#CriticalPath #Scheduling #Planners #PlanningEngineer Recently, I received a comment from the Client that in the baseline program, FF is being used in the Critical Path. 👉 Should we rely more on Start-to-Start (SS) or Finish-to-Finish (FF) relationships?
Both have value, but in my experience, FF provides stronger control over the true critical path.
Here’s why:
⚙️ Start-to-Start (SS)
• Works well for overlapping sequential tasks (excavation + pipe laying).
• Provides early visibility of slippages.
• Easier for site teams to understand.
❌ The limitation: SS often introduces artificial starts and “dangling logic.” It shows dependency at the start, but does not necessarily drive the completion date, which is what contracts and milestones are concerned with.
⚙️ Finish-to-Finish (FF)
• Directly ties activity completion to another’s completion.
• If one activity slips, the dependent activity’s finish—and potentially project handover—slips too.
• Perfect for commissioning, curing, inspections, and testing—where only the finish alignment matters.
• Stronger in forensic analysis and claims: delays are tracked where they truly hurt → at completion.
✅ This means FF gives clearer visibility of risks to contractual milestones and better withstands delay claim scrutiny.
📌 While SS has its place for overlapping tasks, FF is more robust when modelling the critical path because:
• Finishes measure projects, not starts.
• Completion dates drive client satisfaction, liquidated damages, and handovers.
• FF aligns the schedule with real project control points.
👉 In short: FF > SS for critical path integrity and defensibility.
💬 Curious to hear from other planners: Do you lean more on SS or FF when you want to safeguard your critical path logic?
