Mike

We had a brief chat about this when we met at the Big Projects Expo (and I realise I might be going off topic in this response) but my view is that, unless there are compelling reasons otherwise, the parties should stick with the software that the programme was produced in originally.

I wrote about this in a recent paper:



“In the period since 1994 the number of different software packages in use has considerably reduced. A legitimate reason to convert from one software to another is where the original software is no longer available. This was the situation the 2005 case, Great Eastern Hotel -v- John Laing Construction . The original programme was developed using Hornet software and was converted to Powerproject by the claimants’ programming expert and to Primavera by the defendant’s programming expert.

Similarly, programmes might not have been originally produced using computer software or that just a paper copy exists by the time the specialists become involved in the project. In order to carry out a computer-based analysis the specialist will have to recreate the programme in electronic format. In the recent case in the Scottish Courts, City Inn -v- Shepherd Construction , the original programme produced using SureTrak software was only available in paper format. Both programming experts used Powerproject software to recreate the programme.

It is unlikely that these three reasons account for the vast disparity between the software used by contractors and by experts. Despite what the Protocol suggests, experts appear willing to convert from the original software to another regardless of the deficiencies of doing so or perhaps because they are unaware of the risks of such action. The more likely reason that experts transfer from the original software is one of familiarity with a particular product and a perception that it is superior to the original software; that it will facilitate more rigorous analysis and that it will produce the ‘correct answer’. Experts should not have to rely on one product because of their familiarity with it, by definition experts ought to be proficient using a wide range of software.

In the 2004 case, Skanska Construction Ltd –v- Egger Ltd , the original programme was developed in Powerproject. The claimants left the programme in the original software whereas the defendant’s programming expert converted it to Primavera. In the judgement, HH Judge David Wilcox said:

‘Mr Pickavance recast programme 100B in Primavera format. There are, I am satisfied, errors in Mr Pickavance’s programme BA00.’

It is not possible here to determine if the errors referred were as a result of the conversion processes or not. The judgement also alludes to the reasoning for the change but also seemingly rejects this:

’Egger submit that the software used by Mr Simpson [the claimants’ witness] is incapable of producing a reliable analysis since Power Project is primarily a planning tool creating a graphic representation, it is a dated system and does not have the sophistication of the Pickavance system but I am satisfied that it also has a significant capacity for logical connections and for identifying critical paths and for re-scheduling activities to show how events change.’”



David