ICS-Scoring
Objective Scheduling Quality Assessments

Scenario #1: The Claims Battleground
" The Rope in the Tug-of-War"

If you know anything at all about construction claims that allege delay, acceleration, disruption, loss of productivity, or project management negligence, you know that the main battlefield is alomost always the project schedule. Each side points to inadequacies in the schedule in order to bolster its case. In this tug-of-war, the schedule is the rope. The problem for most triers of fact (judges or juries) is deciding which scheduling "expert" to believe.

Scenario #2: The Project Battleground
"Power of the Purse"

If you have spent any time at all in the trenches as a project scheduler, then you know all too well about the ongoing wrestling match between the Scheduling Practitioner and the Project Manager. The PM wants to manipulate the schedule with each new update, and the Scheduler objects on the basis that such changes may erode, weaken, or even invalidate, the schedule as a viable management tool. Sometimes, violation of professional ethics are at risk. In the end, the Project Manager prevails because he signs the Practitioner's paycheck. Helpful would be an independent opinion as to the appropriateness of PM-requested actions.

ICS Solution: No Dog in the Fight

In the first scenario, ICS-Scoring provides a clever solution to the Owner's problem of securing qualified project schedules, time after time. With no dog in the fight, ICS-Scoring can be objective, critical, and fair. We anticipate that, gradually, more and more courts will rely upon, and even demand, that the project subject "actually used on the project" be submitted to ICS-Scoring for an indepedent "score," much like courts submit evidence for DNA testing and accept the independent results as "fact."

ICS Solution: Leveling the Playing Field

In the second scenario, ICS-Scoring provides a clever solution: an independent evaluation of the proposed baseline schedule -- and of the proposed schedule utilization plan -- designed to objectively determine the viability, credibility, and soundness of what the bidder promises to bring to the project. With specific performance thresholds committed in writing, departures from what was promised will be easier to spot, and halt.