In complex projects — energy, infrastructure, nuclear — the reaction to a delay is almost always the same:

“We must speed up.”

More resources. More hours. More pressure.

But in the majority of cases, this decision is made Too soon, badly framed, and above all without clear contractual reading.

Result:

• unrecoverable additional costs
• A misplaced responsibility
• and, in the long term, a difficult dispute to defend

Accelerating a schedule is not an operational decision.

It is a Strategic and contractual decision.

Before acting, ask yourself these three questions.

Is the delay truly critical?

Not all delays are equal.

A slippage in activity does not necessarily mean there will be an impact on the contractual end date.

The only question that matters is:

Does this delay affect the project's critical path?

Without this analysis:

• You risk accelerating non-critical activities.
• You are consuming budget unnecessarily
• You are muddying the actual reading of the project

In some cases, premature acceleration can even destroy the readability of the schedule, making any future delay analysis much more complex.

Key reflex: Before any decision, clarify the actual critical path - not the theoretical one.

2. What is the cause of the delay – and who is responsible for it?

Accelerating without understanding the cause is like treating a symptom, not the problem.

Or, in a contractual context:

The cause of the delay determines the rights and obligations of each party.

• Delay attributable to the client? → extension of deadline possible
• Internal loss? → Absorption cost
• retard concurrent ? → analyse de la concurrence

Without this reading:

• You can waive a contractual right
• or worse, bear a cost that is not yours

This is where the planning becomes a proof tool, not just a management tool.

Key reflex: Every delay must be analysed in connection with:

• the contract
• the events
• the actual project timeline

3. Does acceleration really improve your contractual position?

This is the most overlooked—and yet the most strategic—question.

Speeding can:

• reduce a delay
• satisfy the customer in the short term

But can also:

• disguise the real origin of the problem
• weaken a future claim
• to complicate the demonstration of a right to an extension of time

In other words:

Rushing can cost more than a delay... if it's poorly justified.

In some cases, Do not accelerate immediately allows you to

• document the situation correctly
• secure a contractual position
• Prepare a robust claim strategy

Key reflex: Each acceleration decision must be aligned with a Global strategy (cost / timeline / contract / risk).

Conclusion — Accelerate, yes. But not blindly.

A schedule is not just a management tool. It is a strategic asset, at the heart:

• project performance
• of risk management
• and redress mechanisms

Accelerating without analysis is taking a risk.

Accelerating with clear reading is creating leverage.

ALVID position

At ALVID, we intervene precisely at this tipping point:

• When a project goes off track
• When decisions become critical
• and when the schedule needs to move from “reporting” to strategy tool

We help project teams to:

• clarify critical sequences
• Analyse delays in a defensible manner
• secure their contractual position
• and prepare for litigation situations, if necessary