W4_Hilal_Forensic Schedule Analysis (Part 1)

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. However, the method used might not give us a clear picture of where the delay happened or if there is any delay is going to happen in the future. A common method used is by conducting a simple comparison between what was planned and what was achieved because of simplicity and resource requirement for this 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.

Feasible Alternatives

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

a.       Observational Static Logic

b.      Observational Dynamic Logic

Outcomes of Alternative

-          Static Logic: it compares as-planned vs as-built schedules to provide an overall analysis. It can be done in one segment or multiple segments to provide more accurate analysis. Although it is simple and easy to understand, this method is not suitable for complicated project with multiple critical paths and concurrent delays.

-          Dynamic Logic: it compares schedule updates to as-built schedule where it accounts for changing scenarios. It requires that the reported progress is accurate, therefore, it consumes a lot of time, thus, a lot of money.

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	Static Logic		Dynamic Logic
	A	B	B*A	C	C*A
Critical Path Shift	11	1	11	3	33
Manipulation	1	3	3	3	3
Baseline Schedule	7	2	14	1	7
Schedule Updates	6	1	6	1	6
As- Built Records	5	2	10	3	15
Non-Compensable Time Extension	9	3	27	3	27
Compensable Delay	8	3	24	3	24
Constructive Acceleration	10	1	10	3	30
Time	4	3	12	1	4
Money	2	3	6	1	2
Expertise	3	3	9	1	3
		Total	132	Total	154

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 observational dynamic logic 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. The effectiveness of the method as well as the resource requirements need to be reported to the management in order to use this method in future projects.

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