trace backward through commissioning, installation, procurement, design, approvals, and access. At every interface, name the deliverable, owner, duration basis, calendar, and evidence that the handoff is complete. Then trace forward from a major input such as notice to proceed, owner data, or long-lead release. A gap in either direction reveals omitted work or an unsupported assumption.

Repeat the trace after resource and risk review. A technically logical sequence may still be infeasible if it needs the same crane, crew, work face, outage, or reviewer in two places at once. Document how the plan resolves the conflict and whether the solution belongs in logic, calendars, resource analysis, or a management action.