(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.
Hi Guys,
New to posting but have been a keen reader for a while. There are some very talented users on here.
So my question is this: What is the accepted practical definition of a Windows Analysis?
So far I have used a few methods involving 'Windows':
1. Float Mapping / 'As-Is' analysis
2. As-Planned Vs As Built review of windows
3. TIA (UK definition) - Impacting the start of each window, adding progress to identify 'concurrent' delay at the end of each window
Is each of the above an accepted form of 'Windows Analysis'? Or does the term have a common understood meaning, say with reference to a TIA/Windows analysis.
Thanks
Alan
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Alan,
There is a bona fide method of delay analysis called "windows analysis." It doesn't have an "accepted" practical definition (then again, nor does any method as there are no regulatory bodies for this specialty). Several American consulting firms tend to use it, or a variant of it. They don't often tend to publish their methodologies in the public domain (for proprietary reasons); if you have access to an academic library or database, however, you may wish to look up the following papers:
Bruce Hallock and Pradip M. Mehta
2007 AACE International Transactions CDR.04
The Great Debate—TIA vs WINDOWS A Better Path for Retrospective Delay Analysis?
Beihagi, Kamyar. Project Monitoring With Windows Analysis,
ASCE 4th International Engineering And Construction Conference, (July 28, 2006).
Ciccarelli, J. and M. Cohen. Window Analysis: The Method and the Myth,
AACE International Transactions, (2005).
Gothand, Dirk D. Schedule Delay Analysis: Modified Windows Approach,
Cost Engineering Vol. 45, No. 9, (Sept. 2003).
Regards
Anders Axelson.
Pezala Consulting
I didn't get it ?
Ha ha! I think that concludes thing nicely!
Hi Guys
Having looked back on the debate I have come to the conclusion that it only takes one Letter to move from Mitigation to Litigation.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Hi Guys,
Just picked up the thread again after my hols in Tokyo.
There's been some really good debate which is great.
The main point is that the Contractor does not have an obligation to mitigate the effects of Employer's delays, without an instruction. Making this point will really please the Engineer on your next project!
Some reflection on the points raised during my break:
-I don't agree with Mike about the Contractor having an obligation to reduce the Employer's losses. The Employer's losses may include loss of rental income, loss of revenue from sales, Employer's staff etc. If the Employer caused these losses through his own default, then nothing in the case law suggests that the Contractor has an obligation to reduce the same without a variation to his contract. The Contractor has an obligation to mitigate his own damages of course, which the Employer would be accountable for. But damages are reflective of the Contractor's losses, not the Employer's. Mike, if you can point me in the direction of some good authority to back up your statement, then I stand to be corrected!
-I think Rob's point on causation is entirely correct. Causation is a question of fact, and the Contractor will invariably have an obligation to proceed "with due expedition and without delay" (quoting FIDIC RB 99 Cl. 8.1). This means that if the Contractor can proceed with work, then he obliged to do so. There is no delay caused to that element of work, so he has no entitlement under Contract. This has nothing to do with mitigation, rather causation as Rob pointed out in his example. Any mitigation would only relate to subsequently reducing the effect of the *actual* period of delay caused by the Employer.
-For re-sequencing, I was referring to mitigating actions which attract cost, or actions that are otherwise unreasonable. Mike also made this point. Using my example, in DSND Subsea v Petroleum Geo-Services [2000], it was found that the Contractor did not have an obligation to mobilise a deep sea diving vessel out of the sequence reflected in his programme in order to mitigate compensable delays (in this case to start testing early) - despite a clause in the Contract requiring him to proceed in an "expeditious and timely manner" (see para. 187 etc). This was particularly relevant as the Employer purported to terminate the contract for the Contractor’s failing to mobilise the vessel out of sequence (but in accordance with the baseline programme dates) and ignoring subsequent delays and difficulties in procuring the vessel within a limited time period.
On the Window's analysis question, I think Toby's comment answered my OP. Essentially, if the decision to perform a windows analysis comes after the decision to use a 'method' such as TIA / IAP etc.
Hopefully we have all learned something so far, I certainly have ; )
Cheers
Al
Hi Rob
Absolutely correct.
I just happen to call it mitigation.
Best regards
Mike Testro
I just thought I would provide another comment on that using an example with a very small programme :
1. the programme has 5 activities with start-finish constraints from activities 1-2,2-3,3-4 and 4-5, and activity 5 due to finish on the completion date.
2. the works are on programme when part way through activity 2 an employer delay event means that acitvity 2 has to be suspended (for say 1 month).
3. the works are then restarted, and the work finishes 1 month late.
In that situation (in my opinion view), at common law the contractor would be fine because it would either have been given an EOT for 1 month or time would be set at large. The contractor would have no duty to try to accelerate through the delay (although if it wanted to make a loss and expense claim, it could have to take reasonable steps in mitigating the costs which arose during the period of delay).
If you change the scenario slightly, and say that it is found that the constraint from activity 2-3 is wrong and that in fact there is no reason why activity 3 could not be progress at the same time as (or before) activity 2, then I would suggest that the contractor has a duty to re-sequence and undertake activity 3 during the period of suspension to activity 2. I would not regard that as 'mitigation' as such though; rather my view would be that the employer event was not causing critical delay (or it would possibly be a concurrent cause), and if the contractor failed to re-sequence then that would be the cause of the delay.
That is why I say that it is a matter of causation, rather than a matter of 'mitigation'.
We will just have to agree to disagree on that point Mike.
Hi Rob
We are getting closer.
The surest way to reduce a loss caused by delay is to reduce the delay period.
If this can be done without cost to the contractor then it is an obligation.
Best regards
Mike Testro
"The Employer delays the work - the Contractor suffers a Loss to be passed on to the Employer - the Contractor must take all reasonable means to reduce that loss".
======================================================
The delay isn't a contractor loss though Mike, it's an employer loss (if it's a loss at all).
I would agree that the contractor has to take reasonable steps to mitigate the extent of cost that it incurs during the delay (if it wants to recover the costs as damages), but that's not to say that the contractor has to do anything to allleviate the delay itself.
In terms of delay, it simply comes down to a matter of causation, ie which party caused which delay. Neither party has a common law duty to mitigate the other party's delay.
Hi Rob
The Employer delays the work - the Contractor suffers a Loss to be passed on to the Employer - the Contractor must take all reasonable means to reduce that loss - reasonable means no extra cost to the Contractor.
By doing so the Contractor will necessarily reduce the Employers losses.
I don't think I can make it any clearer.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Actually, I think I might need to reconsider my previous post slightly.
Alan said, "This authority suggests that the Contractor does not need to take unreasonable risks (i.e. unplanned acceleration / re-sequencing) in the absence of clear entitlement to recover the costs (i.e. an instruction): Westinghouse Electric Ltd v Underground Electric Railways Co [1912]"
On reflection, I would query the conclusion about re-sequencing.
Whilst I agree that the contractor wouldn't have to 'accelerate' as such to make up lost time caused by the employer, I suggest that in a situation say where certain free issue materials had not been issued, the contractor could not simply sit back and say 'the planned programme showed us doing that bit next, so we don't have to do any more work until the materials turn up'. He would have to re-sequence there. What he wouldn't have to do though was look for some ingenious complex resequencing solution that might get the project back on track. I also think re-sequencing is a bit of an oddity anyway, because of the old chestnut about the programme rarely being a contract document, and the parties not actually being bound to it.
This point really comes back though to my original point about causation though I would say, rather than mitigation as such, so in the example of the contractor sitting back and putting his feet up waiting for the free issue materials, it might be fair to say that the contractor failing to re-sequence isn't a matter of mitigation, but is rather a seperate cause of delay.
"If the Employer causes a delay the Contractor cannot just carry on blythely as if nothing had happened - he has a duty of care to take whatever steps reasonably available to reduce the Employer's losses.
This is known as "mitigation" and it is the Contractor's obligation to do so provided it does not cause extra costs to the Contractor."
================================
Mike,
There's a common law duty for a party who has suffered a loss to mitigate that loss. The result of that is that the injured party can only recover damages to the extent that it mitigated the loss. Even in that situation the injured party is not required to incur a cost itself in mitigating the loss.
As the case law which Alan cites establishes however, there is no common law duty for a party to mitigate the other parties' loss, and therefore no common law duty for a contractor to mitigate an employer's delay. Express contract terms might provide some additional obligation, but abscent such express terms there is no duty as described. This is demonstrated in the case law which Alan refers to.
Rob
On this side of the pond any method shall use a schedule that is representative of what happened. You cannot claim delay damages using the schedule of a different project.
When a schedule ends up in a court claim the delay and disruptions are such that in most cases the original schedule is no longer valid. A single schedule might be acceptable in very few occasions and perhaps on other forum, outside the courts.
Say you have a job for a Vocational School with several academic buildings, an administration buildings, an auditorium, several laboratory/shops, a Gym and a Cafeteria. Say because of soil conditions the Gym must be re-designed and re-located along with a significant site work re-designed and perhaps some utility work already done to be re-routed. Now the Gym foundations must be on piles instead on spread footings and the list goes on. Add to this the huge list of Change Orders usual on these types of jobs. The changes in activities, sequence and logic would be such that the initial schedule is no longer valid except for the delays prior to the impact. In most cases I do not believe our courts would accept a claim based on a single schedule, in one go.
Hi Toby
I have yet to find any benefit in a Forensic Delay Analysis to carry out the analysis many times over when it can be done in one go.
Apart from anything else it plays havoc with any concurrency calculation.
Perhaps you can enlighten me.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Hi Alan
I have read your comments regarding mitigation of delay.
It appears that you have set aside the general duty of care for one contracting party not to exploit the potential losses of the other.
If the Employer causes a delay the Contractor cannot just carry on blythely as if nothing had happened - he has a duty of care to take whatever steps reasonably available to reduce the Employer's losses.
This is known as "mitigation" and it is the Contractor's obligation to do so provided it does not cause extra costs to the Contractor.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Alan,
If you don't mind me saying so, I find your comment below - about mitigation of delay - impressive.
I certainly agree with you that there is no common law duty to 'accelerate' or even 'mitigate' employer delay (whatever 'mitigate' might be taken to mean in that context), and it did cross my mind to make a similar point to yours when I saw Rafael's comment (albeit that I would not have made the point as thoroughly as you did).
I would suggest however, that it would be relevant to point out that as a matter of causation, there would be a point at which the delay that occurs consequent to the employer event, could be classed as being no longer directly caused by the employer event, but caused instead by some indulgence of the contractor.
On that basis, my suggestion would be that whilst there would be no common law duty to try to make up the delay caused by the employer, or even a duty to take steps to minimise or mitigate the direct effect of that event, there would be likely to be a requirement for the contractor to not exaccebate the situation and itself cause additional delay.
I should try to come up with an example, and I think one might be a situation where a variation was instructed, and the contractor was required to incorporate the variation into the programme. In that situation, whilst I agree that the contractor would not have a common law duty to accelerate any of the works, I would suggest that the employer could argue that the contractor was responsible for any additional delay caused which was not necessary, for example due to the manner in which the contractor incorporated the varied works, or where the contractor took longer than a reasonable period to undertake the additional works (assuming they were critical).
Whilst that point does not necessarily contradict your comments, I would suggest that it is an important caveat to make to the comments.
Rob
time-slice would be a dynamic method as well wouldn't it Toby ? ie doing updates at fixed intervals, rather than upon the occurrence of identified events ?
Dear All
There are three methods of analysis available that rely on a single fixed baseline (static methods) and one method that relies on a shifting baseline (dynamic method).
1. as-planned versus as-built;
2. as planned impacted; and
3. as-built but-for.
The dynamic method is time impact analysis.
The further emphasis with all these methods of analysis is that each method can adopt as its baseline the whole of the construction period from start to finish, or the construction period can be broken down into discrete periods. In the latter, the analysis is performed on each identified period in succession and the effect on the earlier period is carried forward to the next. This is the “windows” method.
Alan,
You are right, "Don’t mistake a Contractor’s duty to mitigate its own loss" maybe I was misled by the wrong usage of terms on some of the references. I agree legal as well as technical language shall be properly used, no excuses, my mistake.
About acceleration what I mean is that under unlimited resources it is difficult if not impossible you can justify acceleration costs if you do not make reference to resources. By not including resources claimant would put himself into a Catch 22 situation, a paradoxical situation from which an individual cannot escape because of contradictory rules.
Because AACE recommended practice makes omission in its recommendation to the need of considering resources then the logical defense would be to argue that if resources do not matter then acceleration costs shall not be justified using changes in resources as a reference. This in agreement to some courts that have questioned the validity of claims that do not take into account the impact of resources. Note that I am referring to a defense argument and the defense would be wrong if do not raise the issue.
If a contractor do not include resources in his schedule he is implicitly saying that resources are unlimited and therefore he should be unable to claim that increasing resources to shorten activity durations represents acceleration. If the contractor dose not submit on his plan what resources are needed then how he latter on can claim loss due to resources. It would be self serving to say he planned to use certain resources after the facts. By omitting to properly disclose required resources he might be waving his right to claim damages due to impact on resources, he might be waving his right to claim he properly mitigated by not accelerating due to increased resource costs. If resources do not matter then unless an activity represents pure passage of time he should have reduced duration at no cost to the point only pure duration activities can remain critical.
I do not know how to substantiate activity duration and cost if physical volume of work and resource/crew productivity are not disclosed. Activities that are purely duration type, that represent elapsed time [similar to lag] are the exception.
Best regards,
Rafael
Hi Rafeal
I think your first statement is a tad it generalised, especially outside the context of express contractual terms or the local legal landscape.
Under English law, as an example, there is no implied ‘duty’ to mitigate delays, including acceleration, as you would suggest applies to all claims.
Don’t mistake a Contractor’s duty to mitigate its own loss (i.e. laying off redundant resources’) with a Contractor’s apparent duty mitigate delays caused by Employer or others (i.e. incurring additional costs in acceleration or otherwise to reduce the effect of the other parties delay).
Let me review my LL.M notes and give you a summary of the English Law position:
-The Contractor has an obligation to mitigate his own loss (not the Project’s delay), but his contract will restrict him from incurring additional cost unilaterally for the Employer’s account (i.e., without an instruction): Ascon v. Alfred McAlpine Construction (1999)
-That obligation does not require the Contractor ‘to take any step which a reasonable and prudent man would not ordinarily take in the course of his business. This authority suggests that the Contractor does not need to take unreasonable risks (i.e. unplanned acceleration / re-sequencing) in the absence of clear entitlement to recover the costs (i.e. an instruction): Westinghouse Electric Ltd v Underground Electric Railways Co [1912]
-In the absence of express terms to the contrary, there is no obligation for the Contractor to re-sequence work, unless it is reasonable to do so: DSND Subsea v Petroleum Geo-Services [2000]
-But, to be fair, if there is an express term in the contract requiring the Contractor to ‘mitigate all loss’ related specifically to delays, howsoever caused, then the Contractor’s money claim is restricted to the extent he fails to mitigate the loss: Motherwell Bridge v. Micafil Vakuumtecchnik (2002)
So based on the above, I don’t believe the Contractor is obligated to mitigate delay (being distinct from loss), under English Law. Therefore to say that *any and all* claims should include an integrated delay mitigation strategy (i.e. acceleration or re-sequencing), is incorrect. This would normally require any instruction from the Employer. The Contractor is only obligated to mitigate his own loss.
Your other comments are valid in relation to planning resources with physical restrictions present, I do agree. I was really referring to using the quick and dirty technique of resource levelling, when for me the preferred approach is to take time to set realistic activity durations with proper logic to level resources at the outset. That’s in a forward planning scenario, not necessarily in claims. However where there are multiple possible routes through a project, i.e. where there are multiple buildings to construct with no restrictions on sequence, then resource levelling provides a good basis to start.
Of course if there are restrictions on hook time, or where there is restricted scaffold or mast climber access or other such scenarios, then considerations might need to made when re-scheduling to avoid unrealistic CPs to completion. I would say this was more a risk of increasing the remaining duration than decreasing it however. The points you made here were very good though, I'll certainly think a bit differently about my claims submissions from now on.
So in short some good points on resources I do agree, but in relation to your points on claims and a Contractor’s ‘duty’ to mitigate delays (being distinct from his own loss), you only seem to be considering the context of US law.
Cheers
Al
Contractors are usually required to mitigate delays and acceleration is one of the mitigation options that shall always be considered in delay claims. Claim models that do not consider such requirement to mitigate are wrong.
http://www.pavlacklawfirm.com/blog/2012/04/17/damages-pt-2-duty-to-79535
But resources do matter.
In our jobs labor resources are usually available we model limited labor availability and variable resource quantities as to reduce idle time, it is equipment resources, prefabricated form work, materials supply and spatial resources that are more restrictive.
Resource constraining is not that simple and I believe the American culture with regard to resource planning is lagging several decades behind the available technology of more advanced software that can better model the resource issues.
Ironically some of our courts seems to have more common sense than some so called experts and are starting to require delay claims to consider resources in the analysis while the AACE insist on not adequately mentioning the resource issues. Our courts understand that without resources nothing is done and mere durations and a few links is not enough for a responsible analysis. They know activity duration is tied to resources but limiting the analysis of resources to individual activity durations is myopic to the big picture. Resource planning is at the core of it weather the AACE likes it or not.
I believe the insistence on keeping the planning technology on hold 40 years back by avoiding biting the bullet with regard to resource planning is what is keeping our planning culture on hold. I believe AACE is promoting the holding of our planning methods frozen back to the 70's. They keep insinuating resources do not matter merely by omitting them in their delay analysis recommended practice. I do not believe any serious delay practice shall omit the issue on resources.
Rafeal, the quotation to refer to sums it up for me. Windows Analysis doesn't seem to be a method as such, not like TIA or IAP anyway.
As for your comments on the AACE omission of resources, I think you're right. However I will remove resource constraints and/or hardly ever level resources in a 'forensic' situation. I sometimes check the revised resource profile against any recorded constraints, but I find levelling resources is only really useful if you have a project with multiple work faces which could *potentially* be available at once. The main driver of a claim is in the logic. Resource restraints are very subject, and only really apply if labour is at short supply, or if you are concerned with flooding a very small area of the Project - in my opinion.
In a claim situation, I find it better to only review the effect of resources after an impact, if I think it makes a material difference to the remaining duration. Better to keep the planned team sizes related to the work in each activity. If the client wants mitigation, then of course the number of teams may be increased and the activity durations reduced, but I would frame that as an acceleration claim, and would seek the additional supervision and loss of productivity cost that results (if any).
As for definitions, I think I have described the 'Update Impact Method', while Rob has described a more observational method. Both, I think, are 'Windows Analysis', which demonstrates my point that 'Windows Analysis' means different things to different people. Effectively it represents some kind of claim nirvana, but doesn't mean anything in particular.
I wonder what other ways of performing a 'Windows Analysis' our members have used?
Hi Rob
Your very detailed and accurate breakdown of the Windows method sets down precisely why it is outdated and inefficient.
Why do a forensic Time Impact analysis many times over many months when it is better to do it once over the whole project.
Then you will demonstrate true concurrency.
In the days before computers the USA Corps of Engineers were scrupulous in their paper driven time control.
At every monthly meeting they would compare the planned progress on the graph papaer with the actual progress on the ground.
If the C of E had caused any delay they awarded an Eot on the spot - thus resolving any potential disputes.
The system was adopted by the civil side and was codified when computer software came on stream - it was great for work in progress but when forensic analysis became fashionable the only system they had was the "Windows" method developed in a distant age.
The rest of the world was dragged along and better methods were ignored.
Best regards
Mike Testro
From the book Delay Analysis in Construction Contracts by Caletka:
My opinion about AACE delay analysis recommended practice is that it is flawed, it is not just about the esoteric language. Some of our courts have expressed that in order for a CPM be considered valid it must take into account the resources but AACE recommended practice do barely mention resource constraints if at all.
Sometimes resources are constrained with the purpose of looking for efficient schedules, to reduce idle resources. Just imagine hiring 10,000 units of each resource because they are available for hiring. In real life the planner shall run different scenarios with assistance of the software to determine best or close to best plan, nor merely feasible which can easily be attained with a lot of waste. There might be disruption costs associated with some impact but by releasing the resource constraint the activity and the impact can easily be reduced to a lower cost than keeping fixed the resource constraint. Here AACE recommended practice falls short of providing much needed guidance, is myopic to resource planning and usage.
AACE recommended practice for TIA does not mention how resources availability shall be considered especially when variable or reduced crews are possible but poor models cannot take this into account. Say you impact a job and resource leveling delays an activity several weeks because there were only 9 units of a required resource available. Granting a delay claim using such poor models would be in abominable error.
Because AACE recommended practice avoids mentioning how resource availability is to be considered in my opinion it falls short of being a good reference.
I am not a planner by background, and I think it is likely that the two previous posters have much more experience than myself in delay analysis, and I stand to be corrected. My understanding of window analysis/ time slice analysis though is as follows :
1. The programme is split into intervals (usually monthly), known as 'windows'.
2. Each window is assessed in turn.
3. Delay to completion is known at the start of the window, from the assessment of the previous window.
4. An update is then done at the end of the window (using the as built progress information for that window), and the forecast delay to completion is compared to the delay at the start of the window.
5. If point 4 above establishes that (additional) delay has ocurred during the window then the period is analysed in order to ascertain where the delays occured.
6. The first step in that process is to identify the critical path at the start and end of the window.
7. If the critical path has remained on the same activity throughout then investigations are restrcited to that element of the works.
8. If the critical path has shifted during the window then an exercise is undertaken to establish where the path changed and to investigate causes o delay to relevant activities accordingly.
9. The investigation entails a review of factual information to establish what the actual causes of delay were to the relevant critical activity during the relevant period. Those delays are thern written up to the claim.
10. The number of days of employer delay ocurring during each window, are aggregated to obtain the total amount of employer delay.
One potential ground for criticism of the method as a forsensic tool is that (as I have described it above) it is a propspective analysis, which assumes the durations and the logic of the baseline to be correct after the end of the window. For that reason, ideally the programme logic after the window should be checked to reflect as built information, otherwise the update will potentially produce misleading results. 'Steps' 7 and 8 also look a little loose the way I have described it, as of course the critical path my move more than once during the window, and also there may be more than one critical or near critical activity at any time.
Hi Mike
Thanks for your response.
I think I broadly follow the same principles as you in allot of my claims for Contractor's (data permitting). That is I will impact the Accepted Contract Programme, then compare that to the current forecast dates from the as-built. Float between the impacted programme and the as-built programme completion date(s) is then highlighted as mitigation. Negative float highlights 'concurrent' delay. All backed up with detailed narrative and references. This has proven fairly successful, although inevitably I am provided feedback from the opposing team that I should be using 'windows analysis' - whatever that is.
My own take on windows analysis (if I am instructed to carry it out) is to impact the as-planned network after the data date, and then to progress the programme through to the next data date. If the completion dates forecast in the impacted window network change following progress up to the end of the window (as they often do), I highlight this as mitigation, or possible 'concurrent' / culpable delay as applicable - i.e. looking at dominant cause. I then repeat this process through each update window, and add up the entitlements (as planned), and the actual delays (as built) to derive the basis of the claim. This does mean that the fragnets have to remain fairly simple (often just milestones / a few activities), and allot of the time the impacted activities are completed before the delay event has even been resolved (drawing approvals is a classic one).
I developed the whole process over the last year without much guidance, as I have yet to find a decent tutorial on the 'correct' adoption of Windows analysis. By doing that from the start of the programme I think it removes some of the issues with ignoring historic delays or activities completed ahead of schedule. I.e. I can say that the Contractor would have finished two weeks early in Window 1, but by Window 3 the Contractor was finishing a week late - so the entitlement is actually 3 weeks, not one! ; ) Nevertheless I am still anxious to check my method against 'best practice' - especially as people are paying for the service.
The AACE stuff just confuses me - its very academic and not written by Builders. There is no specific examples as to 'how' things should be done. In don't think the SCL Protocol really mentions Windows Analysis at all, as I understand the term.
I suppose my point is that 'Windows analysis' seems to be a term used by allot of people (especially clients), but I am yet to find a robust definition to what this actually means and the correct methodology. It seems to me to be a buzz word, which if isn't mentioned a claim will attract immediate criticism.
Cheers
Al
Hi Alan
Welcome to Planning Planet.
As a delay analyst working in the UK and overseas I have no time for Windows analysis.
It is commonly used by our American cousins because they invented the system and do not acknowledge that better methods have evolved elsewhere in the world.
You will find that the SCL Protocol 2002 does not mention Windows as a method of forensic delay analysis in Section 4.
The system is described in section 3 as a way of calculating an EoT entitlement while work is in progress but they don't call it Windows.
I have read the sections in the AACE manual but I could not understand a word of the jargon.
Basically a Windows analysis impacts a delay event immediately AFTER current progress has been updated - the fatal flaw is that current progress includes all delays to date.
Alternatively it includes and nullifies any work completed ahead of programme.
My preferred method is to impact the delay on the original baseline programme and then compare it with the As Built data.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Email: PPadmin@planningplanet.com
Replies