W6_Hilal_Forensic Schedule Analysis (Part Three)

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 weeks 4 & 5 blogs, the discussions were over observational methods and modeled methods respectively to be used as schedule analysis method. Now, I need to compare both methods to see the possibility of using both methods to come up with robust analysis of the reported schedule.

Feasible alternative

The Guild of Project Controls Compendium and Reference suggests an observational and modeled approaches to forensic schedule analysis. These approaches consist of:

a.       Observational Static Logic

b.      Observational Dynamic Logic

c.       Modeled Additive Model

d.      Modeled Subtractive Model

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.

-          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	Static Logic		Dynamic Logic		Additive		Subtractive
	A	B	B*A	C	C*A	D	D*A	E	E*A
Critical Path Shift	11	1	11	3	33	3	33	3	33
Manipulation	1	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3
Baseline Schedule	7	2	14	1	7	3	21	1	7
Schedule Updates	6	1	6	1	6	3	18	3	18
As- Built Records	5	2	10	3	15	2	10	3	15
Non-Compensable Time Extension	9	3	27	3	27	3	27	3	27
Compensable Delay	8	3	24	3	24	1	8	3	24
Constructive Acceleration	10	1	10	3	30	3	30	1	10
Time	4	3	12	2	8	1	4	1	4
Money	2	3	6	1	2	1	2	1	2
Expertise	3	3	9	1	3	1	3	1	3
		Total	132	Total	158	Total	159	Total	146

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, D & E show how the alternatives are meeting the requirements where 3 means meeting the requirements.

Preferred Alternative

 Although Table 1 suggests that either Observational Dynamic model or Modeled Additive Model can be used. However, it is possible to combine both models to be used to assess the schedule by comparing the results from both analyses. We will be able to assess the schedule not only by observing the behavior of the network from update to update and measuring schedule variances based on unaltered, existing logic models but also by insertion or addition of activities representing delays or changes into a network analysis model representing a plan to determine the impact of those inserted activities to the network.

Tracking/ reporting plan

These methods are to be used to analyse delays in the reported schedules. Then, we can compare the findings of both methods and then to be used to develop worst case scenarios. The effectiveness of the methods 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

Lifschitz,J. Evans, M & Alexis M. (2009). A Critical Review of the AACEI Recommended Practice for Forensic Schedule Analysis. CONTRACT FORMS AND CONTRACT DRAFTING/PROJECT DELIVERY. Retrieved from http://www.slslaw.com/sites/default/files/Construction%20Lawyers%20Reprint%2010-09%20(00076022).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