Hi Stephen,

Et Tu

[Clearly, this thread has drunk its last dregs. Please begin another if you wish to continue restating your position. The Moderators]

Bon Jour Stephen,

How about the "Path to Reality",

Regards

Philip

Ps the WI is doing well

Hi andrew,

Iwould agree with something like delay causing activities, or retrospectivive analisis of problomatical activities, call it what you will.

Regards

Philip

Phillip,

Would you agree with, that which it completed cannot be critical anymore, but also that which is completed may have been critical at the time of it’s construction?

Hi Philip,

The planner may not have been right, some of the records may not be accurate, but what is the likelihood of all of the records being incorrect? True there will be contradictions and inconsistencies in the records, nobody said it would be easy. The job of the analyst/expert witness is to research all of these elements and interview as many of the project team as possible, including the project planner. It can be a massive and time consuming task, as Gary said he was involved in Great Eastern for a year, this is not unusual.

The whole point of retrospective delay analysis is that this is a post mortem of the project. The forensic analyst researches/investigates what WAS critical to the problem.

Having read several of your posts, I think there is a slight problem with your thinking, in that when you write you do so in the future tense "is completed CAN be critical". In retrospective analysis it is about what WAS critical, like your example of the illness in a corpse, the illness WAS critical to the death of the corpse.

DW

Hi Philip,

Thanks for your question.

The planner on the project was not right, although generally he recorded the progress position reasonably well, which the two planning experts (one for the defendant, one for the claimant) agreed to use as being mainly factual. However, the two of the big issues that had to be faced during the trial were that the project planner did occasionally record the progress incorrectly and this was discovered by photographic evidence and secondly he made changes to the logic of the programme which did not make sense. These logic changes did however alter the critical path of the programme at the time and gave incorrect completion date forecasts / progress reports on a number of occasions. This was not picked up during the project itself, only afterwards by the post-mortem planners. Progress photographs are really wonderful things in disputes. Regarding dairies, minutes, correspondence and reports, these were all examined as part of my work. As you can imagine, on a complex project such as GEH, the amount of documentation to go through was enormous.

On your second point, this is what is often called the concurrency issue. The big question here is what impact, if any, did these different secondary critical paths have. That was also a significant issue at the trial. Lets just say that these secondary, or concurrent, critical paths were also examined in a great deal of detail for the trial and it was crucial that the post-mortem planners look at these as well, which we did. The project planner (and the defendant) claimed these had an impact on the project, but the judge did not agree.

Concurrent critical paths is probably worthy of a new thread.

Regards,

Gary France

Hi Gary,

So you did the post mortem, but what if the planner was not right, how did you find the correct history, this must mean you gleaned it from daily diaries, minutes of meetings, correspondence, etc, who says this info was all correct? I stated a little earlier, that the quality of the planning is important, that is, recording the facts.
What if the delays happened in different areas, and as result, in different logical paths, and started compounding the isuue?

Regards,

Philip

Phil,

With your use of the words “I do not believe that anything that is completed can be critical”, I would have to agree. It can no longer be critical if it is complete – that makes perfect sense.

However, I am sure that you would agree that it can be said that something was critical in the past. It’s not critical now, but it was earlier. That is of course if it was on the critical path that ran through the longest chain that determined the overall project completion date, or phased completion date.

I cannot agree however with you last paragraph. To say that only the planner who was involved in the project can determine the true accurate facts is clearly wrong. I will quote the example of the Great Eastern Hotel project referred to below in this thread. The judge found that the planner who was involved in the project got it wrong and this was exposed during the trial by a 3rd party planner (me) who was not involved during the project and who only became involved after the project was finished.

David is quite right – very often the independency of a 3rd party planner can see the situation better than the planner involved at the time. On the Great Eastern Hotel, I and a colleague spent over a year examining the facts to determine where the critical path actually ran through the project. Hearsay or conjecture – no way!

Gary France

Hi stephen,

The question is not what critical path is, I agree with you during the execution of the the project, however, when the project is complete, it is something like an post mortem, how can you find an ilness in a corpse, that is critical, you can only analise what the problem was and try and prevent in the future.

Regards

Philip

Wow! Just a fascinating thread! And from my point of view, very serendipitous, as I’m currently co-authoring an article which incorporates the very idea that Vladimir argued: that every project has a CP, whether or not CPM is used.

I went back and read the whole thread. Here are my thoughts:

1. I one hundred percent agree with Vladimir, David and others who feel that there is such a thing as an ABCP. I think part of the problem lies in the mis-definition of the CP (by many authors and authorities!) as the path with zero float. We all know that, during implementation, a path might have either positive or negative float (supercritical). Even during planning, the longest path can have float due to calendar-based schedule constraints (No Earlier Than). Is such a longest path still "worthy" of being called critical? Absolutely!

The reasons for calling the longest path "critical" are not limited to (1) the fact that it has no float, so that if it slips, it becomes longer -- two other reasons, equally important, are that (2) the longest path determines the length of the project, and (3) if you want to shorten the project, you have to shorten the longest path.

Both (2) and (3) may have relevance for the post-project analysis: (2) in the sense of the ABCP, and (3) if the question ever becomes why were actions not taken that could have shortened the project (or avoided delay) by addressing the DRAG on the activities on the "currently estimated CP".

Thus I completely agree with Vladimir: EVERY project has a CP, whether planned using CPM or not, because it is that CP that ultimately determines project length. In fact, the ABCP may be called the "true" CP; during planning, what we are really dealing with is the "estimated" CP. Yes, our estimated CP may move around, as either scope changes or delays occur, or as duration estimates turn out to be wrong.

Surely it is HUGELY important, from both liability and knowledge database points of view, to know when, how and why our estimates of the CP changed? And whether, at any moment, our estimates were based on best available data, or simply on incompetent performance (either by contractor or client)?

In another thread, there was a question about whether a computerized "expert system" would ever be able take over the planning function. I expressed doubt, at least for the near future. But let us think for a second about a "perfect" planning system -- would not that system be, in fact, a crystal ball, allowing us to perfectly foresee what would happen (scope changes, client delays, fragnets, resource shortages, etc.) and incorporate them into the plan so as to have the best (i.e., most profitable) project?

And finally, would not the plan that the crystal ball created be, in fact, the ABCP?

Uri

Now we are getting somewhere!!!

But come on - if one can work out what was critical for every day of a project how can that be meaningless??? I think you’re being coy, and simply unwilling to abandon your previous position.

The identification of what was critical in retrospect is a vastly meaningful conclusion. If you were to successfully present that conclusion alone to an arbitrator / judge, you would be carried from the room atop shoulders with clients and lawyers slapping you on the back as you departed. Same for the site, where EOT’s haven’t been dealt with instantly.

Linking all the days together would identify the ABCP (- = activity and + = critical).
+++++++----
-------+++++++++++++++++-------
-----------++++++++++++++++++++++++*

And there is no problem with having concurrent criticality!

Regards
David

Hi Planners

The point of my earlier question was that if in order to create an as built programme you need very good records and information i.e. a regularly updated programme with actual dates etc. I really don’t see the need in producing an as built programme with subjective logic which would only produce one longest path (can’t be a critical path if it is a historical document).
In a live regularly progressed programme the critical activities can change from update to update, and this is the key information that is most useful and reliable in a claims situation.
If the programme is properly administered and maintained as it progresses what better information do you need? In most cases claims do not become an issue if you maintain records good enough to produce an as built programme.

If a claim situation arises then any analysis that is produced is prepared against a programme that the client most likely reviews on a regular basis as part of the reporting process and not a programme produced purely in substantiation of a claim.

IMHO an as built critical path sounds like a chocolate tea pot.

Well claims persons, if you can’t look back at a project and determine what was a critical activity at a peticular point in that project then I’d have a long hard think.

EOT’s usually attach themselves to a critical activity or one which becomes critical due to the delay, so if you can’t identify them or they don’t exist what else leads to a EOT becoming due (in general)?

Uri,

Good point, but one that I think is relying on semantics.

Can I pose a question to you -

1. Forgetting the word "path" for a second, and assuming excellent records exist, do you think you could work out what was critical to completion on Day 59 of a particular project that was already complete?

If your answer is Yes, then surely working it out for every day will represent the as-built critical activities throughout the job? This would be the ABCP, though perhaps another term for it might help.

If your answer is No, please explain why?

Philip / Sigfredo - what would your answer be?

David

Philip,

Not one of those who believe that there is ABCP was able to convince me as well.

If I go back to one of my posts, I proposed to this forum to get statistics on who believe that there is ABCP and those who do not. Moreover, I would like to know which field of specialization they working on.

Cheers,
Se

Philip,

So what’s new

Hi Andrew,

I forgige the grammar, simply fot the sake of practicbility or alternatively pragmatism, this thread was hi-jacked by the lawyers, and forgot practical things.

Regards

Philip

Philip,

Quite easy to build, not so easy to get right! If you update a programme (not the master, but a copy as you end up changing most of the links, adding lots and lots of activities, etc - do I hear a cry of horror from some people) as the project is built to reflect what has been done, why and what is remaining to do you will have a critical path at each update - part as built, part work to be done. So whats the difference I hear you ask from just updating the master programme?

It needs to be in ALOT of detail - I often build mine up from the daily plant and labour allocation sheets. Agreed it won’t show the whole as built picture and critical path until the end but it will demonstrate if done correctly a snapshot of the job at every update showing what, why, and when everything was done (I also like adding lots of notes to the programme)- very useful reference which can if required be compared to the master copy and it’s updates - they usually tell a different story as the master programme rarely contains enough information to get to the finer detail.

People don’t like changing the baseline master programme logic or activities for obvious reasons, some of which have been expressed in here, however I have sat with many a client / claims expert and produced the "alternative as built" programme and used it to demonstrate the course of events, normally backed up by documentation both during and after the project - haven’t had one take me to court yet!!!

People seem to get hung up on the master programme and believe it to be the only programme you can use to prove your case. Not entirely true - although it does normally carry greater weight than others - but if you can demonstrate that the other programme is a true reflection of events, then it’s as good and relavent as any other evidence - coming back to Egger (sorry) but right is right, wrong is wrong and you can dress something up as much as you like but you won’t beat a right call presented properly.

It has given me a considerable pleasure over time to unexpectedly produce to others a very detailed as built programme when discussing events / claims - the conversations tend to be quite short after they see it!

To get to your as built critical path Philip takes alot of work and time if it’s going to truely reflect events and therefore be useful. Strictly speaking, no you don’t have a complete ABCP until the end of the project but believe me, having that a part built one available at any time during a project can prove very useful. Hope this helped.

David,
Your thought appear pretty spot on to me. I don’t think anyone is getting personal, at the end of the day two cases to an arguement were put forward to be judged, one won the day the other did not. It is just unusual in this case that the wording of the judgement was so damning of the evidence put forward by one side, quote:

"there were times when the impression was created that Mr KP was not entirely familiar with the details of the report....",
"..used untested judgement of others in selecting and characterising the data for input into the computer program...."

We can all run around being polite and bury our heads in the sand saying that nothing was amiss and that KP and crew were hard done by or we discuss the facts and learn by it. Discussing the polite niceities and ignoring the facts won’t learn us anything.

Uri,

I do not think it is appropriate to rely on the untested information gleaned from your client. Where it differs from that of the opposing side, the Expert Witness should either carry out his own independent determination or present a range of opinion covering both propositions.

Not sure what this all has to do with ABCP!

On that subject Great Eastern certainly makes it clear that the courts consider the ABCP exists - while there continues to be some disagreement in this forum on the subject.

I think Gerry summed it up much earlier in the debate when he said the disagreement seems to stem from the word "path" rather than the ability to analyse/identify what was critical on a project at any given time in the past (assuming as Keith points out the information is available to do so).

David
www.preceptpm.co.uk

Guys, I think we want and need the participation of KP and other respectable persons, so lets continue to be professional and stop being personal. As for the issue of ’facts’, to what extent do you think the expert witness can rely on what he / she is being told by their clients (and reject the ’facts’ as presented by the opposing side)? If there is no sufficient documentation, how can the expert witness test these facts? Happy Easter from down under.

Keith,

You were not quite correct when you said “…in GEH the contractor was found to have caused 100% of the delay neither the works contractors nor the design team having caused any at all. Both results are inherently improbable and contrary to experience.” For example, in paragraph 131 of the judgment, reasons are set out for the delays not caused by the contractor (actually, Laing was a construction manager).

You also said “In neither case was the Judge aware of what was in the experts reports.” In GEH this was definitely not correct. It was very apparent that the Judge took a great deal of time to read both of the Experts’ reports and knew the contents well.

There are similarities between the two cases, but there are also significant differences, the main being one centred around the role of a contractor and the other the role of a construction manager.

Gary France
Mace

Uri and all…

As you mention Keith Pickavance, you may be aware that he did recently enter the fray on this subject at http://www.planningplanet.com/forum/forum_post.asp?fid=1&Cat=7&Top=8636. However, one must bear in mind that he is an ‘architect with a legal education’.

With KP being a vocal member of the drafting committee of the Protocol it is understandable that the Protocol and his book express similar opinions about Time Impact Analysis. As KP will know, in this instance, I could not have articulated the sentiments he makes about Time Impact Analysis better even if I had written them myself.

For TIA to be effective reliable base line programme is required and the impact analysis is only as good as the data put in and be supported by the pleadings or the evidence otherwise, as you suggest Uri, such inadequacies can generated a great deal of out of court time and expense and be a red herring of little value.

The criticisms of KP’s application of TIA continues in Skanska Construction UK Ltd. v Egger (Barony) Ltd. [2005] EWHC (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2005/284.htm), paragraphs 166 and 167.

Regards

David

Uri and all…

As I said in my message, I do think we need some decent definitions, the problem being one of interpretation and nuance.
I hope I didn’t give the wrong impression but in essence I agree with what you are saying; ‘Time Slice Analysis’ and ‘Windows Analysis’ are the same thing and ‘Time Impact Analysis’ and ‘Snap-Shot Analysis’. I’d prefer to drop the ‘Windows’ descriptor (it’s close association with Miscrosoft often leads to confusion) and similarly I’d prefer ‘Time Impact’ to the less formal ‘Snap-Shot’.
The techniques are broadly similar and, as you say TIA leads to a more refined analysis as it deals with individual events whereas TSA potentially deals with whatever number of events happen within the selected time period.

With regard to the Balfour Beatty case you can read the judgement here http://www.adjudication.co.uk/cases/bblambeth.htm. The methods were not listed in order of preference as far as I can tell, they were preceded by:

Before looking at the “final as-built programmes” exhibited by BB, Lambeth would make passing reference to the delay analysis methods most widely recognised and used: .

It is interesting that later in the Judgement the methods cited by the SCL Protocol are listed in order of preference:

1. Time Impact Analysis
2. Windows Analysis
3. Collapsed As-built Analysis
4. Impacted Plan Analysis

But this was taken from the November 2001, Consultation Version. Those familiar with the Protocol will know that in the final published version the types of analysis ‘recommended’ were:

1. As-planned v as-built
2. Impacted as-planned
3. Collapsed as-built
4. Time impact analysis

You will see that Windows Analysis has been replaced by As-planned v As-built. It would be useful to have some input from anyone who was intimately involved in the formulation of the Protocol. Does this mean that Time Slice/Windows Analyses is not a recommended method and has this come about as a result of deliberations between draft and final publication.

Regards

David

The Great Eastern Hotel -v- John Laing Construction case raised some topical issues for planners. As has been correctly pointed out below, I was one of the delay analysis experts involved with the case. Sigfredo, Gerry and David ask some questions about the approach taken in the delay analysis, which I will answer.

The main question relates to the method of delay analysis used and the Judge’s statements in paragraphs 67 and 184.

In paragraph 67 the Judge wrote “Mr France used an impacted as planned programme analysis by which the project is analysed on a monthly basis to measure the impact of events as the project proceeded.” This is not strictly correct. For my main delay analysis work, I used what David helpfully describes below as the Windows Analysis. That is, for each month (or “window”) of the project, at dates co-inciding with the monthly progress reports, I looked at the progress position achieved and inputted that progress into the master programme to assess the delay that had occurred and what activities were on the changing critical path. I then investigated the reasons for that delay in that window, before moving on to the next monthly reporting period window.

In this way, I divided the project period into “windows”. The benefit of this method is that I put myself into the position of the people involved in the project at the time, looking at the situation at the time, with issues such as progress achieved, the design status and variations that had been instructed.

In paragraph 67 the Judge correctly describes the method used for the main part of the delay analysis by the defendant’s delay expert. “Mr Calekta for the main part proceeding retrospectively from an as built programme to determine the critical path and respective periods of delay and causes.”

What I have described above relates to the main part of the delay analysis, that is, what was the main critical path through the project, what were the delays to that critical path and what caused those delays.

Paragraph 184 is discussing a different aspect of the case. This concerned concurrent delays. The defendants argued that in addition to the main delays to the critical path through the project, there were other delays caused to concurrent activities, mainly caused by late design release. For this part of the case, Mr Caletka used the impacted as-planned method, in which he stated what the impact of that late design would have had on the original programme. As you will have read, the Judge didn’t like that approach because it didn’t take account of the actual events that had occurred on site.

Sigfedo asks if the Judge had a preference for an impacted as-planned programme than a retrospective as-built programme. I can see why Sigredo asks that question due to the wording in paragraph 67. No, I don’t believe that is the case as paragraph 184 makes clear, for the Judge didn’t seem to like the impacted as-planned method. He did seem to prefer a windows analysis over the retrospective as-built method.

I hope this clarifies the situation.

Gary France

David,

A most interesting link.

Thank you

Chris Oggham

David,

Thanx for the info on the Keane Associates paper on this old perennial!! (and I don’t mean me) ;-)

Cheers,

Stuart

www.rosmartin.com

Philip

The activity may have been critical at the time. The point is that retrospective delay analysis is alive and kicking. Whilst I agree that delays should be notified at the time (and they mostly are) the fact remains that for various reasons there is often the need to find the ABCP.

However whilst I agree that entitlement should be dealt with as the project progresses and that best practices should be in place, the fact is that throughout the World, this isn’t always the case.

In the ’aftermath’ of a project after say two years of arguing (it must be remembered that just because a contractor notifies of a delay during the project, it doesn’t necessarily mean it will be agreed by the employer) the contractor decides to formalise his claim by proceeding to arbitration or litigation. How would you work out which events really did delay the completion of the project?

As far as your question are claims worthwhile? That obviously depends on the cost benefit analysis - most commercial organisations would say that it is worth spending 2 years and $1m fighting/defending a $10m claim if it is shown that he has a strong case!

Out of curiosity, as a fair minded individual; if you know one of your contractors has an entitlement but has not recognised it for himself at your weekly meeting - do you help him to identify this entitlement?

David

Ron
Whilst I understand what you are saying, doesn’t this method simply mean that every activity will eventually become critical by virtue of the fact that the as-built float is used up? In my piling example, the activity was not critical in its entirity but your method would not reveal that, or would it?

At the end of the day, is the only way of determining the path for an planner to apply experience and common sense by reviewing what was being done in as much detail as possible, ie completion of piling in zone A allowed foundations to commence... and so on?

DW

Hello everyone,
Well this has been a long but interesting discussion. I thought I might jump in. First of all the answer to the ’does an as-built cp exist?’ is a definite yes. For example, if we take two simple activities, say piling and foundations, and evidence shows that the piling finished 6 weeks before founds - are we saying that the completion of the piling 6 weeks earlier was critical to the completion of the founds? The answer may be no, and the piling did not need to be finished until 2 weeks before the end of foundations, so there existed 4 weeks of float. The start of piling to the start of founds, however, probably was critical.

I have often seen Gerry’s --xx-x---xx--x-xxxx-x example in real life and as planners we know how to do manual forward & backward passes, but in the disjointed as-built example the normal method of calculating cp does not apply, does it? So is it acceptable for the planner to use his own experience & common sense to work out the critical path?

And Ron I agree with what you said about critical activites being different on a daily basis, but how do you look back at a particular day/week/month and work out what was critical at that time in the absence of progress data?

Like others I prefer ’windows’ analysis, however the progress data does not always exist and the --xx-x----xx info may only be available in a simple diary format - what then?

I found this topic to be a most interesting discussion. Ronald Winter’s post of 9/12/04 6:37 was the ‘Eureka’ post that summarised it for me.

I’m making these comments from a delay claims analysis perspective.

I believe there is such a thing as an As Built Critical Path. Otherwise I would be out of my job and might have to give back last few years of salary.

We might not want to call it an As Built CP although we constantly refer to it in delay claims analysis. I have used the term ‘Progressive Critical Path’ in a number of reports I have worked on as it was based on the analysis of the logically linked status programmes issued by the Contractor. I’ll use the term Progressive CP for now; seems like a bread winner to me.

The Progressive CP basically shows which task is (I’ll come back to this) critical on any given day during the duration of the project and yes, it is subjective and depends on the skill, experience of the planning analyst, as built information and contemporary records available to and relied upon by the analyst.

Theoretically, if I have a crystal ball that allows me to see which task is critical on any given day, as far as I am concerned that is the task that needs to be progressed that day. If there is no progress on that task on that day it WILL delay the completion of the project by 1 day.

For a claims analyst, the Contractor’s programme (a CPM network) is the best starting point for such a crystal ball (or insight) into a project. It is a readily available source of the Contractor’s methodology for when and how he intends to complete the project. The monthly status programmes provide a snapshot of what the Contractor believes is critical on that status date (I am assuming that the Contract Administrator/ Superintendent is doing its job and reviewing the progress information entered and the forecast for the remainder of the works). We can use that information and using rudimentary mathematics and CPM logic in the programmes (labour intensive as it may be), to determine how individual tasks slipped (or lost float and became critical) during any two status programmes. This provides us with what IS critical on any given day between those two status dates. The smaller the interval between any two status programmes, the more reliable the resulting Progressive CP for that period.

Don’t worry that’s just the first attempt. We can and in most instances will definitely need to refine it through contemporary records (what was reasonably known by the Contractor on that date) and as built information (as suggested by Roger Gibson in his post of 5/12/04 12:14). That’s where the experience of the planning analyst is most important and the eventual Expert Evidence, if any. It also depends on the quality of the status programmes and the progress information entered in those programmes. It also depends on how much time and money is to be spent on the exercise.

Repeat this process on a succession of status programmes. After we have determined that set of tasks that was (or should we now say IS) critical for each day of the project’s life and combine it and overlay it on an As Built Schedule; you get a Progressive Critical Path (see Ronald Winter’s post of 9/12/04 6:37).

Using the bottom down approach, the fine tuning of the Progressive CP can be done to the umpteenth degree for the period/s during which the delay/s are claimed. If the delay lies on the As Built Critical Path, it was critical.

And yes, I agree with David Barry (post of 5/1/05 12:34) that the ‘connection between as-built critical path activities does not have to be physical, logical, resource driven or otherwise – the connection is simply that it was [of course looking back] critical at the time…”. The connection only tells us when an activity ceased to be critical and the critical path shifted to another task.

I can’t wait to check out the website/ software that Ronald Winter mentioned in his email of the 7/12/04 2:42. This could be an excellent tool for a Progressive CP analysis using the status programmes. At least it might take a lot of the manual calculations out of the analysis. Seems like I am using the CPM for similar purposes; except that I start from day 1 and move forward to the end of the project through successive statuses.

Ron, can I get a demo version 

MR

Uri, You’ve answered your own question; only by retrospective analysis.


Roger Gibson

Philip
Looking forward yes, Looking backwards no.
David

Razi,

The answer you seek is to do with planning software, not whether an ABCP exists! When did planning become solely a computer excercise?

The Greeks did planning when they were building the Acropolis, and I submit (provided the records were available) a decent planner could establish what the actual crtical path was throughout the job!

I think my 2 cents has grown to a dollar making the same point, so I’ll leave it to others for a while!

Regards
David

Hi David

As per your logic "The connection between as-built critical path activities does not have to be physical, logical, resource dirven or otherwise - the connection is simply that it was critical at the time" than many or all activities could fullfill this criteria in isolation no doubt, but untill unless you do not connect them how you could you establish path leave critical or not.

I hold the view ABCP do not exist.

Regards

Hi Sigfredo,
I think the point you make is probably very valid, however, I have been in both camps, and still think that the ABCP is a figment of the imagination. Lets take it that the planner has regularly saved all the history including the float at every update and at the end of the project you tack every activity that was critical at any stage of the the project, and then try and find the connection between them. We have mostly agreed tha the critical path can jump around on most projects, so lets say tha you have now now isolated all those activities that was critical, the chance will be good that you may find they are unconnected. How are you going to explain that to a judge or arbitrator David?

Regards

Philip J

[Duplicate posting deleted by Moderator.]