(1) Explain your problem, don't simply post "This isn't working". What were you doing when you faced the problem? What have you tried to resolve - did you look for a solution using "Search" ? Has it happened just once or several times?
(2) It's also good to get feedback when a solution is found, return to the original post to explain how it was resolved so that more people can also use the results.
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Thanks Chris.
I fully understand why the RP came up with the different names, but in my experience there is still confusion in the industry for anyone looking to understand delay analysis.
Regards
Toby
Thanks, Mike, I would like to hear about the High Court in India when you get that experience.
Rafael:
The RP on TIA that I mentioned is designed to be used prospectively, not retrospectively, so it doesn't apply for a delay that has been absorbed into the project already. That would then be a forensic analysis and now you are in the realm of the FSA RP. The FSA RP is not designed to be used prospectively as well.
In your example, where the owner halts the construction of Building 1 until Building 2 is complete, that is a very simple TIA to model (prospectively, it sounds like). I would update the schedule to the current status, record that completion date, and then simply add a relationship FS from the completion of the Building 2 to the beginning (or resumption) of the Building 1. That is a simple modeling of your example. Then whatever the revised completion date is, would provide the EoT request.
Your point that this type of changed condition when modeled doesn't lend itself to zeroing out the durations is an excellent one; the example is for insertion of fragnets which should not affect the logic without recognizing why. So, I think the test of zeroing out still is a valid and useful one, and if it fails, then you have to check out why. Good check anyway.
We use calendars for adverse weather planning more than anything else. I personally haven't used calendars for something like halting work, but I do use them for proving weather entitlement by actualizing the calendars.
I have to run now, I'll be in touch. Thanks,
Chris
Chris,
If my job consists of the remodeling of four buildings and all can be done at the same time but suddenly the owner orders the stoppage of the already ongoing remodeling of building 2 until major re-design is performed, what would be my fragnet?
For the above we use calendars not fragnets. At home it is not uncommon to require a TIA for rain delays, here again we use calendars never fragnets. The RP does not mention the use of calendars as a possibility, this procedure is kind of short.
If in the same job we have not started remodeling of building 3 and the owner ask for building 3 be delayed until building 2 is finished, what would be my fragnet?
If the fragnet links start of 3 with finish of 2 this per-se can be a single activity fragnet, an activity of zero duration but by itself might increase the duration of the project.
I don't get the idea on how the suggestion of zeroing the duration of the fragent activity can always ensure the fragnet logic, kind of misleading suggestion especially when performing the analysis on a monthly window. Here very rarely we apply 20 independent TIAs with 20 updates within a single month. Perhaps AACEi concept of TIA does not includes windows analysis and therefore is very limited, to the extent it cannot solve compensation issues. Perhaps industry would be better served if instead of snapshot TIAs a Windows Analysis is prescribed as to solve not only EOT but concurrency and compensation. Perhaps it is very convenient for the Owner and those representing the Owner to delay the issue of compensation and concurrency.
At home, unless the issue on who owns the float is clearly stated on the contract, no contractor would use as a reference a procedure that has a one sided interpretation on who owns the float. Here we make our own schedules and create float at some cost, at times by increasing work hours or availability of resources. This procedure apportioning of float is a gift to the Owner at the expense of the Contractor.
If float is a commodity and as such could be sold on the NYSE the value of stock would be very high. Float is not free, the use of it is always at some cost, requiring the contractor to give it all float for free is wrong. That float belongs to whoever uses it first is a big lie, perhaps endorsed by those who do not care how this affects the contractor but whose interest is on winning a few points with an owner, perhaps a common attitude of those who perform "Program Management" services to government agencies.
Best regards,
Rafael
PS. I believe AACE International should consider becoming a PP Partner, to encourage its members to dare to take some beating as this is an informal forum where debate is welcomed. I have received already my share of beatings but is on the disclosure of my errors that I learn the most.
Hi Chris
It is good to have your contribution to the PP debates.
In the UK most disputes regarding construction programmes are settled in the Adjudication process and most do not get reported.
The problem here is that the appointed adjudicator could well be a money or process expert who has read a few books on delay analysis.
Add to this the fact that even the most complex of cases have to be settled within 28 calendar days we regularly get the most bizarre results.
We do get to hear about them when they are challenged in court or when a magazine pundit gets to write them up.
The few cases held in open court are all openly reported and didscussed and the resulting rulings chewed over at great length.
The latest two cases turned upon the opposing experts used basically different methods of analysis.
In both cases the one using Collapsed As Built lost spectacularly as the Judges preferred the more pragmatic method that we Brits call Time Impact Analysis where actual progress is taken into account.
Twenty years ago - when I started dabbling in computer driven delay analysis - I could get away with the most blatent Bovine Scatology presentation which baffled most brains but not these days where direct cause and effect has to be clearly demonstrated.
I am currently based in India working with a large contractor and we have a number of cases that could well reach the Indian High Court in the near future - I am looking forward to that experience.
Best regards
Mike T.
Mike:
We, the authors and as far as I know, the contributors to the FSA RP, agree with you the existence of a black art is an industry problem, and much of the opposition to the RP seems to be that it is trying to clarify methods in an effort to bring analysis out into the light. In the States, we have had the Daubert ruling which is changing the face of analysis and testimony. Under Daubert, analysis must rise to the level of a scientific experiment, meaning that there must be a process, documented, peer reviewed, and possible of replication, in order for an analysis (and an expert) to stand the test of legitimate analysis.
While lots of people gripe about Daubert, I think that it's a good thing to force analysts to document their methods, prove they are scientific, and to expose them to the light of day. I have some great cartoons about schedule analysis that show complicated formulas with "and then a miracle happens".
I have sat across from too many "experts' who spun fairy tales with no documentation to back them up not to want to improve the quality of analysis, and this is certainly a good step. Is it perfect? Of course not, it is a complicated science/art, but every honest attempt to categorize and define methods improve the industry.
So, that was part of the rationale for this effort. In addition, the factors to consider in using each methodology was fun to review and edit; those are the challenges that can be used against each methodology.
Good discussions, thanks.
Chris
Toby: Part of the purpose for the development of the Forensic Schedule Analysis Recommended Practice was to help classify methods of claims analysis since the industry common names are all over the board. The new method names were chosen to describe how the methodology works.
If you read all the methods, each one has the "common names" listed, and those lists reinforce that the industry, prior to the issuance of this RP, has never had commonly understood names for methodologies. I have heard so many terms that imply variations for analysis methods that it makes my head spin. One of the reasons I got involved with this effort was to help clarify and categorize methods. Just about a month ago, I got a call from an attorney client who said that the opposition expert report that we were waiting on was being developed using a methodolgy the opposition called an "As-Built Minus". I did an internet search, and as far as I could tell, there had been only example of someone performing this type of analysis, and that was an academic one. When questioned further, the opposition indicated that it was a form of Collapsed As-Built. When we got the analysis, it actually was a retrospective or forensic TIA (MIP 3.7 - Modeled Additive Multi-Base), and they inserted fragnets representing delay and then took them back out to show the results (thus the minus). It didn't and doesn't make sense.
So, I have reviewed and rebutted enough analyses that were called "TIAs" (which could be almost any method, MIP 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.5, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9), but were actually Impacted As-Planned (MIP 3.6 - Modeled Additive Single Base), or analyses that were called "Windows" analyses, that were actually As-Planned vs. As-Built (MIP 3.1 - Observational Static Logic Gross). The point is that if someone in the industry says they are using a TIA, it doesn't really mean any particular method. So, there is great value in the RP, even if it is a lot to get through.
Rafael: While you have understood correctly that the forensic method MIP 3.6 is similar to a prospective Time Impact Analysis, the MIP 3.6 describes analysis solely for use once the impact has been absorbed into the project, in other words, the delay is in the past, so the as-built condition of the schedule shows the results of the impacts. When you want to perform a contemporaneous prospective TIA, done during the project (as is proper and should be everyone's favority analysis), you should use another excellent RP, RP No. 52R-06, Time Impact Analysis - As Applied in Construction.
Ron Winter was a co-author for this Prospective TIA publication and it's very good. I had done a lot of TIAs in my life, and I learned a neat trick from the RP that I never thought of before. The RP suggests that once the fragnet is inserted and tied in correctly, you should zero out the durations in the fragnet and recalculate to ensure that the fragnet logic, by itself, does not increase the duration of the project even without durations. I think that's pretty sharp, and something that I never thought about prior to reading the RP.
Email: PPadmin@planningplanet.com
Replies