Dilemma with consultant/project manager re updating

Hi All



The problem I always face when starting a delay analysis is creating an as built programme.



The usual and most direct source is the weekly progress reports.



When the contract programme changes and is being reported on it is almost impossible to establish an as built programme with any sort of continuity.



So please change your programmes as you wish but maintain the contract programme and continue your weekly progess % on that as well as your current programme.



Best regards



Mike Testro

Dear friends,



The Program of Works should reflect what is going at site and who the Contractor is planning to complete the works per Contract.



If the Program of work is obselete, then it sould be modified to reflect the correct activites at site.



Best,



Samer

Hi Pearce,



I agree 100%. I don’t see the logic of reporting on a schedule that is obsolete and useless specially if it’s useless for site people. Schedules are not used only by PM consultants but more so should be a useful tool to those who are doing the actual work, i.e. site people. What the PM is requiring Arlene to do is to report on something that doesn’t make sense and publish an utterly ridiculous report. My other problem with issuing such report, this will undermine the credibility of the scheduler/planner.



IMO

Still swimming against the current, mike?

Andrew, he’s right.

Hi Andrew



Please go and have a look at the "Ban These Planning Abominations" thread.



Hopefully you will change your mind on FF SS lead lag links.



Best regards



Mike Testro

Arlene,



Assuming the activities are in the critical path. Try to see what will happen if you did not change the relationship. Doing some analysis, which of the 2 scenarios will help you contractually.



Changing to SS relationship will show less delay or ahead programme. Keeping the FS relationship, using retained logic, will preserve your original planning and may be helpful in a claim situation.



Cheers..

My opinion is that as PLANNERS we should be reviewing the programme as we work through the project. I believe that the CURRENT version of the plan (not the baseline) should be revised to reflect what is know has happened and what will happen in the future.

What is the point issuing a programme update that will show an activity starting (or finishing) in say 5 days when we know that it will be delayed by 2 weeks.



Remember the original Plan (baseline) contract programme is now only a piece of paper that records the original intent.



On a point of constructing the original plan I would think very carefully about the use of F-S links as there are very few situations were this is true. (unless your plan is at a very high level of detail, after erecting 2 columns F-S erect the beam spanning between them) I try to use a combination of S-S & F-F.

Dear Arlene,



If you support your schedule with actual inspection records showing that the activities were actually SS, then you are doing the correct thing.



Good records showing actual time and duration of activities supported with the approval of the Engineer is the best thing a planner can do to support her schedule.



Best Regards,



Samer

Right is a very strong word. I don’t think the PM is right in the strictest definition of the word right. He could be contractually compliant but not right. But as I said, contractually speaking, there could be a counterbalance argument to his argument.



IMO



P.S. On the issue of SS, I think there’s still no right or wrong argument at this moment.

Mike,



I believe the example that was given by Arlene is practical. Though I’m not inclined to agree that she has to necessarily change the relationships (as established in her baseline) in her Current or Updated schedule. As Trevor said, once there are actual dates, the rest are irrelevant.



The example given was I supposed intended for labor resource (i.e. steelfixers). When doing high rise buildings, reinforcing bars are continuous (for columns or core walls) until you reach the roof deck (or a certain point). Now lets deviate a little, why you need to ban SS relationship when you can practically use it to allocate your steelfixers to work on columns and core walls at the same time or in the same floor? Supposing the segragation of the structural elements in your Plan is separating Columns from Core Walls?



Arlene,



As Dieter said, your Consultant is right, but you are also right in a way and very articulate as well.



cheers!

Hi Arlene



Just one small comment regarding SS relationships.



You originally had two tasks on a FS link.



They both started simultaneously so you changed it to a SS link.



If the same task that linked the start of the 1st activity is the same one that links 2nd then you should use a FS link to both tasks - not just drop a SS link between the two.



This represents the true logic in the programme such that if the 1st task is delayed the 2nd will not be affected.



Best regards



Mike Testro

in the UAE, this normally happens:



Updated Baseline or Current Update from Baseline cannot be modified in relationships and durations.



A modified Programme reflecting the actual work can be submitted later on for Catch Up or recovery programme or Extension. But for now keep it as your record.

2c worth.

The trouble with the baseline is that it is carved in stone even though it is obsolete and irrelevant almost immediately.

The baseline is not a promise to perform the project in strict accordance with every detail in the baseline.

Measuring performance against it, except for perhaps a few dates, is meaningless.

Looking forward rather than pining for the baseline is how projects get done.

An unchangeable plan is inconsistent with any notion of the critical path method and sensible construction management, which demands updating and re-planning frequently if not continuously.

Everything not yet done is subject to re-planning.

Once a Task has an Actual Start Date, any other Start Date (baseline or planned) as determined by predecessors etc, is irrelevant. A fact is a fact. You could drop all of the links.

A critical Path can only exist (be defined for) the future.

The first thing you need to do is to protect your rights to a proper claim. Be sure to clearly and dispassionately state your objections to this “directive.” State that the schedule you are forced to submit does not reflect your current workplan, nor can the CPM calculations derived from it be definitive of the actual float and criticality of the activities.



It is only YOUR schedule if you believe that it displays your intended work plan, otherwise it is only a required submittal dictated by the client and you are not bound by its findings. Formally submit this document to your client and tell them that you may be required to follow their directions, but you are not required to use inaccurate information when considering compensation for delays. Good luck!

Hi Arelene,



What you are doing in the point of view of actually managing the project is right. You are reflecting what is really happening in field. I don’t believe that a baseline schedule should be something that is cast in stone except for the keydates and milestone dates in your contract. Schedules are supposed to be dynamic and responsive to the needs of the project.



I think your consultant is the typical consultant who likes to be seen as protecting the interest of the client even though most of the time they don’t make sense by trying to be academic in their approach about scheduling. You are just making sense of the baseline schedule by reflecting the reality. That’s how I view your situation.



My suggestion, if I may, if it’s clear in your contract that you can’t do what you’re doing, check the clause in your contract about "the duty of the contractor to mitigate delay". This could counterbalance his argument, perhaps.

Typically, if the PM/Client doesn’t want the Time Schedule revision, you can only use the Contract Time Schedule as a report tool. In the future, probably, the Client will use it as a document for Claim, if you have problems in your project (delay, additional costs, etc).



For controlling on-site activities make a new one. I’m sure that your PM wants to have a real idea what is going on your project and will let you make the changes needed to achieve it.



BR,

AF

Arlene,



Whether the approved baseline is reliable or not it should be followed as per contract conditions. That’s why we should be very careful that we have a schedule that has followed proper scheduling parameters prior submission for approval.



You’re right to affirm the current status of the project but not modify durations, relationships, etc. that might affect the scheduling parameters of the approved baseline, unless you have approval of the PM/Client to revise it.



Still you have a chance, you can start thru letters "schedule alerts" informing the PM that at that particular stage revision of the baseline is imminent to show current status of the project and request for baseline revisions. Some Client doesn’t mind in revising baseline schedule as long as it will not extend the contract finish date.



Regards,

Arlene



With intention out-of-sequence activities are shown in a log file for scheduling. A different sequence than planned might violate aspects of security. It has to be watched and decided by pm or another responsible person and so you are obliged to show.

Different start than planned will lead to a different finish date of that specific task by expected finish date, remaining duration or remaining units, depending on parameter settings. Following activities will be influenced by this "wrong" start and its influence on Project’s finish will be shown. The plan/schedule remains dynamic.

Sorry, for my opinion your consultant is right.



Regards

Dieter

Arlene,



For me, what you are doing is right. The Current Schedule is supposed to be dynamic which should reflect the actual conditions and the strategies being applied. However, to satisfy your Consultant, I suggest you create multiple Targets or Baselines (keeping back-ups) tailored to what he/she wants. Further, as a Planner, you should always consider the words ignorance and interests (of others). A lesson me-myself never learned by the way.



cheers!