Which MIPs are considered most defensible when the schedule logic is poor?

The most defensible methods when faced with poor schedule logic are those that leverage observational techniques, particularly MIP 3.2 and MIP 3.6. Observational methods focus on collecting data through real-time monitoring and analysis of the actual work being performed, which helps in establishing credible benchmarks and understanding the project's development in a more factual context.

MIP 3.2 is concerned with measuring progress against the actual performance and provides insights into how work is being done as opposed to how it was scheduled, which can be invaluable when the existing logic is flawed. This method allows for a reflection of reality rather than merely adhering to potentially inaccurate planned sequences.

Similarly, MIP 3.6 emphasizes the analysis of historical data, trends, and patterns from past projects or completed phases of the current project, thereby allowing for a more informed decision-making process based on reliable evidence. When the original schedule may not accurately reflect the progress or realities of the project, these observational methods become powerful tools in justifying time impacts and claiming appropriate time extensions.

Utilizing these approaches enables practitioners to build a defensible case by grounding conclusions in actual observations and real data, rather than relying solely on the flawed logic of the original schedule. This reliance on factual basis is what