Website Upgrade Incoming - we're working on a new look (and speed!) standby while we deliver the project

Tips on using this forum..

(1) Explain your problem, don't simply post "This isn't working". What were you doing when you faced the problem? What have you tried to resolve - did you look for a solution using "Search" ? Has it happened just once or several times?

(2) It's also good to get feedback when a solution is found, return to the original post to explain how it was resolved so that more people can also use the results.

Windows or Snapshot Analysis

12 replies [Last post]
Tue, 2008-07-22 15:19
Mike Testro
User offline. Last seen 4 days 44 min ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 4420
Groups: Building Information Modelling, Content Moderators, GPCCAR Editors
Hello everyone.

I am just going to throw a pebble in the pond and see how far the ripples spread.

In my opinion - not in the least humble - the old American method of Windows Analysis is no longer recognised as a viable method of analysis - at least it is not in the real world.

Bring it on.

Best regards

Mike Testro.
Top

Replies

Mon, 2008-07-28 14:40
#1
Mike Testro
User offline. Last seen 4 days 44 min ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 4420
Groups: Building Information Modelling, Content Moderators, GPCCAR Editors
Hi all

At the begining this is what I put on the thread:

Hello everyone.

I am just going to throw a pebble in the pond and see how far the ripples spread.

In my opinion - not in the least humble - the old American method of Windows Analysis is no longer recognised as a viable method of analysis - at least it is not in the real world.

Bring it on.

We seem to have drifted off the path and none of our American friends have joined in - apart from an honourable contributionn from a Canadian planner who would probably not wish to be classified as such.

So! Unless there are any USA analysts who wish to defend their original method lets call a halt to the thread.

Best reagrds

Mike Testro
Top
Mon, 2008-07-28 12:30
#2
Andrew Flowerdew
User offline. Last seen 3 years 3 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 960
Groups: None
Oliver,

Seen it, read it but not aware that there has been any large scale adoption of what it says either in the UK or internationally.

That document is similar to the SCL Protocol in that they are both good practice but neither of them have established themselves as THE standard to follow or be judged by.
Top
Mon, 2008-07-28 11:30
#3
Se de Leon
User offline. Last seen 3 years 16 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 321
Groups: None
To add to what Oliver wrote.

The recommended practice is entitled Forensic Schedule Analysis. Look for RP No. 29R-03 in AACE website.

I hope this helps.
Top
Mon, 2008-07-28 10:54
#4
Oliver Melling
User offline. Last seen 5 years 10 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 24 Apr 2007
Posts: 595
Groups: The GrapeVine
The Association of Cost Engineers has written a recommended practice on Forensic Delay Analysis, has this not been adopted by people within the profession?

I think the aim of the document was to bring about the use of a standard lexicon for the claims / delay arena, in much the same way that PMI / APM BoK’s do for Project Management.
Top
Mon, 2008-07-28 09:14
#5
Andrew Flowerdew
User offline. Last seen 3 years 3 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 960
Groups: None
Toby,

Actually allows anyone to have a go at it, can’t say they’re obviously wrong in their approach if no-one has a benchmark against which to measure it.

Unless of course the answers so far out not to be credible, but hey, that might not be the analysis, just an Expert mistakenly being an advocate for his paymaster!!!!

Or am I just being too cynical?
Top
Mon, 2008-07-28 09:09
#6
Toby Hunt
User offline. Last seen 11 years 6 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 98
Groups: None
Andrew

The other unfortunate truth is that this confusion allows a lot of substandard "so called" delay analysts to profess to be experts when they clearly are not.

Top
Mon, 2008-07-28 09:03
#7
Andrew Flowerdew
User offline. Last seen 3 years 3 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 960
Groups: None
Toby,

All you say is very true, I think alot of problems stems from, (and I’ve said this a number of times on this site), the lack of any standards or recognised guidelines on how to do ANY of the methods.

Note I didn’t say detailed standards or guidelines as there has to be flexibility in all approaches to best suit the case under consideration and no guideline could cover every eventuality.

In the UK, different methods will have slightly different meaning to different people, internationally, TIA in the USA is closer to Windows than what we call TIA generally in the UK.

Until we’re all singing from the same song sheet the confusion and debate will go on.
Top
Mon, 2008-07-28 08:53
#8
Toby Hunt
User offline. Last seen 11 years 6 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 98
Groups: None
My opinion is that both windows and watershed are not methods of analysis in themselves, but merely timeframes in which a particluar method of analysis is carried out.

For example, you can use AP-v-AB in Windows (and lots of people do!) as well as API.

The use of the terms "Windows Analysis" is now a common smokescreen used in many EOT claims to try and convince the other side that a robust method of analysis has been used.
Top
Wed, 2008-07-23 04:27
#9
Andrew Flowerdew
User offline. Last seen 3 years 3 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 960
Groups: None
Mike,

It’s basically a very poor quality windows analysis.

Only a few windows are used accross the whole project, oh surprise, surprise, normally because the records aren’t there to substantiate anything in more detail.

eg 18 month job and only 3 or 4 time slices are taken through the whole job to represent all the changes on the project - "at watershed moments" which I think can be loosely interpreted as usually being at moments each side believes to be the most beneficial to their case!
Top
Wed, 2008-07-23 01:48
#10
Mike Testro
User offline. Last seen 4 days 44 min ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 4420
Groups: Building Information Modelling, Content Moderators, GPCCAR Editors
Hi Andrew

Thanks for that input - I was considering the use of windows analysis in a forensic situation.

I have not come across Watershed analysis - is it any way different to windows or time slice?

Best regards

Mike Testro
Top
Tue, 2008-07-22 17:11
#11
Andrew Flowerdew
User offline. Last seen 3 years 3 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 960
Groups: None
Just to reinforce the point, comments from City Inn v Shepherd [2007] CSOH 190 judgment:

The term "defenders" is the "contractor"

"The use of a programme such as Suretrack permits the contractor to update his programme as construction progresses and to allow for the impact of events on the construction programme. Mr Lowe’s evidence was that in his experience most contractors who use such software will continue to use it as the works proceed to monitor the progress of the works. In failing to do so, the defenders had hampered the presentation of the case and had also significantly hindered the experts in their analysis of the instructions and delays on the overall progress of the works. The absence of the programme also made it much more difficult to discover the contractor’s original logic."

"I accept that understanding what had happened during the progress of the works might have been a great deal easier if the defenders’ original Suretrack programme had been available, and in particular if it had been updated as the works proceeded. Nevertheless, I am bound to approach the case on the basis of the evidence that is available."

"Use of CPM as-built programme: Just don’t go there! Note it was not a windows analysis put forward by the expert and so the comments aren’t directed at that method.

"the use of an as-built critical path analysis. He stated that a critical path analysis involves identification of the duration of the relevant activities, based on the as-built records, and the logic links between those activities. The identification of the correct logic links was of vital importance. Problems arose with a critical path analysis when logic links were incorporated when they should not be there, or if logic links were inserted which were not wholly correct, or if necessary links were omitted. If a mistake was made in one logic link, that was liable to produce an error in the identification of the activities that were critical to completion of the works, and that in turn could invalidate the critical path shown in the relevant programme."

As I said in the previous post, the judge didn’t say CPM isn’t no longer a valid method but he did basically confirm the saying "crap in, crap out".
Top
Tue, 2008-07-22 16:45
#12
Andrew Flowerdew
User offline. Last seen 3 years 3 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 960
Groups: None
Mike, Comments from the Judge in Mirant Asia-Pacific v Ove Arup TCC April 2007: 5. Windows analysis, reviewing the course of a Project month by month, provides an excellent form of analysis to inform those controlling the Project what action they need to take to prevent delay to the Project. 6. Without such analysis those controlling the Project may think they know what activities are on the critical path but it may well appear after a critical path analysis that they were mistaken. 7. A less reliable form of critical path analysis is the watershed analysis. This analyses the Project in terms of a few key events. It may be a sufficient check in the course of a Project to analyse what changes, if any, may need to be made in the Project at the time of a benchmark event. 8. Both windows analysis and watershed analysis are used frequently to analyse delays at the end of a Project. A watershed analysis will be less reliable particularly if the gaps between the watersheds are lengthy. It does not show the pattern of events between the watersheds. This may be very important where a number of activities are at or near the critical path. What the watershed analysis provides is a snapshot at the particular time when it is carried out. The judge, at least in part accepted the experts windows analysis so I don’t think the method is dead. If you’re thinking of the observations by the judges in City Link v LUL and City Inn’s v Shepherd then I believe it was alot to do with the quality of the evidence presented in these cases - records etc just weren’t good enough to do a valid critical path analysis, (it wasn’t very good in Mirant Asia either come to that). But I do believe that the comments in these judgments does take CPM analysis back a couple of steps. The comments are probably going to become more and more relevant in todays partnering world where the first thing that suffers is record keeping, etc. Moral of the story - if you want your dispute decided objectively by proper analysis and not on the judges gut feeling of what appears to have caused delay, regularly and accurately update the programme , keep electronic copies and as always - keep sufficient records to enable a proper CPM analysis of the events to be done. Don’t you just get tired of telling people that!!!!!
Top