Product Capability

Baseline scoring

BaselineBuilder examines whether submitted documentation materially contributes toward a coherent and defensible baseline position.

A baseline is not the same thing as a populated document set

Major projects often contain thousands of pages of planning, commercial and governance information. The harder question is whether those documents agree with one another sufficiently to support reliable delivery planning, executive decision-making and robust commercial positions.

The BaselineBuilder approach

BaselineBuilder examines submitted Schedule, Cost, Scope, Risk and Project Context information independently before considering how those domains align collectively as a baseline position.

Observable evidence before weighted scoring

WBS structure, activity logic, quantity-rate relationships, scope representation, lifecycle-linked risks and machine-readable commercial fields are extracted computationally from uploaded evidence before scoring constraints are applied.

Scoring domains

Each domain contributes to baseline confidence differently. The scoring model is weighted toward the evidence required to support reliable planning, delivery control and defensible governance review.

Schedule contributionThe programme remains the dominant baseline signal. Weak sequencing, poor structure or missing scope representation materially limit the overall position even where cost, risk and governance documentation exists and is aligned. Activity logic, WBS quality and delivery structure all materially influence the resulting position.

Cost contributionCost plan structure, completeness, WBS alignment and usable quantity breakdowns affect the resulting position and overall baseline robustness. Quantity coverage, rate visibility, subtotal integrity and machine-readable commercial structure materially influence the scoring outcome.

Scope contributionSubmitted documentation is assessed for whether it materially defines the intended Works. Scope inferred only from programme evidence is intentionally limited. Observable alignment between delivery activities and represented project scope materially affects contribution strength.

Risk contributionRisk information is examined for operational balance across the delivery lifecycle, rather than narrow concentration within isolated work stages. Mitigation structure, lifecycle distribution and operational relevance materially influence the resulting position.

Project context contributionWorking calendars, shift assumptions, geography, logistics constraints and contract structures influence baseline confidence where they materially affect delivery assumptions and deployment realism.

Weighted scoring and baseline constraints

BaselineBuilder does not treat all uploaded documentation equally. Certain evidence classes are considered foundational to the existence of a defensible baseline position, and their absence materially constrains the maximum theoretical score available regardless of supporting information elsewhere in the submission.

Mandatory dimensions and scoring constraints

Mandatory Dimension	Maximum Available Score if Not Satisfied
Credible schedule evidence	40 / 100
Plan evidence supported by Cost, Risk or Scope	40 / 100
Cost evidence supported by Plan, Risk or Scope	15 / 100
Schedule quality ≥ 40%	Non-schedule contributions reduced by 50%

Cross-document penalties. Contradictions between cost, scope, risk and programme evidence directly reduce the resulting baseline position regardless of individual domain strength.

Functional scoring architecture

The scoring model is intentionally decomposed into observable functional areas rather than relying on single-pass narrative judgement. Capabilities still being developed are identified explicitly.

Schedule analysis functions

Schedule structural recognisabilityDetects whether uploaded programme data materially resembles a usable scheduling structure with identifiable activity, logic and hierarchy relationships.

WBS coherence analysisExamines whether work breakdown structures appear proportionate, controllable and operationally aligned to the apparent delivery scope.

Lifecycle sequencing reviewReviews activity sequencing logic across procurement, design, construction and handover phases.

Critical path defensibilityReviews dependency logic, float evidence, constraints and longest-path signals to determine whether the reported critical-path position is sufficiently transparent and supportable from the submitted programme.

Calendar assignment completenessExamines whether activities have populated and traceable calendar assignments, identifying missing assignments, fragmented calendar use and concentrations of continuous or seven-day calendars.

Production rate consistencyCompares quantity-per-time rates for repeated resource assignments and identifies material variations for review, with controlled exceptions for activities whose production methods make direct rate comparison inappropriate.

Cost analysis functions

Cost structure recognisabilityDetermines whether uploaded cost plans contain coherent commercial structure capable of supporting downstream review.

Core field completenessExamines the presence and completeness of expected quantity, rate, total and package-level commercial fields.

Mathematical integrity checksReviews detectable inconsistencies between quantities, rates, subtotals and aggregate totals.

WBS alignment reviewExamines whether commercial structure materially aligns with observable programme or scope structure.

Scope analysis functions

Explicit scope representationExamines whether submitted documentation materially defines the intended Works rather than implying them indirectly.

Programme-to-scope alignmentReviews whether observable programme activities appear proportionate to the represented delivery scope.

Scope coverage reviewReviews whether identifiable scope elements are represented in the baseline structure and whether schedule, cost and risk evidence is present in the same delivery area or within its subdivisions.

Risk analysis functions

Lifecycle risk distributionExamines whether risk representation appears balanced across the observable project lifecycle.

Mitigation structure reviewReviews whether risks appear operationally linked to mitigation ownership or downstream control states.

Residual risk maturity reviewReviews whether risks distinguish initial and post-treatment exposure, identifying missing residual assessments and incomplete initial-versus-residual risk structures.

Project context functions

Geographic operating conditionsConsiders environmental and logistical operating factors where they materially affect delivery assumptions.

Contract structure reviewExamines whether procurement and delivery structures appear aligned to the represented delivery structure.

Baseline products

The two major outputs serve distinct operational functions.

Baseline Quality Report

An internal review document intended to aggressively surface weaknesses, unsupported positions and contradictory evidence for the project team to review and rectify as required.

Draft Baseline Book

A first pass at a fully structured and defensible baseline product that project teams can check, own and take forward through governance and into operational delivery practice.

See baseline scoring in context.

Book a functional walkthrough to see how BaselineBuilder scores project documentation and turns findings into Baseline products.

Book a functional demo