Clive...

I forgot to say... in the words of Bill/Charlie...

Do you really like Italians???

Oliver... is that true or another wind-up.

If it is true I’d like to hear from Charlie how he justifies such action. Surely that is against all the principles of truth and openness that he so often espouses?

I will respond to the substantive points in Heather’s post later but in the mean time I feel I must respond to yet another of Charlie’s racist rants (on completion of this posting I shall report you to the moderators).

Unfortunately Charlie, what you are saying in agreeing with Heathers interpretation is, in fact, developing a new meaning for float, not ‘the old fashioned way’. If you care to take a look at any of the glossaries that define such things I believe you will find that contingency is a purposeful allocation of time or money to take account of unforeseen risks, whereas float is something generated by the logic, durations and sequence of operations.

Anoon… have you considered the ramifications of what you are saying about ownership of float? In this instance I agree with Heather although I think she would have better said “Isn’t float generally used on a first come, first serve basis? Of course it all depends on what the particular contract says but, in my limited experience, I have found contracts that make observations on the ownership of float virtually impossible to administrate effectively. For that reason I think that the NEC suite, in introducing ‘contractors risk allowance’ have overcome some of the problems – it is just unfortunate that some less well-informed commentators have decided to rebadge this ‘terminal float’. In anycase, you have managed to go off-topic again (can’t you concentrate and keep to the subject in hand?) – the thread is about the origins of the term ‘terminal float’.

Again, Charlie, would you care to enlighten us as to the ‘original meaning of the "float"’ and how it had been ‘convuluted by some native born english’ (I assume you mean ‘convoluted by some native born English’). I suspect you were referring to me then (if not who?) – but of course, yet again you arte making assumptions as you know nothing about where I was born, what my mother tongue is or what my ethnicity is.

Even you must be aware that Critical Path Analysis and the like was developed out of researchin the 1950s predominately UK by the ESI for power station construction and in the US for the Polaris programme. As a result the terminology and definitions are essentially in, and were originally in, English.

You will see that the Forum Rules and Guidelines say “Messages should preferably be in English. While the membership is worldwide with many languages represented, it is prefereble to maintain discussions here where the majority of our members can participate.” I am unable to lower my standards to correspond in imprecise language and perhaps the pidgin English you appear to condone. For those who are not aware, I understand Tagalog is one of the major languages of the Republic of the Philippines and along with along with English is the co-official language. However, Wikipedia tells me that English is more prevalent in the fields of government and business.

Charlie, Anoon; there is not an obligation to get involved in every conversation in the forum. May I suggest if you have nothing valid to contribute and just want to snipe at the English speakers here (or even the ‘native born english’) then you do it some place else.

Hello Andrew

Long time no see…

Yes, I know what you say about terminal float but I was asking about the origins of the term. As discussed below it does not actually exist in the NEC suite.

Somewhere along the way there has been conflation of terminal float, contingency and risk allowance (it is the latter that is protected in the NEC). I have a bit of a bee at that moment that non-planners are using our precise language imprecisely and as no-one can be arsed to challenge it ends up becoming received wisdom and dilutes the accuracy of what we do.

KP has also invented a couple of new (in my opinion unnecessary) terms; internal float and external float – which I believe muddy the waters even further!

Regards

David

Anoon

Is there any alternative?

Anyone with any degree of real-world management and scheduling experience will realise that contractors often increase the duration of activities they feel contain risk of not completing according to schedule. In my experience, for instance, piling contractors/subcontractors almost always do this because a plant breakdown or delay in delivery of materials can have a dramatic effect on a crucial activity at the beginning of the project. This is what I mean by covertly adding contingency (which you will see I do not recommend – for a number of reasons).

In the UK, at least, most construction programmes have an activity called, snagging, final clean or pre-handover works. Again, this is usually a way of adding an element of contingency to the end of a programme.

Of course the contractor can add contingency in whatever way he wishes. Being excessive could extend the programme too much and make him uncompetitive and risk not winning the job. But is that worse than winning a job in which there is a great risk you won’t be able to do?

I would have thought a client would think better of a contractor who has allowed contingency, it is more of a guarantee that the project will complete on time. Most clients, I think, would prefer to have a guaranteed later completion date than a risky early completion date.

Sometimes it is useful to think about financial contingencies as an analogy to time contingencies. What is wrong with the contractor adding a bit of risk money into his project (it might make him uncompetitive but that is a chance he calculates). In the same way, a prudent client would have some financial buffer – if not I think he is likely to go bust almost as often as he makes a profit. Canny clients also have time contingencies (that they might not disclose to the contractor) – do you really think it a good idea fro the client to give the contractor a drop-dead date for completion that has no buffer against the time he has promised the facility to, say, a tenant?

So, Anoon… do you still think it wrong for the contractor to add contingency to the programme? Keeping it secret I would say is not good practice but it is far better than having no contingency at all. Do you know of any contracts that say contractors should not allow contingencies?

Are you related to Charlie by any chance?

David
x

Anoon

Im my ver humble opinion I believe all prudent parties to a project ought to include contingency in their plans (and costs) - given the historical eveidence of delays and overspend, not to do so is negligent.

As far as I know there are not contracts that say ’contingency periords should not be included in project schedules’.

Whether you show your contingency periods (which I advocate) or add then covertly (extending durations or whatever) is up to you but taking the latter course is fraught with it’s own problems.

David

Anoon

Excuse me if I don’t address you question, maybe if you ask me in a different thread, I would prefer this thread to be about terminal float, not whether I am and educator or not and what is the difference between planning at the sharp-end and not planning at the sharp-end. I fear a closed mind that seems to think the only alternative to sharp-end is dull-end is of little use to me.

Apologies for sounding rude but I am trying to find out some thing that is important to me and, I think is important to our discipline. If you can’t see the importance of being able to differentiate between float and contingency then maybe you should look and learn, you don’t have to get involved in every thread, just take part in those you can contribute to for a change. Chat with Charlie if you want inane banter.

David

Anoon

Thus far in the lexicon of planning ‘float’ has a specific meaning and generated as a function of the network. Contingency is not float, simplistically it is time (or money or some other resources) allocated to take guard against some future risk. It seems to me that someone, somewhere coined the phrase, or misused the phrase ‘terminal float’ to mean ‘time contingency at the end of the project’. Which is why I think it was contrived by a non-planner as a planner would know what float really is. All I am trying to find out is where/when the usage came about.

David

ps. No, I am not an educator, I have been involved in the sharp end of planning, the doing, for 30 years!

Hello Anoon

Thanks for replying. I guess I got carried away in my post... all I really wanted to know is:

Can anyone tell me where the term ’Terminal Float’ came from? I have heard it referred to recently in conjunction with the NEC contracts. A Google search on those terms does throw up a few learned papers that mention it and there are a couple of references to it in other threads on PlanningPlanet.

I imagine it was contrived by a non-planner and really means time contingency (or buffer) at the end of the project.

Thanks again

David

Thanks Matthew

Pretty much what I have read elsewhere but I am wondering if it is a correct application, at lease of the terminology.

If the contractor’s accepted programme is just left hanging and completing before the contract date dose that ’terminal float’ automatically get assigned as contingency or a time risk allowance if it is not specifically noted as that?

To me terminal float means ’float at the end’, which is not the same as a ’contingency at the end’. As I said, I am worried that we are confusing float and contingency and being aided and abetted in this by those who use precise language loosely?

Thanks again for taking the time to post.

David