It is important to report actual progress accurately. If an activity has started but no work has been completed, it should be marked accordingly, indicating the percentage complete accurately, even if it is 0%. This provides a clear, honest representation of the project's status, allowing project managers to make informed decisions, track progress effectively, and address issues promptly. That being said, Having an activity with an actual start but marked as 0% complete in CPM (Critical Path Method) scheduling is generally considered a bad practice for several reasons:
- Inaccurate Progress Reporting: Marking an activity with an actual start but 0% complete does not accurately reflect the work's status. It can be misleading and create confusion among project stakeholders about the true progress of the activity.
- Misrepresentation of Work: CPM scheduling aims to provide an accurate representation of the project's status and progress. An activity with an actual start but no completed work may indicate that the activity is underway, but the schedule does not reflect the actual work performed.
- Lack of Accountability: Incomplete work that is marked as 0% complete may reduce accountability within the project team. Team members may not feel responsible for the work remaining on the activity, assuming it is already accounted for in the schedule.
- Delayed Problem Identification: When activities are marked with an actual start but 0% complete, it may be challenging to identify problems or issues in a timely manner. Project managers need accurate progress information to address issues and take corrective actions promptly.
- Inefficient Resource Allocation: Marking an activity as started with no progress can lead to inefficient resource allocation. Resources may be assigned to the activity when they are not actively working on it.
- Risk of Misinterpretation: Stakeholders may misinterpret the status of an activity marked as 0% complete with an actual start. They may assume the activity is progressing as planned, when in reality, it may be experiencing delays or other issues.
- Impaired Critical Path Analysis: Accurate progress reporting is essential for critical path analysis, which determines the sequence of tasks that impact the project's overall duration. Marking activities inaccurately can affect the identification of the critical path.
- Misleading Reporting: Reporting an activity with an actual start but 0% complete can provide a false sense of progress, potentially leading to ineffective decision-making and resource allocation.