Use cases
By organization
Featured stories
Latest from the blog
AI with full project context: Connect Nodes & Links with AconexNovember 5, 2026All blog posts →Featured guide
GuideThe Executive Guide to AI for Project DeliveryTest date confidence, understand project risk and focus interventions, with auditable evidence.Read the guide →All guides →Watch, read and learn
WebinarsLive sessions and on-demand replays.WhitepapersLong reads on where project delivery is going.ResearchThe peer-reviewed work behind the models.Platform coursesShort videos on getting more from the platform.The Physics of Project AccelerationOur book on pulling project dates forward.All resources →Use cases / Change management
Every change since the last update, and what it did to your critical path.
Same ground truth models underneath. Flip between the answer and the Change Control view behind it.
373 of the 1,327 changes since v5 touch the critical path. Logic changes on switchgear and HV cable pulls are the ones moving it.
Same ground truth models underneath. Flip between the answer and the Change Control view behind it.
373 of the 1,327 changes since v5 touch the critical path. Logic changes on switchgear and HV cable pulls are the ones moving it.
Same ground truth models underneath. Flip between the answer and the Change Control view behind it.
373 of the 1,327 changes since v5 touch the critical path. Logic changes on switchgear and HV cable pulls are the ones moving it.
Asked in AI Mode
See exactly what changed between updates, and why. AI Mode separates new scope from schedule drift, so every change is visible and accounted for.
Real customer projects, anonymized
“Final commissioning slipped 6 months between submissions. What drove it, and was any of it change?”
CAt least 3 of the 6 drivers came from change, including a structural instruction across 4 data halls and 70 added fire detection units. Commissioning durations barely moved; the work simply could not start.
Why it mattered. The consultant could separate change-driven delay from performance, with the evidence chain to back it up.
“Final commissioning slipped 6 months between submissions. What drove it, and was any of it change?”
CAt least 3 of the 6 drivers came from change, including a structural instruction across 4 data halls and 70 added fire detection units. Commissioning durations barely moved; the work simply could not start.
Why it mattered. The consultant could separate change-driven delay from performance, with the evidence chain to back it up.
“Is there anything to worry about in the May submission compared with April?”
OThe critical path grew from 249 to 363 days. 123 activities got longer and only 13 got shorter, with 869 activities changed in total.
Why it mattered. The owner had a specific list of changes to question before accepting the submission.
“Which activities changed in date or duration since last month’s update?”
C199 activities moved earlier and 54 slipped. Only an RFI (+30 days) and a change order (+22 days) grew in duration, a clear sign of new scope.
Why it mattered. Both items were flagged for formal tracking, so the added time is on record if it is needed later.
Open any answer in Platform Mode and check the math yourself. How it works
“Being able to identify these critical changes efficiently would enable planners to have more time to work with the client and the contractor on mitigating these challenges and enhance project outcomes.”
Added and removed activities, plus every change to dates, durations, relationships, calendars and constraints between schedule versions.
Yes. You can see exactly which changes impacted the critical path, and how.
Yes. Follow the full history of changes and trends across every schedule version, from baseline to finish.
Yes. It flags changed actual dates, progress going backwards and work marked done in the future.