(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.
In recent years, if not decades some of our institutions have taken the initiative to prohibit the Contractor to plan. Some associations have issued their own so called Recommended Practice or Good Practice and use their name to promote and justify practices that prohibit the contractor to plan using his means and methods.
What makes it worse is that lately Federal, State and Municipal Governments are using as a reference these documents and incorporate into their contract conditions or specifications some clauses drawn from these Recommended Practices.
Reference to CPM name is common in our specifications; Critical Path Method does not consider resource availability. Not CPM but Resource Constrained Schedule is a better tool for analyzing management decisions when resources are to be managed. When our institutions require CPM as the tool of choice they are preventing the use of more comprehensive tools.
Many organizations such as the AACE International make the distinction between CPM and Resource Constrained Schedules, they say they are neutral but when talking about CPM they very clearly oppose to the Resource Constrained Schedule tools. I suspect because their flagship recommended practice for delay analysis is based in old school CPM theories and therefore incapable of being applied to Resource Leveled Schedules.
The American Bar Association and other legal and professional associations seem not aware of the difference between CPM and Resource Constrained Schedules and might believe CPM can be any manual or computer tool that can be used for scheduling.
From AACE International documents: http://www.aacei.org/non/rps/53R-06.pdf
A resource leveled schedule is not the “CPM schedule” in the strictest legal sense. A resource leveled schedule is a CPM schedule that has been further adjusted to override and invalidate the CPM early and late date calculations. If the specification requires a CPM schedule submittal, then a resource leveled schedule does not meet that requirement unless the owner allows this modification to the CPM schedule. If the owner wishes to accept resource leveled schedules, then it is the responsibility of the contractor to explain exactly what changes were made in addition to the ones made during the actual CPM calculation process.
Now it comes out many contractors are be banned from planning resources with the aid of advanced computer tools just because the AACE International and other institutions does not like it, mostly because their bogus delay analysis theories are based on outdated CPM theories that cannot handle resource critical schedules.
This Delay Paranoia is getting out of control, in the rare case your job ends into court let the analyst select the methodology and use the facts to reconstruct the schedule in a way it is valid to the courts, to make his case on cause and effect. More often than not the schedule must be adjusted in order to be acceptable as a delay analysis tool; there is no need for this paranoia.
I fear the American Bar Association might end up like many government agencies endorsing AACE International interpretation that CPM is the superior tool and that Resource Constrained Schedule shall be banned.
From AACE International documents:
Some owners object to the use of forward resource leveling in schedule updates, as this may delay some activities later than they would ordinarily be shown using just CPM calculations. This has the effect of “reserving” activity float for the exclusive use of the contractor. In addition, when used in time impact analyses to determine the effects of delays, forward resource leveling has a strong tendency to produce vastly larger impacts to project completion than just CPM calculations alone.
This is wrong and misleading statement, float belongs to whoever uses it first and the contractors have a right to use it in their resource planning. As long as the schedule is reasonable and workable there shall not be any objection to deny the contractors their right for planning his resources. I believe the AACE International intentionally twists the meaning of float ownership in favor of their postulates.
Automatic resource leveling is the name the scheduling community adopted to define a procedure that essentially means computer assisted resource planning. Resource leveling constrained schedules requires sophisticated algorithms to mathematically assist the scheduler in theory search for better schedules; there is no such thing as the optimal schedule. Using artificial links as to solve the mathematical problem of resource leveling is not a good alternative as it prevents the schedule to respond to changes in resource planning that within this method requires constant changes in artificial/”soft” links.
The standard of proof on civil cases is different to those on criminal cases. Banning resource leveling prevents the contractor to make use of modern computers. Requiring an explanation for why the resource leveling algorithm yielded a specific result is asking the contractor to provide more proof than necessary, as if a criminal case. If the resulting schedule is leveled and reasonable then the contractor executed his right to use float for his benefit it he is the first to use it.
Let the contractor plan, let him decide if he is to use computer aided resource planning or if he is to use archaic methods that will require substantial manual adjustments. Let the contractor use the software of his choosing and do not make him change software on every other job.
AACEI Recommended Practices (RP) frequently calls for the comparison of Critical Path as defined by Float and Critical Path as defined by Longest Path theory, a dual definition for critical path but this is CPM methodology and therefore of no valid application on Resource Leveled Schedules, the AACEI RPs are biased in favor of old and outdated CPM theories.
The AACE International Recommended Practices are controversial not only with regard to the right of the Contractor for resource planning but also with regard to many other issues. In Publications such as The Construction Lawyer respected members of the American Barr Associations have expressed their concern about the uproar this have created and made specific comments on their disagreement with AACE International RP for Forensic Analysis.
http://barbaconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/fall-2009-const-lawyer-w-judd_001.pdf
AACE International RP clauses are being incorporated in our government contracts and even some governments jurisdictions are adopting by reference full AACE International RPs. This means in many jurisdictions contractor is being prevented from selecting his own software and methodologies to plan for resources with the aid of modern computer software.
Similar ban is frequent with regard to computer software where many government agencies are requiring use of brand name software. The Corps of Engineers recognized decades ago this was wrong, in violation of government procurement and developed a standard format for the transfer of scheduling data. Not perfect but better than the radical approach at the expense of the contractor’s rights.
Instead of books now computer software is being burned.
In recent years I have been banned from federal procurement jobs as a supplier of scheduling services because I use software different to what they “brand name” specify, when I protested they declared me in not standing position as I am not a direct supplier of services, a mere subcontractor looking for work. No contractor is going to make the case for me against mighty Uncle Sam, to think otherwise is naïve. I have no other option than to make my case in other forums.
In other countries the usual practice is just the opposite of what is becoming the American Practice. It is common practice in many European countries not to accept schedules that are not resource leveled under the premise that if the plan does not explicitly consider resources it might be impractical. Discussions on European forums are frequently at a higher level than ours as the result of their use of more modern tools because resource leveling is not frequently banned.
Many of us have no bargaining power in government construction procurement procedures, not even a voice. I invite you to join this request and make your voice be heard through your local Associations such as your AGC Chapter or The American Bar Association in case you are a Lawyer representing the interests of the Contractor, try even with your Congressman, whatever it takes for your voice be heard for as long as it takes.
I hope the institutions that believe in a free America will take social responsibility with regard to these issues.
AMERICAN CONTRACTOR MAKE YOUR VOICE BE HEARD!
Send your letters to these institutions. Post your points of view in the publications of your local association chapters. Open the debate now or shut your voice forever.
Best Regards,
Rafael Davila, PE.
Bayamón, Puerto Rico
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
The root of the problem is in on who writes the contract, especially in government contracts, there is no accountability at all. When government consultants write the contract they invariably protect themselves against any claim it is because of their fault, they will never include by their initiative clauses that can expose them.
Changes in scope, especially on Defense Development programs is a justification that shall be exposed; if justified let it be, in such case there is nothing wrong, it is a matter of Good Business Practice.
If Private Client/Owner also wants to improve performance then he shall adopt procedures to promote better performance by those we all know are the main cause of the overruns.
This means:
1. Government Procurement Procedures should require that on jobs with overruns above 15% in cost and/or contract duration an independent panel shall identify and explain who is accountable for each one overruns starting from first 1%. Then we will start to see that agencies get involved in the design very early instead of too late and the designers will do a better job.
2. Better Contracts that will assign accountability on those whose performance create the overruns.
3. Apply LD’s not only to Contractor but to Designer, Program Managers and other Representatives as well.
4. Enforce Error and Omissions claims whenever applicable.
5. Encourage Software competition.
6. Do not overload Contractors with unnecessary reports and allow them to use the tools they know.
7. Consider revising the flaws on Earned Value and other old fashioned theories such as requiring the schedule to use all contract time, allow for some buffer without this representing a change in contract terms.
8. Allow the contractor to execute better resource planning with the assistance of modern software and algorithms that are superior to those of the CPM of the 60’s. Let him use software of his choice instead of forcing the use of old software dressed to work under new operating systems. On Fixed Price contracts allow him control of means and methods otherwise do it yourself.
9. Do not expect things will change if we continue doing the same things we have been doing for decades.
http://ascpro0.ascweb.org/archives/cd/2012/paper/CPGT166002012.pdf
As long as there is no accountability this will continue forever.
American Software as a result of the complacency with outdated CPM theories of the 70’s is lagging what others are using.
From: http://www.spiderproject.ru/library/pmie01_rcp.pdf
Project schedule constraints include resource constraints, finance and supply constraints, calendar constraints and imposed dates. The critical path in the projects with imposed dates and different activity and resource calendars can consist of only one final activity. Managing project schedules, one should pay more attention to activity floats. The activities with shorter floats are more critical than the activities with longer floats. However the float should be calculated with all schedule constraints as well as the network logic taken into account. Most project management packages (with the exception of the Russian package Spider Project) do not calculate true activity floats because they do not consider resource constraints during the backward pass. The total float determined by these packages shows the time reserve for the execution of activity, however the availability of resources is completely ignored. Such time reserves cannot be used in practice. They are not the actual activity floats as defined by A PMBOK Guide.
Activity floats do not provide all the data necessary for project control. In the projects with the complicated resource assignments there may be situations when an activity has different start and finish floats. Its start cannot be postponed without delaying project finish date, although its finish can be delayed without serious consequences. Resources are often separately assigned on an activity. There are several types of independent assignments. Thus, a team of resources can be assigned on an activity to do a certain amount of work, or for a certain period of time, while other resource teams perform the rest of activity work independently - earlier, simultaneously or later.
For a birdseye view of project constraints that must be considered that can be handled using more modern software see:
Most or perhaps none of our scheduling software can properly analyze financial constraints while foreign software can.
The above is just the tip of the iceberg of why we are lagging, it is real whether or not we like it, the other options have been available on the market for several decades. We are doing it wrong in many ways, software is just one of the obvious reasons, it is not just a single factor that is preventing better management.
The method of depicting schedule margin employed by a particular project must be based upon the established recommended and best practice project methodology and process employed by the performing organization in order to be effective as a management tool. Given multiple methods that are equally effective in achieving the same outcome, the method should be based on the experience, competence and preference by the performing organization responsible for developing and maintaining the schedule as well as managing the project. To do otherwise may cause inefficient management or additional work to maintain a vital artifact and tool necessary for effective project management. Mandating specific methodologies not only may increase cost but also is contrary to the principles of performance-based acquisition.
Let the Contractor, the one responsible for performance to decide.
http://www.goaztech.com/media/documents/evmigoct06.pdf
2.2.3.7 Exclusions for Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Contract Type. The application of EVM on FFP contracts and agreements is discouraged, regardless of dollar value.
It is a fact old CPM model is keeping us frozen in time, while other industries continuously become more efficient our schedules are as bad as those of 40 years ago.
Old CPM does not account for resources but the builders of the Empire State building had no computers nor CPM and knew floor one goes after foundations, floor 2 after floor 1 and so on the key was planning for resources; limited hoisting (equipment resources), limited storage space => constrained materials deliveries (consumable resources) ...
Planning for complex jobs can work, but we need better tools.
http://barbaconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/fall-2009-const-la...
Fundamental Concerns
As discussed above, there are many concerns, large and small, technical and philosophical, and analytical and legal, with the RP. But two overarching fundamental concerns are worthy of repetition.
From: http://www.cfm.va.gov/TIL/spec/01321613.docx
The above conditions forces the contractor to use external services for the mere existence of a schedule he will not use in actual management of his job but to fulfill a contractual requirement that pretend to hijack his planning ability.
Do you believe a contractor is going to allow an external scheduler that is foreign to his enterprise to have such influence on management of their jobs? Do you believe it makes sense to use a neutral scheduler to represent the contractor on his claims and that the VA scheduler is going to be equally neutral?
But our courts recognize the CPM schedule as valid only when used as a management tool so it might be that the contractor ends up with no claim tool, and this is precisely what these specifications are aimed to do. The contractor must plan with his own means and methods but by doing so he might end up waiving his right to a claim?
Excessive paperwork is killing businesses.
It is not a fair game and the VA is not the only agency with such practices. Most of our best contractors are opting to stay away from government contracts but some such as those doing Road Works have no option.
Mike,
For your enjoyment.
http://www.arcadis-us-pmcm.com/blog/fog-and-smoke-and-mirrors/
Eventually the Agencies will realize how difficult if not impossible it is to manage the database.
The Corps of Engineers is what all American agencies shall emulate. Asta is an option that shall always be on the table. You know how much respect I got not only for the product but also for the team that is behind it.
They have several other products such as Tilos software specifically designed for a market that work on linear projects, another reason not to ban the tools to be used for planning.
http://www.astadev.com/products/tilos/
There are international trade agreements with respect to software, among them intellectual property shall be protected and no obstacles shall be imposed by government agencies to the use of software from other countries. If we want agreements against foreign trade barriers be respected we shall lead by example.
In addition there are Federal Acquisitions Regulations that prohibit Federal Agencies to use brand name specifications unless an exception is granted case by case.
http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/fas/Brand_Name_Specs.pdf
Among the hundreds of jobs Federal Agencies procure using brand name specifications a local VA Hospital Building and Improvements to the San Juan Federal Court.
These Agencies want to prevent contractors from establishing their claims and booby trap the schedules for the American Contractor to pay for their errors.
One of the nation's largest contractors Kiewit-Turner wants to abandon a Veterans Affairs hospital site near Denver. In a complaint filed with the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals the company says the V A is unable to submit building plans within the original design budget and is now some $200 million over. The situation appears to be a mirror of other contract boondoggles when one looks at the numbers gleaned from GAO accounting audits of the federal agency.
$1.392 billion over budget in four jobs and all because of the American Contractor? Not much, Big Dig was worst and also the fault of the Agencies that could not maintain a simple Baseline.
The CPM for all practical purposes have become a huge exculpatory clause.
Happy Holidays
Hi Rafael
Well done.
Things are improving in some respects - I have just learnt that the Corps of Engineers have endorsed Asta PowerProject as being fully compliant with their software specifications.
So there is a good chance that you can get Spider on the list too.
Happy Christmas and a Prosperous New Year
Mike Testro
This statement is false there is not such thing as an optimal schedule, there are hundred if not thousands of way to schedule the same job. If you give it to 100 schedulers you will get 100 different schedules, it is not an exact science. The contractor shall be able to plan his job in a reasonable way, not exclusively in optimal way, there is no way to determine optimal way, it is a catch 22 promoted by their RPs.
Delay Paranoia is not the only cause in our contracts that prevents the contractor to make his plans.
It is also on the abuse of other tools related to scheduling that are misused and mandated that are creating much of the failures of today. An example of other tool that is abused is the handling of baselines.
Perhaps the worst with regard to baseline is the missuses of Earned Value, that as well as any modeling tool has its limitation.
A recent failure is well known by many of us, this is the case of the Big Dig, where the inability of the Program Manager to keep baseline up to date prevented the multiple contractors of performing as their contracts required them to plan sticking to the [outdated Baseline].
http://warnercon.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/AContinuouslyChanging1.pdf
(Sorry for making many references to AACE International papers but whenever I search on the internet I get too many hits related to this organization.)
If you know Earned Value Management you already know the procedure promotes keeping the baseline unchanged. Perhaps due to misunderstanding on how this shall be applied to Construction jobs but the damage is real.
Unfortunately it looks like there is a possibility the contractors will not be able to make their claim even when they followed contractual instructions. In any case I believe our courts shall make substantial awards to those affected by playing by the rules and those who wrote the rules shall pay.
Find out who the model specifications writers are, maybe the dominant are those with economic interests as representative of the Owner and pretend to booby trap the specifications to the point they and their clients become immune to otherwise valid claims. All at the expense of the contractor rights.
Why some models specifications insist in advocating for banning use of computer aided resource planning when NASA and many others, especially in foreign countries are taking full advantage of these tools?
Let the planner decide. Do not promote software monopolies that are a kill to American ingenuity. Allow Americans to jump into the new millennium. Too much Delay Paranoia!
From: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/Resources_Papers_152.html
A Resource Optimisation approach:
Adopting a resource optimisation approach would involve changing the underlying philosophical approach embedded in CPM from a belief that the pre-determined duration and sequencing of activities takes precedence, constrained by the availability of resources (if resource levelling is used); to one that recognises the real objective of scheduling is to keep the resources working effectively (resource work flows) and any activity sequencing represents a constraint on the locations where resources can work.
This change in approach would represent a totally new paradigm in the modern age, although interestingly, the original objective of CPM was resource optimisation! CPM was dumbed down to its current form to achieve realistic processing times on the computers available in the late 1950s; unfortunately almost no-one has moved on from the basic structure for a CPM model that were fully defined by the early 1960s despite the massive advances in computer power. Re-introducing resource optimisation would result in:
This is a longer term option that could be as radical as the shift from barcharts to CPM. Developing this paradigm will require academic research, resulting in new approaches to software, contracts and the management of projects.
From: http://www.lorman.com/newsletters/article.php?article_id=573&newsletter_id=127&category_id=3
CPM Schedules are Overused and Misused
CPM schedules are used where they are not appropriate (in a large proportion of construction projects) and for inappropriate purposes. The former applies to the use of CPM scheduling in lieu of other more appropriate scheduling (planning) techniques that have been usurped by CPM. The latter comment applies particularly to the use of the schedule as a progress payment tool and for claims purposes.
In this regard owners are attempting to use the schedule, and therefore develop the specification, for too many purposes. The more you “get the schedule to do,” the more complex the schedule becomes, and the more complex the accompanying specification…all of which dilutes the real purpose of a schedule, which is to provide a forward looking planning tool.
The irony of using the schedule as a payment mechanism is that for work to be paid, it must be physically measured as having been done. (The mere representation on a schedule does not connote the fact.) If the work is measured, and a record of it exists, then why is there a need to separately and discretely represent it on the schedule? Using the schedule as a payment tool unnecessarily increases the level of detail.
http://www.nflaace.org/index_files/john_orr_cost_loaded_schedule_updating_pdf.pdf
The Claims Prevention Folly
Schedule analysis can only assist in the interpretation and impact of quantifiable delaying events. Here are some observations from my years of dealing with construction claims:
• Schedule disputes arise from one side trying to offset its failures on the other.
• Seldom does the resolution of a claim turn purely or significantly on a CPM schedule analysis.
• The underlying facts are much more important than the overall CPM schedule analysis.
• Forensic schedule analysis is a very imprecise science and has often been criticized by the courts.
• Juries don’t understand CPM schedules.
• The battle of experts will merely give the jury two analyses it cannot understand.
Some believe that CPM schedule analysis can prove, as if by magic, construction delays. This is not the case. Nevertheless, CPM scheduling gained prominence for its purported ability to prove construction delays. Schedule specifications are, in part at least, an offshoot of this. Fearful of the cost of delay impacts, owners often want “bulletproof” protection in the event of a delay and, consequently, experts in forensic scheduling frequently write schedule specifications.
However, there is a certain paradox in that these so-called “bullet-proof” schedule specifications are often in fact bad specifications. A bad specification leads to a bad schedule. A bad schedule is ineffective as a project management tool. A poor project management tool gives rise to poor contractor performance, a delay, and ultimately a claim. The “bulletproof schedule specification” causes the very thing it set out to avoid.
When relatively few construction projects end in a dispute, is it not better to draft the specification for the desired outcome rather than the unlikely one?
The problem is not on the tool nor the user but on how it is being mandated to be used. Let the one in charge of the means and methods use the planning tools he knows, do not disrrupt and obstruct his work.
From: http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~ibbs/BRICS/Materials/Nguyen_Ibbs_DelayAnalysis_2006.pdf
DELAY ANALYSIS CONSIDERING RESOURCE ALLOCATION Long D. Nguyen and William Ibbs Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA ABSTRACTEmail: PPadmin@planningplanet.com
Replies