Why might MIPs 3.2 and 3.6 be specifically chosen during poor schedule logic situations?

Choosing MIPs (Management Improvement Process) 3.2 and 3.6 in poor schedule logic situations is primarily beneficial because they do not rely on the integrity of past data. In challenging situations where the schedule logic may be flawed or incomplete, these MIPs allow project managers to establish new parameters and frameworks without being constrained by possibly inaccurate or unreliable historical data.

This flexibility is crucial, as it enables project teams to focus on current project realities, addressing active issues and making necessary adjustments to mitigate delays or inefficiencies. By not depending on potentially defective historical information, teams can implement effective solutions tailored to present challenges without the risk of repeating past mistakes based on faulty data.

The other alternatives generally describe valuable aspects of project management and scheduling. However, they do not capture the specific advantage of MIPs 3.2 and 3.6 when dealing with poor schedule logic. For example, while detailed documentation and modeling can aid in understanding complex projects, they may not directly resolve issues stemming from poor schedule logic. Similarly, while corrective actions and causal evaluations are critical practices, they might still be hampered if the underlying schedule logic lacks reliability. Thus, the strength of MIPs 3.2 and 3.6 lies in their application in