Which may be employed to shorten a schedule without changing the scope of the task?

Question

Options

• AAlter to task priorities.
• BReleasing resources earlier from tasks which were scheduled with a late start.
• CFast tracking or Crashing
• DFast tracking.
• ECrashing

• B
  4% (1)
• C
  7% (2)
• D
  74% (20)
• E
  15% (4)

Explanation

Fast tracking is the only technique that compresses a schedule purely by overlapping sequential tasks - starting a downstream task before its predecessor finishes - without altering what the task delivers or how resources are allocated. It changes when work happens, not what or with what.

Why the distractors fail:

• A (Alter task priorities): Changing priorities reorders work but doesn't shorten the overall schedule duration - it just changes what gets done first.
• B (Releasing resources early from late-start tasks): This reallocates resources but risks leaving those tasks under-resourced; it doesn't reliably compress the schedule without scope or risk implications.
• C (Fast tracking or Crashing): Crashing adds resources/cost to shorten a task, which effectively changes the execution parameters of the task - many exam frameworks treat this as altering the task's cost baseline, making it a broader change than a pure schedule compression without side effects.
• E (Crashing): Same issue as above - crashing trades money for time and changes the resource profile of the task, so it's not purely a schedule shortcut "without changing" anything about the task.

Memory tip: Think of fast tracking as a racing driver cutting corners - the destination (scope) doesn't change, you just find a shorter path. Crashing is like buying a faster car - you're changing something material about the execution itself.

No community discussion yet for this question.