Tax Reform Schedule Management Plan for Agribusiness Sector Company

Ana Júlia Sordi; Bruno de Lima Santoro

DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202602645

Article derived from a Course Conclusion Work (TCC), with content based on the student’s original work and adapted to the editorial format of the E&S Magazine with the support of the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by Instituto Pecege for textual synthesis and organization.

Summary

The enactment of Complementary Law No. 214 of 2025, which instituted the Tax Reform in Brazil, represented one of the most relevant transformations of the national fiscal system, requiring organizations to make profound adaptations in processes, systems, and strategies, especially in agribusiness. Given this context, the study aimed to develop a schedule management plan for the implementation of the Tax Reform in an agribusiness company, aligned with best project management practices. The research was characterized as a case study with a qualitative approach, applied to a real project of systemic adjustments. Data collection was carried out through semi-structured interviews with internal stakeholders, suppliers, and consultants, in addition to document analysis and the use of corporate tools. The methodology used was waterfall, based on the application of the six schedule management processes according to the PMBOK 6th edition, using the regulatory date as a milestone for backward schedule construction. The results showed that structured planning, logical sequencing of activities, realistic duration estimation, and continuous schedule control made it possible to mitigate risks, integrate multiple suppliers, and deal with punctual deviations without compromising the final deadline established by the legislation. It was concluded that effective schedule management proved fundamental for the governance and success of complex regulatory projects, contributing to compliance with legal deadlines and the reduction of operational risks.

Keywords: Agriculture; Project management; Legislation; PMBOK; Regulatory deadline.

1. Introduction

Currently, project management faces increasingly complex challenges, demanding innovative approaches that ensure not only the delivery of results but also the maximization of value generated for organizations. In this scenario, the enactment of Complementary Law No. 214 of 2025, which instituted the Brazilian Tax Reform, represented one of the most significant transformations in the country’s fiscal system. With the replacement of taxes such as the Social Integration Program (PIS), Contribution for the Financing of Social Security (COFINS), Tax on the Circulation of Goods and Services (ICMS), and Services Tax (ISS) by a dual Value Added Tax (VAT) model, composed of the Contribution on Goods and Services (CBS) and Tax on Goods and Services (IBS), organizations are required to undertake a profound restructuring of processes, systems, and tax strategies (Brazil, 2025).

In Brazil, the Tax Reform represents a significant milestone in the restructuring of the national fiscal system, whose impact transcends legislative changes, directly affecting internal processes, technological systems, business contracts, and corporate strategies. Carvalho (2018) understands Tax Reform as a process of structural reorganization of the tax system, aimed at simplifying norms, rationalizing collection, and promoting fiscal justice. The objective is to reduce economic distortions and ensure greater coherence between taxation and tax capacity, promoting greater economic neutrality, fiscal transparency, and regulatory predictability, and creating more favorable conditions for investment and long-term planning by organizations.

In this context, the implementation of the Tax Reform transcends the legal-tax field and is configured as a strategic program of organizational transformation, requiring simultaneous adaptations in information systems, operational processes, fiscal policies, pricing, contracts, and corporate governance. The Project Management Institute (PMI, 2021) establishes that, in the face of regulatory changes in the external environment, uncertainties and risks must be considered for value generation in projects, which must be structured to directly support the organization’s strategic objectives. Torres (2014) complements that the Tax Reform’s main purpose is to adapt the tax system to the constitutional requirements of fiscal justice, generating economic efficiency and legal certainty, in addition to seeking a balance between state revenue collection and the protection of taxpayers’ rights.

The Tax Reform, therefore, imposes on organizations the need to structure portfolios and project programs capable of responding in a coordinated manner to the new regulatory requirements, avoiding fragmented solutions and rework. Such a change imposes a complex scenario of continuous management and adaptation, given that the new legislation establishes a framework of changes to be implemented and effected by 2033, requiring efficient, integrated managerial responses aligned with the law’s expectations. This scenario highlights that mere technical adaptation is not enough, making integrated management essential, aligned with corporate management and capable of generating sustainable value, reinforcing the importance of meticulously following the established schedule. The author Kerzner (2017) advocates for the importance of using effective project management tools capable of mitigating risks and ensuring project delivery within the established deadline. Barcaui (2012) reinforces that, to achieve a successful project, the proposed objectives must generate results through disciplined and persistent management of good practices, methodologies, and processes, meeting the stipulated deadlines and costs.

In the Brazilian agribusiness scenario, the implementation of the Tax Reform requires integration between areas, revision of processes, and strong governance, as structural changes in the tax system directly impact the production chain, pricing models, and contract management. For this, the adoption of strong schedule and project control is necessary, which, according to the Project Management Institute (PMI, 2017), offers numerous advantages for project success, enabling greater control over activity execution and timely adjustments. Thus, effective schedule management proves fundamental for the governance and success of complex regulatory projects, ensuring compliance with deadlines and reduction of operational risks. Given this context, and with the aim of ensuring compliance with deadlines, optimizing schedule execution to minimize potential delays due to it being a regulatory demand, the objective of this research is to develop a schedule management plan for the Tax Reform for a company in the agribusiness sector aligned with the best practices described in the 6th edition of the PMBOK.

2. Material and Methods

The present study was characterized as a qualitative research, adopting the case study method. This methodological choice allowed for the application to a real project of systemic adjustments, focused on the implementation of the Tax Reform in a Brazilian agribusiness company. The objective was to develop a schedule management plan aligned with best project management practices, according to the 6th edition of the PMBOK (PMI, 2017).

The research was conducted in the Brazilian units of a global agribusiness company, which operates with six plants installed in Brazil. The unit of analysis consisted of the project to adapt all internal systems impacted by the new tax legislation. The data collection and project execution period extended until the regulatory date of January 5, 2026, established as the milestone for the “Go Live” of the new requirements.

Data collection occurred through semi-structured interviews, conducted with internal stakeholders from various areas of the organization, including Information Technology (IT), finance, tax, legal, procurement, and treasury. Additionally, system vendors and external and internal company consultants were interviewed. Complementarily, document analysis and the use of corporate project management tools were carried out to support the schedule’s construction.

The team responsible for the project was composed of two dedicated project managers, an IT and business partner, two business managers for scope definition, two executive managers (one from IT and the project sponsor), an IT manager, and a specialized technical team for each impacted system. The most active stakeholders included the IT team and the fiscal and tax areas, which validated tests and scope, and the legal department, which interpreted legislation and monitored new governmental definitions.

For project management, the company’s official tool, Clarizen software, was used for structuring and controlling the schedule. Communication among those involved was facilitated by the use of Microsoft Teams. The methodology adopted for schedule management was Waterfall, based on the application of the six schedule management processes described in the 6th edition of the PMBOK (PMI, 2017), using the regulatory date as a milestone for constructing the schedule “backwards”.

The first process, “Plan Schedule Management”, was conducted based on the Project Management Plan, with the new legislation as a reference. The initial activity consisted of surveying and mapping the impacted systems, carried out through interviews with key users to identify tax information. The Project Charter was developed to guide the construction of the schedule, with the deadline of January 5, 2026, for “Go Live” (PMI, 2017).

Next, in the “Define Activities” process, a macro project schedule was planned, filled into the Clarizen tool. This macro schedule was established from the regulatory date of January 05, 2026. Activity control occurred through weekly “status reports” with each involved supplier. This process allowed for the identification of specific tasks for each system, including functional mapping, development, testing, training, and final validations, breaking down deliverables into smaller, manageable actions.

The third process, “Sequence Activities”, also used the Clarizen tool. In it, all activities from each supplier’s schedule were entered, allocating internal resources and stipulating durations based on milestone dates. The “backward pass” construction of the initial schedule allowed for the establishment of a logical sequence, identifying interdependencies and defining dates for development, unit and integrated testing, training, “Cutover” plan, “Go Live”, and “Hypercare”. The logical relationships between tasks were created through predecessors, predominantly of the Finish-to-Start type (PMI, 2017).

In the “Estimate Activity Durations” process, the estimates followed the milestone date of January 5, 2026. Durations were defined in business days, considering the work allocation of internal teams, external dependencies, and the volume of changes. Estimates were obtained through direct consultations with development teams (vendors), system specialists, and business area managers, based on technical complexity, business impact, and associated risks. Estimates were continuously re-evaluated in weekly meetings (PMI, 2017).

The “Develop Schedule” process consolidated all defined activities, their logical sequences, estimated durations, and resource allocations. The integration of this information into Clarizen generated a complete, visual, and organized schedule, encompassing all work fronts of the involved suppliers. This schedule was developed following the delivery milestone of January 5, 2026, promoting agile project control and management (PMI, 2017).

Finally, the “Control the Schedule” process was executed through follow-up meetings held twice a week with all suppliers and internal teams. These meetings allowed for constant progress updates, risk identification and mitigation, and the preparation of status reports for stakeholders. The control aimed to keep the actual percentages aligned with the planned ones, ensuring the project remained on schedule, even in the face of regulatory changes (PMI, 2017).

3. Results and Discussion

The results of this work detail the application of the six schedule management processes, as outlined in the 6th edition of the PMBOK, to a project for adapting to the Tax Reform in an agribusiness company. The methodological approach, which included stakeholder interviews and document analysis, allowed for an in-depth understanding of the challenges and implemented solutions. The findings highlight the relevance of structured planning and continuous control for risk mitigation and deadline compliance in complex regulatory projects, such as the one studied, which involved multiple suppliers and the need to adhere to a fixed regulatory date.

Plan Schedule Management

The schedule management plan was initiated from a call from the business area, motivated by the regulatory nature of the Tax Reform. This process culminated in the elaboration of a Project Charter, which served as a fundamental document to formalize the project and establish its initial guidelines. The Project Charter defined the project title as “Schedule Management Plan for Tax Reform for agribusiness sector company”, with the objective of developing a plan aligned with the best practices of PMBOK 6th edition.

The project’s justification focused on ensuring compliance with legal deadlines and optimizing schedule execution, aiming to minimize delays in a critical regulatory demand. The initial scope encompassed planning, defining, sequencing, estimating, developing, and controlling the schedule. Key deliverables included a detailed schedule with sequenced activities, duration estimates, and an adequate management plan for the delivery stipulated by the Tax Reform, according to the requirements of Complementary Law No. 214 of 2025.

A matrix of stakeholders was developed, identifying the numerous areas of the company, such as IT, finance, accounting, legal, procurement, and tax, in addition to external suppliers and consultants. This scope reflects the cross-cutting nature of the Tax Reform, which impacts almost all sectors of the organization. The main constraint identified was the regulatory deadline stipulated by law, and the success criterion was the alignment of the schedule to this deadline, ensuring its execution and stakeholder satisfaction, which underscores the criticality of the project.

The analysis of the power of influence and level of interest of those involved revealed that the company’s board of directors and the business and IT executive managers had the greatest power of influence and interest. This categorization was crucial for defining a “top down” communication strategy, which started from senior leadership to operational levels. This approach, aligned with Mascena and Stocker (2020), ensured the necessary engagement and clear dissemination of information, contributing to the smooth progress of the schedule and the minimization of risks associated with lack of communication or misalignment of expectations.

Define the Key Activities

The definition of activities constituted the second crucial process, established from a macro schedule that took January 05, 2026, as the regulatory date for “Go Live”. This milestone guided the construction of the schedule “backwards”, allowing for the sequential and structured mapping of all necessary activities for the implementation of the Tax Reform in the impacted systems. The Clarizen tool, used by the company, was essential for registering and controlling these activities.

The process of defining activities occurred after the initial scope survey and interviews with stakeholders, which enabled the identification of specific tasks for each system, including functional mapping, development, testing, training, and final validations. The list of activities was organized into “Gates” (0 to 5), which represent distinct project phases, each with specific deliverables and reviews. This phased structure, characteristic of the waterfall methodology with “stage gates”, ensured a clear decomposition of the work.

The activities were detailed for each Gate, covering from the project formalization and initial scope survey (Gate 0), through the schedule and financial plan estimation (Gate 1), refinement of documents and technical detailing (Gate 2), supplier contracting and definition of communication and training plans (Gate 3), to development, testing, Go Live and Hypercare (Gate 4), and finally project closure (Gate 5). This granularity allowed for greater precision in planning and responsibility allocation, according to project management practice (Carvalho and Rabechini Jr, 2018).

Although some activities are repeated throughout the Gates, this repetition was intentional, aiming to ensure constant reviews and full compliance with tasks in the face of potential changes. This approach is in line with PMI (2017) best practices, which emphasize the importance of a complete and updatable activity list for schedule predictability. The structured definition and continuous review of activities were, therefore, essential for organization, predictability, and alignment with stakeholders, supporting a schedule consistent with PMBOK 6th edition best practices.

Sequence the Activities

The sequencing of activities was the third fundamental result, carried out in the Clarizen tool, which allowed establishing logical relationships between tasks through predecessors. This stage was crucial for visualizing the interdependence between activities and integrating the schedules of all involved suppliers. The construction of the schedule “backwards”, starting from the regulatory deadline, ensured that the logical sequence of activities was aligned with the final deadline imposed by legislation.

The activity chain was structured using the Finish-to-Start (FS) relationship, which is the most common standard in projects and establishes that a successor activity can only begin after its predecessor is completed. This method, according to the PMBOK Guide 6th Edition (PMI, 2017), proved to be decisive in ensuring clarity and predictability in schedule development, avoiding the management of unrealistic schedules and reducing rework risks. The consistent application of this approach contributed to greater control over the workflow and strengthened the ability to respond to variations.

Structured sequencing allowed for the identification of the project’s critical path, facilitating the prioritization of activities with the greatest impact on the schedule. Weekly meetings with suppliers and internal teams were essential for maintaining continuous alignment and enabling agile adjustments in the face of identified risks or delays. This constant communication and visibility of dependencies were fundamental for effective project management, ensuring that each phase was initiated only when the necessary conditions were fully met, according to PMI (2021) guidelines on the importance of logical relationships to guide sequential behavior.

Estimate Activity Durations

The estimation of activity durations was one of the most critical planning processes, directly influencing the construction of a realistic schedule aligned with project constraints. With the “Go Live” date set for January 5, 2026, each activity was planned considering the time effectively needed for its execution. Factors such as the work allocation of internal teams, external dependencies with suppliers, and the volume of changes resulting from new legislation were carefully evaluated to determine the durations in working days.

This approach allowed for the precise capture of the effort required at each stage, minimizing risks and ensuring that the schedule reflected the real complexity of the project. Estimates were made through direct consultations with development teams, system specialists, and business area managers, based on technical complexity, business impact, and associated risks. This multidisciplinary collaboration, according to Xavier (2018), is fundamental to obtaining the number of work periods necessary to complete specific activities with the estimated resources.

Durations were continuously re-evaluated during weekly follow-up meetings with the project team, ensuring adherence to the best planning practices recommended by the PMBOK 6th edition (PMI, 2017). This dynamic of constant review, in light of new information and the imposed regulatory deadline, ensured greater accuracy and adaptability to the plan. The structured forecasting of durations, as an essential input for planning performance and for the formation of a consistent schedule throughout the entire project lifecycle, was a differential for the initiative’s success (PMI, 2021).

Develop the Schedule

The development of the schedule consolidated all defined activities, their logical sequences, estimated durations, and resource allocations into a single coherent temporal flow. The integration of this information into the Clarizen platform allowed for the generation of a complete, visual, and organized schedule, encompassing all work fronts of the involved suppliers. This phase, according to Montes (2023), is essential for building a coherent temporal representation, allowing visualization of the workflow and identification of potential constraints.

The technical consolidation of the schedule required a careful analysis of constraints, potential risks, and interdependencies between activities, ensuring that the planned sequence was compatible with the operational capacity of the teams. This process allowed for the identification of bottlenecks, prediction of critical paths, and adjustment of deadlines when necessary, strengthening project governance and control. According to the PMBOK 6th edition (PMI, 2017), this stage transforms individual estimates into an integrated execution plan, allowing for the assessment of change impacts and the anticipation of delays.

The developed schedule became a structuring element for the entire project management, offering an integrated and realistic view of deliverables over time. The clarity provided by this stage strengthened both planning and monitoring, allowing decisions to be made based on consistent and updated information. Montes and Maudonnet (2019) reinforce that the schedule functions as a coordination instrument between teams, facilitating the prioritization of deliverables and the identification of critical interdependencies, which was fundamental for alignment between internal areas, suppliers, and leadership, contributing directly to efficient execution and adherence to the established deadline.

Control Schedule

The schedule control was conducted through weekly meetings, held twice a week with all suppliers and internal teams, allowing for constant project progress updates. From these meetings, status reports were generated for stakeholders, containing the percentage completed, points of attention, and identified risks. This continuous and collaborative monitoring approach, according to Vargas (2018), functions as a “project thermometer”, essential for identifying deviations and ensuring adherence to planned dates, reducing the probability of negative impacts on the final deadline.

The execution of the schedule was impacted by the regulatory instability inherent in the implementation of the Tax Reform, with the Government promoting specific changes and modifications to regulatory dates, often with short notice. This scenario demanded a high capacity for adaptation and prompt response from the team. Effective schedule control, supported by recurring meetings with the IT team, suppliers, and the business area, proved to be decisive in absorbing these changes without compromising the final deadline established by law, as highlighted by PMI (2021), which emphasizes the importance of continuously assessing uncertainties and risks.

The analysis of the overall schedule performance revealed that the project, as a whole, showed a slight anticipation compared to the total planned duration, going from 311 planned working days to 308 actual working days, resulting in 99% adherence. Gates 0, 1, and 2 were completed exactly as planned, with 100% adherence. However, Gate 3 presented a significant deviation, with 65 actual working days versus 45 planned days, representing 144% of the foreseen deadline, due to delays in supplier contracting and regulatory changes, as pointed out by Kerzner (2017) regarding delays in intermediate phases.

In contrast, Gates 4 and 5 showed a reduction in deadline, with 94% and 57% of the planned time, respectively, evidencing a schedule recovery effort after the delay in Gate 3. The anticipation of the completion of these phases suggests the application of acceleration strategies, such as resource reallocation and activity parallelism, practices expected in the schedule control process (PMI, 2017). This demonstrates that systematic monitoring and continuous performance analysis allowed not only the identification of deviations but also the implementation of effective adjustments to ensure the fulfillment of the project’s final deadline.

After the production implementation on January 5, 2026, the project moved to the hypercare phase, lasting 30 days, dedicated to monitoring and stabilizing the applications. During this period, 28 issues were identified, of which 93% (26 issues) were resolved within the hypercare period itself, without impacting operations. The highest concentration of occurrences (68%) occurred in the first three days post-Go-Live, predominantly of a technical/specific nature, which reinforces the stability of the technical foundation and the effectiveness of schedule management in the pre-Go-Live phase (Kerzner, 2017).

In summary, effective schedule management, based on the best practices of PMBOK 6th edition, proved to be crucial for the governance and success of complex regulatory projects. The combination of structured planning, logical sequencing of activities, realistic duration estimation, and continuous control, even in the face of occasional deviations and regulatory instability, made it possible to mitigate risks, integrate multiple suppliers, and meet the established legal deadline, contributing to the reduction of operational risks and stakeholder satisfaction.

4. Conclusion

This study aimed to develop a schedule management plan for the implementation of Tax Reform in an agribusiness company, aligned with the best practices of the 6th edition of the PMBOK. It was verified that the application of the six schedule management processes – plan, define, sequence, estimate, develop, and control – enabled the creation of a structured and consistent plan. It was observed that detailed planning, logical sequencing of activities, and realistic duration estimation were crucial for project predictability and control. Continuous schedule control, carried out through weekly meetings and status reports, proved effective in identifying and mitigating risks and deviations, even in the face of regulatory instability and government-promoted regulatory changes. The project, as a whole, showed 99% adherence to the total planned deadline, with 308 working days completed versus 311 planned. Although Gates 0, 1, and 2 were completed with 100% adherence, Gate 3 registered a significant deviation, with 65 working days completed against 45 planned, due to delays in supplier contracting and regulatory changes. However, Gates 4 and 5 showed schedule recovery, evidencing adaptability and the implementation of corrective actions. The hypercare phase, post-Go-Live, identified 28 issues, of which 93% were resolved, reinforcing the stability of the technical base and the effectiveness of schedule management.

The main contribution of this work lies in demonstrating that effective schedule management, based on the best practices of PMBOK 6th edition, is fundamental for the governance and success of complex regulatory projects, ensuring compliance with legal deadlines and reducing operational risks in agribusiness organizations. As a limitation, it was identified that delays in intermediate phases, especially in supplier contracting and due to unforeseen regulatory changes, required greater attention in risk planning and the use of buffers. For future studies, it is suggested to deepen the analysis of the integration between schedule management, risk management, and change control in long-term regulatory projects. It is also recommended to evaluate the application of hybrid or agile methodologies in contexts with high legal rigidity, as well as comparative studies between different sectors or organizations to broaden the understanding of critical success factors in schedule management for regulatory transformation projects.

Bibliographic References

Barcaui, André. 2012. PMO: Escritório de Projetos, Programas e Portfólio na prática. 1 ed. Brasport, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.

Brasil. 2025. Lei Complementar nº 214, de 16 de janeiro de 2025. Institui o Imposto sobre Bens e Serviços (IBS), a Contribuição Social sobre Bens e Serviços (CBS) e o Imposto Seletivo (IS); cria o Comitê Gestor do IBS e altera a legislação tributária. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, 16 jan. 2025.

Carvalho, Marly Monteiro de; Rabechini Jr., Roque. 2018. Fundamentos em Gestão de Projetos: construindo competências para gerenciar projetos. 5. ed. Atlas, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Carvalho, Paulo de Barros. 2018. Direito tributário: fundamentos jurídicos da incidência. 10. ed. Saraiva, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Kerzner, Harold. 2017. Gestão de projetos: as melhores práticas. 3. ed. Bookman, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil.

Mascena, K. M. C.; Stocker, F. 2020. Stakeholder management: State of the art and perspectives. Future Studies Research Journal: Trends and Strategies 12(1); 1–30.

Montes, Eduardo. 2023. Gerência de Projetos: Gestão do Cronograma. 1. ed. Senac, São Paulo, SP, Brasil. Disponível em: <https://ler.amazon.com.br/sample/1546662405?clientId=share&asin=1546662405&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1>. Acesso em 19 mar. 2026.

Montes, Eduardo; Maudonnet, Simone. 2019. Administração do Tempo. São Paulo, Brasil. Disponível em: <https://ler.amazon.com.br/sample/B07WN1LKSX?clientId=share&asin=B07WN1LKSX&revisionId=4b5d9ad7&format=3&depth=1>. Acesso em 20 mar. 2026.

Project Management Institute [PMI]. 2017. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide). 6ª ed. Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute.

Project Management Institute [PMI]. 2021. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide). 7ª ed. Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute.

Torres, Ricardo Lobo. 2014. Tratado de direito constitucional financeiro e tributário. 1 ed. Renovar, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.

Vargas, Ricardo Viana. 2018. Gerenciamento de Projetos: estabelecendo diferenciais competitivos. 9. ed. Brasport, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil. Disponível em: <https://plataforma.bvirtual.com.br/Ace rvo/Publicacao/159976>. Acesso em 14 mar. 2026.

Xavier, Carlos Magno da S. 2018. Gerenciamento de projetos: como definir e controlar o escopo do projeto. 4. ed. Saraiva, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Article originating from the Final Course Project of the Specialization in Project Management of the MBA USP/Esalq

To learn more about the course, click here and access the MBX Academy platform