Handling Out of Sequence Progress in

an Updated P6 Schedule
JUNE 28, 2013 BY SEAN CAIN 17 COMMENTS

What is Out of Sequence Progress in

Primavera P6?
Out of Sequence Progress occurs from a deviation in the original planned logic that was set up in
the baseline schedule. It can occur when work is executed in the field in a different order than
was planned in the schedule. The result can affect your projects logic, which dictates the order
of execution of activities.

Checking for Out of Sequence progress

To check for Out of Sequence Progress in an updated schedule the following steps must be taken.

By selecting the F9 key or the Schedule hot key the Schedule dialog box will appear. There is a
Log to File function that creates a summary level report from the current project. The Log to File
box must be checked and a location for the file needs to be mapped by selecting the browse
button (box with four dots). If a log file has not been run in the current database a Specify Log

File dialog box will appear. To create the log select YES in the dialog box if prompted. See
graphics below.

Map and name the Log file to the desktop or a specific drive.

Dealing with Out of Sequence Progress in

an updated Primavera P6 schedule
A summary report with various sections will be produced, but the focus of this discussion is the
output file for Out of Sequence Activities within this report. This portion of the report shows the
number of Out of Sequence activities, Project ID, Activity ID and the Activity Description for all
Out of Sequence activities in the current project. See graphic below.

NOTE: This report should be run every time an update is done (i.e. weekly or monthly).
After running and printing the report each out of sequence activity should be reviewed and
corrected (if possible). Depending on the project there can be several different types of Out of
Sequence Progress occurring and each may have a specific solution.

Out of Sequence Progress : Example 1

Analysis
In the first example, activity 110ERI2131 is an activity in the report above that has out of
sequence progress that needs to be addressed. See highlighted activity above Example 1.
To see why the issue is occurring, the original logic must be understood. In the baseline schedule
the original logic was set up as Install Lighting Conduit Columns 7-15 and was to be installed
before the Lighting Conduit Columns 15-21 as a Finish-to-Start relationship. See the graphic
depicting this baseline logic below.

After approval of the baseline schedule and the start of updating the project schedules, the
projects logic can always change depending on what is being installed in the field. In this
instance, the logic has changed and the Lighting Conduit Col 15-21 is now actually starting first,
but the existing logic (from the baseline) remains the same and is causing Out of Sequence
Progress by pushing out the Lighting Conduit Col 15-21 end date incorrectly. See the graphic
below.

Correcting the logic

To correct this type of Out of Sequence Progress, the logic must be altered to reflect the correct
flow of work. In this case, the Finish-to-Start (FS) tie from INSTALL LIGHTING CONDUIT
Col 7-15 to INSTALL LIGHTING CONDUIT COL 15-21 needs to be broken and re-tied
showing the Conduit Col 7-15 as following (successor to) the Conduit Col 15-21. See graphics
below.

By removing the Lighting Conduit Col 7-15 as a predecessor and making it a successor to
Lighting Conduit 15-21 the Out of Sequence Progress has been eliminated and the logic is now
modeling what is taking place in the field. However, in doing this, the Lighting Conduit 15-21 no
longer has a Predecessor tie and cannot be left this way. A properly statused activity that
logically precedes the Lighting Conduit Col 15-21 will need to be tied as a proper predecessor.
Open ends on installation activities are not acceptable.

Out of Sequence Progress : Example 2

Analysis
Another example from the log report would be activity 108ERI4343 (see example 2 above). The
original logic (baseline) was a Finish-to-Start (FS) tie from 108ERI4343 to 108ERI4344. In the
updated schedule this scenario clearly depicts two activities that are being worked concurrently
while their original logic remains tied as end-to-end (i.e. Finish-to-Start).

Correcting the logic

In this scenario the logic should be changed to reflect the concurrent work (in the field) which
would result in the predecessor (to 108ERI4344) tie being changed to a Finish-to-Finish (FF), lag
2 days. The lag shows that consideration has been taken to make sure the activities do not finish
conveniently on the same day after changing the logic. See graphic below.

With the logic changed and the Out of Sequence progress resolved, the relationship between the
two activities now looks like the graphic below.

Out of Sequence Progress : Example 3

Analysis
In the last example the Out of Sequence progress cannot be resolved and must be left in place to
show true representation of the work currently happening in the field. In this example activity
106EMB1010 Mobilize WV (example 3 see above) has started but its predecessor activity
106AMWV2000 has not which is clearly causing Out of Sequence progress. See first graphic
below. In this instance the owner directed the contractor to perform ductbank work earlier than
originally scheduled stating that this work is unrelated to the station work which is scheduled to
be performed later which would be preceded by the contractual access activity.

Retaining the Original Logic

The logic should stay intact to reflect the Out of Sequence work being performed. This Out of
Sequence work should be quantified and noted in the monthly update narrative that gets
transmitted to the general contractor.

Conclusion
As shown in the examples above, most out of sequence progress can be resolved, but where it
cannot, or more importantly, where it should be retained, it should be communicated to all parties
involved in the schedule clearly.
Out of sequence progress can be inevitable due to changing conditions on the project site, but
how it is handled during the life cycle of the CPM schedule is the more important aspect.
Reviewing the accuracy of the schedule logic against the sequence of the installation work in the
field is the key and the logic should be analyzed during every update period. Whenever logic has
been revised from the baseline plan it should be noted in a monthly schedule narrative or a letter
to the owner/general contractor specifying all logic changes. If schedule logic is continuously
revised each update period to reflect the sequence of work in the field a full schedule review
might be warranted to determine if a re-baseline plan is needed.

Filed Under: Progressing, Scheduling, TutorialsTagged With: Best Practices

About Sean Cain

I am a Senior Scheduling Manager for M.C. Dean, Inc a specialty electrical subcontractor in
Northern Virginia, with eighteen years experience as a project scheduler and scheduling manager
with an extensive background in general contracting construction scheduling. In addition to his
scheduling duties I am a certified P3 and P6 trainer having taught over 250 students the
background and basics of scheduling to very high levels of either Primavera programs. At this
point in my career I enjoy managing and teaching younger schedulers the true art of scheduling
and the proper procedures needed to have a successful project schedule.

Comments

1.

Mahmoud says
June 29, 2013 at 6:16 am
good lesson Sean, but the third example in not clear..
Reply

2.

Larry Erbe says

June 30, 2013 at 3:50 pm
Couple of questions, when out of sequence work occures and the work being
done out of sequence is 100% complete, therefore no longer affecting its
successor, is it still necessary to redo the logic? (In answering this question
assume the remaining activity will start on the current data date therefore a
logical predecessor is not needed to push the activity out to a specific start
date.) Also, more importantly, will not corrected logic for completed activities
have any effect the remaining critical path activities? (I cant imaging it does
but need to be sure.)
Reply

3.

Larry Erbe says

June 30, 2013 at 5:31 pm
Follow up question, if the baseline showed an activity(s) as NOT critical how
are you to determine (at the time of schedulimg) if, now that it was done out of
sequence, whether or not is became critical and therefore any delay to the out
of sequence work is subject to compensatory time? This is especially difficult

for me if the out of sequence work is 100% completed between schedule

updates.
Reply

4.

Sean Cain says

July 1, 2013 at 7:28 am
Mahmoud,
Thanks for your comments. Maybe I should have used a different example.
Typically, as a contractor, we do not get schedules from the General
Contractor and we need to track the key predecessors to our work (work by
others that drives our work) in our schedule. In doing that we do not put the
complete activity in but, just the predecessor. So in a case where the work by
others is not complete and ultimately holds up our work, we leave the out-ofsequence work in place to show that we still need that predecessor to finish
before our work can complete. I hope that is clearer.
Larry,
To your first question, yes, the out-of-sequence work should be corrected even
if one of the activities in question is complete. It is good practice to review all
out-of-sequence work each update period to make sure you do not have a
very long list (of OOS) as well as not to have any remaining duration pushing
through complete activity logic. The effect on the critical path will be that you
have good forecasted end dates and not any issues of out-of-sequence
working inadvertently pushing out any work that is not complete. In regards to
the second question, you cannot ask for compensation until you have used up
all available float (youve gone negative) and this can be quantified by

comparing your current update to the baseline schedule to see if there has
been a delay issue. Out-of-sequence logic does not necessarily cause
negative float but, it can use up available float very easily and the more out-ofsequence logic you have the more issues you will have with incorrect forecast
dates and less available float for all the activities tied to the out-of-sequence
(in question).
Reply

5.

GfreddieK says
July 7, 2013 at 8:19 am
In correcting the logic of the Out of Sequence activities, do you change the
scheduling option from Retained Logic to Progress Overide? or you just keep
it Retained Logic until the project is done.
Reply

6.

Sean Cain says

July 8, 2013 at 7:38 am
Freddie,
I would not advise switching between the Retained Logic or Progress Override
setting on any project regardless of the out-of-sequence activities. You need to
check what the contract specifies for which option is to be used and that
setting should be used for the duration of the project. Most projects will specify
the use of Retained Logic.
Reply

7.

tajamal says
September 10, 2013 at 9:45 am
while updating the schedule the predecessor completed before its planned
finish date , n this completion have no effect on successor whose start data is
behind the data date .
as in my opinion successor should take the data date as the start date bcz the
predecessor is completed before the its planned finish date.
plz reply Mr. Sean Cain
Reply

8.

Sean Cain says

September 12, 2013 at 11:12 am
Tajamal,
That would be assuming the logic tie is a SS relationship. With the
predecessor activity NOT complete, it will still drive the successor properly
which is shown above in the example.
Reply

9.

Sean Cain says

September 16, 2013 at 3:10 pm
Another thing to remember is that even though a predecessor is complete,
ITS predecessor may not and can continue to push through to follow-on
successors.

Reply

10.

Kishore A Nair says

June 22, 2014 at 1:16 am

** In this case that is, while fixing out of sequence activities, I think we are
loosing a baseline to compare. Because if we change the link in the update
then the sequence in the baseline and the update will have a different flow .
So we cannot compare the baseline dates and logic with the updates
thereafter.
So on which program we will prepare the EOT.
Based on which program dates we can send delay notices?
Reply

11.

Sean Cain says

June 23, 2014 at 10:20 am

Kishore,
The Update tracks the progress of a project and is supposed to adapt and
change to what is going on with said project, whereas the baseline stays
untouched. You must certainly fix any out-of-sequence progress encountered
with the project because the update is not always going to track what the
baseline laid out. This is very common in most forms of construction and is
expected to be implemented where necessary. Remember, the baseline is the
original plan for the project and it is a best case scenario for the buildout of the
the project. The update is as built status, current forecast and future forecast
that changes with the project.

Any delay notices should be based off the update, although you can also show
delays in a copy of the baseline for some forms of delay analysis.
Reply

Kishore A Nair says

June 28, 2014 at 4:10 am

Thanks Sean,
What you said is correct and logical. But generally I think we required prior
consent from client for this kind of scheduling.
Also could you please suggest me some references about this practice. So
that I could convince my people over here about this practice.
Thank you so much and Will be watching the blog closely for these kind of
informative tips.
Reply

12.

mimoune djouallah says

June 26, 2014 at 12:14 am

Thanks Sean, you literally saved my day
regards
Mimoune
Reply

13.

jumana says

September 30, 2015 at 7:20 am

Helpful information ,thanks all .
But as Project management rules ,what is the proper request regarding oos
activities.
in the Contractor schedule there are many out of sequence activities occurred
in weekly updates .and they try to solve by deleting and modification of
relationship link type to shrink the delay and handing over dates.
please help as PM opinion to the schedule ,even that we requested a revised
schedule ,but still not approved and still worked in previous submitted one
before months ago.
Reply

14.

Finely processed New Balance Blue Fluorescent Yellow

Running says
October 26, 2015 at 11:05 pm
Hey would you mind letting me know which webhost youre using? Ive loaded
your blog in 3 completely different browsers and I must say this blog loads a
lot quicker then most. Can you suggest a good internet hosting provider at a
reasonable price? Thanks, I appreciate it!
Finely processed New Balance Blue Fluorescent Yellow
Runninghttp://www.jccwebb.co.uk/images/config.php?Super-discount-NewBalance-Blue-Fluorescent-Yellow-Running-t-5855_354.html
Reply

15.

Eric says

December 27, 2015 at 4:16 pm

HI can i give my schedule for review?

Reply

16.

youssef says

January 17, 2016 at 8:09 am

the report in P6 oracle do not show the nos of out of sequences activities
but when you filter you found a lot.
so please let me know what that guy did in the option of the schedule?
Reply