Marcus, in case you are not going to get paid, you should to change the baseline deleting these activities. In case the contract agreement does not change, delete them and redistribute the budget.
In both cases you should redefine your baseline.
Regards, Carlos.
Member for
16 years 7 months
Member for16 years7 months
Submitted by Gary Whitehead on Mon, 2011-10-24 09:19
There are a number of ways to handle this, and it largely depends on what the baseline / budget is being used for, who you are reporting to, and why the scope is no longer required.
For example, if the baseline is being used to track earned value, then if you delete an activity with a budget from your current schedule, your EV curve won't add up to the bufdget for the job anymore, which means you could enver claim 100% complete. -You should consider deleting the activity from the baseline as well in this case.
If the baseline is being used to track earned value by the client as the basis for monthly payments on a lump sum project, deleting the activity will mean you won't get payed for it until the very end of the project, if at all. This may or may not be appropriate. -You should consider claiming the activities as complete instead of deleting them in this case.
If the scope is no longer required because some smart engineering solution on your part has meant it isn't necesary, then you could argue that this smart engineering has earnt just as much value as doing all that now redundant design work would have, so again consider marking the activities as complete and claim that value.
If you don't have existing change control procedures in place to manage this sort of thing, you'll have to think each specific instance through for yourself, as the 'right' way of reflecting that change may differ depending on the precise circumstances. Just make sure whatever you do, you document the decision and the reasons behind it.
One final note of caution: Logically linking engineering projects is notoriously difficult, becuase of the iterative, interdependant and stop-start nature of many engineering deliverables. When deleting activities you have to pay special attention to how best to stitch the logic back together -it's often not as simple as just linking round the deleted activity.
You say that a few activities are not part of the scope anymore.
Does that mean that they are no longer required? In which case just delete them and restore the logic.
Or are being done by soemone else? In which case retain the tasks and mark them as past of the Employers own "artists and tradesmen" scope. Then monitor the actual progress and report any cause of delay.
Member for
17 yearsMarcus, in case you are not
Marcus, in case you are not going to get paid, you should to change the baseline deleting these activities. In case the contract agreement does not change, delete them and redistribute the budget.
In both cases you should redefine your baseline.
Regards, Carlos.
Member for
16 years 7 monthsMarcus, There are a number
Marcus,
There are a number of ways to handle this, and it largely depends on what the baseline / budget is being used for, who you are reporting to, and why the scope is no longer required.
For example, if the baseline is being used to track earned value, then if you delete an activity with a budget from your current schedule, your EV curve won't add up to the bufdget for the job anymore, which means you could enver claim 100% complete. -You should consider deleting the activity from the baseline as well in this case.
If the baseline is being used to track earned value by the client as the basis for monthly payments on a lump sum project, deleting the activity will mean you won't get payed for it until the very end of the project, if at all. This may or may not be appropriate. -You should consider claiming the activities as complete instead of deleting them in this case.
If the scope is no longer required because some smart engineering solution on your part has meant it isn't necesary, then you could argue that this smart engineering has earnt just as much value as doing all that now redundant design work would have, so again consider marking the activities as complete and claim that value.
If you don't have existing change control procedures in place to manage this sort of thing, you'll have to think each specific instance through for yourself, as the 'right' way of reflecting that change may differ depending on the precise circumstances. Just make sure whatever you do, you document the decision and the reasons behind it.
One final note of caution: Logically linking engineering projects is notoriously difficult, becuase of the iterative, interdependant and stop-start nature of many engineering deliverables. When deleting activities you have to pay special attention to how best to stitch the logic back together -it's often not as simple as just linking round the deleted activity.
Member for
15 years 4 monthsHi Mike, thank you very
Hi Mike,
thank you very much.
In my case the activities I was concerned about are not required anymore. I'll delete them and restore the logic, as you mentioned.
Best Regards,
Marcus
Member for
19 years 10 monthsHi Marcus You say that a few
Hi Marcus
You say that a few activities are not part of the scope anymore.
Does that mean that they are no longer required? In which case just delete them and restore the logic.
Or are being done by soemone else? In which case retain the tasks and mark them as past of the Employers own "artists and tradesmen" scope. Then monitor the actual progress and report any cause of delay.
Best regards
Mike Testro