Build a plan that respects task order and available people

A neat task table can schedule one person twice or start a check before its draft exists. This paper exercise lets you test a proposed plan against explicit constraints before treating it as feasible.

Practice goal: Construct a feasible schedule, check each dependency and resource, and explain why a changed availability window can make the deadline impossible.

Use only the invented information below. Do not paste real emails, personnel records, customer details or confidential business records. Changing a name does not establish permission to upload a real record.

• [F1] Fictional project: prepare a paper mock-up of a shelf-label pack. This is planning practice only; no labels are printed or installed. Work may start at 09:00 and all five tasks must finish by 10:00 on the same invented day. Durations are fixed for this exercise; tasks cannot be split or interrupted.
• [F2] Noor is available 09:00–10:00 and Eli 09:30–09:50. Each person can do at most one task at a time; different people may work in parallel. A task may start exactly when its predecessor finishes. Nobody else is available.
• [F3] A: verify fictional list, 10 minutes, Noor, no predecessor. B: draft label text, 20 minutes, Noor, after A. C: check label text, 10 minutes, Eli, after B. D: assemble mock-up pack, 15 minutes, Noor, after C. E: prepare cover sheet, 10 minutes, Noor, after A. Both D and E must finish for the project to finish.
• [F4] Authored flawed plan: A 09:00–09:10; B 09:05–09:25; C 09:25–09:35; D 09:35–09:50; E 09:35–09:45. It claims “All constraints satisfied; ready by 09:50.”
• [F5] Create a corrected table with task, person, start, finish and dependency check. Show any parallel work and explain whether the 10:00 target is feasible. The source gives no evidence that these durations will hold in a real project.
• [F6] Change case: Eli is instead available only 09:45–10:05. Noor remains available only until 10:00 and every duration/dependency is unchanged. Determine whether all work can still finish by 10:00 without inventing extra staff, shortening tasks or extending availability.

You can complete this on paper or in a local document. No external account, upload or purchase is needed.

Draft your answer before reading the correction. Optional: use only this fictional prompt in a tool your organization permits. Do not connect accounts, upload other files or send messages for this task.

Use only F1–F6. Find all dependency, availability and same-person overlap errors in F4. Build a feasible original-window schedule, then test the changed window in F6. Explain any finish-time lower bound and ask for an explicit decision if the new case cannot meet the target. Do not claim work was completed or resources were approved.

Complete fictional facts:
- [F1] Fictional project: prepare a paper mock-up of a shelf-label pack. This is planning practice only; no labels are printed or installed. Work may start at 09:00 and all five tasks must finish by 10:00 on the same invented day. Durations are fixed for this exercise; tasks cannot be split or interrupted.
- [F2] Noor is available 09:00–10:00 and Eli 09:30–09:50. Each person can do at most one task at a time; different people may work in parallel. A task may start exactly when its predecessor finishes. Nobody else is available.
- [F3] A: verify fictional list, 10 minutes, Noor, no predecessor. B: draft label text, 20 minutes, Noor, after A. C: check label text, 10 minutes, Eli, after B. D: assemble mock-up pack, 15 minutes, Noor, after C. E: prepare cover sheet, 10 minutes, Noor, after A. Both D and E must finish for the project to finish.
- [F4] Authored flawed plan: A 09:00–09:10; B 09:05–09:25; C 09:25–09:35; D 09:35–09:50; E 09:35–09:45. It claims “All constraints satisfied; ready by 09:50.”
- [F5] Create a corrected table with task, person, start, finish and dependency check. Show any parallel work and explain whether the 10:00 target is feasible. The source gives no evidence that these durations will hold in a real project.
- [F6] Change case: Eli is instead available only 09:45–10:05. Noor remains available only until 10:00 and every duration/dependency is unchanged. Determine whether all work can still finish by 10:00 without inventing extra staff, shortening tasks or extending availability.

Authored flawed sample, not an actual provider response:

Start B at 09:05 to save time. Let Eli check at 09:25 even though Eli arrives 09:30. Noor can assemble D and prepare E at the same time. If Eli is delayed until 09:45, shorten D to 5 minutes and keep the deadline.

1. A finishes 09:10, so B cannot start 09:05. That also double-books Noor for five minutes. B must run for the full 20 minutes.

2. C requires B to be complete and Eli to be available. In the original case, B can finish 09:30, matching Eli’s earliest start. The proposed 09:25 start violates Eli’s availability.

3. D and E cannot overlap because both require Noor. E only needs A, so Noor can do E while Eli does C; this parallelism uses two different people.

4. A 09:00–09:10, B 09:10–09:30, C 09:30–09:40 and D 09:40–09:55 form a 55-minute chain. Put E 09:30–09:40 alongside C. All tasks then finish 09:55, five minutes before 10:00 in this exact fiction.

5. Under F6, C cannot begin before 09:45 and finishes no earlier than 09:55. D then needs 15 minutes, so its earliest theoretical finish is 10:10. That exceeds both the deadline and Noor’s availability. It is a lower-bound calculation, not permission to schedule Noor after 10:00.

One supported correction:

All five original-window tasks finish 09:55; there are 5 minutes until 10:00. Changed window: earliest C 09:45–09:55; D would require 09:55–10:10, which is not permitted. No feasible 10:00 finish exists under the unchanged rules. Ask the owner to reconsider the deadline, availability or scope; none of those changes is approved here. This is a proposed paper schedule, not completed work.

Check your answer:

• Preserve every task, duration and person; check A→B→C→D and A→E.
• Keep each person within the supplied window without overlapping their tasks.
• Explain that C/E parallel work is allowed because the people differ.
• Distinguish the 09:55 original finish from the infeasible 10:10 lower bound after the change.
• Request a decision for the changed case instead of inventing shorter tasks or overtime.

Different wording can satisfy these checks. Recheck the facts after any rewrite.

For a real plan, verify durations, availability and dependencies with the people doing the work. Record assumptions and revise when facts change. A model may suggest a task, but a suggestion is not an assignment or resource commitment. This small exercise does not cover safety, contracts, budgets or a full project-risk assessment.

Primary guidance checked on 2026-10-12. The references support source checking, privacy boundaries and clear presentation; the task facts and sample answers are invented. Use the references for their stated checking, privacy or formatting guidance. They do not establish tool performance, professional competence or approval of a real workflow.

• GAO Schedule Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Project Schedules
• Generative Artificial Intelligence Profile
• Protecting Personal Information: A Guide for Business

Keep real work within your organization’s approved data and review process. These exercises do not establish tested accessibility, time savings, job competence or a professional qualification. No provider trial or human professional review is claimed.

Start free Module 1: account sign-in is required; no card is needed. Or read general AI learning guidance. Keep your practice answer in your own local document if you want to return to it; this page does not save it to your account.