Favorite Delay Analysis Methodologies Town Hall SEI

Favorite Delay Analysis Methodologies
Best Practices and Guidelines for Schedule Impact Analysis
Volume 1

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

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


Observational
3.1 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”
• 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)



Continued from
previous slide


• 3.5. Dynamic – Contemporaneous “Recreated”
• 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)



Continued from
previous slide


• 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)


• 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


• 3.8 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


Forensic Use of METHOD
Analysis 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8

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

Compensable Delay OK OK OK OK OK OK

Right to Finish Early
OK
Compensable Delay

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

Disruption Without
OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
Project Delay

Constructive
OK OK OK
Acceleration


•


•
• 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 • Observational
• 3.1 Static – Gross • Count
• 3.2 Static - Periodic • Count
• 3.3 Dynamic – Contemporaneous “as-is” • Count
• 3.4 Dynamic – Contemporaneous “Split” • Count
• 3.5 Dynamic – Contemporaneous • Count
“Recreated”


• Modeled • Modeled
• 3.6 Additive – Single Base • Count
• 3.7 Additive – Multiple Base • Count
• 3.8 Subtractive – Single Simulation • Count
• 3.9 Subtractive – Multiple Simulation • Count


Favorite Delay Analysis Methodologies Town Hall SEI

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Destaque

Destaque (19)

Semelhante a Favorite Delay Analysis Methodologies Town Hall SEI

Semelhante a Favorite Delay Analysis Methodologies Town Hall SEI (20)

Mais de Chris Carson

Mais de Chris Carson (20)

Favorite Delay Analysis Methodologies Town Hall SEI