Customer stories / Construction planning / PERT
Kairos: PERT planning for a Chandigarh villa in Leera
See how Kairos brings PERT planning to a Chandigarh villa project in Leera, with practical examples for dependencies, estimates, design decisions, and handover.
At a glance
Kairos, an architecture firm, manages a villa project in Chandigarh with Leera and applies PERT to construction planning. For architecture teams, the approach connects design decisions, task dependencies, and duration estimates so the next activity has a clear owner, prerequisite, and completion condition.
Kairos, an architecture firm, uses Leera to manage a villa project in Chandigarh and applies PERT to its construction planning. A villa brings design decisions and delivery work together: a drawing informs a supplier, a material choice affects a package, and a pending review can hold up the next activity. The planning challenge is to keep those relationships visible as the project moves forward.
Privacy note: This story reflects the customer’s use of Leera. Workflow details are presented as representative examples to protect customer privacy. Information covered by confidentiality agreements or NDAs is excluded.
Start with the decisions that connect the work
A villa project contains many activities that sound independent until someone asks what is needed to begin them. A supplier may need a reviewed drawing. A consultant may need a resolved design decision. A handover item may remain open until someone checks the work and records acceptance.
A task list can capture those activities, but the relationship between them matters just as much. “Prepare joinery package” tells an owner what to do. “Prepare the package after the layout and material decisions are confirmed” also explains why it may be waiting.
PERT, short for Program Evaluation and Review Technique, brings sequencing and uncertain durations into the planning conversation. For an architecture team, the practical starting point is to identify the activities, explain their prerequisites, and ask the responsible people about the range of time each may require.
Plan the interior package around dependencies
Start with a package that requires several people to coordinate their work. An interior package, for example, brings together layouts, service locations, material selections, and supplier inputs. Write down what each activity needs and what it must produce before scheduling it.
| Activity | Prerequisite in this example | Completion condition |
|---|---|---|
| Confirm the room layout | Current brief and relevant design inputs | Recorded decision on the layout version |
| Coordinate service locations | Confirmed layout and consultant input | Reviewed coordination drawing with open questions identified |
| Confirm material selections | Agreed design intent and client decision | Selection record with the exact option and decision date |
| Prepare the joinery package | Coordinated locations and confirmed selections | Package reviewed by the responsible designer |
| Confirm supplier readiness | Reviewed package and supplier response | Recorded lead-time assumptions and unresolved constraints |
| Review readiness for the next stage | Relevant decisions and prerequisites complete | Named reviewer records the decision and any exceptions |
The table exposes parallel work: service coordination and material selection can progress after their required inputs are available. They converge before the joinery package is ready. A single percentage-complete figure would conceal that distinction.
In Leera Planner, create an activity as a task, assign an owner, and link the relevant prerequisites using relationships such as “depends on” or “is blocked by.” Keep the completion condition in the description so “done” has a meaning the next person can use.
Use the links during handoffs. Before releasing a dependent activity, check that its owner has the reviewed drawing, recorded decision, or supplier confirmation they need. Keep that evidence close to the task so the next person can assess readiness directly.
Make uncertainty discussable
A single duration often hides several assumptions. Does it include a review round? Is the reviewer available? Are the inputs settled? Asking for a range helps expose those questions before a date appears on the schedule.
The PMI paper on project estimating describes the familiar PERT weighted estimate:
Estimated duration = (optimistic + 4 × most likely + pessimistic) ÷ 6.
For a sample calculation, use 2 working days under favorable conditions, 4 as most likely, and 12 if the identified complications occur. The calculation gives 5 working days: (2 + 16 + 12) ÷ 6. These sample values demonstrate the formula; collect the estimates for your own activities from the people responsible for the work.
Use the weighted result alongside its assumptions. Record what drives the range—for example, one expected review round and a risk that an unresolved selection requires another. Calendars, resource availability, and dependencies still affect when the activity can finish.
Keep the three estimates and their assumptions in a table in Leera Documents, linked to the relevant task. The team calculates the PERT estimates and analyzes the dependency network; Leera’s date-based roadmap displays the start and finish dates the team sets.
Connect the planning document to daily work
The planning document should answer questions that a task title cannot. Which version of the design is current? Who owns the next decision? What assumption supports the forecast? When was it last reviewed?
Use a short record for each significant decision:
| Field | Example entry |
|---|---|
| Decision needed | Confirm the selected finish before the package review |
| Owner | The person coordinating the client decision |
| Required input | Current options and their implications |
| Affected work | Linked material-selection and package-preparation tasks |
| Status | Awaiting a recorded decision |
| Next review | The team’s agreed review date |
Keep the detailed reasoning in the document and progress in the task. Link between them so a colleague can move from a blocked activity to the decision that will unblock it. A manually prepared network diagram can also be inserted as an image in the document; identify its version so readers know which plan it represents.
The roadmap adds a date-based view of the work. Use it to discuss the current forecast, while keeping the assumptions visible in the linked records. The difference between a planning direction and a detailed schedule remains useful even when the project produces a building rather than software.
Review a change through its consequences
Consider a material selection changing before the joinery package is reviewed. Trace the effect through the linked work: does the drawing need revision, does the supplier need to respond again, and which downstream activity must wait?
First record the changed decision and the affected document version. Then open the linked tasks and ask their owners to reassess the remaining work. Update the assumptions and dates only after that review. Preserve the reason for the revision so the next meeting does not have to reconstruct it from messages.
The GAO Schedule Assessment Guide emphasizes reliable schedules as a way to understand the effect of changes and assess whether planned dates are achievable. A small architecture team can apply that principle without adopting every process used on a large capital program.
Make the next review useful
For a regular coordination meeting, start with decisions and prerequisites that need attention. Check what became ready, what is waiting, and whether the completion evidence is sufficient for the person receiving the work. Discuss the forecast after the team understands those facts.
Carry the same approach into handover planning. Give outstanding items a responsible owner and a clear acceptance condition. Link the relevant records, and distinguish work awaiting review from work accepted by the responsible person. Project-management status supports that conversation; it does not replace professional approvals or site inspections.
Kairos brings PERT into the management of a real villa project in Chandigarh through Leera. For an architecture team adopting the approach, begin with one coordination package: a document for the decisions and estimates, a small set of linked Planner tasks, and a review of the prerequisites that determine what can happen next.
Frequently asked questions
How does Kairos use Leera for its Chandigarh villa project?
Kairos uses Leera to manage a villa project in Chandigarh and applies PERT to construction planning. The project shows how an architecture firm can bring a dependency-based planning method into a shared workspace for coordinating work.
What does PERT add to construction project planning?
PERT connects activities through their prerequisites and considers uncertainty in activity durations. It encourages a team to explain what must happen before another activity can proceed, then discuss optimistic, most likely, and pessimistic estimates. Those estimates depend on the scope and assumptions supplied by the people responsible for the work.
How can an architecture team maintain a PERT plan in Leera?
Record activities as linked Planner tasks, keep estimates and assumptions in Documents, and use the roadmap to review planned dates. The team calculates estimates and analyzes the dependency network; the roadmap displays the dates the team sets. A prepared network diagram can be included as an image in a project document.
Can architects use this workflow without software development sprints?
Yes. Tasks can describe design decisions, consultant coordination, procurement preparation, or handover work. Give each activity an owner, prerequisite, and clear completion condition. The team can review the work against project milestones without organizing it into software releases or sprints.
What should a design-decision record include?
Include the decision needed, its owner, the current drawing or document version, required inputs, affected tasks, status, and next review date. When a decision changes, record the reason and ask the owners of dependent work to review their remaining scope and dates.