Hi Wasi

Everything depends on how good your As Built Records are.

If you can show a fully detailed As Built record that demonstrates clearly - Who did What Where and When - then you can use either the Time Impact Analysis or the As Built but For Method or the As Built v As Planned.

No detailed As Built records means that you have to fall back on the Impacted as Planned method which is very risky and easily defeated.

I often come across site diaries that state the number of tradesmen on site but not what they were doing or where on site they were working so the data is valueless.

For any form of analysis you need three things:

1. A baseline programme that is reasonable and responsive that reflects the Contract Programme

2. A schedule of events where each has an impact date that can be cross referenced to one or more activity.

3. A detailed As Built programme that underlies the baseline programme.

From that sort of starting point you have a reasonable chance of success.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Hi Charleston-Joseph.
This is a good subject for debate.
The As Built v As Planned method is one of 4 accepted methods.
I only use it in the cirumstances that I described ie a sub-contract package sandwiched between other works. The last time was last November in an International Arbitration supporting an Italian Cladding company waiting for a French Contractor to complete the insitu concrete frame for an American client in Russia.
UK arbitration using the law of the state of New York.
The result was a pre hearing settlement in favour of the Italian Contractor.
My advice is to select your analysis method very carefully - sometimes a combination of different methods is needed.
Best regards
Mike Testro

It is svery implistic, young keyboard jockeys can do it..

Too good to be true (true picture of the project).

It hide your client faults hence concurrent delays.

No need to hire forensic scheduling analyze

It send wrong signal to project management practitioner

should not be promoted as the ultimate solution

If I work on the opposite side, such claims will not succeed because I used dynamic approach (true picture of the project).

Good Morning
In a critical path programme productivity is measured by using the inbuilt resource modelling software.
To start with the durations in your chart have to be generated by the anticipated output of the lead resource - taken from the cost plan.
In P3 this is very time consuming as each set of data has to be entered individually but in PowerProject your excell data can be cut and pasted in seconds.
Instead of multiple resources for different trades I have developed a simple system using 1 resource called "hours".
For instance if your cost plan has 1500 hrs worth of plaster work and your programme has 100 plastering activities then on average there will be 150 resource hours allocated to each chart activity. Setting a gang size of 3 will generate a duration of 50 hrs.
If your actual gang size is 2 plasterers then you can expect a duration of 75 hrs.
With resource modelling the increased durations will show the anticipated effect on the critical path.
Best regards
Mike Testro

do not use the

as planned as built

that is for the lazy, planning jokers mickey mouse and donald duck

go for dynamic approach using TIA