Projects often face pressure to deliver results sooner than originally planned due to market demands or unexpected delays. When a project schedule needs acceleration, managers must employ specific techniques to reduce the overall duration without reducing the work that must be completed. This process is known as schedule compression, which is necessary when the calculated timeline no longer aligns with stakeholder expectations or external deadlines. Schedule compression methods allow teams to meet aggressive timelines by strategically altering how and when activities are performed while managing the constraints of time, cost, and quality.
Defining Fast Tracking in Project Management
Fast tracking is a schedule compression technique that involves performing project activities or phases concurrently that would typically be executed in sequence. This method intentionally overlaps activities to decrease the overall project duration. The technique alters the logical relationships between tasks on the project network diagram, allowing the project team to initiate a successor activity before its predecessor activity is fully finished.
The core intent is to modify the structure of the work sequence rather than changing the amount of time an individual task takes. For example, the design phase might begin before the requirements gathering phase is entirely complete. This approach is considered a structural change to the project execution plan.
The Mechanism of Fast Tracking: Overlapping Tasks
The practical implementation of fast tracking involves converting traditional Finish-to-Start (FS) dependencies into overlapping relationships. An FS dependency dictates that a successor task cannot begin until its predecessor task is 100% complete. Under fast tracking, this relationship is often modified to a Start-to-Start (SS) dependency, allowing the successor task to begin shortly after the predecessor task has started.
The team must identify activities that lie on the project’s critical path—the longest sequence of activities determining the earliest completion date. Only critical path activities are candidates for fast tracking because overlapping non-critical tasks does not shorten the total project duration. For example, code development can start immediately after the first module of design documents is approved, rather than waiting for all designs to be finalized.
The project manager must determine the appropriate amount of lead time, which is the duration of overlap between the two tasks. This requires meticulous planning and understanding which partial deliverables are necessary to safely commence the successor activity.
Key Advantages of Fast Tracking
The primary benefit of fast tracking is the direct acceleration of the project schedule, allowing the final product or service to be delivered sooner. This time savings provides a competitive advantage in market-driven projects where speed to market is important. Project teams can meet tight contractual deadlines or recover from earlier delays without incurring significant time penalties.
A key advantage is its general cost neutrality regarding direct resource expenditure. Fast tracking utilizes a restructuring of the existing project plan and its dependencies, avoiding the need to hire additional personnel or pay premium overtime wages. It achieves speed through organizational and procedural changes rather than through financial investment in extra resources or equipment.
Primary Risks and Disadvantages
The inherent danger in fast tracking stems from beginning a task before its prerequisite information is fully finalized. This approach significantly increases the probability of rework, which is the primary disadvantage. When a successor activity begins based on incomplete inputs, any subsequent changes will necessitate corrections to the work already performed.
For instance, if the design phase changes after coding has commenced, the time spent revising the code can quickly exceed the time saved by overlapping the tasks. This rework can negate initial time savings, leading to a false sense of progress. The cost associated with rework, including wasted labor hours, can increase the project’s overall budget. The increased complexity also raises the potential for scope creep, as teams might make assumptions that lead to unauthorized functionality.
Successfully managing fast-tracked activities demands a higher degree of communication and coordination among team members. Project managers must actively engage in proactive risk management to monitor evolving inputs and rapidly communicate changes. Without this oversight, the potential for quality degradation rises, as teams may rush to complete tasks based on shifting requirements.
Fast Tracking Versus Crashing: Understanding the Difference
Both fast tracking and crashing are methods of schedule compression, but they employ fundamentally different mechanisms. Crashing is a technique where resources are added to the project to shorten the duration of critical path activities. This typically involves paying for overtime, bringing in specialized contractors, or adding equipment, thus directly increasing the project’s costs.
Structural vs. Financial Impact
The central distinction lies in the constraints manipulated: fast tracking changes the project’s structure and activity sequence, while crashing changes resource allocation and cost. Crashing results in an immediate increase in direct project costs due to the added resources. For example, a construction project might crash a concrete pouring activity by bringing in an extra crew to work a second shift, incurring premium labor costs.
Cost Implications
Conversely, fast tracking attempts to be cost-neutral initially, relying solely on rearranging the project plan and its dependencies. The cost impact of fast tracking is deferred and probabilistic; costs only rise if the risk of rework materializes, which is an indirect cost. If the fast-tracked project is executed perfectly, it saves time without adding cost, whereas crashing always saves time at the expense of an upfront budget increase.
Analysis Required
Project managers use a cost-slope analysis to determine the most efficient way to crash a project, identifying which activities offer the greatest time reduction for the least cost increase. Fast tracking does not require this financial analysis. Instead, it demands a detailed assessment of activity dependencies and the organizational tolerance for risk and potential rework. Crashing trades money for time with a predictable cost curve, while fast tracking trades risk and potential quality issues for time with an unpredictable cost curve.
When to Apply Fast Tracking
The decision to implement fast tracking should be based on a clear assessment of the project environment and its constraints. This technique is most appropriate when time is the most constrained factor and the project budget has little flexibility for resource additions, making crashing financially unviable. Projects with a high organizational tolerance for risk and a robust quality control process are better candidates for this approach.
Fast tracking works best when the overlapping tasks have easily reversible or modular early deliverables. This means that if a change occurs, the subsequent work requires only minor adjustments. If the complexity of the tasks is low and the interfaces between them are well-defined, the risk of rework is reduced. Managers should employ this method selectively on specific portions of the critical path where the inputs are likely to remain stable.