What I was getting at earlier that you tried to refute by posting the link is that the current schedule is not set in proverbial stone 100% because of science. There are tons of factors that would lead to an adopted schedule with an ultimate goal of accomplishing 2 things.

1. Provide a timeframe that would allow efficient transfer of immunization to the child.
2. Provide a timeframe that would assure the greatest % of children are immunized. This aspect includes tons of factors that are not so much scientific based but would be what the article you linked refers to as programmatic aspects. Getting them all done at once assures that the highest number
of children possible are immunized when possibly spacing some out a few weeks would mean that some parents might not come back to finish immunizations due to funds, transportation, access, not understanding the numbers of doses. Etc.
Such factors are always taken into account when establishing public policies and schedules.

If for example there was another method of administering the immunizations that was slightly more effective or less invasive or allowed them to all be done in 1 day but the cost was 20x more than the current cost then it wouldn't be adopted even if it the scientific consensus said it was more effective. Why? Because the schedules are not put together solely off of scientific efficacy.

A portion of the intro to the article:
"programmatic aspects (including number of doses, funding, organization, and cost) are important factors in determining the immunization schedule. (3)(4)"