Forensic Schedule Analysis TCM Framework: 6.4 – Forensic Performance Assessment

"Forensic Schedule Analysis TCM Framework: 6.4 – Forensic Performance Assessment" by

Acknowledgments: (April 25, 2011 Revision)

  • Kenji P. Hoshino, CFCC PSP (Author)
  • John C. Livengood, CFCC PSP (Author)
  • Christopher W. Carson, PSP (Author)
  • Andrew Avalon, PE PSP
  • Michael S. Dennis, CCC
  • Rob Hartley, PSP
  • Richard J. Long, PE
  • J. Scott Lowe, PE
  • Robert B. McCullough, PE CCE CFCC
  • Donald F. McDonald, Jr., PE CCE PSP
  • Mark F. Nagata, PSP
  • Jeffery L. Ottesen, PE CFCC PSP
  • Thomas F. Peters, PE CFCC
  • Dr. Fredric L. Plotnick, PE
  • Dr. Anamaria I. Popescu, PE PSP
  • Mark C. Sanders, PE CCE PSP
  • L. Lee Schumacher, PE PSP
  • Michael D. Tarullo Jeffrey
  • M. Wentz
  • Ronald M. Winter, PSP
  • J. Kimon Yiasemides, PSP
  • James G. Zack, Jr., CFCC

Acknowledgments: (June 23, 2009 Revision)

  • Kenji P. Hoshino, CFCC PSP (Author)
  • Andrew Avalon, PE PSP
  • Christopher W. Carson, PSP
  • Michael S. Dennis, CCC
  • Sidney J. Hymes, CFCC
  • John C. Livengood, CFCC PSP
  • Richard J. Long
  • Mark F. Nagata, PSP
  • Jeffery L. Ottesen, PE CFCC PSP
  • Thomas F. Peters, PE CFCC
  • Dr. Anamaria I. Popescu, PE
  • Jose F. Ramirez, CCE
  • Mark C. Sanders, PE CCE PSP
  • L. Lee Schumacher, PSP
  • Stephen P. Warhoe, PE CCE CFCC
  • Ronald M. Winter, PSP
  • James G. Zack, Jr. CFCC

Acknowledgments: (June 25, 2007 Revision)

  • Kenji P. Hoshino, CFCC PSP (Author)
  • Robert B. Brown, PE
  • John J. Ciccarelli, PE CCE PSP
  • Gordon R. Costa, CFCC PSP
  • Michael S. Dennis, CCC
  • Edward E. Douglas, III CCC PSP
  • Philip J. Farrocco, PE
  • Sidney J. Hymes, CFCC
  • John C. Livengood, CFCC PSP
  • Mark F. Nagata, PSP
  • Jeffery L. Ottesen, PE CFCC PSP
  • Thomas F. Peters, PE CFCC
  • Keith Pickavance
  • Dr. Anamaria I. Popescu, PE
  • Jose F. Ramirez, CCE
  • Mark C. Sanders, PE CCE PSP
  • Takuzo Sato L.
  • Lee Schumacher, PSP
  • Robert Seals, PSP
  • Ronald M. Winter, PSP
  • James G. Zack, Jr. CFCC

Introduction:

The purpose of the AACE® International Recommended Practice 29R-03 Forensic Schedule Analysis is to provide a unifying reference of basic technical principles and guidelines for the application of critical path method (CPM) scheduling in forensic schedule analysis. In providing this reference, the RP will foster competent schedule analysis and furnish the industry as whole with the necessary technical information to categorize and evaluate the varying forensic schedule analysis methods. The RP discusses certain methods of schedule delay analysis, irrespective of whether these methods have been deemed acceptable or unacceptable by courts or government boards in various countries around the globe.

This RP is not intended to establish a standard of practice, nor is it intended to be a prescriptive document applied without exception. Therefore, a departure from the recommended protocols should not be automatically treated as an error or a deficiency as long as such departure is based on a conscious and sound application of schedule analysis principles. As with any other recommended practice, the RP should be used in conjunction with professional judgment and knowledge of the subject matter. While the recommended protocols contained herein are intended to aid the practitioner in creating a competent work product it may, in some cases, require additional or fewer steps.

AACE recognizes that the method(s) of analysis to be utilized in a given situation, and the manner in which a particular methodology might be implemented, are dependent upon the contract, the facts, applicable law, availability and quality of contemporaneous project documentation, and other circumstances particular to a given situation. Therefore, the RP should be read in its entirety and fully understood before applying or using the information for any purpose. The reader should refrain from using the RP in a manner which is not consistent with its intended use, and not quote any of the contents in an out-of-context manner. As with any other recommended practice published by AACE, this RP is subject to future revisions as new methodologies are identified; new forensic scheduling software is developed; etc.

Forensic scheduling analysis refers to the study and investigation of events using CPM or other recognized schedule calculation methods. It is recognized that such analyses may potentially be used in a legal proceeding. It is the study of how actual events interacted in the context of a complex model for the purpose of understanding the significance of a specific deviation or series of deviations from some baseline model and their role in determining the sequence of tasks within the complex network.

Forensic schedule analysis, like many other technical fields, is both a science and an art. As such, it relies upon professional judgment and expert opinion and usually requires many subjective decisions. One of the most important of these decisions is what technical approach should be used to measure or quantify delay and identify the effected activities in order to focus on causation. Equally important is how the analyst should apply the chosen method. The desired objective of this RP is to reduce the degree of subjectivity involved in the current state of the art. This is with the full awareness that there are certain types of subjectivity that cannot be minimized, let alone eliminated. Professional judgment and expert opinion ultimately rest on subjectivity, but that subjectivity must be based on diligent factual research and analyses whose procedures can be objectified.

For these reasons, the RP focuses on minimizing procedural subjectivity. It does this by defining terminology, identifying methodologies currently used by forensic scheduling analysts, classifying them, and setting forth recommended procedural protocols for the use of these techniques. By describing uniform procedures that increase the transparency of the analytical method and the analyst‟s thought process, the guidelines set forth herein will increase both the accountability and the testability of an opinion and minimize the need to contend with “black-box” or “voodoo” analyses. Implementation of this RP should result in minimizing disagreements over technical implementation of accepted techniques and allow the providers and consumers of these services to concentrate on resolving disputes based upon substantive, factual and legal issues.

ADVICE: You need to be a Guild Member to view / download the articles in the Guild's Library.