Catching slippage in the weekly update: the four signs before the finish date moves
The finish date is unchanged, so the weekly report says the schedule is stable. A key activity has moved twice, and its remaining duration barely changed after another week of work. The team is looking at the final milestone while an intermediate handoff is becoming harder to meet.
Read the weekly update for changes in work and assumptions before accepting an unchanged finish date as reassurance. Compare commitments with actual results, examine remaining work, ask about shrinking timing flexibility and find activities that repeatedly move. The Government Accountability Office’s schedule guide cautions that unreliable logic and status can distort float. Treat the warning signs as questions to investigate, not automatic proof of a particular delay or recovery requirement.
Check four signs and the record behind them
- Compare last week’s promised results. List activities expected to start, finish or release an area and check what actually happened. Use the foremen’s records to distinguish missed work from an incorrectly recorded date.
- Examine remaining-work assumptions. Ask the lead what quantity or result remains and whether the current duration reflects it. Time passing does not by itself prove work was completed, and a duration should not be reduced just to make the update look healthy.
- Review near-critical exposure. Ask the scheduler which linked paths have less flexibility than before and why. Check logic, calendars, constraints and current status when a float change appears, rather than assuming every displayed value is reliable.
- Find repeatedly moving activities. Compare successive forecast finishes for the same activity. Identify the persistent readiness or output issue behind the movement, even when other parts of the plan still protect the final milestone.
- Assign a supported next action. Separate data corrections from access decisions, capacity choices or other work responses. Give each issue a responsible owner and check date, with any proposed change assessed by the relevant leads.
- Recheck the affected handoffs. Update the forecast from confirmed information and read the downstream effect. Keep the prior issue for comparison and explain what changed instead of hiding slippage by replacing the baseline.
Common mistakes
- Checking only the last milestone on the page.
- Reducing remaining duration because a week elapsed without checking actual output.
- Treating a float change as reliable without checking the programme’s current logic and status.
Action list
Your weekly warning check
- Missed starts, finishes and area releases.
- Remaining work behind the duration.
- Explained changes in near-critical exposure.
- Activities with repeatedly moving forecasts.
- Named follow-up and its downstream check.
Check your understanding
An activity’s remaining duration stayed the same because its actual progress was not entered. Is that evidence of a production problem?
