Dera All,
i agree with anderw
a party must prove that they HAVE incurred losses as a result of the other parties actions.
based on the above role a decision should be taken regarding the compesation(EOT with assiociated cost or EOT without cost).

Rafael,

You asked:

"The contractor is entitled to EOT’s when concurrency exists, on the other hand in order to be awarded monetary compensation he still must prove he would not have incurred in the claimed extra costs if the absence of the Owner’s caused delays."


Turn that slightly on it’s head - as in any claim - a party must prove that they HAVE incurred losses as a result of the other parties actions. Subtle difference.

Hi David - Hi Toby

I have just noticed that the full title for the CIOB publication is:

The CIOB Guide to Good Practice in Managing Time in Complex Projects

That was my point entirely - why concentrate on "Complex Projects" - the majority of construction work is relatively simple and they still cock up the planning and reporting.

I suppose the thoughts are that if you follow the complex principles for complex projects then the simple projects will fall into place.

No one involved in simple projects will read the guide - and if they do I doubt if they will either recognise the language or try to apply the guidance.

At most maybe 10% of the industry will get some benefit and the rest will just have to muddle through.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Mike

Unfortunatly the majority of the group were not in agreement with your view on what the guide should be.

In any event, very good luck with your publication.

Regards

Toby

Hi Toby

As you will recall I spent some time on the drafting committe and completed all the comissions alloted to me plus a few extra that I volunteered to do.

After attending three reveiw meetings I quit because my own knowledge and experience was brushed aside as irrelevant.

I was one of a few who were advocating a practical approach to assist what I referred to as a newly promoted 30 year old construction manager faced with planning his first project.

It soon became apparent that the thrust was going to be aimed at the big companies that have their own planning departments - and built in systems that will not change.

I also reacted to the dogmatic "Thou Shalt" approach rather than "perhaps you should consider" tone.

I have now embarked on my own handbook "Basic Planning for Builders" which - now that the copyright issue has been ironed out - will include parts of my submission to the CIOB draft.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Shahul

Even though I consider Time Impact Analysis (TIA) a methodology easy to apply I always had my issues to understand its limitations with regard to monetary compensation.

TIA is a methodology for schedule analysis to deal with Owner’s caused delays where Contractor’s caused delays are also to be included but the procedure alone can only resolve the issue on extension of time or EOTs.

Monetary compensation is a further issue whose analysis might start with the TIA procedure or any other forensic procedure, the question goes beyond. A TIA while establishing concurrency do exists it per-se cannot solve the matter on monetary compensation while concurrency exists. Here the Contractor argues concurrency does not exist but it was pacing while the Owner blames the concurrency on the Contractor.

The contractor is entitled to EOT’s when concurrency exists, on the other hand in order to be awarded monetary compensation he still must prove he would not have incurred in the claimed extra costs if the absence of the Owner’s caused delays.

Best regards,
Rafael

Toby

I suppose the easy way to close down a discussion is to say deal with the issues. Perhaps equally as productive would be to address some of the criticisms.

If you look back I was saying that whilst it is an untested hypothesis, it is fair to assume that many of the projects that end in disputes do so as a result of the contract not having been administered properly during the currency of the project. In other words I was generally agreeing with the suggestions of the CIOB report.

Mike came back and cited the CIOB survey and suggested in a roundabout way that it had proven the hypothesis – it has not done, those questions, as far as I can see from the data, were not asked.

I am on record, in letters published in Construction Manager for instance, supporting the initiative of the CIOB on this matter and have been calling for the very same thing in my published work over the last few years. In my first treatise on the subject, back in 1994, I said:

This report has highlighted a number of areas upon which recommendations can be made to reduce construction project delay disputes and to aid their resolution if they occur.
1. Ensure that all parties to the contract are aware of their obligations and rights under the contract. Ensure that notices are issued and responded to timeously.
2. Be aware of the current status of contract law. It is considered that disputes may arise because one or other of the parties are ignorant of case law.
3. Use programmes and project management software in a proactive manner to identify potential problems before they occur, thus allowing more opportunity to find solutions.
4. Keep adequate records – these will be invaluable in proving or defending your case.
5. Analyse delays contemporaneously, preferably both parties jointly.
6. Prevent disputes where ever possible. Delay analysis, especially when carried out retrospectively is time consuming and a potential waste of resources.

I am not espousing negativity of the initiative of the CIOB (I have been a Fellow for probably longer than you have been in the industry) but I do have misgivings about the quality of the research and the analysis and commentary on the results.

What I do object to, which you interpret as negativity, is contractor bashing and the insinuation that most of us involved in planning are uneducated monkeys. I think it somewhat hypocritical for a report, no matter how well-meaning and no matter how much I support it’s general aims, to be in parts, in my opinion, inaccurate, misleading and biased in its reportage. It seems you are unable to acknowledge that some elements of the report/survey are incomprehensible (chart 17?) and further they are the product of ‘experienced’ practitioners who, from my reading of their CVs the majority do not seem to hold the qualifications they propose the rest of us practitioners ought to have.

So… if I may dare make a suggestion (without appearing negative) – I trust the industry review will be more representative and capable (that is, people who do have occasion to read, write and consider construction schedules).

And a final point, what was the original schedule for publishing the guide? From what I recall (perhaps Mike could confirm this) the original timetable for the production of the guide was September 2009. Has the programme slipped!

David

I am flattered... but being a self-confessed ’monkey’ I think I’ll have to leave all the training to you!

Mike

You know I am acutely aware of the CIOB survey, which I have many misgivings about. For instance, it found that the most frequently used software (in the UK I presume) to produce the project schedule was Microsoft Project at 52 percent! Anyone with any real experience of the UK Construction Industry knows that is not the case and the data is probably skewd by the complexity of the original questionnaire, the small response and the principal occupation of the respondents.

We are told that there were 73 respondents to the survey (a hit rate of about 18 percent). I am a little confused how many answered the planning and scheduling part of the survey:
Of the 73 respondents, 11 said that they did not have occasion to read, write or consider construction schedules, this section of the questionnaire was thus answered by 68 respondents.

The summary says:
In around two-thirds of building projects and four-fifths of engineering projects, it was perceived that the contractor was predominantly held to blame for any delay to completion.
This seems to be different to what the data shows (at least with regard to building projects):
… in 37% of all low-rise the contractor was predominantly to blame for the delay to completion. and … in 41% of all high-rise projects the contractor was perceived to be predominantly to blame for the delay to completion.

As you are aware the main contractor is not solely responsible for the time management of projects, or at least in my opinion, it should be a holistic team approach. There is a really confusing graph (Chart 17 – Method of time management) which is headed ‘The way time is currently managed on site’. The data shows:
52% Professional services
37% Project management
10% General contracting
1% Specialist trade contractor
The text that goes with the graph says:
Chart 17 indicates that in the experience of just over 50% or respondent answering this question a master time-management (sic)

Anyway, back to my original point of it being an untested hypothesis I don’t think the CIOB report, in the analysis published, has determined and relationship between the method or effort put into planning and the success of a project. For instance, of those that use what the report says are ‘sophisticated planning tools’ are their results by way of liability for delay to the completion of projects greater or less than for those who do not use project planning software. I think there is an assumption that that is the case but I don’t think the data actually establishes that.

The research was influenced by the members of the project team on the basis of their own experiences of project failure through delays, time-based claims and disputes. I have expounded at length elsewhere I do not like contractor bashing and references to ‘is you planner a monkey’. The authors do acknowledge that some projects are managed very well indeed – it would be useful to research the manner in which those projects are time managed, if they are any different from what the CIOB research seeks to suggest. But as the research does not tell us, as far as I can see other than by gut feeling (common sense?), is there a causal link between time management effort, techniques, software use, and so on and successful projects?

I have often wondered what differentiates a planning monkey from a ‘good’ planner. The CIOB report thinks it has the answer:
It was felt that the education of planning engineers should be mainly at university degree and post-graduate levels, while that of project schedulers should be at pre-degree (higher technician) and degree level though much is through work experience only. However, we have concluded that the education and training needed to prepare all those involved in the management of time on construction projects is unsatisfactory.
It would be very interesting to know what the formal specialist education of the authors of the report is and if it anywhere matches what they say a planning engineer/project scheduler should have. As they say regarding the thesis of the research:
This was expounded by members of the project team on the basis of their own experiences of project failure through delays, time-based claims and disputes.
It makes me wonder if this is an admission of ‘monkey’ status or even ‘humpty dumpty’ status.

David

The full CIOB report can be downloaded at http://www.ciob.org.uk/filegrab/TM_report_full_web.pdf?ref=880 and the summary at www.ciob.org.uk/filegrab/TM_summary_web.pdf?ref=881

All,

Oh, a good debate could come out of this thread.

Very sadly have to say that reality and good practice are sometimes worlds apart, whether it’s on the part of the contractor or contract administrator, but hey, keeps me in work.

As for the state of delay analysis between USA and UK, haven’t got time to write a book so will decline to comment other than say if you take the AACE document, go through all the methods, pick out various bits from the methods given and combine them into one method - then you get UK TIA. There’s actually nothing done in the UK method that isn’t included in that document, all the bits just hasn’t been brought all together into one method. Basically take MIP 3.7, add some more bits from other methods such as stepped insertion, half stepping, etc and you have UK style TIA.

But then in Scotland, common sense and a narrative based on no CPM analysis at all may be enough, but I hear that particular case is up for appeal this month although the judgment may not be forthcoming for a few months yet. Fingers crossed.

Thanks for your replies Rafael and Trevor

Thankfully this will be short - composing on a BlackBerry on the way to the Little Britain Callenge Cup.

R - There was a mega-thread some time ago (maybe 3 or 4 years back) about the origins, definition and ownership of the term Time Impact Analysis (I’ll look it up when I get back).

What is generally accepted as being TIA in the UK wasn’t termed that when it was first developed. I think KP in the first edition of DDICC called it ’Snapshot’ analysis (don’t quote me, working from memory).

T - I said it was an ’untested hypothesis’ because the statement was in an academic report and I had not measured or quantified it in any way. Anecdotal evidence or common sense only. It would make make a good subject for a serious piece of research though.

David

David

TIA in the US was always as a prospective analysis method contrary to the UK where it was developed as a retrospective analysis method. Note that there are many definitions for TIA, some quite different to each other. It seems to me they were completely different animals sharing the same name.

Our system of law has a preference for the Contemporaneous Method which hinges on the principle that in order to determine the impact of delaying events, the status of the project must be established at the time those events occurred.

Two approaches are commonly used as part of this method: Time Impact Analysis, which looks at a particular point in time and utilizes a series of chronological time slices to evaluate major scheduling variations that occurred during the project, and Window Analysis, which examines the critical path between two points in time and assesses the delay as it occurs. Courts and boards hold that contemporaneous schedule updates should be considered in evaluating delay. The Contemporaneous Method is favored because it provides a baseline for measuring delay; the status of the project at the time a delay occurs; the impact of delaying events on remaining work; and insight into float, changes to critical path, and revisions to the plan to complete.

Please refer to the following link for a more detailed discussion.

http://www.cpmiteam.com/assets/CauseEffectVol1.pdf

Probably in posting #45 I should have said that what at time shocks me is how exculpatory clauses common in my jurisdiction might relieve the Owner from the Duty to Mitigate Doctrine, sorry I was not clear, is just that I find them so often that I forgot to mention in our construction contracts Duty to Mitigate Doctrine is usually one sided because of these clauses.

Things are changing for the good in some states, as for example Ohio, the problem in Puerto Rico is that our state/territory government and the US federal government abuse these clauses, those who make the laws.

http://www.ralaw.com/resources/documents/Construction%20News%202008.pdf

Best regard,
Rafael

Another quick one…

Time Impact Analysis was originally developed as a retrospective method (by that I mean carried out at the end of the project).

The original philosophy of the technique still holds true:

“The majority of the existing methods identified earlier involve a retrospective look at the project once it has finished. This is probably as a result of the techniques having been developed to determine and attribute delays after the project is complete and when a claim has been submitted and perhaps the contract is in dispute and subject to alternative dispute resolution, arbitration or court proceedings.

Whilst it is an untested hypothesis, it is fair to assume that many of the projects that end in disputes do so as a result of the contract not having been administered properly during the currency of the project. In respect of construction project delays, this is a result of individual activity delays and their causes not being identified, analysed, determined and attributed contemporaneously. The proposed methodology uses this premise as its basis; to analyse the delays in the chronological sequence reflecting the manner in which they would have been analysed if the analysis had been carried out at the ’correct’ time. The simplistic view being that the additional restraints (or impacts) that are added to the as-planned network during the simulation would have formed part of the as-planned network if they had been known at the time of its production.

The techniques proposed therefore are not novel. These are the techniques of dynamic planning and scheduling, of keeping the as-planned network up to date throughout the currency of the project. This simple approach allows assessment to he made of three important aspects that are largely ignored by previous methods:

> The progress of the project at the time the delaying event occurred.
> The changing nature of the critical path:
> The effects of action taken, or that should have reasonably been taken, to minimise potential delays.

The proposed technique is critical path method based and is described as ’the simulation of construction project delays using network techniques`.

Simulation is defined in BS 4335:1987 as:

‘The processing of a project model (usually mathematical) to reproduce what would be expected to happen in the project, with different conditions and different starting points’.”

I AM NOT A LAWYER so take all this with a pinch of salt and don’t rely on it!

And my memory is fading but I am pretty sure that the majority of standard forms of construction contract do not use the word ‘mitigate’.

Again, as far as I know (in English Law) there is a common duty to mitigate damages and in that context the Owner does have a duty to mitigate.

Before going too far it is also useful to remind ourselves what mitigation means, ’to make something less harmful, unpleasant or bad’. It does not mean, ’to do away with altogether’. There is also an overarching principle that it should be reasonable, practicable and proportionate.

However, it is generally wrong to say (subject to the precise contract wording) that there is a contractual obligation to prevent and/or mitigate delay’. Generally, JCT contracts for instance say something like ‘shall use constantly his best endeavours to prevent delay…’. In simplistic terms I think this means that the contractor is to attempt to prevent delay not to prevent delay.

Some say that ‘best endeavours’ requires the contractor to do more than the lower standard of ‘reasonable endeavours’. I am aware of no case law that actually states this. However, the SCL Protocol says (at paragraph 1.5.2):
Note that the requirement in the UK Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) contracts for the Contractor to use ‘best endeavours’ to prevent delay to the progress of the works and prevent completion of the works being delayed beyond the completion date may place a higher burden on the Contractor than the normal duty to mitigate. …

The obligation does not require the contractor to expend substantial sums to reduce the delay. In Midland Land Reclamation -v- Warren Energy it was held that the best endeavours obligation was not the next best thing to an absolute obligation or guarantee. In Terrell -v- Mabie Todd it was held the obligation does not extend to a situation where a company should put itself at risk of financial ruin to fulfil its obligation. It does seem clear however that it should carry out such actions that are commercially practicable and incur any reasonable associated cost in order to fulfil its responsibilities.

The more recent case Rhodia International Holdings -v- Huntsman International attempts to differentiate between ‘reasonable endeavours’ and ‘best endeavours’ but there remains little guidance of what is expected by way of example in the construction industry. The consensus appears to be that ‘reasonable endeavours’ oblige the contractor to take only one reasonable course of action, not all of them. ‘Best endeavours’ is likely to oblige the contractor to investigate and/or take all reasonable courses of action. In either case the emphasis is on a reasonable course of action.
The SCL Protocol is helpful in this regard (okay, not everyone likes the Protocol!):
1.5     Mitigation of Delay
1.5.1     The Contractor has a general duty to mitigate the effect on its works of employer Risk Events. Subject to express contract wording or agreement to the contrary, the duty to mitigate does not extend to requiring the Contractor to add extra resources or to work outside its planned working hours.
and
1.13.4     The limitations on the Contractor’s obligations to mitigate Employer Delay are set out in Guidance section 1.5. The Contractor does not have a duty to carry out any change in scope any more efficiently than the original scope. Neither is the Contractor obliged to expend money in order to mitigate the effect of an Employer Risk Event. If the Employer wishes the Contractor to take measures to mitigate the Employer Delay (whether by adding extra resources, by working outside its planned working hours or otherwise), the Employer should agree to pay the Contractor for the costs of mitigation of those efforts.
1.13.5     It is the obligation of the Contractor to proceed with the works so as to complete on or before the completion date. However, the method, sped and timing of the activities forming the contract scope are generally left to the Contractor’s discretion, subject to any stipulated prior process of acceptance of method and/or programme.
1.13.6     In the event that changes are made to the scope of the works, the Contractor has a similar obligation as to efficiently in relation to the changed scope as it has to the original scope.

On the subject of Impacted As-Planned I think we are all pretty aware of its shortcomings. However, whatever technique one uses to demonstrate delay one has to make the most of the information available. There is a useful table in the SCL Protocol (at paragraph 4.13) that shows what records/information is required to undertake one of their four methods of analysis. For instance, to carry out an all singing all dancing Time Impact Analysis you need a networked as-planned programme or updated as-planned networked programme plus as-built records. But for a simple Impacted As-Planned all you need is networked as-planned programme.

So, now tell me all you who sneer at Impacted As-Planned what are you going to do if there are no records other than the original as-planned programme (and that might not even be networked, you might have to use your expert skill to create a network). You could throw your hands up and stamp and say I want to carry out an As-Planned –v- As-Built analysis and go home and leave your client in the lurch or you could do your best with the information you have available. Remember, all we have to show is the cause of delays on the balance of probabilities given the evidence we have and how we can present it. If you had to give a ruling with one side having carried out an As-Planned –v- As-Built analysis and the other side having done nothing (both sides having access to the same records) would you make a decision on what is presented to you or would it be another case of throwing your hands up, stamping your feet and going home?

As an aside I think we are getting a little too hung up on technique titles. In my experience I have never used a single technique alone, the data is not always there, there is too much of it, there is insufficient time, so on and so on. Depending on what the forum is, from a contractual claim to a formal civil litigation, depends on the manner on which the evidence is presented; either acting as an advocate or as an independent expert. That may also mean that you have to present the evidence in a way which supports your company’s commercial necessities or in an unbiased way in support of the court.

What we seem to be finding recently, for instance in the cases that Mike mentioned, is not a failing of methods or techniques but of seemingly failings on the part of those who applied them. Critical path methods, some would say (Beware of The Dark Arts), are discredited in the eyes of the courts, I am not sure if I support that view. If it is the situation it is not the technique per se but the unfortunate misapplication of the techniques in some high profile cases by some high profile experts that has resulted in the mistrust. In my opinion that has resulted in a great disservice to our discipline and a step backwards in scientific management techniques.

Rant over (for the time being).

David

Hi Rafael

The disadvantage of the Impacted as Planned is that the results are purely theoretical with very little resemblance as to what happened.

When this is laid over a reconstructed baseline then the accusations that the whole excercise has been rigged for a purpose is very strong.

In recent cases (Skanska v Egger > Laing v Great Eastern > Shepherd v City Inns) it was found in court that the logic had been re-arranged and was flawed.

All the cases were lost when the trick was discovered.

Best Regards

Mike Testro

Hi Rafael

Lucky you in USA that have an axiomatic method of creating a new baseline that will be accepted if the right software is used.

When I try it in the UK I am immediately accused of rigging it to suit the case.

This is why if I start a new analysis I insist on redrawing the original - and useless - programme BEFORE I study any events.

Best regards

Mike Testro.

Hi Rafael

I said earlier that the SCL is now out of date.

5 years ago I was presenting Impacted as Planned analysis in retospective delays and getting away with it.

Adjudicators have started to wise up a bit.

Today if you have not got As Built Records AND a responsive programme as a baseline there is a very small chance of success.

Just recently I put together an EoT claim with no charts at all - just a narrative with dates - because the original contract programme was useless - I am waiting for a response.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Hi Rafael

In Powerproject you can create an OLE file link annotation from any external document supported by windows and connect to any task.

It works fine for internal documents but if you are submitting the file to an adjudicator you have to send all the other files and make sure the link paths are still valid.

Best regards

Mike Testro

There are two options - to create a link or to insert the document in the project file. So sending the schedule model elsewhere you will also send the embedded documents in the original formats. We recommend to insert only those documents that are part of the project history like meeting minutes and change requests. Other documents like drawings, etc. shall be linked. Project archive is kept as a number of project files with the same name but different version (001, 002, ..., 999). You can also change the file name but shall remember all names when restore history and trends. You can compare any two versions with each other, any of them can be used as the baseline, you can open past project files to study the situation at the past moments. Best Regards, Vladimir

Rafael,
you wrote:
"Two or three updates periods behind will not make it a retrospective analysis but many definitively will."

Spider Project keeps the history of the project performance and can show trends of all project parameters.
We recommend to insert in the archived schedule models the meeting minutes with the decisions made at the moment. So you are able to track the history of all project delays and decisions that were made.

Best Regards,
Vladimir

Hi Shahul

For work in progress then an event should be impacted on the programme that is being worked to - and agreed - at the time of the event.

This is key, although prior historical dates are fixed and do not affect the computations you cannot obviate including the effect of prior delays, Owner and Contractor as these might be opening or absorbing float on the remaining schedule. You still got to be very picky about the inclusion of prior delaying events and their true dates in the order they occur.

If the update does not show prior delays then these can be used but in a retrospective way to apply delaying events in sequence as per SCL Protocol.

"The methodology described in this section is known as ‘time impact analysis’. The Protocol recommends that this methodology be used wherever the circumstances permit, both for prospective and (where the necessary information is available) retrospective delay analysis."

If this is the case then, determination of relevant chains and true remaining work status at the various data dates becomes more difficult, therefore in this case you should be picky about all update dates.

I have used the methodology only in the prospective and have my doubts about using it into the retrospective. Two or three updates periods behind will not make it a retrospective analysis but many definitively will. It is impossible to perform a TIA in a purely prospective way as you cannot predict the exact moment in time it will happen in order to apply it at this precise moment. Almost all literature I have read calls this procedure to be applied in the prospective and question the use of the methodology in retrospective way.

That I have my doubts does not means I am ruling out the validity of applying the procedure in the retrospective, I would even like it to be valid (not perfect but valid), is just that for the moment I am not ruling out opposing views.

Best regards,
Rafael

Hi Mike,

I think shahul has impacted the updated program with the delaying event, in that case will you call it as ’As Planned Impacted method’. I think for ’As Planned Impacted’ method the Baseline program needs to be impacted with delaying events.

Hi Rafael,

Sorry, the last part of my previous post was in response to what Mike said

Warm Regards

Sreejish

Hi Shahul

You have followed the correct procedure for what we in the UK call an Impacted as Planned analysis.

Just because there is no overall delay the loss of float may have financial effects which should be investigated.

Plant standing for longer than planned for instance.

When you are faced with a number of events they have to be impacted in strict chronological order and the key to accuracy is calculating the date of impact.

A written instruction is often issued retrospectively and the starting date for the event would have been earlier.

You must also account for the period between start of the event and the impact date which is the earliest date that you could have started the work after processing the changes.

If the event impacts on more than 1 task you have to impact the event on all of them.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Vladimir

Sure that FF helps when SS is broken. I would like to add it is not just redundancy, is more than that, it keeps logic. True ladders have equal steps (durations) and equal legs (SS and FF lags) but at times durations, SS or FF lags are or become not equal and one takes control over the other, at other times a change in remaining durations change the finish date of the successor and the FF relationship is a must to keep true logic, the FF relationship.

Shahul

I don’t think use of lags is going to invalidate your TIA, the wrong use of any functionality whatever it is might. But yes pay attention to lag, it is sometimes abused and can be used as a float suppression technique especially if your software is not good at filtering and reporting for float. Usually file comparison software like Digger for P3 is handy; unfortunately it is no longer available for sale.

When I was a Project Manager I had my character, at that time if a scheduler on my jobs would come with the idea of not using lags I would rather send him home instead of having in our team a scheduler thinking in the opposite way we at the jobsite plan our jobs. Before taking such a radical approach you should investigate how your team do their planning.

Best regards,
Rafael

Hi Vladimir

Can you answer the question that I posed to Rafeal.

What happens to the logic when progress on the bar goes over the lead lag link?

Best regards

Mike Testro.

Hi Rafael

In each location the trade cascades are each linked FS so the logic flow goes from trade to trade.

In a typical simple finishing sequence this would be something like:

Blockwork > BWIC > M&E Drops > Joinery 1st Fix > Plaster > Ceiling Grid > etc etc to Clean Clear & Lock up.

Between each location the trades are linked in sequence FS.

There is no "continuous moving link" just lots of FS links between individual trade sections.

If you want to call this a ladder then so be it.

It is very quick and simple when using copy - paste and trade filters.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Hi Rafael

In my mind there are two ways to sequence activities.

1. You can have 1 activity spread over several locations.

> Plastering split into multiple floor levels

2. You can have several locations with all the activities in it.

> Level 4 with plastering in the cascade.

I prefer Nr 2 which suits my Basic Priciples of planning.

You can keep the logic flow of plastering through the levels by filtering and group linking FS to all plastering activities - takes 20 seconds.

Best regards

Mike Testro

We discussed using lags previously. There are projects that could not be properly simulated without using lags.
One example - pipeline construction.
Regards,
Vladimir

When it comes to doing a TIA or even window slicing method of analysis, the toughest issue that i have always faced was the availability of a properly updated program. In most cases there were reasonably good baseline programs, but the updates were not reflecting the ’real updated intentions of the Contractor at each updated point of time’.

Unless there are updated programs which really reflect the changes in construction logics, it is very difficult to go for a TIA analysis, especially when it is tried to be used as a prospective method in the middle of the project.

Hi Mervyline

You wrote

For our TIA, I used the Clause 14 and add some fragnets activities then make a progress update..recording of 2 parties delays..(Clause 14 VS Progress Update)

What else should I show to our schedule?

Can you give me a step by step procedures?

No I can’t give you a step by step procedures without telling you everything that I have learnt over the last 12 years in delay analysis.

Best regards

Mike Testro


Thank you,

Mike

Regarding Lag, if this is what you are referring to, I found SCL to be deficient as it leaves too much for interpretation when it says that excessive leads and lags should be avoided. Maybe 10,000 days is what they mean as excessive!

Our specifications and protocols do not prohibit the use of lead and lags as well but in addition provide more specific guidance with reference to the scale of the schedule as to what is excessive. It is common in our practice to consider lags and leads over 10 days as “suspicious” when the schedule scale is set for 20 days max activity durations.

Best regards,
Rafael

Hi Rafael

Me too.

Now look at what the Protocol considers to be a "proper programme" particularly para 2.2.8.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Hi Rafael

SCL is the Society of Construction Law based in the UK but with branches in many countries.

They published the Protocol in 2002 and it is now out of date.

I am a member and I attend some very useful seminars to keep up to date.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Hi Shahul

Time Impact analysis is a very complex precedure that is used for forensic delay analysis after the work is completed.

It works best if there are good quality As Built records.

Every event has to be impacted into the programme in strict chronological order and then the impacted result has to adjusted to re allign with the As Built data.

If the work is in progress then an Impacted As Planned method will show the likely delay effect on the completion dates.

Again every event has to be impacted in strict chronological order and the cause and effect of each one recorded.

All types of events have to be impacted:

1. Employer risk
2. Contractor culpable
3. Neutral causation

So that concurrency can be applied.

Best regards

Mike Testro.