Schedulers often find themselves at the center of project decision-making yet many lack formal training in how cost breakdowns and risk analysis should inform their scheduling logic. A recent Plan Academy learning lab featuring cost engineering expert Shoshanna Fraizinger, CCP, FAACE, PMP, tackled this critical knowledge gap head-on.
The Siloed Project Controls Problem
Most project teams operate in functional silos: estimators build cost breakdowns, schedulers create logic networks, risk analysts develop risk registers, and reporting teams try to make sense of it all. The problem? These disciplines rarely collaborate during the critical planning phases, leading to misaligned work breakdown structures (WBS), disconnected cost breakdown structures (CBS), and schedules that don’t reflect the risk profile of the project.
Fraizinger “When schedules, estimates, and risk registers are developed independently and then thrown over the wall to the next discipline, we create disconnects that undermine earned value reporting, forecasting accuracy, and ultimately, management decision-making.”
For construction schedulers working in Primavera P6 or similar tools, this disconnect is more than an academic concern. It directly impacts project performance, cash flow forecasting, and the credibility of progress reports.
Why Schedulers Need to Understand Cost Engineering
According to AACE International’s Total Cost Management (TCM) Framework, scheduling isn’t a standalone function, it’s part of an integrated project controls process that includes scope definition, estimating, resource planning, and risk analysis. Section 7.2 of the TCM specifically addresses scheduling as a concurrent activity that should draw from shared assumptions with cost estimating and risk assessment.
Yet many schedulers have never been taught how to read a basis of estimate, interpret productivity assumptions, or align their activity coding with cost control accounts. This creates several problems:
- Misaligned WBS and CBS structures that make earned value reporting unreliable
- Durations that don’t reflect estimating assumptions about quantities and productivity rates
- Float calculations that ignore risk exposure and contingency requirements
- Progress measurement rules that don’t align with how costs were estimated
The Language Barrier Between Schedulers and Cost Engineers
One of the biggest challenges is that schedulers and cost engineers speak different dialects. Schedulers think in terms of time, logic, and sequencing. Cost engineers think in terms of quantities, rates, and dollars. Risk professionals view everything through the lens of uncertainty and probability.
When these disciplines don’t share a common vocabulary or understanding of each other’s work products, the result is often a schedule that looks technically sound but fails to support credible cost forecasting or risk-adjusted completion dates.
Key Integration Points
Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and Cost Breakdown Structure (CBS) Alignment
The WBS defines how work is organized and executed. The CBS defines how costs are tracked and reported for accounting and contract management purposes. When these structures don’t align, earned value calculations become meaningless, and project teams lose the ability to accurately forecast cost performance.
Quantities and Productivity Assumptions
Every cost estimate is built on assumptions about quantities (cubic meters of concrete, linear meters of pipe) and productivity rates (crew size, shift patterns, installation rates). These same assumptions should drive activity durations in the schedule not arbitrary estimates from a construction manager who says “it’ll take two weeks.”
Risk Registers and Schedule Float
Float isn’t just a byproduct of schedule logic; it represents risk exposure. The amount of float in a schedule should align with the risk profile documented in the project’s risk register and quantitative schedule risk analysis (QSRA). Without this alignment, schedules present an unrealistic picture of project confidence and completion probability.
Practical Steps for Better Integration
Based on AACE recommended practices and Fraizinger’s experience on major nuclear refurbishment projects, here are actionable steps schedulers can take:
- Review the Basis of Estimate Before Building Your Schedule
Don’t just receive a cost breakdown and start scheduling. Request the basis of estimate document and understand:
- How the estimator structured the WBS and CBS
- What productivity assumptions were used
- What quantities drive each major work package
- What contracting and delivery model assumptions were made
- Validate WBS and CBS Alignment
Add columns in your scheduling tool (Primavera P6, Microsoft Project, etc.) to capture both WBS and CBS codes. This allows you to report and filter by either structure without losing traceability. If you need to adjust the WBS for sequencing purposes, document it and communicate changes to the cost team.
- Link Durations to Quantities and Productivity
Whenever possible, tie activity durations to the same quantities and productivity rates used in the cost estimate. This creates a direct link between time and cost that supports credible earned value and forecasting.
- Understand How Risk Should Influence Float
Work with risk analysts to understand which activities carry the highest uncertainty. Schedule reserves and float should be allocated based on risk exposure, not just logic relationships. Present completion dates as risk-adjusted ranges, not single-point deterministic forecasts.
- Establish Regular Cross-Functional Checkpoints
Integration isn’t a one-time event at baseline – it’s a continuous practice. Schedule regular touchpoints with estimators and risk analysts during:
- Estimate development and validation
- Baseline creation and approval
- Major change events and re-baselining
- Monthly progress updates and forecasting
The Scheduler as Project Hub
Perhaps the most important takeaway from the session was this: schedulers aren’t just timekeepers – they’re integrators. The project schedule is the one tool that everyone on the project looks at daily. When that tool properly integrates cost structure and risk analysis, it becomes a powerful decision-making platform. When it doesn’t, the entire project controls system loses credibility.
As Fraizinger emphasized, “You’re at the nexus. That tool becomes really important. We need to make sure we can address the problems that happen when you’re asked to align with cost and risk, but you haven’t been taught how to connect those pieces.”
Moving Forward: Education and Collaboration
For construction schedulers and project controls professionals looking to strengthen their cross-functional skills, resources like AACE’s Total Cost Management Framework and recommended practices provide the foundation. Plan Academy is currently working toward becoming an AACE Registered Education Provider to offer more formal training in these integrated project controls principles.
The key is recognizing that effective project controls require more than technical proficiency in scheduling software. They require understanding how estimating, scheduling, cost engineering, and risk analysis work together to support reliable forecasting and informed decision-making.
About the Expert
Shoshanna Fraizinger, CCP, FAACE, PMP, is a senior project management and cost engineering leader with over 25 years of experience in nuclear utilities and construction. She currently serves as Arup’s Toronto Office Lead for Cost and Risk Advisory Consulting and is a former AACE International President, current Chair of the AACE Estimating Subcommittee, and primary coauthor of AACE RP155R-97 for nuclear EPC estimate classification.
Join the Conversation
Plan Academy hosts monthly learning labs on project controls topics. Upcoming session: Making Sense of Schedule Quality Metrics with ScheduleValidator.
