"The wait to see what happens at the end in the hope of a perfect final solution is causing more harm than good to all parties ..."
Some truth in this so I’m off to be assessed and hopefully accredited as a commercial mediator within the next two weeks. Think it will also be useful for serving on disputes boards.
Ok, completely off the subject, maybe new thread needed!!!!!
Member for
21 years 8 months
Member for21 years8 months
Submitted by Rafael Davila on Tue, 2010-06-01 17:04
Monthly windows analysis is performed after the facts, but very close; it might be that some of the speculative elements are minimized for the period in question and the results although not perfect can be a good compromise.
The wait to see what happens at the end in the hope of a perfect final solution is causing more harm than good to all parties. It is easier to follow the logic on the run by all parties than months or years later. I believe the solution at the end is usually the worst, no matter who nails the other, both loose.
Here it is said it is better a bad deal than a good case. Well a bad deal early is better than a bad deal late.
Since we seem to be agreed that your TIA is synonymous with my IAP method then of course the employers agents are reluctant to award an interim EoT - that cannot be later reduced or withdrawn - on the basis of a purely theoretical analysis.
One that is easily rigged in advance by a contrived and loosely linked contract programme.
They want to wait to see what really happens - and quite right too.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
21 years 8 months
Member for21 years8 months
Submitted by Rafael Davila on Tue, 2010-06-01 14:18
You wrote; "As for Windows Analysis and methodology of how it is to be used, I am again of the opinion that it is not a method in its own right but a way of carrying out a method. Does that make sense?"
Of course it makes sense, I wonder if it can be standarized for a method such as TIA, I wonder if it can be a better compromise than our specifications for TIA that deals only with issues of EOTs while leaving unresolved other issues such as pacing. I do not like the idea of our methodology that promotes leaving issues for latter in the hope of a perfect solution, prefer an 85% accurate procedure to be performed on time that can be contractually binding, leaving TIA "snapshots" for Change Order Negotiations.
Best Regards,
Rafael
Member for
23 years 6 months
Member for23 years7 months
Submitted by David Bordoli on Tue, 2010-06-01 03:42
Whilst we may not be precisely talking about the same thing I believe TIA should also be used as a prospective method during the currency of a project. Our NEC contracts’ procedures for compensation events do tend to steer the project in that direction.
As for Windows Analysis and methodology of how it is to be used, I am again of the opinion that it is not a method in its own right but a way of carrying out a method. Does that make sense?
For instance, using Impacted As-Planned all the events that happen in a window (or even a watershed!) are impacted at the same time, say all the events that happen during September. The effect of September’s events can be viewed. Similarly with TIA, the programme is updated (progressed) to the beginning of September then all of September’s events impacted, again that shows the effect of September’s events. This sort of chunky analysis can be carried out with what ever method is used.
The difference is, say for TIA, that correctly applied it is possible to determine the causal effect of individual delaying events – something that the English courts strive for. Using a windows type analysis in TIA (or any other method) only allows the causal effect of a group of events to be determined. I think that means it becomes a series of mini global claims. Global claims are something that, generally, the English courts do not like but, as evidenced by the case law I have cited, a windows approach to analysis does appear to be acceptable. Perhaps that is because it is a pragmatic and proportional approach when dealing with numerous small delaying events. In reality we very rarely get large discrete delaying events in the way that most text books describe the methods, in the vast majority of cases we get delay by attrition, lots of small events which in themselves are insignificant but when combined give rise to a significant delay.
Here we speak a very different language, or have very different standards. Here TIA is recommended for prospective situation, a forward looking view, before-mortem and less recommended for hindsight situations where we call hindsight a backward view, a forensic view, post-mortem view.
Guess those practicing in the USA have nothing to look on the UK experience, is quite different. At least I am giving up and will no longer look for knowledge on the claims sections of PP.
Here our TIA Methodologies are used to exclusively determine EOT’s, of course concurrency is considered but only with regard to EOT’s, it purposely leaves out other issues regarding concurrency. It is clearly spelled out in the writing of the methodology.
“Concurrent delay analysis is not an integral part of a TIA and should be deferred until after the number of excusable delay days is resolved.”
As long as monetary compensation responsibility is not resolved in the presence of concurrency and whether pacing occurred or not by our TIA methodologies then our TIA leaves some concurrency issues unsolved, very big issues indeed.
Owners take the side on all concurrency is on their favor while contractors interpret it as there is always pacing, the end result is that too little or nothing is done under the assumption the other party is to blame. Even EOTs are delayed here because they are perceived as a win for the party who gets EOTs and that monetary compensation will follow. I cannot accept as good having to wait for all the damage to occur to take proactive action for a partial determination, a non-perfect methodology applied on time, while there is time for corrective action, got to be better than a post-mortem.
I am hoping to see a magisterial exposition from any of you on how to perform a Windows Analysis along with a written methodology that can be used as a specification.
Best Regards,
Rafael
Member for
23 years 6 months
Member for23 years7 months
Submitted by David Bordoli on Mon, 2010-05-31 12:19
Completely off topic (and Emma wont benefit from this at all) but I wont be going to the NUF this year. My daughter is graduating university that day and that is a little more important to me!
As we both know a properly conducted Time Impact Analysis will give a clear indication of both the cause and effect of concurrent events.
This aspect however is lost in a windows analysis as the concurrency picture is not seen until the whole analysis is completed and the situation of events spanning time slices has been resolved.
One of the joys of the PP forum is that you never know where a topic will drift off from the original query.
Emma is getting the benifit of a masterclass debate here.
Best regards
Mike Testro
ps - looking forward to seeing you at the British Library in July.
Member for
23 years 6 months
Member for23 years7 months
Submitted by David Bordoli on Mon, 2010-05-31 10:19
Does TIA (whatever we decide that is) leave concurrency unresolved? I must be missing something here, either that or my understanding of TIA is different to everyone elses.
Anyway, how about returning to the original theme of the thread!
Member for
21 years 8 months
Member for21 years8 months
Submitted by Rafael Davila on Mon, 2010-05-31 09:49
At home the usual construction team, the team that analyzes and makes periodic decisions about delays is composed of professionals not necessarily specialized in CPM Forensics, these are our architects, design engineers, project managers and other specialized consultants depending on the type of job. These people never had problems to understand and follow the rationale of TIA as prescribed in our jurisdiction, so easy they without specialized knowledge in CPM can follow the logic. Perhaps less than 2% of our jobs end up in court because of delay claims, if on every job there is an average of 20 agreements then less than 1/10th of a percent of our issues end up in court although I believe it is even a lower percentage. The 99.9% of the issues are solved by this team; it would be of great benefit if concurrency issues are also resolved on time and not at the very end of the job.
The problem is that TIA leaves concurrency issues unresolved, here we need a standard methodology that solve issues on concurrency, that can alert on time who is responsible, or not responsible, without leaving in “limbo” all parties, a standard that can be included in our contracts. A methodology that although not the absolute best can be a good compromise, better than nothing at all with regard to concurrency. Maybe a standard based on TIA(something we all know) undertaken in a windows fashion.
I do not pretend it to be a substitute of other forensic methods we should leave to other forums, but an improvement of TIA, what we are using now. I agree with the SCL Protocol in that it should be a method in its own right otherwise it would be the UK version of AACE International Recommended Practice No. 29R-03.
It is beneficial that experts have different opinions on delay analysis methods - otherwise there would be only one appointment to every dispute and not the current multiple pay days.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
23 years 6 months
Member for23 years7 months
Submitted by David Bordoli on Mon, 2010-05-31 06:02
I do agree that we do need, somewhere along the way, to standardise on the names and descriptions of techniques so as not to lead to confusion. I thought the taxonomy of the AACE International Recommended Practice No. 29R-03 was a decent start – I am afraid it is a fact of life that some complex things require complex and precise descriptions that may not suit those who require simplistic familiar language descriptions.
In my humble opinion it is never safe to say ‘never’ or ‘should not be used’. There are situations where circumstances dictate that less than robust methods of analysis are used. This could be because the relevant information is not available (for instance see the SCL Protocol at paragraph 14.3) or because of time and cost constraints and ‘proportionality’.
The need for precise descriptions is important as I do not recognise very much in Mike’s descriptions of various methods, it does not mean he, or I, are wrong but merely that we are probably using different the same name for different things.
For instance, in Time Impact Analysis as I see it, the delaying events are impacted one by one with the as-planned programme being updated in relation to progress achieved and so on just prior to impact of the delaying event so that the causal effect of each event can be identified individually. I identified five types of delay in three categories but again things may well have moved on since then.
In the As-Built But For method (if it is the same as the SCL calls the Collapsed as-Built) an as-planned programme is not required at all – one of its benefits if such a programme never existed, has been destroyed of if the actual work carried out was substantially different in scope or eventual execution.
All methods have their pros and cons and the easiest thing is to rubbish someone’s evidence based on the method of analysis they have used. The difficult thing is to produce a positive case – but again what ever method is used for that there will be some disadvantages to it that will render it open to attack. Whatever we do we just have to show that our interpretation of the facts is more correct given the balance of probabilities than our ‘opponent’.
It is my experience that despite Mike’s tag of ‘global claim’ As-Planned v As-Built analysis is an accepted method of analysis, especially in the lower tribunals such as adjudications. Respected commentators such as David Barry in his paper Beware the Dark Arts! (http://www.scl.org.uk/node/960) puts forwards a very strong case that other methods that are reliant on technology (CPA software) are unreliable.
Getting back to the original thread about Windows and Time Slices, again I think there is a problem of definition here (as typified in the Costain v Haswell). Windows Analysis was in the draft of the SCL Protocol but it was dropped from the final publication because it was realised that it was the way in which it was conducted rather than a method in its own right. For instance, Impacted As-Planned, Time Impact Analysis, Collapsed As-Built and As-Planned v As-Built can all be undertaken in a windows fashion, analysing a number of delaying events that happen within a specified period. This is particularly useful where there are a great many delaying events (typically information issues or change orders) over a short period which would make individual event analysis too time consuming and perhaps not proportionate.
Going back to Emma’s original question I think the important thing is to understand the various ways in which delays can be forensically analysed – and that could be by spending an ‘apprenticeship’ with an experienced mentor, going to college to undertake academic study in the subject or reading some of the excellent text books around which describe in intimate detail the techniques. Then if you want to use P3 just become proficient in its use generally and you will be able to undertake what ever analysis you wish. Which software you use is not the important issue, understanding the techniques is and being proficient in whatever software you choose to use.
Whilst, like most Primavera users I guess, I find P3 easier to use than P6 I don’t think it is good practise (unless the original programme for the works you are investigating was on P3) to continue using ‘outdated’ software that is difficult to purchase and difficult to get support for. Eventually we all have to move on to P6 and the big learning curve that entails.
This method relies on a direct comparison between the As Planned Programme and the As Built programme.
It has no directly impacted events but may display a "measles chart" of randomly scattered event milestones to show how the planned work was delayed.
In this form it is a global claim and unless the Contrctor can show that ALL the events were the Employers and that NONE of them were his it will inevitably fail.
It does have a use in Sub-Contract claims where sub-contract work is sandwiched between other trades where late starts can be demonstrated by reference to As Built records.
Impacted As Planned
This is used when work is delayed in progress where an event is impacted onto the programme at the time of its occurenece.
The result will show the "likely effect on completion" of the delay event.
It depends entirely on the quality of the programme that is being impacted and unless it is a fully detailed bottom up programme the reults would be quite eratic.
This is why Architects / Enfgineers are reluctant to award an EoT on a purely theoretical basis.
This method should not be used in forensic analysis.
Time Impact Analysis
This method seeks to demonstrate direct cause and effect of delay events on the planned programme of works in comparison to the As Built progremma.
The method requires:
1. A fully detailed bottom up Baseline Programme that shows a clear and dynamic critical path.
2. A full and complete as built record that shows who did What When and Where
3. A sustainable schedule of events that lists all delay events with both the event start date and the date when it actually impacted the affected task(s).
Note - ther are four categories of events where the Event Impact:
3.1 Finishes before the task start
3.2 Delays the task start
3.3 Stops or slows the task in progress
3.4 Delays completion of the task or requires a revisit to completed work.
The method requires that the As Planned Programme have the As Built Programme underlying it.
The Events are impacted in strict chronological order of Impact date.
There are Three potential results on the impacted tasks:
3.5 Falls short of the As Built task - in which case something else caused further delay and more investigation is required.
3.6 More or less coincides with the As Built task in which case it may be reasonably stated that direct cause and effect has been demonstrated
3.7 Overshoots the As Built Programme in which case the work was done differently to the planned sequence and further resarch is required to establish what changed.
It is unlikely that a later event inmpact will change the status of an earlier demonstrated event but if it does then further retrospective investigation is required.
As Built But For
This method requires a fully detailed As Built programme such that a critical path can be established within it.
It does not need a fully detailed critical path Planned Programme of work as the adjustments are made on the As Built programme
It does require a sustainable schedule of events that lists all delay events with both the event start date and the date when it actually impacted the affected task(s).
The As Built programme is laid over the As Planned programme.
The method assumes that all the differences between the As Built Tasks and the As Planned tasks are due to the events.
Starting from the LAST event an event bar is set over the As Built bar.
The As Built Bar is Split under the Event bar and the As Built Durations reduced by the same amount as the event duration - the As Built programme is rescheduled.
The process is repeated until all events are omitted from the As Built Programme.
The total number of event days will not necessarily equal the diffence between the rescheduled completion date of the As Built programme and the Planned Completion date - this is because of concurrent delay events.
There could still be a discrepancy between the As Built Completion date and the Planned completion date which will remain to be explained.
The method relies on the following assumptions:
1. The critical path on the As Built Programme represents the ACTUAL squence of work.
2. The schedule of events is accurate.
3. The event was correctly impacted on the As Built tasks.
These assumption - made by one delay expert - are easily challenged by another expert to show a different result.
Windows / Time Slice
This method was devised by the US Corps of Engineers to monitor progress on construction work before computers.
At each progress meeting the planned programme was compared to the actual progress and an attempt was made to show what caused the delay.
It was a series of rolling Impacted as Planned delay analysis and it worked very well at the time.
It all comes apart when applied to Forensic Analysis where the established Time Impact method has to be done for each time slice - an unessary waste of time and effort when the mothod works very well in one hit.
In summary
Every method has its place (except windows) in modern delay analysis but succes depends entirely on the quality of the available data.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
21 years 8 months
Member for21 years8 months
Submitted by Rafael Davila on Sun, 2010-05-30 16:56
"Guess MIP is foreign AACEI language of their own as they are incapable of speaking plain english."
IOMTCTJATTC
Instead of making things clear they just add to the confusion.
These guys should go back to kindergarten to learn basic english, perhaps their language knowledge is so limited they could not figure out simple names.
They are MIP 101.3125 for Static/Grose. Also remember that in the state of Michigan is a serious offense, MIP is a misdemeanor and can affect your future. See the following link.
I am looking for someone with more common sense than AACEI to create a standard for Windows Analysis, a standard we all can read and enjoy becuase of how clear it is. Reference to hundreds of alternate ways to skin the cat is not needed. Their Standard Practice for TIA is ok perhaps because of Ron Winter involvement.
Best Regards,
Rafael
Member for
20 years 10 months
Member for20 years10 months
Submitted by Andrew Flowerdew on Sun, 2010-05-30 16:15
With regard to TIAI I am referring to AACE International Recommended Practice No.52R-06, the one usually prescribed in our contracts, about Window Analysis this I do not know as it is not required in our contracts. I am starting to believe it might be an error for the Windows Analysis not to be the required method if superior to TIA. Perhaps because TIA is so simple it is required at the expense of resolving issues on concurrency, or perhaps it is an issue some want to avoid. I believe issues on concurrency should be disclosed asap even when it has not finished yet.
It would be good if we can get a similar paper for a recommended practice for “Periodic” Windows Analysis, separate from 29R-03, not my favorite paper.
I recall a thread sometime last year when this whole topic of definition of terms was iscussed.
My use of the terms stems from the SCL protocol.
I was using my own version of Impacted as Planned back in the early 1990s - when the Protocol came out I was a bit miffed that they had nicked my method.
Best regards
Mike T.
Member for
20 years 10 months
Member for20 years10 months
Submitted by Andrew Flowerdew on Sun, 2010-05-30 10:56
Precisely this is why I believe there is a possibility Monthly Windows Analysis might be superior to TIA as prescribed in our jurisdiction, and TIA should be left for Change Order Negotiation.
As I said before I only know TIA as per USA Standards, a very simple procedure we have to perform on our contracts every time we request an EOT, an everyday procedure here.
“While TIAs are usually performed by a project scheduler and can be applied on a variety of project types, the practice is generally used as part of the Total Cost Management (TCM)
change management and forecasting processes on construction projects.”
Although I do not know Windows Analysis it is also defined as a Contemporaneous Method as per our definition of Windows Analysis, and believe it is worth investigating if superior as it is being claimed, on the surface my suspicion is that it is the superior contemporaneous method if concurrency issues are revealed.
Our courts favor contemporaneous methods over forensic methods and perhaps it is like the forensic methods are to be methods of last resort when the CPM is so bad it is to be deemed invalid starting from the baseline(s) to the updates.
“Summary: Critical path delay analysis techniques are widely applied in the construction industry, with the Windows Analysis method being regarded as technologically advantageous. TIA has proven to be a powerful forecasting tool for potential delays and for time extension negotiations. However, the assumptions that a contractor makes in determining the extra work can be subjective. Windows Analysis has been proven to be a powerful tool in the forensic determination of “what happened.” By combining these two techniques, both the contractor and the owner can assure themselves of fair and reasonableness of the actual project completion delays. The use of Windows Analysis on a monthly basis utilizing a month of duration between the schedule updates is also powerful in attempts to mitigate the potential of future claim and to documents the actual delays and impacts to the project completion activities, including causation and responsibility.”
If Windows Analysis can reveal concurrency while TIA cannot, perhaps this is what we should be doing in our monthly reports and leave TIA for negotiating Change Orders as it is inherently speculative. Why wait to disclose responsibility, better if we know early not only about EOT but also about costs. I am buying Galloway and Bordoli’s statements about the advantages of the Windows Analysis method. Or is it that Monthly Windows Analysis discloses nothing until the very end?
Here TIA is prescribed as the methodology to be used, is the only one I know, well I am about to start seriously looking into the methodology for Monthly Windows Analysis. Perhaps you in the UK can take the lead and start by standardizing and requiring it on your protocols. If it works, which I believe it will, then I hope we will follow.
In my humble opinion, far from being an ‘outdated system’ windows analysis is alive and kicking – at least in the English courts.
From one of my favourite cases Mirant Asia-Pacific Construction (Hong Kong) Ltd v Ove Arup and Partners International Ltd & Anor [2007] EWHC 918 (TCC) (20 April 2007):
“131. Windows analysis is the most accepted method of critical path analysis. As Pickavance makes clear at page 572 of his book, "Windows" (and "Watersheds") are not methods of analysis in themselves: they are merely aspects of conducting the critical path analysis. In essence they represent the division of the overall construction period into smaller periods into which each new set of corresponding progress can be entered into the programme and analysed.
132. The term "Windows analysis" refers to the regular reviews and updates undertaken by the contractor, normally monthly. These periods of time would be described as monthly windows. Unlike previous monthly reviews, the planner would use sophisticated software programmes to plot which activity or activities were on and which were near to the critical path each month. The programmes would take into account those activities which had started early or had been delayed. Also built into the programmes would be the progress of those activities which had started since the previous monthly window. This would enable the employer and the contractor to analyse over the relatively short periods of time what changes had occurred, and identify what problems needed to be investigated and put right.”
And even more recently in Costain Ltd v Charles Haswell & Partners Ltd [2009] EWHC B25 (TCC) (24 September 2009):
“176. Both parties engaged experienced programming experts to assist them and the Court in calculating the relevant periods of delay caused by the events in question. Costain engaged Mr. John S. Crane, BSC, a Director or Gardiner & Theobald Fairway who has over 35 years experience in the construction industry and who is a well known planning and programming expert. Haswell engaged Mr. Alan Purbrick BSC, Chartered Quantity Surveyor and Managing Director of Capital Consulting International, which is a specialist consultancy practice covering all aspects of programme analysis and project monitoring. Pursuant to Orders of the Court, the experts met on a number of occasions and agreed on many matters which has been of great assistance to the parties and to the Court. For example, they agreed that the appropriate methodology to assess delay in this case was the one known as the "time impact analysis" or the "windows slice analysis" which involves considering the state of progress of the project prior to the delaying event in question and then impacting the effect of that delaying event on the Contract Programme in order to establish the time effect of that event, in particular the delay to the Project Completion Date. …”
Whilst there is some debate about whether the terminology used by the Judge was quite correct, I believe one expert probably used time impact analysis and the other windows slice analysis.
Regards
David
Member for
21 years 8 months
Member for21 years8 months
Submitted by Rafael Davila on Wed, 2010-05-26 16:31
I can give advice on time slice or windows analysis.
In my opinion as an experienced delay analyst the method is an outdated system that was devised by the US Corps of Engineers and has since been overtaken by more sophisticted processes.
It takes much longer to put together - If it takes six weeks to do a proper Time Impact Analysis then it will take that times the number of monthly time slices involved.
Also it negates any sensible concurrency demonstration.
A training course will not make you a delay analyst - as you say you need to learn at the desk of an experienced mentor.
Best regards
Mike Testro.
Member for
18 years 6 months
Member for18 years6 months
Submitted by Oliver Melling on Wed, 2010-05-26 09:53
Batch files and WKS files can give raw data to perform analysis on but the method of how to do the analysis will definitaly not be covered.
I doubt anyone will tell you how to do it either (at least on this forum) as this is seen as the bread an butter of delay analysts.
There are no courses on delay analysis i have seen, except one that i came across based in dubai. If you work for a claims consultant then the best bet is your colleagues.
Member for
20 years 10 monthsRE: Timeslices in P3 - any courses available?
David,
’constructive acceleration’ - and there lies another difference between the US and UK!!!
Hope all is well with you,
Andy
Member for
23 years 6 monthsRE: Timeslices in P3 - any courses available?
"The wait to see what happens at the end in the hope of a perfect final solution is causing more harm than good to all parties ..."
Absolutely! And a recipe for constructive acceleration if there was ever one
Another new thread required!
Member for
20 years 10 monthsRE: Timeslices in P3 - any courses available?
Rafael,
"The wait to see what happens at the end in the hope of a perfect final solution is causing more harm than good to all parties ..."
Some truth in this so I’m off to be assessed and hopefully accredited as a commercial mediator within the next two weeks. Think it will also be useful for serving on disputes boards.
Ok, completely off the subject, maybe new thread needed!!!!!
Member for
21 years 8 monthsRE: Timeslices in P3 - any courses available?
Mike,
Monthly windows analysis is performed after the facts, but very close; it might be that some of the speculative elements are minimized for the period in question and the results although not perfect can be a good compromise.
The wait to see what happens at the end in the hope of a perfect final solution is causing more harm than good to all parties. It is easier to follow the logic on the run by all parties than months or years later. I believe the solution at the end is usually the worst, no matter who nails the other, both loose.
Here it is said it is better a bad deal than a good case. Well a bad deal early is better than a bad deal late.
Best regards,
Rafael
Member for
19 years 10 monthsRE: Timeslices in P3 - any courses available?
Hi Rafael
Since we seem to be agreed that your TIA is synonymous with my IAP method then of course the employers agents are reluctant to award an interim EoT - that cannot be later reduced or withdrawn - on the basis of a purely theoretical analysis.
One that is easily rigged in advance by a contrived and loosely linked contract programme.
They want to wait to see what really happens - and quite right too.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
21 years 8 monthsRE: Timeslices in P3 - any courses available?
Bordoli,
You wrote; "As for Windows Analysis and methodology of how it is to be used, I am again of the opinion that it is not a method in its own right but a way of carrying out a method. Does that make sense?"
Of course it makes sense, I wonder if it can be standarized for a method such as TIA, I wonder if it can be a better compromise than our specifications for TIA that deals only with issues of EOTs while leaving unresolved other issues such as pacing. I do not like the idea of our methodology that promotes leaving issues for latter in the hope of a perfect solution, prefer an 85% accurate procedure to be performed on time that can be contractually binding, leaving TIA "snapshots" for Change Order Negotiations.
Best Regards,
Rafael
Member for
23 years 6 monthsRE: Timeslices in P3 - any courses available?
Rafael
A couple of things…
Whilst we may not be precisely talking about the same thing I believe TIA should also be used as a prospective method during the currency of a project. Our NEC contracts’ procedures for compensation events do tend to steer the project in that direction.
As for Windows Analysis and methodology of how it is to be used, I am again of the opinion that it is not a method in its own right but a way of carrying out a method. Does that make sense?
For instance, using Impacted As-Planned all the events that happen in a window (or even a watershed!) are impacted at the same time, say all the events that happen during September. The effect of September’s events can be viewed. Similarly with TIA, the programme is updated (progressed) to the beginning of September then all of September’s events impacted, again that shows the effect of September’s events. This sort of chunky analysis can be carried out with what ever method is used.
The difference is, say for TIA, that correctly applied it is possible to determine the causal effect of individual delaying events – something that the English courts strive for. Using a windows type analysis in TIA (or any other method) only allows the causal effect of a group of events to be determined. I think that means it becomes a series of mini global claims. Global claims are something that, generally, the English courts do not like but, as evidenced by the case law I have cited, a windows approach to analysis does appear to be acceptable. Perhaps that is because it is a pragmatic and proportional approach when dealing with numerous small delaying events. In reality we very rarely get large discrete delaying events in the way that most text books describe the methods, in the vast majority of cases we get delay by attrition, lots of small events which in themselves are insignificant but when combined give rise to a significant delay.
David
Member for
19 years 10 monthsRE: Timeslices in P3 - any courses available?
Hi Rafael
In your case Time Impact Analysis is the the same as our Impacted as Planned.
What do you call our forensic method of Time Impact Analysis?
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
21 years 8 monthsRE: Timeslices in P3 - any courses available?
Mike,
Here we speak a very different language, or have very different standards. Here TIA is recommended for prospective situation, a forward looking view, before-mortem and less recommended for hindsight situations where we call hindsight a backward view, a forensic view, post-mortem view.
Guess those practicing in the USA have nothing to look on the UK experience, is quite different. At least I am giving up and will no longer look for knowledge on the claims sections of PP.
Best regards,
Rafael
Member for
19 years 10 monthsRE: Timeslices in P3 - any courses available?
Hi Rafael
Once again you are talking about a concurrent delay analysis.
Time Ipact Analysis is strictly for a forensic situation.
What did you think of my definitions?
Best regrads
Mike Testro
Member for
21 years 8 monthsRE: Timeslices in P3 - any courses available?
Mike,
Here our TIA Methodologies are used to exclusively determine EOT’s, of course concurrency is considered but only with regard to EOT’s, it purposely leaves out other issues regarding concurrency. It is clearly spelled out in the writing of the methodology.
http://www.aacei.org/technical/rps/52r-06.pdf
“Concurrent delay analysis is not an integral part of a TIA and should be deferred until after the number of excusable delay days is resolved.”
As long as monetary compensation responsibility is not resolved in the presence of concurrency and whether pacing occurred or not by our TIA methodologies then our TIA leaves some concurrency issues unsolved, very big issues indeed.
Owners take the side on all concurrency is on their favor while contractors interpret it as there is always pacing, the end result is that too little or nothing is done under the assumption the other party is to blame. Even EOTs are delayed here because they are perceived as a win for the party who gets EOTs and that monetary compensation will follow. I cannot accept as good having to wait for all the damage to occur to take proactive action for a partial determination, a non-perfect methodology applied on time, while there is time for corrective action, got to be better than a post-mortem.
I am hoping to see a magisterial exposition from any of you on how to perform a Windows Analysis along with a written methodology that can be used as a specification.
Best Regards,
Rafael
Member for
23 years 6 monthsRE: Timeslices in P3 - any courses available?
Completely off topic (and Emma wont benefit from this at all) but I wont be going to the NUF this year. My daughter is graduating university that day and that is a little more important to me!
Member for
19 years 10 monthsRE: Timeslices in P3 - any courses available?
Hi David
As we both know a properly conducted Time Impact Analysis will give a clear indication of both the cause and effect of concurrent events.
This aspect however is lost in a windows analysis as the concurrency picture is not seen until the whole analysis is completed and the situation of events spanning time slices has been resolved.
One of the joys of the PP forum is that you never know where a topic will drift off from the original query.
Emma is getting the benifit of a masterclass debate here.
Best regards
Mike Testro
ps - looking forward to seeing you at the British Library in July.
Member for
23 years 6 monthsRE: Timeslices in P3 - any courses available?
Does TIA (whatever we decide that is) leave concurrency unresolved? I must be missing something here, either that or my understanding of TIA is different to everyone elses.
Anyway, how about returning to the original theme of the thread!
Member for
21 years 8 monthsRE: Timeslices in P3 - any courses available?
David,
At home the usual construction team, the team that analyzes and makes periodic decisions about delays is composed of professionals not necessarily specialized in CPM Forensics, these are our architects, design engineers, project managers and other specialized consultants depending on the type of job. These people never had problems to understand and follow the rationale of TIA as prescribed in our jurisdiction, so easy they without specialized knowledge in CPM can follow the logic. Perhaps less than 2% of our jobs end up in court because of delay claims, if on every job there is an average of 20 agreements then less than 1/10th of a percent of our issues end up in court although I believe it is even a lower percentage. The 99.9% of the issues are solved by this team; it would be of great benefit if concurrency issues are also resolved on time and not at the very end of the job.
The problem is that TIA leaves concurrency issues unresolved, here we need a standard methodology that solve issues on concurrency, that can alert on time who is responsible, or not responsible, without leaving in “limbo” all parties, a standard that can be included in our contracts. A methodology that although not the absolute best can be a good compromise, better than nothing at all with regard to concurrency. Maybe a standard based on TIA(something we all know) undertaken in a windows fashion.
I do not pretend it to be a substitute of other forensic methods we should leave to other forums, but an improvement of TIA, what we are using now. I agree with the SCL Protocol in that it should be a method in its own right otherwise it would be the UK version of AACE International Recommended Practice No. 29R-03.
Best regards,
Rafael
Member for
19 years 10 monthsRE: Timeslices in P3 - any courses available?
Hi David
It is beneficial that experts have different opinions on delay analysis methods - otherwise there would be only one appointment to every dispute and not the current multiple pay days.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
23 years 6 monthsRE: Timeslices in P3 - any courses available?
I do agree that we do need, somewhere along the way, to standardise on the names and descriptions of techniques so as not to lead to confusion. I thought the taxonomy of the AACE International Recommended Practice No. 29R-03 was a decent start – I am afraid it is a fact of life that some complex things require complex and precise descriptions that may not suit those who require simplistic familiar language descriptions.
In my humble opinion it is never safe to say ‘never’ or ‘should not be used’. There are situations where circumstances dictate that less than robust methods of analysis are used. This could be because the relevant information is not available (for instance see the SCL Protocol at paragraph 14.3) or because of time and cost constraints and ‘proportionality’.
The need for precise descriptions is important as I do not recognise very much in Mike’s descriptions of various methods, it does not mean he, or I, are wrong but merely that we are probably using different the same name for different things.
For instance, in Time Impact Analysis as I see it, the delaying events are impacted one by one with the as-planned programme being updated in relation to progress achieved and so on just prior to impact of the delaying event so that the causal effect of each event can be identified individually. I identified five types of delay in three categories but again things may well have moved on since then.
In the As-Built But For method (if it is the same as the SCL calls the Collapsed as-Built) an as-planned programme is not required at all – one of its benefits if such a programme never existed, has been destroyed of if the actual work carried out was substantially different in scope or eventual execution.
All methods have their pros and cons and the easiest thing is to rubbish someone’s evidence based on the method of analysis they have used. The difficult thing is to produce a positive case – but again what ever method is used for that there will be some disadvantages to it that will render it open to attack. Whatever we do we just have to show that our interpretation of the facts is more correct given the balance of probabilities than our ‘opponent’.
It is my experience that despite Mike’s tag of ‘global claim’ As-Planned v As-Built analysis is an accepted method of analysis, especially in the lower tribunals such as adjudications. Respected commentators such as David Barry in his paper Beware the Dark Arts! (http://www.scl.org.uk/node/960) puts forwards a very strong case that other methods that are reliant on technology (CPA software) are unreliable.
Getting back to the original thread about Windows and Time Slices, again I think there is a problem of definition here (as typified in the Costain v Haswell). Windows Analysis was in the draft of the SCL Protocol but it was dropped from the final publication because it was realised that it was the way in which it was conducted rather than a method in its own right. For instance, Impacted As-Planned, Time Impact Analysis, Collapsed As-Built and As-Planned v As-Built can all be undertaken in a windows fashion, analysing a number of delaying events that happen within a specified period. This is particularly useful where there are a great many delaying events (typically information issues or change orders) over a short period which would make individual event analysis too time consuming and perhaps not proportionate.
Going back to Emma’s original question I think the important thing is to understand the various ways in which delays can be forensically analysed – and that could be by spending an ‘apprenticeship’ with an experienced mentor, going to college to undertake academic study in the subject or reading some of the excellent text books around which describe in intimate detail the techniques. Then if you want to use P3 just become proficient in its use generally and you will be able to undertake what ever analysis you wish. Which software you use is not the important issue, understanding the techniques is and being proficient in whatever software you choose to use.
Whilst, like most Primavera users I guess, I find P3 easier to use than P6 I don’t think it is good practise (unless the original programme for the works you are investigating was on P3) to continue using ‘outdated’ software that is difficult to purchase and difficult to get support for. Eventually we all have to move on to P6 and the big learning curve that entails.
Member for
19 years 10 monthsRE: Timeslices in P3 - any courses available?
Hi Rafael
I’ll give it a go.
As Built v As Planned
This method relies on a direct comparison between the As Planned Programme and the As Built programme.
It has no directly impacted events but may display a "measles chart" of randomly scattered event milestones to show how the planned work was delayed.
In this form it is a global claim and unless the Contrctor can show that ALL the events were the Employers and that NONE of them were his it will inevitably fail.
It does have a use in Sub-Contract claims where sub-contract work is sandwiched between other trades where late starts can be demonstrated by reference to As Built records.
Impacted As Planned
This is used when work is delayed in progress where an event is impacted onto the programme at the time of its occurenece.
The result will show the "likely effect on completion" of the delay event.
It depends entirely on the quality of the programme that is being impacted and unless it is a fully detailed bottom up programme the reults would be quite eratic.
This is why Architects / Enfgineers are reluctant to award an EoT on a purely theoretical basis.
This method should not be used in forensic analysis.
Time Impact Analysis
This method seeks to demonstrate direct cause and effect of delay events on the planned programme of works in comparison to the As Built progremma.
The method requires:
1. A fully detailed bottom up Baseline Programme that shows a clear and dynamic critical path.
2. A full and complete as built record that shows who did What When and Where
3. A sustainable schedule of events that lists all delay events with both the event start date and the date when it actually impacted the affected task(s).
Note - ther are four categories of events where the Event Impact:
3.1 Finishes before the task start
3.2 Delays the task start
3.3 Stops or slows the task in progress
3.4 Delays completion of the task or requires a revisit to completed work.
The method requires that the As Planned Programme have the As Built Programme underlying it.
The Events are impacted in strict chronological order of Impact date.
There are Three potential results on the impacted tasks:
3.5 Falls short of the As Built task - in which case something else caused further delay and more investigation is required.
3.6 More or less coincides with the As Built task in which case it may be reasonably stated that direct cause and effect has been demonstrated
3.7 Overshoots the As Built Programme in which case the work was done differently to the planned sequence and further resarch is required to establish what changed.
It is unlikely that a later event inmpact will change the status of an earlier demonstrated event but if it does then further retrospective investigation is required.
As Built But For
This method requires a fully detailed As Built programme such that a critical path can be established within it.
It does not need a fully detailed critical path Planned Programme of work as the adjustments are made on the As Built programme
It does require a sustainable schedule of events that lists all delay events with both the event start date and the date when it actually impacted the affected task(s).
The As Built programme is laid over the As Planned programme.
The method assumes that all the differences between the As Built Tasks and the As Planned tasks are due to the events.
Starting from the LAST event an event bar is set over the As Built bar.
The As Built Bar is Split under the Event bar and the As Built Durations reduced by the same amount as the event duration - the As Built programme is rescheduled.
The process is repeated until all events are omitted from the As Built Programme.
The total number of event days will not necessarily equal the diffence between the rescheduled completion date of the As Built programme and the Planned Completion date - this is because of concurrent delay events.
There could still be a discrepancy between the As Built Completion date and the Planned completion date which will remain to be explained.
The method relies on the following assumptions:
1. The critical path on the As Built Programme represents the ACTUAL squence of work.
2. The schedule of events is accurate.
3. The event was correctly impacted on the As Built tasks.
These assumption - made by one delay expert - are easily challenged by another expert to show a different result.
Windows / Time Slice
This method was devised by the US Corps of Engineers to monitor progress on construction work before computers.
At each progress meeting the planned programme was compared to the actual progress and an attempt was made to show what caused the delay.
It was a series of rolling Impacted as Planned delay analysis and it worked very well at the time.
It all comes apart when applied to Forensic Analysis where the established Time Impact method has to be done for each time slice - an unessary waste of time and effort when the mothod works very well in one hit.
In summary
Every method has its place (except windows) in modern delay analysis but succes depends entirely on the quality of the available data.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
21 years 8 monthsRE: Timeslices in P3 - any courses available?
GMIFALOTOATAIOSPE For:
"Guess MIP is foreign AACEI language of their own as they are incapable of speaking plain english."
IOMTCTJATTC
Instead of making things clear they just add to the confusion.
These guys should go back to kindergarten to learn basic english, perhaps their language knowledge is so limited they could not figure out simple names.
They are MIP 101.3125 for Static/Grose. Also remember that in the state of Michigan is a serious offense, MIP is a misdemeanor and can affect your future. See the following link.
http://www.minorinpossession.net/
I am looking for someone with more common sense than AACEI to create a standard for Windows Analysis, a standard we all can read and enjoy becuase of how clear it is. Reference to hundreds of alternate ways to skin the cat is not needed. Their Standard Practice for TIA is ok perhaps because of Ron Winter involvement.
Best Regards,
Rafael
Member for
20 years 10 monthsRE: Timeslices in P3 - any courses available?
2009 version -
Common names for MIP 3.7 - (amongst others):
1. Window analysis
2. Windows analysis
3.
4. Time Impact Analysis (TIA)
5. Time Impact evaluation (TIE)
6.
7.
?????????
And there are the other methods that share one or the other name?
Member for
21 years 8 monthsRE: Timeslices in P3 - any courses available?
With regard to TIAI I am referring to AACE International Recommended Practice No.52R-06, the one usually prescribed in our contracts, about Window Analysis this I do not know as it is not required in our contracts. I am starting to believe it might be an error for the Windows Analysis not to be the required method if superior to TIA. Perhaps because TIA is so simple it is required at the expense of resolving issues on concurrency, or perhaps it is an issue some want to avoid. I believe issues on concurrency should be disclosed asap even when it has not finished yet.
http://www.aacei.org/technical/rps/52r-06.pdf
http://www.ronwinterconsulting.com/Time_Impact_Analysis.pdf
It would be good if we can get a similar paper for a recommended practice for “Periodic” Windows Analysis, separate from 29R-03, not my favorite paper.
Member for
19 years 10 monthsRE: Timeslices in P3 - any courses available?
Hi Emma
Are you taking all this in?
You are getting a built in tutorial just for you.
Best regards
Mike Testro.
Member for
19 years 10 monthsRE: Timeslices in P3 - any courses available?
Hi Andrew
I recall a thread sometime last year when this whole topic of definition of terms was iscussed.
My use of the terms stems from the SCL protocol.
I was using my own version of Impacted as Planned back in the early 1990s - when the Protocol came out I was a bit miffed that they had nicked my method.
Best regards
Mike T.
Member for
20 years 10 monthsRE: Timeslices in P3 - any courses available?
All,
But what process are we defining as "TIA" and "Windows Analysis"?
All the AACEI 5 TIA named methods, the UK versions or some other versions?
Member for
21 years 8 monthsRE: Timeslices in P3 - any courses available?
Mike,
Precisely this is why I believe there is a possibility Monthly Windows Analysis might be superior to TIA as prescribed in our jurisdiction, and TIA should be left for Change Order Negotiation.
As I said before I only know TIA as per USA Standards, a very simple procedure we have to perform on our contracts every time we request an EOT, an everyday procedure here.
http://www.aacei.org/technical/rps/52r-06.pdf
“While TIAs are usually performed by a project scheduler and can be applied on a variety of project types, the practice is generally used as part of the Total Cost Management (TCM)
change management and forecasting processes on construction projects.”
Although I do not know Windows Analysis it is also defined as a Contemporaneous Method as per our definition of Windows Analysis, and believe it is worth investigating if superior as it is being claimed, on the surface my suspicion is that it is the superior contemporaneous method if concurrency issues are revealed.
http://www.cpmiteam.com/AssessingDelays.html
Our courts favor contemporaneous methods over forensic methods and perhaps it is like the forensic methods are to be methods of last resort when the CPM is so bad it is to be deemed invalid starting from the baseline(s) to the updates.
Best Regards,
Rafael
Member for
19 years 10 monthsRE: Timeslices in P3 - any courses available?
Hi Rafael
The extract is talking about concurrent analysis of work in progress - not forensic analysis where TIA should not be used.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
21 years 8 monthsRE: Timeslices in P3 - any courses available?
Mike,
From the paper by Galloway, P., Nielsen,
http://www.nielsen-wurster.com/Email_Announcements/NW_Communique/PDFs/v…
“Summary: Critical path delay analysis techniques are widely applied in the construction industry, with the Windows Analysis method being regarded as technologically advantageous. TIA has proven to be a powerful forecasting tool for potential delays and for time extension negotiations. However, the assumptions that a contractor makes in determining the extra work can be subjective. Windows Analysis has been proven to be a powerful tool in the forensic determination of “what happened.” By combining these two techniques, both the contractor and the owner can assure themselves of fair and reasonableness of the actual project completion delays. The use of Windows Analysis on a monthly basis utilizing a month of duration between the schedule updates is also powerful in attempts to mitigate the potential of future claim and to documents the actual delays and impacts to the project completion activities, including causation and responsibility.”
If Windows Analysis can reveal concurrency while TIA cannot, perhaps this is what we should be doing in our monthly reports and leave TIA for negotiating Change Orders as it is inherently speculative. Why wait to disclose responsibility, better if we know early not only about EOT but also about costs. I am buying Galloway and Bordoli’s statements about the advantages of the Windows Analysis method. Or is it that Monthly Windows Analysis discloses nothing until the very end?
Here TIA is prescribed as the methodology to be used, is the only one I know, well I am about to start seriously looking into the methodology for Monthly Windows Analysis. Perhaps you in the UK can take the lead and start by standardizing and requiring it on your protocols. If it works, which I believe it will, then I hope we will follow.
Best Regards,
Rafael
Member for
19 years 10 monthsRE: Timeslices in P3 - any courses available?
Hi David
The problem with windows or time slice is that you have to repeat the time impact analysis for every time slice when you only ever need to do it once.
And it is only when all the time slices are doen that the concurrency element is fully revealed.
In my mind it is an outdated waste of time and money.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
23 years 6 monthsRE: Timeslices in P3 - any courses available?
Dear Emma and Oliver
In my humble opinion, far from being an ‘outdated system’ windows analysis is alive and kicking – at least in the English courts.
From one of my favourite cases Mirant Asia-Pacific Construction (Hong Kong) Ltd v Ove Arup and Partners International Ltd & Anor [2007] EWHC 918 (TCC) (20 April 2007):
“131. Windows analysis is the most accepted method of critical path analysis. As Pickavance makes clear at page 572 of his book, "Windows" (and "Watersheds") are not methods of analysis in themselves: they are merely aspects of conducting the critical path analysis. In essence they represent the division of the overall construction period into smaller periods into which each new set of corresponding progress can be entered into the programme and analysed.
132. The term "Windows analysis" refers to the regular reviews and updates undertaken by the contractor, normally monthly. These periods of time would be described as monthly windows. Unlike previous monthly reviews, the planner would use sophisticated software programmes to plot which activity or activities were on and which were near to the critical path each month. The programmes would take into account those activities which had started early or had been delayed. Also built into the programmes would be the progress of those activities which had started since the previous monthly window. This would enable the employer and the contractor to analyse over the relatively short periods of time what changes had occurred, and identify what problems needed to be investigated and put right.”
And even more recently in Costain Ltd v Charles Haswell & Partners Ltd [2009] EWHC B25 (TCC) (24 September 2009):
“176. Both parties engaged experienced programming experts to assist them and the Court in calculating the relevant periods of delay caused by the events in question. Costain engaged Mr. John S. Crane, BSC, a Director or Gardiner & Theobald Fairway who has over 35 years experience in the construction industry and who is a well known planning and programming expert. Haswell engaged Mr. Alan Purbrick BSC, Chartered Quantity Surveyor and Managing Director of Capital Consulting International, which is a specialist consultancy practice covering all aspects of programme analysis and project monitoring. Pursuant to Orders of the Court, the experts met on a number of occasions and agreed on many matters which has been of great assistance to the parties and to the Court. For example, they agreed that the appropriate methodology to assess delay in this case was the one known as the "time impact analysis" or the "windows slice analysis" which involves considering the state of progress of the project prior to the delaying event in question and then impacting the effect of that delaying event on the Contract Programme in order to establish the time effect of that event, in particular the delay to the Project Completion Date. …”
Whilst there is some debate about whether the terminology used by the Judge was quite correct, I believe one expert probably used time impact analysis and the other windows slice analysis.
Regards
David
Member for
21 years 8 monthsRE: Timeslices in P3 - any courses available?
http://www.nielsen-wurster.com/Email_Announcements/NW_Communique/PDFs/v…
Perhaps you can study yourself the methodology. Follow the next link for a Forensic Schedule Analysis: Example Implementation
http://www.icoste.org/AACE2008%20Papers/Toronto_cdr11.pdf
For AACE International Recommended Practice No. 29R-03 follow the next link
http://www.aacei.org/technical/rps/29R-03.pdf
Member for
19 years 10 monthsRE: Timeslices in P3 - any courses available?
Hi Oliver
I can give advice on time slice or windows analysis.
In my opinion as an experienced delay analyst the method is an outdated system that was devised by the US Corps of Engineers and has since been overtaken by more sophisticted processes.
It takes much longer to put together - If it takes six weeks to do a proper Time Impact Analysis then it will take that times the number of monthly time slices involved.
Also it negates any sensible concurrency demonstration.
A training course will not make you a delay analyst - as you say you need to learn at the desk of an experienced mentor.
Best regards
Mike Testro.
Member for
18 years 6 monthsRE: Timeslices in P3 - any courses available?
I dont think its covered in 601 in any detail.
Batch files and WKS files can give raw data to perform analysis on but the method of how to do the analysis will definitaly not be covered.
I doubt anyone will tell you how to do it either (at least on this forum) as this is seen as the bread an butter of delay analysts.
There are no courses on delay analysis i have seen, except one that i came across based in dubai. If you work for a claims consultant then the best bet is your colleagues.