You probably wish you could see the longest path and the critical path for all those activities and tasks in your schedule which are in the past history? But how can you move the data date back without all the dates and durations changing to something that they were not? Now I think we have something in the Longest Path Approximator, http://scheduling.spacetechnology.net It is capable of moving the data date back to the beginning of the month and even to the start of the project, and all the dates are maintained as if they hadn't happend yet, and they stay on the correct dates. Then you can see the longest path that actually happened. Hint: Ask for a free sample!
Confusion over names again: AACE doc gives various labels to various methods, confusingly calling more than one method "Windows" or "TIA", etc:
Generally, (forgetting the variations in other MIP’s), I think most people in the UK would recognise and name the following AACE methods as:
MIP 3.1 - As-planned v As-built
MIP 3.6 - Inpacted As-planned
MIP 3.7 - Windows
MIP 3.8 - Collapsed As-built
What we generally call "TIA" in the UK does not appear in the AACE document. It does in as much as all the pieces of a UK style TIA are in the document, but they are not collected together into one single method or MIP. Non of the MIP’s, (3.1 to 3.7), would generally be called TIA in the UK, but are known as and are referred too, as above.
When I googled an extract from Rolands 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 dont 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
Member for
21 years 8 months
Member for21 years8 months
Submitted by Rafael Davila on Thu, 2009-10-15 14:33
Do you sleep with a copy of AAECI 29R-03 under your pillow?
This document just complicates things beyond practical limits.
Roland,
Sorry for the intromission but it is just that this procedures and the document per se is so complicated that I wonder what an adjudicator would end doing with it if presented in court.
I hope simplified forensic methods to create from historic records a reasonable un-statused schedule at the different impact stages will eventually emerge and prevail, otherwise this will continue being chaos. In this way a simplified TIA or a Windows analysis can be applied to either an available CPM or the re-created schedule. Also hope someone will take the lead and adopt a single definition for TIA and Windows analysis instead of leaving it open.
Best regards,
Rafael
Member for
16 years
Member for16 years
Submitted by Roland Tannous on Thu, 2009-10-15 14:01
Sorry if i wasnt 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.
"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 youve 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?
Within our monthly updates we are required to submit in sequence our TIA’s for the period. Is not always a single one, sorry for the omission, and must be in sequence as to include the effect of prior TIAs otherwise duplicity in the claim might occur as some events included in prior TIAs might open some float.
Shahul, I never use the windows method; I do not even have a good reference on it.
At home the method of preference is Time Impact Analysis, ideally to be performed to include delays within monthly updates; it is prescribed to be performed even when the impact has not finished, in such cases another TIA will be performed at subsequent period updates as required.
The purpose of this is to keep informed at the Owner and the Contractor of the delays incurred or in progress and the status of EOTs to date. The Owner and the Contractor should be aware of the adjusted contract completion date early, not after the job finishes, this allows them to take appropriate actions.
Member for
16 years 7 monthsMark: No need to post the
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.
Member for
22 years 3 monthsYou probably wish you could
Member for
14 years 4 monthsNo One gives how you
No One gives how you implement the Window Analysis method real example
Member for
19 years 10 monthsRE: Window Analysis
Hi Rafael
Thanks for the heartfelt compliment.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
21 years 8 monthsRE: Window Analysis
Mike you are the BRAIN.
Member for
19 years 10 monthsRE: Window Analysis
Hi Rafael
I can change my threads - you cant.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
21 years 8 monthsRE: Window Analysis
Then it got to be Kiip It SStupid, that is how AACE doc came out.
Member for
19 years 10 monthsRE: Window Analysis
Hi Rafael
I always read KISS as Keep It Simple - Stupid.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
21 years 8 monthsRE: Window Analysis
All,
As of today these are the best and most practical definitions I have seen.
http://www.astadev.com/assets/pdf/astapowerproject/DelayAnalysisinConst…
KISS,
Best regards,
Rafael
KISS = Keep It SSimple, .... well you all know for what the second S stands for.
Member for
20 years 10 monthsRE: Window Analysis
All,
Confusion over names again: AACE doc gives various labels to various methods, confusingly calling more than one method "Windows" or "TIA", etc:
Generally, (forgetting the variations in other MIP’s), I think most people in the UK would recognise and name the following AACE methods as:
MIP 3.1 - As-planned v As-built
MIP 3.6 - Inpacted As-planned
MIP 3.7 - Windows
MIP 3.8 - Collapsed As-built
What we generally call "TIA" in the UK does not appear in the AACE document. It does in as much as all the pieces of a UK style TIA are in the document, but they are not collected together into one single method or MIP. Non of the MIP’s, (3.1 to 3.7), would generally be called TIA in the UK, but are known as and are referred too, as above.
And doesn’t it lead to a lot of confusion!!!!!!!
Member for
19 years 10 monthsRE: Window Analysis
Hi Rafael
When I googled an extract from Rolands 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 dont 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
Member for
21 years 8 monthsRE: Window Analysis
Mike,
Do you sleep with a copy of AAECI 29R-03 under your pillow?
This document just complicates things beyond practical limits.
Roland,
Sorry for the intromission but it is just that this procedures and the document per se is so complicated that I wonder what an adjudicator would end doing with it if presented in court.
I hope simplified forensic methods to create from historic records a reasonable un-statused schedule at the different impact stages will eventually emerge and prevail, otherwise this will continue being chaos. In this way a simplified TIA or a Windows analysis can be applied to either an available CPM or the re-created schedule. Also hope someone will take the lead and adopt a single definition for TIA and Windows analysis instead of leaving it open.
Best regards,
Rafael
Member for
16 yearsRE: Window Analysis
Hello Mike and thank you for the prompt reply :)
Sorry if i wasnt 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 , im new on this forum
Au revoir.
Member for
19 years 10 monthsRE: Window Analysis
Hi Roland
I would like to respond but I have no idea what your are going on about.
Although John Keane and Tony Caletca may well be able to explain.
Perhaps you can give a breakdown.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
16 yearsRE: Window Analysis
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 youve 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?
Member for
18 years 5 monthsRE: Window Analysis
Check this link below:
http://www.aacei.org/technical/rps/29R-03.pdf
Member for
16 years 11 monthsRE: Window Analysis
Its alright
Applause to Mr.Mike & Mr.Rafael
Member for
21 years 8 monthsRE: Window Analysis
Mike, thanks for the clarification, I agree.
Within our monthly updates we are required to submit in sequence our TIA’s for the period. Is not always a single one, sorry for the omission, and must be in sequence as to include the effect of prior TIAs otherwise duplicity in the claim might occur as some events included in prior TIAs might open some float.
Shahul, I never use the windows method; I do not even have a good reference on it.
Best regards,
Rafael
Member for
19 years 10 monthsRE: Window Analysis
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.
Member for
21 years 8 monthsRE: Window Analysis
Shahul
The following link can give you a jump start.
http://www.astadev.com/assets/pdf/astapowerproject/DelayAnalysisinConst…
At home the method of preference is Time Impact Analysis, ideally to be performed to include delays within monthly updates; it is prescribed to be performed even when the impact has not finished, in such cases another TIA will be performed at subsequent period updates as required.
The purpose of this is to keep informed at the Owner and the Contractor of the delays incurred or in progress and the status of EOTs to date. The Owner and the Contractor should be aware of the adjusted contract completion date early, not after the job finishes, this allows them to take appropriate actions.
Best regards,
Rafael