Mark:

No need to post the same advert so many times in so many old threads of dubious relevance. That's just rude.

 

I've deleted the others and left this one alone, since it might actually be useful to some users. But don't push it.

No One gives how you implement the Window Analysis method real example

Mike you are the BRAIN.

Then it got to be Kiip It SStupid, that is how AACE doc came out.

All,

As of today these are the best and most practical definitions I have seen.

http://www.astadev.com/assets/pdf/astapowerproject/DelayAnalysisinConstr...

KISS,

Best regards,
Rafael

KISS = Keep It SSimple, .... well you all know for what the second S stands for.

Hi Rafael

When I googled an extract from Roland’s text up popped the Keane and Caletca book - looked no further - so they ripped it off from AACE did they - is nothing sacred.

I have read the AACE document on the net and I agree with you that it is useless as a guide to delay analysis - if it was under my pillow I would get nightmares.

Regarding standardisation of names for Analysis Methods it would be useful but don’t hold your breath - the SCL Protocol tried it but was largely ignored.

I take the time to put my own definition as to the chosen method at the top of any delay analysis narrative.

Hi Roland

You are right up to a point.

Windows analysis means that you have to do the same analysis as many times as an event moves into and out of a time window - a complete waste of time and effort.

That is why the windows method is no longer fashionable in the UK.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Hello Mike and thank you for the prompt reply :)
Sorry if i wasn’t clear.. The 2 methods I mention are actually methods 3.2 and 3.3 in the AAECI 29R-03 Forensic Schedule Analysis document.
The first is also known as As-planned vs As-Built.
And the second one known as Contemporaneous period/project analysis.
In the aforementioned document and in then subheading "common names" under each of these methods’ description, they cite "windows analysis" as a common name for both.
Therefore after reading a bit in this forum i have the impression some people are using this term to describe divergent methods . That is why i prefer to call "windows analysis" an approach/technique used within the scope of a delay analysis method, rather then a method in itself.After all,and in this context, the term "window" eminates from the term a "time window" so a lot of methods of analysis (not necessarily all) can accomodate "windows of time" and therefore accomodate this window technique from within the mechanism of the analysis methodology.
Hope i was a bit clearer this time.
Please bare with me , i’m new on this forum
Au revoir.

Sorry for barging in like that..

"Window Analysis" is actually a nomenclature that is commonly used to describe 2 different methods which are highly divergent, Observational / Dynamic / Contemporaneous As-Is and Observational / Static / Periodic ... These 2 methods diverge in the first being more contemporaneous to the project /relies on updates made at that time/ takes into consideration the dynamic nature of what is termed "the critical path"/dynamic nature of logic.
So Mike when you’ve mentioned in another post i read earlier somewhere else that "Window Analysis" is not considered to be valid in the UK anymore. Which one of the 2 described above method were you meaning right there?

Hi Rafael

This is an extract from the site Para 4.4 from Linnetts book "About Time"

"Although the technique defines delay within the
selected windows it does not identify the causation
and the use of short windows of time means that
differing methodologies can be used within the
individual windows, dependent on which is considered
the most appropriate and relevant to the events in
question.
The windows analysis will be easier to implement
when a detailed ‘as-planned’ master programme has
been regularly updated with progress throughout the
project. That is not to say that it will not be possible
to recreate this information retrospectively but this will
be dependent on the availability of some form of
progress records to demonstrate the project status at
the timing of the desired windows. Compilation of this
data is likely to be a time consuming and costly task."

In other words why do the same operation more than once.

The "Windows" method requires that each event in the time slice base to be addressed every time it appears in the next time slices.

This is why in the UK it is no longer considered to be a valid method.

A proper Time Imact analysis will only address one event once only.

Thanks for the Astadev link - I have not seen it before.

Best regards

Mike Testro.

Sorry Shahul - you have been hijacked again.