Between fast tracking and crashing, what would be your first choice?

FAST TRACKING IS BEST PRACTICE compare to CRASHING reason is in Fast Tracking  using same resources in sequence of activities not waiting for one to complete only part is quality we have to be more concern  but in Crashing you have to spend more or additional Cost to project which is not required .

Crashing and Fast Tracking are schedule compression techniques. You apply them in order to shorten your schedule and to reach a certain schedule target.

Fast tracking means executing two activities at the same time, even if they would normally not be done in this way. Fast tracking is free but adds additional risk to your project.

Crashing means to add additional resources to your project. Crashing requires additional budget. So you want to crash those activities that give you the biggest bang for the buck  -the most schedule compression at the least cost.

Both techniques only make sense if you apply them to activities on your critical path so all depends of situation in project.  

One of the goals of crashing the schedule is to minimize the incremental cost. However, in exchange for completing some work ahead of schedule, crashing usually always leads to some additional incremental cost to the project. If you're willing and able to spend more to accelerate the schedule, fast-tracking may be a viable option for you. 

Fast tracking is more useful because not all the time  we can delete activities ...

Fast tracking is a technique where activities are performed in parallel. These are activities that would have been performed sequentially using the original schedule. In fast tracking, the activities are worked on simultaneously instead of waiting for each piece to be completed separately.

A good rule of thumb is that sequential activities can sometimes be fast-tracked by up to%. In other words, if you're fast-tracking, you can start the second of two sequential activities when the first activity is% complete. There is risk involved. However, this seems to be a level of fast-tracking risk that is normally acceptable.

Crashing is the technique to use when fast tracking has not saved enough time on the schedule. It is a technique in which resources are added to the project for the least cost possible. Cost and schedule tradeoffs are analyzed to determine how to obtain the greatest amount of compression for the least incremental cost.

Depends on needs. If you can manage enough with fast tracking that’s the best because it doesn’t involve additional cost however crashing helps in bringing timelines in considerably in some scenarios. 

Ref :

http://www.simplilearn.com/fast-tracking-vs-crashing-article

http://www.izenbridge.com/blog/what-is-fast-tracking-and-crashing/

http://www.techrepublic.com/article/fast-tracking-and-crashing-can-get-your-project-back-on-schedule/

Crashing would be my choice as despite the upfront cost in adding more labor and a level of management initially, these layers can be shed as the project moves forward ahead of milestones.

based on the project Key Performance indicators "CPI & SPI" and the PM and team capabilities, after obtaining such analysis you can decide using one of these strategies. 

Fast tracking is easily said than actually done on ground because this involve extra cost unless approved/required by the client.

If you delayed on programme than this would be a dissallowed cost.

it depends on types of deliverables , delivery method and type of contract.

But in general  fast track shall be the first choice to think about as it requires no increasing in cost , but the risk increases.

so it depends on the project and the activity .

Fast Tracking: Early completion of an activity by allocating more resources to that activity.

Fast tracking may increase the project risk and crasing may increase project cost.

Fast track or crasing is depended on the importance of the project, the willingness to take risk or to spend more money.

Fast Tracking should be first priority as crashing is not the best option depending on the importance of the task to the project