When to use it
A delay or resequencing affects several work packages.
Property decision guide
Capital Project Dependencies: Prerequisites, Handoffs and Schedule Limits
A project schedule is useful only when its prerequisites and handoffs are understood. Naming a planned start date does not establish that approvals, access, supplies and professional directions needed to start are ready.
Define the real next step and its prerequisites
Describe each work or decision step with an owner, a defined output and the evidence allowing its successor to begin. Identify scope approval, access, funding, materials and required professional direction where applicable. A task title alone is not a usable handoff.
Separate finish-to-start dependencies from work that can proceed independently. Confirm the sequence with the appropriate technical and operational owners. Do not assume that overlapping work is safe or permitted simply because it makes the spreadsheet finish earlier.
Distinguish a logical sequence from resource availability
A prerequisite may be complete while the intended provider or access window remains unavailable. Record both the logical dependency and the resource constraint. Estimated delivery, confirmed arrival and accepted material are different states.
When a prerequisite is uncertain, assign its owner and review condition. Keep the original planned sequence and explain changes. Do not move a date to conceal an unapproved scope change, missing funding authority or unresolved technical finding.
Worked sequencing example
Hypothetical planning arithmetic: activity A lasts three days and B two days, with independent starts. C lasts one day and can start only after both finish. With the stated independence and resources, C begins after day three and finishes after day four. Serial execution would total six days.
The calculation establishes the result under those assumptions only. It does not establish a real contractor commitment, safe overlap, permit readiness or elapsed time for a property project. Test resource calendars and authorization before using the theoretical sequence.
Review changes through affected handoffs
When a duration, scope or prerequisite changes, identify downstream work, access windows, payment conditions and acceptance records affected. Explain which handoff is blocked and what evidence could unblock it rather than merely issuing a new completion date.
Retain the authorized revised plan and continuing uncertainty. Track observations against the dependency checklist in the approved project record. The method supports coordination; it does not replace professional sequencing, contractual time interpretation or technical acceptance.
Hypothetical worked example
Independent tasks feed one dependent handoff
Hypothetically A lasts three days and B two days with independent starts; C lasts one day and requires both outputs. Under those assumptions the sequence ends on day four, not the serial six-day total.
Original fictional example · no completed client assignment or property inspection is represented.
| Record to obtain | Review question or calculation |
|---|---|
| Predecessor outputs and durations | Confirm both predecessor outputs |
| Permitted overlap and resource assumptions | Check resources separately from logic |
| Successor start condition | Retain assumptions before a real commitment |
| Resource-constrained alternative to the parallel schedule | Remove the independent-start assumption: if A and B need the same unavailable crew, they may have to run in sequence. In that alternative fictional scenario, three days plus two days plus one day gives six days. Keep the resource constraint beside the four-day logic result so that parallel arrows are not mistaken for confirmed capacity. |
Useful working output: A documented dependency calculation, not a promised project delivery date.
Adapt the record request to authorized access, governing documents and the actual property. The example does not verify any unknown input or replace a professional conclusion.
Prioritizing Competing Property Capital Projects · More capital projects and building safety examples
Before acting on this guide
Set the review boundary and the acceptance test.
What the evidence does not prove
Do not add parallel task durations as if all work were sequential.
What to verify before acceptance
Validate each predecessor’s usable output, resource constraints and authorized handoff before recalculating the sequence.
Original proposed coordination checks · adapt to authorized access, the actual obligation and the appropriate professional review. These are not findings about your property.
Follow the related handoff workflow · Read the review definitions
Working checklist
Capital Project Dependencies: Prerequisites, Handoffs and Schedule Limits checklist
A reusable control-definition worksheet. Add property-specific owners, dates, evidence links and status before using it as an action record.
These rows define suggested controls, not completed property findings. Interpret each check against your actual property records, responsible role and acceptance evidence. See the review instructions and reuse terms.
8 checks shown
No check matches those filters. Try a different term or area.
| Review area | Check | Evidence | Responsible owner | Acceptance evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scope | Define activity outputs | Specific deliverable and owner | Project coordinator | Handoff meaning clear |
| Logic | Identify prerequisite records | Approvals access scope and directions | Activity owner | Start condition evidenced |
| Logic | Confirm permitted overlap | Qualified sequence and actual restrictions | Technical owner | No assumed safe concurrency |
| Resources | Check availability separately | Provider calendar access and supplies | Project coordinator | Logic not resource commitment |
| Uncertainty | Label readiness states | Estimated arrived and accepted prerequisites | Activity owner | Different evidence states visible |
| Change | Map downstream consequences | Affected access payments and acceptance | Project owner | Revised sequence explains impacts |
| Handoff | Verify successor readiness | Predecessor output and acceptance record | Receiving owner | Successor can use the handoff |
| Review | Retain baseline and revised plan | Authorized change and review trigger | Approval owner | Original commitment not erased |
Frequently asked questions
Does a shorter theoretical schedule establish a delivery promise?
No. Confirm the logical sequence, resource calendars, authorizations and relevant constraints before relying on the dates.
What should change when a prerequisite slips?
Identify affected successors and handoffs, retain the original baseline and document the authorized revised arrangement and uncertainty.