![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.foxquestsystems.net\/foxblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/10\/ff-rel-no-lag-diagram.jpg?resize=505%2C223\")
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In Figure 1 above, by observation, since \u201cC\u201d has a shorter duration than \u201cB\u201d, the Early Start (ES) for \u201cC\u201d is misrepresented since \u201cC\u201d can start at the completion of \u201cA\u201d. Furthermore, the Total Float (TF) is equally misrepresented since the Early Finish (EF) is the same as \u201cB\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
If there is no lag<\/span> <\/strong>(say this to yourself a few times) between \u201cB\u201d and \u201cC\u201d, then the finish of both \u201cB\u201d and \u201cC\u201d are equally responsible for starting \u201cD\u201d. Neither “B” or “C” have priority over controlling the start date of activity “D” with respect to logic. With respect to Duration however, activity “B” alone controls the start date of activity “D”. Therefore, the correct approach is to relate \u201cB\u201d FS to \u201cD\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In Method 1 above, activity “C” is behaving as if it was constrained using the “As Late as Possible” option. By misrepresenting the ES of \u201cC\u201d, the result could lead to an inadvertent impact to the Project Completion date by starting \u201cC\u201d too late. This could cause a loss of trust in the schedule. The solution is to follow Method 2, i.e. \u201cB\u201d is related to \u201cD\u201d using FS. Not only is this trap avoided but relationships between activities are more clearly defined.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After all this, if you’re still not convinced and still feel the need to use the FF 0, then consider re-assigning the scope of work between Activities “B” and “C”. Consider separating the scope of the tasks so that the finish portion of Activity “C” is now included as part of Activity “B” and the start portion of Activity “C” starts at the completion of Activity “A”. Normalizing CPM Network logic to the basic Finish-to-Start relationships avoids confusion and possible erroneous Start\/Finish dates and Total Float values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Z\u00fcmmer checks this anomaly with Report #35 \u2013 \u201cTasks With Finish-to-Finish Relationships And No Lag\u201d reports all instances. In the illustration below, each Finish-To-Finish relationship with no lag is clearly and individually paired. In addition, the Activity Status of the predecessor and successor is listed along with each Original Duration, Total Float, type of Relationship and lag value between the two activities. Relationships with lower Total Float values have a higher resolution priority over relationships with a higher Total Float value.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Copyright \u00a92019 FoxQuest Systems, Inc. – All Rights Reserved<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The PDM (Precedence Diagram Method) method of defining relationships between activities is a powerful tool. Often, however, Schedulers, sometimes unknowingly, misuse the options available when defining relationships between activities. In the illustration below, under Method 1, Activity \u201cB\u201d is related to \u201cC\u201d using Finish-To-Finish (FF) with Lag = 0. This may appear as a reasonable … Continue reading “Tasks With Finish-To-Finish Relationships And No Lag”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":1290,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1286","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-analysis"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.foxquestsystems.net\/foxblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/10\/Report-35-analysis-report-selection.jpg?fit=833%2C467&ssl=1","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.foxquestsystems.net\/foxblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1286","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.foxquestsystems.net\/foxblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.foxquestsystems.net\/foxblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.foxquestsystems.net\/foxblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.foxquestsystems.net\/foxblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1286"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/www.foxquestsystems.net\/foxblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1286\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1448,"href":"https:\/\/www.foxquestsystems.net\/foxblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1286\/revisions\/1448"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.foxquestsystems.net\/foxblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1290"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.foxquestsystems.net\/foxblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1286"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.foxquestsystems.net\/foxblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1286"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.foxquestsystems.net\/foxblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1286"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.foxquestsystems.net\/foxblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/10\/Report-35.jpg?resize=602%2C197\")
<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n