What is the difference between crashing and fast-tracking as schedule compression techniques, and when might you use each?

What is the difference between crashing and fast-tracking as schedule compression techniques, and when might you use each?

• A. Crashing adds resources to critical path tasks to reduce duration (costly); fast-tracking overlaps sequential phases (riskier); use crashing when schedule is tight and budget allows; use fast-tracking when risk tolerance is acceptable and some overlap is feasible.
• B. Crashing reduces the project scope.
• C. Crashing and fast-tracking are the same technique.
• D. Crashing applies to non-critical tasks.

Answer: (B)

Schedule compression hinges on two main ideas: shortening the duration of tasks on the critical path and balancing cost versus risk as you do it. Crashing and fast-tracking approach this in different ways. Crashing means adding resources to critical-path tasks to get them done faster. By increasing inputs like more personnel, overtime, or extra equipment, the task finishes sooner. The trade-off is higher cost, and sometimes diminishing returns, since you only gain time where work is being done in parallel with the project’s longest path. Remember that only tasks on the critical path affect the finish date; crashing non-critical work won’t shorten the overall project unless those tasks become critical. Fast-tracking, on the other hand, overlaps activities that were planned to run in sequence. You start a next phase before the previous one is fully completed, hoping for time savings. This carries more risk—rework, integration issues, and quality problems can arise because work is being done concurrently rather than in a clean handoff. When to choose each: use crashing when the schedule is very tight and you can justify the extra cost because shortening the duration is worth the investment. Use fast-tracking when you have some flexibility in risk tolerance or budget, and you can safely implement overlapping activities without causing unacceptable rework or quality issues.

Schedule compression hinges on two main ideas: shortening the duration of tasks on the critical path and balancing cost versus risk as you do it. Crashing and fast-tracking approach this in different ways.

Crashing means adding resources to critical-path tasks to get them done faster. By increasing inputs like more personnel, overtime, or extra equipment, the task finishes sooner. The trade-off is higher cost, and sometimes diminishing returns, since you only gain time where work is being done in parallel with the project’s longest path. Remember that only tasks on the critical path affect the finish date; crashing non-critical work won’t shorten the overall project unless those tasks become critical.

Fast-tracking, on the other hand, overlaps activities that were planned to run in sequence. You start a next phase before the previous one is fully completed, hoping for time savings. This carries more risk—rework, integration issues, and quality problems can arise because work is being done concurrently rather than in a clean handoff.

When to choose each: use crashing when the schedule is very tight and you can justify the extra cost because shortening the duration is worth the investment. Use fast-tracking when you have some flexibility in risk tolerance or budget, and you can safely implement overlapping activities without causing unacceptable rework or quality issues.