Built to Fail – Third Podcast

The Era of Predictability and Why CPM Misses the Mark

It’s a beautiful night, and I’m excited to dive into Built to Fail by Todd Zabel particularly chapter three, which explores Era Two “The Era of Predictability in capital project delivery”.

This era brought about new methodologies like Critical Path Method (CPM), PERT, Earned Value Management (EVM), and Phase Gate Processes. These were all seen as legitimate project management tools according to PMBOK, but they share one major flaw: they focus on scope, cost, and time management, while ignoring production systems the very heart of actually building something.

The Critical Path Myth

CPM was introduced in the 1950s as a way to predict and plan projects. On paper, it made sense if you can identify the “critical path,” you can control cost and time. But here’s the problem:

• Schedules are always wrong.
• They predict what the client wants, not what’s possible.

When you plan using CPM, you’re essentially creating a wish list. It tells you what you hope will happen, not what can actually happen.

That’s where Takt planning stands apart it doesn’t predict; it simulates what’s possible. It’s visual, adaptable, and based on flow the rhythm of production that allows teams to make real time decisions close to the work.

Another myth CPM perpetuates is that adding more people or resources speeds up a project. In reality, that only creates congestion, increases work in process (WIP), and lengthens total duration. CPM’s foundation is flawed because it confuses activity with progress.

The Iron Triangle: An Incomplete Picture

we’ve all heard of the “Iron Triangle” the trade-off between scopes, cost, and time. You can pick any two, but not all three. The truth? That model doesn’t reflect real productivity. It completely ignores operations science the study of how work actually flows.

When you focus only on cost and time, you end up incentivizing the wrong things. Earned Value Management, for instance, rewards teams for spending more money faster, equating spending with progress. The result? More material bought too early, more WIP, and slower overall delivery.

In other words, we’ve built a house on a faulty foundation.

Baselines, Bureaucracy, and the Illusion of Control

Traditional project management preaches measuring progress against a fixed baseline schedule. But here’s the paradox:

• If you keep the baseline fixed, your schedule becomes inaccurate.
• If you change the schedule, you can no longer measure progress to the baseline.

Either way, the data becomes meaningless. So, organizations end up chasing numbers that don’t reflect reality measuring for the sake of measuring.

And when things go wrong, CPM has no answer. It can tell you that you’re late, but it can’t tell you why or what to do about it.

The Rise of Administration Over Production

As project management matured, construction management became more about administration than production. Construction Managers turned into middlemen focusing on contracts, procurement, and paperwork rather than actual work.

Universities followed suit, training future professionals in management, not making. The result?

“More people watching the work being done than those doing the work.”

Our industry became obsessed with meetings, reports, and tracking metrics that don’t move the needle. We stopped making things happen and started monitoring results instead.

No Skin in the Game

Many of the roles that dominate the industry today claims consultants, CPM schedulers, forensic analysts, and some owner’s reps have no skin in the game. When their systems fail, there are no consequences.

Meanwhile, those actually designing and building the engineers, superintendents, and foremen bear the full responsibility. This imbalance has created an environment where people protect systems instead of improving them.

As the saying goes, “The system protects the system.”

When Lean Lost Its Way

Even the Lean Construction Institute (LCI), which started strong with a focus on production, has drifted. Over time, the conversation shifted from systems and flow to softer topics like psychology and collaboration. Important, yes but ineffective when disconnected from a production system.

Respect for people and collaboration only thrive when paired with the right system that enables productivity and clarity. Without that foundation, even the best intentions fail to move projects forward.

Final Thoughts

Era Two the Era of Predictability brought valuable tools but also dangerous habits. We built layers of administration and analysis while losing sight of the actual work.

Our industry is now heavy with people monitoring, documenting, and reporting yet starved of those who understand how to build.

If we want to change that, we must:

• Abandon predictive illusions like CPM and EVM.
• Empower those closest to the work to plan and make decisions.
• Focus on production systems that create flow, stability, and continuous improvement.

It’s time to stop predicting and start producing.

Key Takeaway

Construction has become obsessed with prediction and paperwork instead of production and performance. True progress lies in flow based systems like Takt planning that focus on what’s actually possible not what looks good in a report. To elevate the industry, we must return to the fundamentals of building, planning close to the work, empowering people, and creating reliable production flow.