AWP Labs
Executive schedule review and planning standard
A credible planning basis, from portfolio to field
A scheduling method supported by AWP Labs dashboards
Reflect reality
Capture current status and progress across every project phase
Validate adherence
Test consistency against Capex, AWP, execution and permits plans
Keep schedules current
Maintain timely updates, controlled changes and traceable ownership
Decision requested: approve a portfolio-to-detail pilot
AWP Labs | Portfolio-to-Detail Pilot
01
Situation
The director must reconcile several plans into one view of delivery
Today, the picture is assembled through meetings and report reviews.
Current review process
1
Hold multiple meetings
2
Review many reports
3
Reconcile inconsistencies
Capex plan
AWP plan
Execution plan
Permits plan
Schedule
Complete scope + current status across project phases
Interfaces that the schedule review must reconcile
AWP Labs | Portfolio-to-Detail Pilot
02
Complication
Late updates leave the schedule behind project reality
An outdated planning basis weakens adherence checks, analysis and forecasting.
Today
Construction actuals
Status reflected in the schedule
1–2 months or more
Reported update delay
Illustrative reporting lag; source freshness is measured in the pilot.
Impacts · in priority order
1
Adherence
Consistency with the other project plans
2
Milestones and labor
Changes and demand become harder to assess
3
Review effort
Meetings and manual comparisons accumulate
4
Forecast confidence
Completion analysis relies on stale inputs
AWP Labs | Portfolio-to-Detail Pilot
03
Resolution · Planning standard
Five requirements define a credible scheduling standard
The proposed method must satisfy all five requirements.
1
Current project reality
Reflect the current situation across every project phase.
2
Links to project plans
Connect the schedule to Capex, execution, AWP and other relevant plans.
3
Complete scope
Represent the full project scope in the schedule.
4
Update and change method
Define robust, proven update and change methods from project inception.
5
Validated adherence
Check that the schedule remains consistent with the other project plans.
2 vs 5
Requirements 2 and 5 are distinct: a link establishes traceability; an adherence check tests consistency.
AWP Labs | Portfolio-to-Detail Pilot
04
Resolution · Update and change cycle
A defined update and change cycle keeps the planning basis usable
Field evidence, changes and adherence reviewed through an accountable cycle.
At project inception: define scope, plan links, owners, update rules and change control.
01
Capture field evidence
Validate status across project phases
Role
Field / phase leads
02
Update the schedule
Reflect actuals and remaining work
Role
Planning lead
03
Control changes
Approve and record changes to scope and plans
Role
Change authority
04
Validate adherence
Review consistency with the current project plans
Role
Plan owners
05
Review and act
Assign actions and issue the controlled update
Role
Director / owners
Define responsibilities at inception; agree the pilot roles and review cadence before launch.
AWP Labs | Portfolio-to-Detail Pilot
05
Resolution · Adherence checks
Adherence checks make plan connections testable
Illustrative review worksheet · proposed pilot method, not customer findings
PLAN
ILLUSTRATIVE LINK
RULE TO VERIFY AGAINST PLAN EVIDENCE
Capex
Release gate ↔ procurement activities
Authorization and capital timing support the scheduled commitments
AWP
Package readiness ↔ field activities
Required engineering, materials and constraints support the planned start
Execution
Workfront handover ↔ successor activities
Sequence, dates and interface assumptions agree
Permits
Approval milestone ↔ affected work
Required approval precedes the work it enables
Review outcome:
Consistent
Mismatch
Unverified
The team records each result with supporting evidence, a reviewer, an owner and a next action.
AWP Labs | Portfolio-to-Detail Pilot
06
Resolution · Review path
Follow each exception from the portfolio to the underlying schedule evidence
The pilot demonstrates a transversal review across projects, phases and plans.
01
Portfolio
02
Project
03
Schedule versions
04
Phase / WBS
05
Activity + source evidence
Transversal review
Follow the same issue across the relevant planning interfaces.
Capex
AWP
Execution
Permits
Scope · current reality · updates · changes
A finding should lead to supporting evidence and an accountable owner.
Review the selected scope across schedule records and client-designated plan interfaces.
AWP Labs | Portfolio-to-Detail Pilot
07
Dashboard evidence · Portfolio Forecast
Existing dashboard · Synthetic demonstration data
See how forecast labor effort accumulates across projects
Portfolio Forecast dashboard: cumulative labor hours across six synthetic projects, Upd Month 9, Forecast Early, reaching 591,086 HH with the Data Date 2026-09-04 marked
Six synthetic projects
1 · One current version each
2 · Cumulative labor hours
3 · Visible project contributions
AWP Labs | Portfolio-to-Detail Pilot
08
Dashboard evidence · Progress curve + phase roadmap
Existing dashboard · Synthetic demonstration data
Anchor the same four milestones to the progress curve and the phase roadmap
Critical Progress Timeline S-curve: blue dashed baseline A, orange actuals then dashed forecast B, Data Date line and numbered milestone markers 1 to 4Phase-level roadmap: A and B phase bars from Engineering to Commissioning with Milestones A and Milestones B tracks
A · PN-BL1 baseline
B · actuals chain, then PN-UPD12 target forecast
Δ = B − A in calendar days · Data Date 4 Sep 2026
1
Engineering · PN-0001
0 days
2
Civil works · PN-0027
+12 days
3
Electrical & instrumentation · PN-0103
+18 days
4
Commissioning · PN-0148
+18 days
Date basis: actual / target dates in both views. The Critical Milestones Gantt uses actual / early event dates and shows +12 d for milestones 3 and 4; agree the basis in the planning standard.
AWP Labs | Portfolio-to-Detail Pilot
09
Resolution · Rolling review window
Proposed pilot scope · not yet an implemented feature
Focus review on recent changes and the next three months of work
One month back and three months ahead of the schedule Data Date.
−1 month
+3 months
1 month back · actuals
3 months ahead · review planned and remaining work
Schedule Data Date
Status and progress
Not started, in progress or completed; review reported progress at the cutoff.
Timing changes
Compare start / finish and duration against the agreed baseline or prior update.
Resource changes
Loaded labor, materials and non-labor; quantities and progress, where reported.
Proposed difference filter
Show changed activities against the agreed reference
Dates
Duration
Labor
Materials
Non-labor
Progress
Director decision: what changed, how it affects upcoming work and who acts next.
AWP Labs | Portfolio-to-Detail Pilot
10
Dashboard evidence · Advanced Gantt
Existing dashboard · Synthetic demonstration data
Focus the review on critical and low-float activities
Advanced Gantt with WBS, activity code and UDF filters, Max float 10 d control, seven filtered Civil works activities and comparative A versus B bars
Critical / Max float, WBS, activity code and UDF filters · A PN-BL1 vs B PN-UPD12 · Civil works · CIV · CP-01 · Max float 10 d · 7 activities and 4 WBS summaries
1
Prioritize attention
Use critical activity and maximum-float filters.
2
Isolate the scope
Filter by WBS, activity code or UDF.
3
Trace the exception
Inspect dates, logic links and reference differences.
AWP Labs | Portfolio-to-Detail Pilot
11
Dashboard evidence · Activity detail record
Existing dashboard · Synthetic demonstration data
Trace the finding to an activity and confirm the accountable owner
Activity Details drawer for PN-0033: status In Progress, 72% progress, current and baseline dates, total float, resources loaded, responsible Unassigned, predecessors and successors
PN-0033
Civil works · activity 7
Status
In progress · 72%
Current dates
23 Jul – 21 Sep 2026
Reference dates
11 Jul – 09 Sep 2026
Total float
10 days
Resources
CIV 1440 HH · CONC 120
Dependencies
PN-0032 → PN-0033 → PN-0034
Responsible
Unassigned · confirm named owner
Follow-up: confirm the activity owner and required plan interfaces.
AWP Labs | Portfolio-to-Detail Pilot
12
Pilot validation
Test the method on a defined scope with evidence the director can assess
Representative portfolio view
One project in detail
Client-designated plan interfaces
SUCCESS DIMENSION
EVIDENCE TO REVIEW
Portfolio-to-detail traceability
Reproducible path from a selected finding to its activity and source records
Scope and plan linkage
Coverage of the agreed scope basis and mappings for designated plans
Adherence findings
Tested outcome, supporting evidence, reviewer, owner and disposition
Update timeliness
Rolling-window activity status compared with field evidence and the agreed cutoff
Decision usefulness
Director can explain timing/resource changes, schedule impact and next action
Agree starting conditions, success targets and review cadence in the scoping workshop.
AWP Labs | Portfolio-to-Detail Pilot
13
Approval request
Executive schedule review and planning standard
Approve a portfolio-to-detail planning pilot
Validate the scheduling standard and review path on your active schedules.
1
Align counterparts
Director sponsor, planning lead, and designated plan and field owners
2
Select the pilot scope
Representative portfolio view; one project with the −1 / +3 month review window
3
Share current evidence
P6 exports, comparison versions, scope basis, designated plans and field status
Next step: a scoping workshop to agree scope, evidence, success targets and terms.
Decide on continuation using demonstrated planning quality and decision usefulness.
AWP Labs | Portfolio-to-Detail Pilot
14
Appendix · Evidence and data handling
Agree designated plans and mappings before the review starts
Bring the evidence needed for a reproducible pilot review
EVIDENCE PACKAGE
EXISTING RECORDS TO BRING
Schedule exports
Current P6 .db or XER plus the baseline or agreed prior versions
Scope basis
Approved scope document or WBS / scope coverage matrix
Designated project plans
Current Capex, AWP, execution or permits plans selected by the client
Mappings
Activity / WBS ↔ plan-item identifiers or an agreed initial mapping sheet
Field status
Agreed cutoff; activity progress and resource actuals where reported, with supporting records
How the evidence is processed
Two input routes
P6 SQLite .db → pilot.awplabs.cl · P6 XER exports → pilot-xer.awplabs.cl
Local, read-only dashboard processing
The source schedule file is never uploaded; the built-in guide in the .db pilot needs no AI account or key.
Optional AI Analyst
Separate option: questions and requested query results go to the agreed provider; the schedule file stays local.
AWP Labs | Portfolio-to-Detail Pilot
15