We just delivered a 12-week lobby retrofit in 10 using MS Project with tight weekly look-aheads, and kept quality up by reserving a 10% buffer for the team to level up on BIM 360. How are you defending that kind of learning time in your schedules without it reading as padding when a client wants to shave days?
On our last core/tenant job, we stopped calling it “learning time” and scheduled it as “process commissioning” with exit criteria — BIM 360 templates live, a agreed clash ruleset, and issue cycle time <48h — so it reads as risk mitigation, not padding. If a client still wants days back, we keep the gate and trim float elsewhere, like sharpening the saw without stopping the hike. What BIM 360 metric did you show to justify the 10% — issue closure rate or RFI delta?
I schedule it as a startup sprint with a give‑back clause — track issue MTTR in ACC Issues and commit to a about 30% drop by week 3; if we hit early, unused hours revert to the client, which ends the padding debate. > saw without stopping the hike. What BIM 360 metric did you show to justify the 10% — issue closure rate or We used MTTR and reopen rate; @nora9855 would your team buy that?