AACE PSP: Conduct Scheduling Duties

Topic snapshot

Sample questions

These questions are original PM Mastery practice items aligned to this topic area. They are designed for self-assessment and are not official exam questions.

Question 1

Topic: Conduct Scheduling Duties

Data date: July 15, 2026. Contract milestone Energization has a baseline and current forecast of November 3, 2026. The path depends on transformer shipment. If the vendor has not confirmed vessel booking by July 22, shipment is forecast to move beyond September 12 and Energization is forecast to slip to November 9. Premium freight can still be reserved if management authorizes it by July 22. The weekly report draft says, “Transformer delivery is at risk, but the team is watching it closely.” Which revision best corrects this communication problem?

• A. Authorize premium freight immediately and report that the November 3 commitment is protected.
• B. As of July 15, transformer delivery remains a schedule risk; if vessel booking is unconfirmed by July 22, Energization moves from November 3 to November 9. Procurement owns vendor confirmation and needs a premium-freight decision by July 22 if the trigger occurs.
• C. Transformer delivery could affect Energization, so the team will monitor the vendor and update management as needed.
• D. Transformer delivery has already delayed Energization to November 9, so the baseline should be changed now.

Best answer: B

What this tests: Conduct Scheduling Duties

Explanation: The draft note is too vague to support schedule decisions. Effective risk communication should state the status context, the trigger date, the possible impact to the committed milestone, and who must act by when. The best revision does that without treating the risk as an actual delay.

In schedule control, stakeholders need more than a warning that a risk is being watched. A useful risk statement ties uncertainty to a specific trigger, shows the potential effect on the commitment date, and names the response owner and decision timing.

Here, the event is still uncertain as of July 15, so it should be communicated as a risk, not as an actual delay. The strongest revision connects the July 22 trigger to the possible movement of Energization from November 3 to November 9 and identifies procurement plus the premium-freight decision point. That makes the note actionable and traceable to the schedule.

The closest distractors either stay too vague, misclassify the event as an issue, or overstate certainty by claiming the milestone is protected.

It gives the trigger, date impact, uncertainty, and owner/action timing needed for a stakeholder decision.

Question 2

Topic: Conduct Scheduling Duties

At the September 18, 2026 data date, the scheduler reviews this update:

Activity: CC-240 Terminate control cables
Calendar: 5-day workweek
Original duration: 10 workdays
Actual start: September 9, 2026
Physical % complete: 80%
Remaining duration: 8 workdays
Approved scope change: None
Progress rule: % complete by cable count

The scheduler plans to reject the status until it is reconciled. Which evidence best validates that decision?

• A. Quantity report shows 160 of 200 cables done, and the last 40 use the same crew and access.
• B. The forecast finish is 6 workdays later than the baseline finish.
• C. The activity now drives a milestone with 2 days of total float.
• D. The update passes logic checks with no out-of-sequence progress.

Best answer: A

What this tests: Conduct Scheduling Duties

Explanation: When status data look inconsistent, the strongest validation is objective progress evidence tied to the activity’s measurement rule. A quantity report showing 160 of 200 cables complete, with no change in crew or access for the remaining work, supports the 80% figure but does not support 8 workdays remaining.

The key concept is update credibility. When percent complete and remaining duration conflict, the scheduler should validate the entry against the basis of schedule and current field conditions, not just against schedule outputs. Here, physical progress is defined by cable count, so the best check is an objective quantity report tied to that rule. If 160 of 200 cables are complete and the remaining 40 are the same type of work under the same crew and access conditions, the 80% progress claim is reasonable, but an 8-workday remaining duration on a 10-workday activity is not. That means the update should be challenged and corrected before it drives the forecast. Float position, logic-clean status, and baseline slippage are useful analysis results, but they do not prove that the entered status values are internally credible.

Objective quantity-based progress and unchanged remaining conditions support 80% complete but not 8 workdays remaining.

Question 3

Topic: Conduct Scheduling Duties

During baseline logic review for a refinery turnaround schedule, the scheduler finds this excerpt:

Activity: A120 Install analyzers
Real work drivers: cable termination, loop checks
Current logic: A120 FF -> M900 Ready for startup
Reason entered: "Keeps A120 on the required startup date"

The startup milestone is a contractual date already shown separately in the schedule. What is the next appropriate step?

• A. Replace the FF tie with a Finish No Later Than constraint on A120.
• B. Leave the logic in place and justify it in the basis of schedule.
• C. Keep the FF tie because the contractual milestone must control related activity dates.
• D. Remove the FF tie, model the real work logic, and assess startup impact separately.

Best answer: D

What this tests: Conduct Scheduling Duties

Explanation: Logic should represent a defensible work sequence, not force an activity to a preferred date. Since the relationship was added only to align with the startup milestone, the next step is to remove it, restore real predecessors and successors, and then analyze the milestone impact.

In a credible schedule model, relationships should show how work actually flows. Here, the FF tie to the startup milestone is explicitly date-driven, not sequence-driven, so it should be corrected before the schedule is used for baseline control or forecasting.

• Confirm the activity’s real predecessors and successors with the responsible discipline.
• Remove the artificial milestone tie.
• Recalculate the schedule and review the effect on the contractual startup milestone.
• If the required date is threatened, address that through recovery analysis, communication, or approved change control—not fake logic.

Using an activity relationship to hold a date distorts float, driving path, and forecast credibility; replacing it with another date-forcing mechanism on the same activity does not solve the logic-quality problem.

The first control action is to correct artificial date-driven logic so the schedule reflects real sequence before evaluating milestone risk.

Question 4

Topic: Conduct Scheduling Duties

An owner-approved outage baseline was issued on March 3 after validation of scope, logic, calendars, and resource assumptions. At the June 30 data date, signed field reports support all progress, and the updated schedule now forecasts completion on October 27 versus the October 15 baseline finish because a critical compressor shipment slipped. No approved change order or revised required date exists. What is the best action?

• A. Approve the June file as a revised baseline once the critical-path impact is confirmed.
• B. Validate the June status and accept it as the current forecast, but keep the March 3 baseline until formal change control approves a new control reference.
• C. Reject the June update until a change order is approved for the shipment delay.
• D. Approve the June file as the new baseline because it now shows the most realistic completion date.

Best answer: B

What this tests: Conduct Scheduling Duties

Explanation: The June file is an update, not a new baseline. Because progress is supported and no approved change authorizes a new control reference, the proper action is to accept the forecast for reporting while continuing to measure variance against the approved March 3 baseline.

A schedule baseline is the formally approved reference used to measure performance. A schedule update or forecast is the current expected outcome based on status, remaining work, and logic as of the data date. Here, the baseline was already approved, the June 30 progress is supported by field evidence, and the slipped shipment creates a later forecast finish. Those facts support accepting the updated forecast after validating status, but they do not justify replacing the baseline. Changing the control reference requires formal change approval, such as an approved change order or approved baseline revision. The key distinction is that realistic dates and validated progress improve forecast credibility, but they do not by themselves authorize rebaselining.

A statused schedule can be accepted as the current forecast after progress validation, but the approved baseline remains the control reference until authorized change control revises it.

Question 5

Topic: Conduct Scheduling Duties

At the June 30, 2026 data date, a refinery turnaround has an approved schedule baseline and cost baseline. The owner submitted change CR-17 to add a 5-workday inspection hold point before restart. The scheduler confirmed the new work would consume all remaining float and delay restart 5 workdays; the control account manager estimated $85,000 and two additional inspectors. The change is pending approval, and no extra work has started. The June status report, earned-progress report, and 3-week resource look-ahead are due tomorrow. What is the best project-controls response?

• A. Wait for formal approval, then revise schedule, cost, resources, and reporting in one step.
• B. Add the hold point now, revise baselines, and rephase control-account budgets for this report.
• C. Adjust the near-term resource plan now and leave schedule, cost, and reporting unchanged.
• D. Keep baselines unchanged, model the pending change separately, and quantify resource, control-account, and reporting impacts.

Best answer: D

What this tests: Conduct Scheduling Duties

Explanation: Because CR-17 is still pending and no added work has started, the approved schedule and cost baselines remain the control reference for variance and earned-progress reporting. The best action is to analyze the pending change separately, quantify its schedule, resource, and control-account effects, and communicate that impact for decision-making.

When a schedule change is not yet approved, project controls should not fold it into the approved schedule baseline, cost baseline, or earned-progress reporting just to make the next report look current. In this case, the team already has evidence of likely impact: 5 workdays to restart, two extra inspectors, and $85,000 tied to affected control accounts. The right coordination step is a separate, documented impact analysis or what-if model that preserves baseline integrity while giving management timely decision support.

• Keep variance and earned-progress reporting tied to the approved baseline.
• Quantify the pending change’s effects on dates, resources, and control accounts.
• Communicate the potential impact separately in the status report and look-ahead.

That approach supports approval decisions without creating an unauthorized baseline change or unsupported resource commitment.

A separate documented impact analysis preserves approved baselines and earned-progress integrity while giving stakeholders quantified schedule, cost, and resource effects.

Question 6

Topic: Conduct Scheduling Duties

At the August 31, 2026 data date for a refinery upgrade, the scheduler reports the startup milestone as shown. For this project, SPI values below 1.0 mean less work was accomplished than planned as of the data date.

Exhibit:

Which analysis is best supported by the exhibit?

• A. The project should be rebaselined immediately because any SPI below 1.0 proves the baseline is invalid.
• B. Only the required date matters now; baseline variance should no longer be reported once a contract date exists.
• C. Performance is acceptable; startup is 4 days late to baseline, and an SPI of 0.91 is slightly favorable.
• D. Performance is behind plan; startup is 14 calendar days late to baseline, 4 days late to the required date, and the trend worsened by 5 days.

Best answer: D

What this tests: Conduct Scheduling Duties

Explanation: The schedule is performing below plan and the milestone outlook is deteriorating. An SPI of 0.91 means less work was achieved than planned by the data date, while the startup forecast moved from November 24 to November 29, making it 14 days late to baseline and 4 days late to the required date.

This item tests correct interpretation of different schedule measures. SPI describes performance through the data date, so a value of 0.91 means progress is behind plan, not favorable. Milestone variance to baseline compares the current forecast with the approved baseline date: November 29 versus November 15 is 14 calendar days late. The contract required date is a separate commitment reference, so the same forecast is 4 calendar days late to that requirement. Trend is shown by forecast movement between updates; shifting from November 24 last month to November 29 now means the milestone is trending later by 5 days.

• SPI answers current schedule performance.
• Baseline versus forecast shows expected slippage against plan.
• Required date versus forecast shows commitment exposure.

The key mistake in the distractors is treating these references as interchangeable or using poor performance as automatic justification for rebaselining.

This option correctly interprets SPI < 1.0, baseline-versus-forecast slippage, required-date slippage, and the later movement from the prior forecast.

Question 7

Topic: Conduct Scheduling Duties

At closeout of a substation expansion, the scheduler is archiving lessons learned. A draft summary states: ‘Energization finished 12 workdays late to the original baseline. Approved change CR-11 added 4 workdays. The recovery plan implemented after the August 1, 2026 data date regained 3 workdays. The remaining 5-workday slip came from late relay-panel delivery.’ Which evidence best validates this summary for future project-controls improvement?

• A. Recovery overtime records with daily reports and a field progress summary
• B. A risk register extract with vendor letters and a procurement status log
• C. A final as-built schedule with the closeout report and a PM sign-off
• D. A milestone trace with baseline dates, change-log links, final actuals, and pre/post-recovery updates

Best answer: D

What this tests: Conduct Scheduling Duties

Explanation: To support future project-controls improvement, the closeout summary must be traceable across the original baseline, approved changes, recovery results, and final milestone actuals. A milestone trace tied to the change log and archived updates is the only evidence set that validates all parts of the statement.

Closeout lessons learned should be supported by auditable schedule records, not just narrative or isolated documents. In this scenario, the summary makes four separate claims: final variance to the original baseline, milestone performance, the effect of a recovery action, and the portion attributable to approved change. The strongest validation is a single traceable record that links the original baseline milestone date, approved change-log entries, update snapshots before and after recovery implementation, and the final actual milestone date. That evidence lets future teams distinguish scope-driven movement from execution delay and separate recovery effort from proven recovery impact. Documents that show only the final outcome, only the vendor problem, or only overtime effort do not fully validate the schedule story.

It is the only option that audibly traces final variance, milestone outcome, recovery effect, and approved change history in one schedule-control record.

Question 8

Topic: Conduct Scheduling Duties

At the August 14, 2026 data date, the scheduler is updating activity A1400 - Cable pull and terminations.

Exhibit:

Which response should the scheduler prioritize in the update and stakeholder status report?

• A. Keep the baseline, report the August 26 forecast as late, and request recovery review.
• B. Reduce remaining duration to match 88% complete before issuing the update.
• C. Replace the baseline finish with the August 26 forecast for reporting.
• D. Report the activity as essentially on plan because it is 88% complete.

Best answer: A

What this tests: Conduct Scheduling Duties

Explanation: Percent complete is a progress indicator, not proof of schedule performance. Here, the supported forecast finish is later than the baseline finish on a driving path, so the activity should be reported as behind schedule against the approved baseline.

In schedule control, an activity can show a high physical percent complete and still be behind schedule if the remaining work and logic drive a late forecast. The key comparison is not 88% versus 100%; it is approved baseline finish versus current forecast finish, supported by credible remaining-duration evidence.

• The baseline finish is August 12, 2026.
• The forecast finish is August 26, 2026.
• The unfinished scope is constrained by a fixed outage window and still requires 4 workdays of closeout.
• The activity drives the energization milestone with 0 total float.

That means the activity is late in schedule terms, even though most of the quantity is complete. The right control response is to preserve the baseline, report the variance clearly, and trigger recovery review rather than forcing the remaining duration or hiding the slippage.

The supported forecast finish is later than the approved baseline on a driving path, so the activity is behind schedule despite 88% complete.

Question 9

Topic: Conduct Scheduling Duties

A power plant project is statused at a data date of August 1, 2026. The approved schedule baseline shows startup on December 15, 2026, but the current forecast is January 20, 2027. The slip comes from two sources: an 18-workday delay from late civil-subcontractor mobilization with no approved change, and an owner-approved change order on July 20 that adds a secondary pump skid and changes the commissioning sequence, adding 12 workdays. The project manager proposes resetting the baseline finish to January 20 in this update “so the report reflects the new reality.” What is the best diagnostic/correction?

• A. Rebaseline the full project now to match the current forecast.
• B. Keep the baseline for performance measurement, forecast both impacts, and rebaseline only the approved change through formal change control.
• C. Exclude the approved change from the schedule until the team recovers the lost time.
• D. Reject any rebaseline because schedule baselines should never change after execution starts.

Best answer: B

What this tests: Conduct Scheduling Duties

Explanation: The real problem is an attempt to use rebaselining to hide poor performance. The approved owner change may justify a formal, documented baseline revision for affected work, but the late mobilization delay should stay as variance against the existing baseline.

A schedule baseline is the approved reference for measuring performance, not a date set that should be replaced whenever the forecast slips. In this case, the forecast moved for two different reasons: one is an approved change in scope and execution sequence, and the other is ordinary project underperformance from late mobilization. Those must be treated differently.

The correct control approach is to:

• keep the current forecast updated with both impacts
• preserve the original baseline to show the 18-workday performance slip
• process a formal baseline revision only for the approved change order’s scope/strategy effect
• document the change impact in the change log and schedule records

A full reset to the new forecast would normalize missed dates and erase accountability, while a blanket refusal to ever rebaseline is too rigid when an approved change materially alters the planned work.

An approved scope or strategy change can justify a controlled baseline revision, but the subcontractor delay is performance variance that should remain visible.

Question 10

Topic: Conduct Scheduling Duties

At the April 30 data date, the turnaround scheduler completed the monthly update.

Baseline finish: May 28
Current forecast finish: June 6
Reason for forecast move: lower actual valve-inspection productivity
CR-18: add 40 extra valves
CR-18 status: submitted, not approved
Work authorization for CR-18: none

What is the next appropriate schedule-control step?

• A. Insert the 40 extra valves into the approved schedule now because the change request has been submitted.
• B. Report the June 6 forecast against the May 28 baseline and keep CR-18 as a pending change-impact record.
• C. Replace the baseline finish with June 6 so the schedule reflects the latest expected completion.
• D. Begin a formal rebaseline immediately because the forecast finish is later than the baseline finish.

Best answer: B

What this tests: Conduct Scheduling Duties

Explanation: A routine status update can move the forecast without changing the approved baseline. Because CR-18 is only requested and has no approval or work authorization, the scheduler should report variance to the existing baseline and track the potential change separately.

The key distinction is between forecast movement and an approved baseline change. In this update, the June 6 finish is the current forecast created by statusing actual productivity as of April 30. That forecast should be compared to the approved May 28 baseline so stakeholders can see real variance.

A submitted change request is not the same as an approved change. Until CR-18 is authorized, it should remain in the change-control record or a separate impact analysis, not be merged into the approved baseline schedule.

• Update actuals and remaining work at the data date.
• Show the resulting forecast versus the approved baseline.
• Keep the requested scope change separate until approval.
• Rebaseline only if formally authorized through governance.

The closest distractor treats a late forecast as automatic justification for rebaselining, which is not sound schedule-control practice.

This preserves the approved baseline for variance measurement while separating an unapproved requested change from the current forecast update.

Continue with full practice

Use the AACE PSP Practice Test page for the full PM Mastery route, mixed-topic practice, timed mock exams, explanations, and web/mobile app access.

Related focused pages

• Free AACE PSP Full-Length Practice Exam
• AACE PSP: Conduct Planning Duties
• AACE PSP: Communication Competency

Free review resource

Read the AACE PSP guide on PMExams.com, then return to PM Mastery for timed practice.