Fast Tracking versus Crashing

If you’re new to Project Management formal terminology, here are a couple of new terms for you: Fast Tracking and Crashing.  Both of these are techniques for compressing a project schedule. Consider the example of a project with $100K budget, a fixed scope with two phases, and 6 month schedule as shown below in diagram 1.  If you are the project manager, what are your choices?

There are two techniques that are commonly used to compress the schedule when required.  The “fast tracking” technique (see diagram 2) overlaps project phases in order to compress the schedule.  This technique does have drawbacks, though.  First, it increases risk of rework due to the potential rework of the early tasks in Phase 2.  Some of those early tasks may have been dependent on late tasks in phase 1.  Another drawback is that due to the rework and overlap, you may incur additional costs.

 The “crashing” technique (see diagram 3) eliminates overlap but condenses each of the phase durations.  In order to accomplish this without scope reduction will require additional resources (i.e. additional costs).  There are also potential risks of error and reduction of quality by adding resources.

Are there any advantages to “fast tracking” versus “crashing” or vice versa?  The answer is: “it depends.”  Each project is different and the risks also differ by project.  Therefore, “crashing” may be preferred for some projects while “fast tracking” may be preferred for others.

PMI®, PMP®, and PMBOK® are registered certification trademarks of the Project Management Institute, Inc.