In preparation for the publication of a new paper Assessing Delay – the SCL Options in the April edition of PM World Journal it has been necessary to review and update several of the existing Mosaic papers focused on forensic analysis. These updated papers are available for immediate download.
The major updates are to:
Assessing Delay and Disruption - Tribunals Beware [1]. This paper, based on the AACE® International Recommended Practice No. 29R-03 Forensic Schedule Analysis. It:
- Describes the origins, strengths and weaknesses of ‘Critical Path’ scheduling.
- Outlines the current ‘state of play’ with regards to the practice of scheduling.
- Describes the primary approaches to delay analysis, their strengths and weaknesses, including:
- As-Built v As-Planned
- Impacted As-Planned
- Collapsed As-Built
- Window Analysis and its variant, Time Impact Analysis.
- Describes the type of record needed to support the delay analysis.
Delay, Disruption and Acceleration Costs [2]. This paper examines the theoretical underpinnings of ‘delay and disruption’ costs to suggest a realistic basis for their calculation. It is designed to help non-experts see through the ‘smoke and mirrors’ of schedule claims to understand what is likely to be real, what is feasible, and what’s hyperbole.
Independent, Serial and Concurrent Delays [3]. This White Paper provides an overview of the differences between independent, serial, and concurrent delays and the options for assessing the effect of concurrent delays.
New blogs and articles developed as part of the research are:
Concurrent Delays – UK High Court Decision Supports SCL Protocol [4]. This article discusses an English High Court decision supporting the approach to concurrent delays advocated in the Society of Construction Law Delay and Disruption Protocol and our White Paper (above). This judgement is likely to be influential in the UK, Australia and most Commonwealth countries, requiring expert assessment and analysis to be founded in common sense
Delivering Expert Evidence is Becoming Harder [5]. This article discusses a number of recent judgements that seem to have re-framed expert evidence, 'the court is not compelled to choose only between the rival approaches and analyses of the experts. Ultimately it must be for the court to decide as a matter of fact what [occurred]. '...there is an overriding objective of ensuring that the conclusions derived from that analysis are sound from a common-sense perspective'.
Costain vs Haswell Revisited [6]. This judgement has a number of important findings relating to schedule delay analysis including:
1. It is necessary to prove the delay event caused a delay to completion (a challenge for a Windows approach to delay assessment).
2. A CPM schedule is unlikely to provide a sound basis for delay assessment in agile and distributed projects.
This work and the publication in April of Assessing Delay – the SCL Options is part of a larger project to develop a controls paradigm for Assessing Delays in Agile & Distributed Projects. The internationally recognized approaches to assessing delay and disruption discussed in the papers above, are based on the premise there is a well-developed critical path schedule that defines the way the work of the project will be accomplished. Therefore, events that delay or disrupt activities in the schedule can be modelled using this schedule, their effect assessed, and responsibility for the assessed delay assigned to the appropriate party. The focus of this paper will be to offer a practical solution to the challenge of assessing delay and disruption in agile and distributed projects where the traditional concept of a ‘critical path’ simply does not exist and the effect of intervening events has to be considered in terms of loss of resource efficiency.
For more papers focused on Claims and Forensic Analysis see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-ITC-020.php [7]