HomeBlogProject ManagementFast-tracking vs Crashing
Projects undergo a multitude of challenges when they begin or start. What commences as a simple activity may undergo a series of alterations - due to unknown or unforeseen constraints. To face and overcome such adversities, the project manager needs to rely on ways or techniques of playing a balancing act. For constraints related to the project schedule, the two schedule compression techniques of fast tracking and crashing come in very handy in critical situations. Through this article, let us explore these techniques, review fast tracking vs crashing, ways to apply them, differences, pros, and cons of both. Keep reading.
Fast-tracking is a schedule compression technique used by project managers to shorten the overall timeline for the project without impacting the project scope. Using fast-tracking techniques, project managers aim to retrench the schedule by parallel execution of activities. Work is planned in a way to perform multiple activities to overlap as well as eliminate the redundant ones to compress the project schedule. Project fast tracking is the primary technique applied when projects are faced with hardships, as this technique does not add to the project costs or resources.
Though it is a relatively easier one to apply, it multiplies project risks as rearranging schedules and tracking simultaneous activities may be an additional overhead and requires close collaboration with stakeholders and team. Understanding instances for applying fast tracking requires sound project management knowledge and an overall understanding of broader concepts of project schedule management - explore an online course for Project Management from KnowledgeHut today.
Project crashing or crashing the schedule is also a compression technique applied to speed up execution without affecting the project scope or timeline. Crashing is the application of extra resources - adding more people or hours or altering the baseline to speed up the overall project timeline. Crashing as a schedule compression technique comes in the last standing after fast tracking, as crashing often leads to a cost deluge as well as quality risks due to additional resources being allocated to the project. Thus crashing involves undertaking a cost-benefit analysis before attempting to speed up and also warrants having a check if the added resources can speed up and not create complexity in project completion. A PMP certification helps you bolster specific situations in which crashing can be applied cautiously, not leading to overwhelmed stakeholders/project situations - get the Certified PMP training online from KnowledgeHut today.
| Parameter | Fast tracking | Crashing |
|---|---|---|
| Definition/Nature of application | Involves parallel execution of activities | Does not involve any change in activity sequencing |
| Rework Scope | More scope for rework | Less scope for rework |
| Pre-requisite | Can be applied only if activities can be executed in parallel or overlapped | Does not depend on activity overlapping |
| Resource requirements | Does not involve any additional resources | Crashing works only by employing additional resources |
| Additional project costs | Does not involve any additional costs for the project if executed rightly. | Involves additional costs following added resources on the project. |
| Applicability | Works across all activities in the project schedule diagram | Can only be applied to activities on the critical path of the project |
| Risks involved | Increases project risks significantly | This may or may not result in increased project risks. |
Let us take a brief look at the breakdown of the differences between these two schedule compression techniques, which are often employed by project managers in anticipation of completing the project as planned.
1. Fast tracking vs Crashing: Nature of application
Fast-tracking is the first step in schedule compression and involves planning parallel execution or overlapping of activities to shorten project timelines, whereas crashing involves the addition of resources to the project to complete twice as much as the planned work in the same amount of time.
2. Fast tracking vs Crashing: Rework
Fast-tracking has more scope of rework vis-a-vis crashing as it involves updating the sequence of execution, which may or may not yield positive outcomes but may usher rework in the alignment of activities, reviews, etc. Also, overlapping activities may become burdensome to track and conclude if not executed cautiously.
3. Fast tracking vs Crashing: Scope of application
Fast-tracking can only be applied in scenarios where activities are independent and can be parallel planned or overlapped, while crashing prima facie does not involve any activity re-alignment and focuses on bringing more hands to perform activities. Hence, fast tracking works on all activities in the schedule diagram, whereas crashing can only be applied to those activities which are on the critical path of the project.
4. Fast tracking vs Crashing: Additional Resources
Fast-tracking does not involve augmenting the project with additional resources crashing, which accounts for additional resources engaging in the project.
5. Fast tracking vs Crashing: Risks involved
Fast tracking is an efficient compression technique but adds to project risks due to the additional burden of coordination and communication to thoroughly sequence or plan parallel or overlapping activities, while crashing does not involve the introduction of as many risks as the former technique does.
6. Fast tracking vs Crashing: Additional Costs
Crashing involves additional project costs due to extra resources being engaged in the project to fulfill the planned tasks/activities, while fast-tracking does not involve any additional costs as the same number of resources attempt parallel execution or overlapping of activities to meet schedule deadlines faster.
7. Fast tracking vs Crashing: Complexities
Fast tracking means parallel execution, i.e., more tasks being done in parallel, which puts a risk of too many WIP items, whereas crashing involves more resources that require supervision and coordination, bringing more complexities in managing the project.
8. Fast tracking vs Crashing: Task rebalancing
Fast-tracking may require a sufficient rebalancing of tasks or discretionary dependencies to help execute in parallel and complete items faster, while crashing only involves adding resources to pick up tasks that are already planned and scheduled for execution, thus, requiring minimal rebalancing.
9. Fast tracking vs Crashing: Priority of application
Fast-tracking is applied first in case a schedule is required to be a compressed post which observes the outcomes project managers plan for crashing, i.e., adding more hands to complete project work.
Understand the differences between crashing and fast tracking with hands-on situations to learn and apply these techniques in the PRINCE2 Project Management certification and build a strong project management foundation from the experts.
Both the techniques, fast tracking vs crashing, share the same tenets of shortening or compressing project schedules without impacting project timelines or scope, and both techniques come with their own set of pros and cons to be chosen wisely to support projects in critical situations. To apply either of the techniques, the project managers need to come up with a series of steps which may involve:
To summarize, both techniques share the same goals, analysis, implementation, and monitoring methods.
As indicated earlier, a project manager needs to be cautious in applying either or both of the techniques to the project and must judge the situation thoroughly before applying the compression techniques. For example, in certain cases, fast tracking may not be feasible where the critical path extends beyond the project deadline - in which cases, crashing may have to be applied before fast tracking. In some other cases, some activities can be fast-tracked while others can be crushed to yield the benefits of schedule compression and meet planned timelines.
There are certain scenarios in which project managers may directly resort to crashing the schedule, such as in case of project delays, i.e., where projects have already overrun the planned schedule or in cases where the allocated budgets have already been spent or exhausted. In general, fast tracking accrues greater risks while crashing leads to an increase in project costs - project managers must perform trade-offs based on the criticality of the situation to decide between the two and apply the one that can yield greater benefits.
To gain a further understanding of when to choose the right technique and apply it effectively, take up KnowledgeHut's online course for Project Management and ace your career ahead with a structural understanding of these and many other project management techniques that are a treasure for any project manager.
Project delays are a common scenario that managers need to deal with, whether it is a short-term or a long-term project. Changes and delays often affect mold and demand precautionary as well as corrective measures to bring the projects back on track. Fast tracking and Crashing are two powerful schedule compression techniques, if applied rightly, have the potential to bring even severely disrupted project schedules back on track.
Project managers need to learn the art of judging the situation in which either or both of the techniques can be applied and must also act swiftly to exploit the advantages of schedule compressed or saved by the application of these techniques. It is important to note that fast tracking can be applied to projects where tasks can be overlapped to reduce project duration, while crashing involves applying extra resources with the least incremental cost to save project time.
Applying schedule compression techniques is not as easy as it may sound and can affect the project negatively or create more risks if not appropriately handled. Evaluation of trade-offs between schedule, costs, and risks needs to be performed when performing or planning to perform schedule compression.
Fast-tracking and scheduling are two project schedule compression techniques that aid projects that are off-track or running tight in terms of timelines by compressing schedules without affecting project scope or schedule baselined earlier.
Choosing between fast-tracking and crashing depends on the situation the project is in but in general fast, tracking, although risky, is more flexible and applied first over crashing, which leads to additional project costs due to added resources to achieve goals. Selecting one among the two demands evaluating benefits and trade-offs between schedule, costs, and risks to adjudge the best-suited technique per situational demand.
Fast-tracking, even though flexible and efficient, leads to more complexity in the project, thereby resulting in increased project risks, a decrease in quality, and some cases, even an increase in costs/rework due to these factors, which negatively impact the project and create more chaos than efficiency/savings.
Common scenarios for crashing a project include cases where projects have been delayed or overrun the planned timelines, cases where there are available resources that can be leveraged to complete planned activities or cases where there are monetary or non-monetary benefits (common in the construction industry) tied to completing a project per planned schedule.
Best practices for implementing project fast tracking to compress project schedule include:
| Name | Date | Fee | Know more |
|---|
