Project Management: Reasoning vs Scholarship

Project Management: Reasoning vs Scholarship

by | 15 Sep, 2025 | Blog

Project management has long been treated as a domain of processes, frameworks, and best practices, which we might call the “scholarship” of the discipline. Much of the traditional literature, certifications, and training focus on knowing the rules, terminology, and lifecycle steps. However, this scholarship approach has given us only partial success in project delivery.

By contrast, applying scientific reasoning to project management, such as through data analysis, hypothesis testing, systems thinking, evidence-based decision-making and resource-driven network analysis, allows for predictive insight, adaptive learning, and continuous improvement.

For that, project management must move away from ritual and repetition and toward disciplines such as

📌mathematics,

📌statistics,

📌operations research,

📌behavioural science, and

📌systems science

📌economics

Fields that explain cause-effect relationships and allow for prediction, optimisation, and measurable improvement.

Many project management methods such as Critical Path Method (CPM), Earned Value Management (EVM), Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM), Monte Carlo Simulation, Takt, and Scrum now practised as rituals: following prescribed steps, templates, and jargon without deeply questioning their assumptions or validating their effectiveness with evidence.

While scientific reasoning in project management does exist, particularly in project management Academia, it remains largely isolated from the reality of practitioners and PM software developers.

Without building a bridge between research, practice, and tool developers, the discipline risks remaining locked in a scholarship approach: knowing the rules but lacking a true cause-and-effect, evidence-based foundation for decision-making.

Additionally, we need to promote the profession among mathematicians, scientists, and programmers. They are capable of challenging existing practices and helping invent new, evidence-based methods that push project management forward.

Alex Lyaschenko

PMO | Portfolio Planning & Delivery | PMP | P3O Practitioner | AgilePM Practitioner | Six Sigma

Project Time-Cost Balancing. Resource Smoothing.

Project Time-Cost Balancing. Resource Smoothing.

by | 3 Sep, 2025 | Blog

Resource smoothing is a schedule optimisation technique used to align resource usage with availability without changing the project’s target completion date. It is primarily focused on minimising delivery costs by identifying the optimal resource allocation to achieve timely delivery. This is achieved by adjusting the timing of non-critical activities within their available float, aiming to avoid peaks and troughs in resource demand.

While resource smoothing helps manage costs and reduce idle time, it introduces certain risks and limitations.

Benefits:

  • Cost Optimisation: Helps minimise costs by avoiding excessive resource allocation and inefficient work patterns.
  • Improved Resource Utilisation: Promotes a more consistent and predictable use of resources, reducing idle time and overtime.

Limitations and Risks:

  • Reduced Schedule Flexibility: By consuming float before delivery is commenced the schedule becomes less resilient. It increases the probability that near-to- critical activities became critical.
  • Increased Coordination Complexity: Frequent adjustments to task timings can lead to confusion, rework, and communication issues. Without careful change control and stakeholder alignment, smoothing can compromise schedule clarity and team cohesion.

Alex Lyaschenko

PMO | Portfolio Planning & Delivery | PMP | P3O Practitioner | AgilePM Practitioner | Six Sigma

Resource-driven Network Analysis

Resource-driven Network Analysis

by | 2 Aug, 2025 | Blog

Resource-driven Network Analysis

The resource-driven network analysis method remains underrecognised and underappreciated within project management communities. As the most advanced project planning and delivery approach ever developed, sometimes referred to as the Resource Critical Path (RCP), it is still largely unfamiliar to many practitioners.

To illustrate its value, let’s compare it with other commonly used planning approaches through a simple scenario.

Scenario:

A project includes five activities carried out by two resources. 

The project manager is informed that Activity D may be delayed by two days and must determine whether a corrective action is necessary.

The speed and accuracy of the response depend on the planning approach used. Let’s examine how each approach supports the project manager in handling this situation.

Spreadsheet Method

Assessing the impact is difficult because task and resource dependencies aren’t clearly visible.

Bar Chart (Gantt Chart) Method

The visual layout indicates that Alex is assigned to Activity B, which is planned to commence immediately after Activity D; however, the downstream implications remain unclear, as task dependencies are clearly visible. 

Cards Method

Without logical links or time-based analysis, it’s nearly impossible to evaluate the effect of the delay.

Critical Path Method (CPM)

Total Float for Activity D is 3 days. It indicates that the delay won’t affect the project deadline. This creates a false sense of security, suggesting that no action is needed.

Resource Critical Path (RCP)

In contrast, Total Float for Activity D = 0 days , indicating that any delay will directly impact the project completion.

Why? The same resource (Alex) is responsible for both Activities D and B. Delaying D postpones B, which then delays Activity C, ultimately affecting the project finish date.

The Total Float metric in resource-driven network analysis considers resource allocations and limitations, if such are present.  Therefore, the result may differ from the Total Float calculated based on the Task-Driven Network analysis method, which doesn’t consider resources during calculation.

How do other project management methods compare?

Earned Value Management (EVM)
Schedule Performance Index is based on the assumption that all activities are equally important. If a critical activity is delayed but a non-critical activity is completed ahead of schedule, the index may incorrectly indicate that the project is ahead of schedule when, in fact, it is late. 

Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM)
Recognises the need to account for resources but offers no methods to calculate resource-driven delivery plans. 

Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS)
If the basis for the analysis is a CPM model, MCS may incorrectly show no impact from the delay. When a resource-driven model is applied, it will provide the correct result, but only if resource levelling is performed during simulation. Most MCS tools don’t support resource levelling, limiting their reliability.

If the method is applied correctly, it will enhance the analysis, taking into account the probability of delay (not only the fact that it may be delayed).

Summary

Resource-Driven Network Analysis, also known as Resource Critical Path, provides the most reliable and immediate insights when analysing the impact of delays, considering technological dependencies, resource allocations, and limitations.

Other methods either require significant manual effort or produce misleading results. While CPM is supported by software automation, it fails to account for resource allocation, which can significantly distort the analysis results.

Without resource-driven network analysis, projects lack the ability to confidently answer essential delivery questions:

  • How many days can an activity be delayed before it impacts other activities and project deadlines?
  • Where are the opportunities to accelerate?
  • Which resources or skills are creating bottlenecks?

The ability to answer these questions with speed and accuracy is what makes resource-driven network analysis a necessity, not a choice.

Alex Lyaschenko

PMO | Portfolio Planning & Delivery | PMP | P3O Practitioner | AgilePM Practitioner | Six Sigma

Is the Model good enough?

Is the Model good enough?

by | 15 Jun, 2025 | Blog

“All models are wrong, but some are useful” is one of the most misinterpreted quotes in project risk management. The full quote from British statistician George Box provides essential context:

“All models are wrong, but some models are useful. So, the question you need to ask is not ‘Is the model true?’ (it never is) but ‘Is the model good enough for this particular application?’”

The key message isn’t simply that simplified models have value but it’s that we must CRITICALLY assess whether a model is fit for purpose. Recognising when a model is not applicable is just as important as knowing when it is.

In the context of project risk management, this distinction is crucial. A schedule may be a sufficiently accurate model for tracking progress or managing contracts, yet fall short as a foundation for Monte Carlo Simulation analysis.

The real question the project risk community needs to address is:
“How can we develop a dynamic project delivery model that is good enough to support Monte Carlo Simulation analysis (or another quantitative risk analysis method)?”
Project data modelling (scheduling), risk simulation systems and the underlying methods must be CRITICALLY assessed for faulty assumptions, and missing or incorrectly working capabilities.

Companies that promote scheduling and risk management systems have little incentive to acknowledge or address their limitations. Their focus tends to be on marketing the strengths of their tools, not on identifying critical gaps that may impact practical use.

As a result, insufficient modelling capabilities are frequently overlooked or dismissed.
Blind trust in the project delivery model is an unnoticed delivery risk.

A community of Practice dedicated to complex project data modelling and the assessment of risk simulation systems.

Alex Lyaschenko

PMO | Portfolio Planning & Delivery | PMP | P3O Practitioner | AgilePM Practitioner | Six Sigma

Critical Path Method. Resource Loop Challenge.

Critical Path Method. Resource Loop Challenge.

by | 6 Jun, 2025 | Blog

The Critical Path Method (CPM) has pitfalls rarely explained in project management books. Knowing them and applying the method correctly or even using an alternative approach essential for successful delivery.

The ultimate base for CPM calculation is an accurate estimation of activity durations. However, such an estimation may not be possible due to the Resource Loop problem:

  • A: To calculate the critical path, the duration of each activity must be accurately estimated
  • B : To estimate durations accurately the availability of resources has to be known
  • C: To understand the resource availability the critical path has to be calculated

or 

  • A (Critical Path) driven by B (Activity durations)
  • B (Activity durations) driven by C (Resource availability)  
  • C (Resource availability) driven by A (Critical Path) 

Volume-based Resource Critical Path

An approach that addresses the resource loop problem is the Volume-based Resource Critical Path Method (RCPM).

Instead of estimating activity in the duration units, Volume of Work (VoW) is used as a primary measure.
VoW could be mesured in physical (m, m2, items) or virtual (effort hours, points) units. 
  
VoW drives resource demand. Resource demand and supply drive Resource Critical Path. Resource Critical Path drives activity durations. 

So, Activity durations depend on:

  • Volume of Work (Volume units),
  • Assignment of required skillset (demand)
  • Productivity (units per hour) of available resources (supply)

Heuristic scheduling methods could be applied to calculate activity durations and order of activities considering resource availability.

Points to consider

  • The Volume of Work can be measured in meters in cubic meters, tons, story points, work hours, percentages, pages, or other units. Unites is an informative data point only. The calculation method is the same regardless of the applied volume.
  • Project materials constraints (consumable resources) may also impact activity durations. If relevant, material supply and demand must also be added to relevant activities and included in the calculation.
  • As an exception, a project may have activities that are not dependent on resource availability. The duration of these activities can be estimated directly in hours.

Summary

The Critical Path Method requires accurate estimations. However, when resources are limited, accurate estimation is difficult as the estimators need to consider parallel activities. It creates the  Resource Loop problem. 

Volume-based Resource Critical Path is an alternative approach that addresses the Resource Loop problem. 

Alex Lyaschenko

PMO | Portfolio Planning & Delivery | PMP | P3O Practitioner | AgilePM Practitioner | Six Sigma