favorite delay analysis methodologies town hall sei

Favorite Delay Analysis Methodologies

Chris Carson, PSP, CCM, PMP

Corporate Director of Project Controls, Alpha Corporation

Managing Director, Scheduling Excellence Initiative

AACE International Recommended Practice No. 29R03, Forensic Schedule Analysis

Best Practices and Guidelines for Schedule Impact AnalysisVolume 1

Based on AACE International Recommended Practice No. 29R-03, Forensic Schedule Analysis”


Observational3.1 Static – Gross

(As-Planned v. As-Built, Single Base)3.2 Static - Periodic

(As-Planned v. As-Built, Multiple Base)3.3 Dynamic – Contemporaneous “as-is”

(Contemporaneous Period Analysis)3.4 Dynamic – Contemporaneous “Split”

(Bifurcated Contemporaneous Period Analysis)3.5 Dynamic – Contemporaneous “Recreated”

(Contemporaneous Period Analysis, Recreated)


•3.1 Static – Gross (As-Planned v. As-Built, Single Base)• Applicable only to simple projects, short in duration, with a CP

that’s unlikely to shift

• Easy to understand, inexpensive to create

• Not suitable to long or complicated projects because the projects change and the measuring point does not.

• Use when no update schedules available

• Need as-planned schedule and as-built data


• 3.1 Static – Gross (As-Planned v. As-Built, Single Base)


•3.2. Static - Periodic (As-Planned v. As-Built, Multiple Base) • Similar to Single Base version

• Measuring it in periods adds little since no new data?

• May find updates useful – but if validated updates available, may use other methods that assess CP changes

• Need as-planned schedule and as-built data

• May provide for better presentation


• 3.2. Static - Periodic (As-Planned v. As-Built, Multiple Base)




Continued next slide



Continued from previous slide

•3.3. Dynamic – Contemporaneous “as-is” (Contemporaneous Period Analysis)

• Applicable on complicated projects

• Uses contemporaneous updates as new baselines

• If done monthly, then it could be called a “Windows” analysis

• Handles many problems like concurrency well


• 3.3. Dynamic – Contemporaneous “as-is” (CPA)


•3.4. Dynamic – Contemporaneous “Split” (Bifurcated Contemporaneous Period)


• Uses contemporaneous updates as new baselines

• If done monthly, then it could be called a “Windows” analysis


• The “split” separates Logic-type changes from Actual Progress


• 3.4. Dynamic – Contemporaneous “Split” (Bifurcated CPA)



•3.5. Dynamic – Contemporaneous “Recreated” (Contemporaneous Period Analysis)


• Uses RECREATED updates as new baselines

• If done monthly, then it might be called a “Windows” analysis


• However – virtually all of the baselines are created by the analyst


• 3.5. Dynamic – Contemporaneous “Recreated” (Recreated CPA)


•Modeled• 3.6 Additive – Single Base (Impacted as-planned)

• 3.7 Additive – Multiple Base (Retrospective TIA)

• 3.8 Subtractive – Single Simulation (Collapsed as-built)

• 3.9 Subtractive – Multiple Simulation


•3.6 Additive – Single Base (Impacted As-Planned)• Accuracy very dependent on inclusiveness of fragnets and

accuracy of as-planned schedule.

• Also dependent on changes in Critical Path from As-Planned

• Easy to understand

• Can be purely hypothetical, generally does not prevail in litigation

• Concurrency not addressed


• 3.6 Additive – Single Base (Impacted As-Planned)


•3.7 Additive – Multiple Base (Retrospective TIA) • Accuracy dependent on inclusiveness of fragnets and accuracy of

updates – however more likely to include both owner and contractor issues


• No as-built required (although still useful)

• Updates useful if used (failure to correlate creates problem)

• Associated with actual events

• Concurrency easily addressed by a two step process


• 3.7 Additive – Multiple Base (Retrospective TIA)


•3.8 Subtractive – Single Simulation (Collapsed As-Built)• Accuracy dependent on creation of after the fact logic


• Uses actual events

• Can be viewed as hypothetical

• Critical path can be difficult to identify


• 3.8 Subtractive – Single Simulation (Collapsed As-Built)


•3.9 Subtractive – Multiple Simulation• Only known practitioner – Long International?

• Accuracy still dependent on creation of after the fact logic

• Uses actual Events

• Can be viewed as hypothetical

• Critical path can be difficult to identify


•3.1 Static – Gross (As-Planned v. As-Built, Single Base)



3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8

Non-Compensable Time Extension OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK

Compensable Delay OK OK OK OK OK OK

Right to Finish Early Compensable Delay OK

Entitlement to Early Completion Bonus OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK

Disruption Without Project Delay OK OK OK OK OK OK OK

Constructive Acceleration OK OK OK

Forensic Use of Analysis

M E T H O D


•


•• Must allow the source data to bear on the selection process• Cannot predetermine a technique based on personal preference• Balance client needs, budget, and time with sound analysis

philosophy


•Observational?

•Count

•Modeled?

•Count


•Observational• 3.1 Static – Gross

• 3.2 Static - Periodic

• 3.3 Dynamic – Contemporaneous “as-is”

• 3.4 Dynamic – Contemporaneous “Split”

• 3.5 Dynamic – Contemporaneous “Recreated”

•Observational• Count

• Count

• Count

• Count

• Count


•Modeled• Count

• Count

• Count

• Count

•Modeled• 3.6 Additive – Single Base

• 3.7 Additive – Multiple Base

• 3.8 Subtractive – Single Simulation

• 3.9 Subtractive – Multiple Simulation

favorite delay analysis methodologies town hall sei

Documents