W5_Hilal_Forensic Schedule Analysis (Part 2)

Problem Recognition

Each month we receive schedule updates from the project companies as part of their monthly reporting and it is important to conduct a delay analysis to discover any current delays or emerging delays. In week 4 blog, the discussion was over observational methods to be used as schedule analysis method. However, looking at the complexity of our contracts, extensive delay analysis is required, so we can understand the origin of the delay as well as the effect of it which the observational methods may not appropriate to use in our case.

Feasible alternative

The Guild of Project Controls Compendium and Reference suggests a modeled approach to forensic schedule analysis. This approach consists of two methods:

a.       Modeled Additive Model

b.      Modeled Subtractive Model

Outcomes of alternative

-          Additive Model: it involves the adding of schedule elements (i.e. delays) to the as-planned schedule and comparing it with as-built schedule. “Impacted As-planned”.

-          Subtractive Model: it involves the subtracting of schedule elements (delays) from the As-Built schedule and comparing with the As-planned schedule. “Collapsed As-built”.

Acceptance Criteria

Due to the importance of delay analysis, contractual requirements, and available resources the acceptance criteria is as follow:

1-      Accounts for critical path shifts

2-      Susceptible to manipulation

3-      Required records

a.       Baseline Schedule

b.      Schedule updates

c.       As- Built Schedules

4-      Purpose of analysis

a.       Compensable vs Non-Compensable Delays

b.      Constructive acceleration

5-      Required resources

a.       Time

b.      Money

c.       Expertise

Acceptance Criteria vs Feasible Alternative

Acceptance Requirements	Importance Scale	Additive		Subtractive
	A	B	B*A	C	C*A
Critical Path Shift	11	3	33	3	33
Manipulation	1	3	3	3	3
Baseline Schedule	7	3	21	1	7
Schedule Updates	6	3	18	3	18
As- Built Records	5	2	10	3	15
Non-Compensable Time Extension	9	3	27	3	27
Compensable Delay	8	1	8	3	24
Constructive Acceleration	10	3	30	1	10
Time	4	3	12	3	12
Money	2	3	6	3	6
Expertise	3	3	9	3	9
		Total	177	Total	164

Table 1: Analysis of Feasible Alternatives

Table 1 compares the acceptance criteria against the feasible alternatives. Column A represents the importance scale where 11 is highly important. Columns B & C shows how the alternatives are meeting the requirements where 3 means meeting the requirements.

Preferred Alternative

According to table 1 results, the best alternative is modeled additive approach.

Tracking/ reporting plan

This method is to be used to analyse delays in the reported schedules. Then, we can compare the findings using the traditional method against the new method and how that impacted our decisions in the past. After we see how the traditional methods impacted our estimates and planning for water production and power generation, we can then communicate this as lessons learned to our development team to modify the contracts accordingly.

Reference

Avalon, A. (2016). Choosing the Most Appropriate Schedule Analysis Method. Retrieved from http://www.long-intl.com/articles/Long_Intl_Choosing_the_Most_Appropriate_Schedule_Analysis_Method.pdf

PP Admin. (2015). Multi- Attributes Decision. Guild of Project Controls Compendium and References. Retrieved from http://www.planningplanet.com/guild/gpccar/managing-change-the-owners-perspective

Yerramreddy, V. (2014). Schedule Quality- Delay Analysis Perspective. Retrieved from https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:fd3c938d-2207-41c6.../download