This is the third in my series on scheduling (I spoke about the knowledge required to successfully schedule in my last blog) and I would like to cover what I perceive as the two broad ways schedules are used - namely for planning and/or managing an effort.

One way I have seen a schedule used is to identify some key dates and milestones toward which the person or team attempt to work. Reactive adjustments are then made when a review is required or a further estimate is needed. In other words, scheduling is used to do some initial and periodic planning rather than used to manage the ongoing effort.

I also admit that I have done it myself. Prepared a schedule and then got on with the work, much of which was not scheduled as there were many unknowns and I didn't have the time or resources to update the schedule to reflect the reality. When a review was called for my project, I would madly adjust the schedule to reflect the new reality based on what I had learnt. Once through the review, I was back to getting stuck into the "doing" and little attention to the "plan adjusting".

What I was effectively doing was using a schedule to determine the key deliverables, milestones and tasks and then getting things done the best way I could, together with the team. But we didn't have the resources or perhaps the willingness or discipline to maintain the schedules as a management tool - we used it solely as a "planning" tool.

This brings me to the other approach - using a schedule as a "management" tool. The difference with this approach is that the schedule (and perhaps the associated data such as resourcing) is maintained on a continual basis and guides and monitors the effort. Hours are logged, resourcing checked, risks and opportunities identified and so on. The schedule is used to manage and record the progress of the entire effort and to guide the team toward its goals. The "management" way must of course always incorporate the "planning" side, but the converse is not necessarily true.

Now, it has to be said that there is nothing wrong with either way ....unless it is applied in the wrong circumstances. With small teams and smallish projects......just using the schedule to "plan" is perhaps sufficient. For large teams and large projects though, this same approach takes on a "flying by the seat of the pants" feel. For these large projects you have to resource the scheduling effort and you have to use it to "manage" the project and team.

One of my other observations is that there is sometimes conflict between the project team and management because these different approaches are not well understood. This can lead to frustration from both parties as scheduling is actually used as a periodic planning tool but the expectation by management is that is used as an ongoing management tool. If you find this is the case, then there will need to be a shared understanding by executives and staff of what scheduling is to "achieve" and how it is to be used.