As Built Critical Path

Hi Stephen,



Et Tu



[Clearly, this thread has drunk its last dregs. Please begin another if you wish to continue restating your position. The Moderators]

You are sharp Stephen

Bon Jour Stephen,



How about the "Path to Reality",



Regards



Philip



Ps the WI is doing well

How about:



The One True Path!

Hi andrew,



Iwould agree with something like delay causing activities, or retrospectivive analisis of problomatical activities, call it what you will.



Regards



Philip

New name for ABCP - as built sequence of critcal activities



Any takers??????????????????

Phillip,



Would you agree with, that which it completed cannot be critical anymore, but also that which is completed may have been critical at the time of it’s construction?

Hi guys,



I think I have always stated that which is completed cannot be critical anymore.



The point I see coming out of this is hihdsight is perfect vision. Maybe we should try some more foresight as planners, and leave the hindsight to the planning pathologists.



By the way Stephen, SA should win this one, but not tway I would have liked it. With all the WI top players on a strike, it will not be the ideal reflection.



Regards,



Philip

Hi Philip,



The planner may not have been right, some of the records may not be accurate, but what is the likelihood of all of the records being incorrect? True there will be contradictions and inconsistencies in the records, nobody said it would be easy. The job of the analyst/expert witness is to research all of these elements and interview as many of the project team as possible, including the project planner. It can be a massive and time consuming task, as Gary said he was involved in Great Eastern for a year, this is not unusual.



The whole point of retrospective delay analysis is that this is a post mortem of the project. The forensic analyst researches/investigates what WAS critical to the problem.



Having read several of your posts, I think there is a slight problem with your thinking, in that when you write you do so in the future tense "is completed CAN be critical". In retrospective analysis it is about what WAS critical, like your example of the illness in a corpse, the illness WAS critical to the death of the corpse.



DW

Slightly off topic ... assuming an ABCP is a reality - how does one go about finding it retrospectively; or perhaps more simply how does one etablish EOT entitlement retrospectively.



Not suggesting this be answered in this thread, so have started a new one.



Your thoughts would be very welcome - the new thread is entitled "Delay Analysis Methods"

Hi Philip,



Thanks for your question.



The planner on the project was not right, although generally he recorded the progress position reasonably well, which the two planning experts (one for the defendant, one for the claimant) agreed to use as being mainly factual. However, the two of the big issues that had to be faced during the trial were that the project planner did occasionally record the progress incorrectly and this was discovered by photographic evidence and secondly he made changes to the logic of the programme which did not make sense. These logic changes did however alter the critical path of the programme at the time and gave incorrect completion date forecasts / progress reports on a number of occasions. This was not picked up during the project itself, only afterwards by the post-mortem planners. Progress photographs are really wonderful things in disputes. Regarding dairies, minutes, correspondence and reports, these were all examined as part of my work. As you can imagine, on a complex project such as GEH, the amount of documentation to go through was enormous.



On your second point, this is what is often called the concurrency issue. The big question here is what impact, if any, did these different secondary critical paths have. That was also a significant issue at the trial. Lets just say that these secondary, or concurrent, critical paths were also examined in a great deal of detail for the trial and it was crucial that the post-mortem planners look at these as well, which we did. The project planner (and the defendant) claimed these had an impact on the project, but the judge did not agree.



Concurrent critical paths is probably worthy of a new thread.



Regards,



Gary France

Philip wrote:



". . .it is something like an post mortem, how can you find an ilness in a corpse, that is critical, you can only analise what the problem was and try and prevent in the future."



But, Philip, isn’t that the point? And as Vladimir suggested, isn’t that a very important thing to do? (Along with assessing past responsibility and competence, of course!)



As to the name ABCP, personally I’ve always hated the term "total float" ascribed as an attribute of an activity. "Float" is fine; the "total" (even if followed by "slack"!) is just confusing, as the activities’ respective float is not "totalled" along a path.



However, the term has been in project management a lot longer than I have, so I’d better understand what it means when people use it (as they will!). Personally, I kind of like the term "actual critical path". But I don’t think this would allay your concrns. . .



BTW, Phil, I don’t know if you’re a cricket fan, but if you are, I may enjoy tweaking you a bit when West Indies start beating South Africa in a few days. . . (Just joking! South Africa should win.)

Hi Gary,



So you did the post mortem, but what if the planner was not right, how did you find the correct history, this must mean you gleaned it from daily diaries, minutes of meetings, correspondence, etc, who says this info was all correct? I stated a little earlier, that the quality of the planning is important, that is, recording the facts.

What if the delays happened in different areas, and as result, in different logical paths, and started compounding the isuue?



Regards,



Philip

Hi David,



The thread is moving faster than, you can open it or save your abswer, due to it’s size:-)



I agree, with everything, except the term AS Built CRITICAL path, call it anything you want to. I also believe that as I earlier stated, that unless the person was involved with the project from beginning to end, or unless every fact was completely documented or minuted, and agreed, it will be very difficult to analise it, I speak from experience.



Regards



Philip

Phil,



With your use of the words “I do not believe that anything that is completed can be critical”, I would have to agree. It can no longer be critical if it is complete – that makes perfect sense.



However, I am sure that you would agree that it can be said that something was critical in the past. It’s not critical now, but it was earlier. That is of course if it was on the critical path that ran through the longest chain that determined the overall project completion date, or phased completion date.



I cannot agree however with you last paragraph. To say that only the planner who was involved in the project can determine the true accurate facts is clearly wrong. I will quote the example of the Great Eastern Hotel project referred to below in this thread. The judge found that the planner who was involved in the project got it wrong and this was exposed during the trial by a 3rd party planner (me) who was not involved during the project and who only became involved after the project was finished.



David is quite right – very often the independency of a 3rd party planner can see the situation better than the planner involved at the time. On the Great Eastern Hotel, I and a colleague spent over a year examining the facts to determine where the critical path actually ran through the project. Hearsay or conjecture – no way!



Gary France

Philip



Hearsay and conjecture - I agree we don’t want that.



But what about what Gary F did on GEH - an objective, practical and thorough analysis of the FACTS (including identifying the route of the ABCP)?



By the way, to hearsay and conjecture I would add dynamic programme analysis (particularly Time Impact Analysis) undertaken without due care.



David



p.s. what are your answers to my earlier e-mail?

Hi stephen,



The question is not what critical path is, I agree with you during the execution of the the project, however, when the project is complete, it is something like an post mortem, how can you find an ilness in a corpse, that is critical, you can only analise what the problem was and try and prevent in the future.



Regards



Philip

Hi Guys,



As I originaly stated I do not believe that anything that is completed can be critical. I also have a problem with the name ABCP, it should probably be called something like delay analysis.



If the planner who was responsible is doing the analysis, ie writing a report on the problematical activities or areas, I would tend to believe the accuracy of the facts, dependant on the quality of the historical data, and planning. But where another party, that was not involved inyimately with the planning or the project, during the execution thereof, I would write it of as hearsay or conjecture.



Regards



Philip

Wow! Just a fascinating thread! And from my point of view, very serendipitous, as I’m currently co-authoring an article which incorporates the very idea that Vladimir argued: that every project has a CP, whether or not CPM is used.



I went back and read the whole thread. Here are my thoughts:



1. I one hundred percent agree with Vladimir, David and others who feel that there is such a thing as an ABCP. I think part of the problem lies in the mis-definition of the CP (by many authors and authorities!) as the path with zero float. We all know that, during implementation, a path might have either positive or negative float (supercritical). Even during planning, the longest path can have float due to calendar-based schedule constraints (No Earlier Than). Is such a longest path still "worthy" of being called critical? Absolutely!



The reasons for calling the longest path "critical" are not limited to (1) the fact that it has no float, so that if it slips, it becomes longer -- two other reasons, equally important, are that (2) the longest path determines the length of the project, and (3) if you want to shorten the project, you have to shorten the longest path.



Both (2) and (3) may have relevance for the post-project analysis: (2) in the sense of the ABCP, and (3) if the question ever becomes why were actions not taken that could have shortened the project (or avoided delay) by addressing the DRAG on the activities on the "currently estimated CP".



Thus I completely agree with Vladimir: EVERY project has a CP, whether planned using CPM or not, because it is that CP that ultimately determines project length. In fact, the ABCP may be called the "true" CP; during planning, what we are really dealing with is the "estimated" CP. Yes, our estimated CP may move around, as either scope changes or delays occur, or as duration estimates turn out to be wrong.



Surely it is HUGELY important, from both liability and knowledge database points of view, to know when, how and why our estimates of the CP changed? And whether, at any moment, our estimates were based on best available data, or simply on incompetent performance (either by contractor or client)?



In another thread, there was a question about whether a computerized "expert system" would ever be able take over the planning function. I expressed doubt, at least for the near future. But let us think for a second about a "perfect" planning system -- would not that system be, in fact, a crystal ball, allowing us to perfectly foresee what would happen (scope changes, client delays, fragnets, resource shortages, etc.) and incorporate them into the plan so as to have the best (i.e., most profitable) project?



And finally, would not the plan that the crystal ball created be, in fact, the ABCP?

If you keep a history of project schedule versions you will know all activities that were considered critical in the past.

They may belong to as built critical path or not. In any case both information is useful for the project performance analysis and lessons learned.

Does anybody think that this information is useless?

Uri



Now we are getting somewhere!!!



But come on - if one can work out what was critical for every day of a project how can that be meaningless??? I think you’re being coy, and simply unwilling to abandon your previous position.



The identification of what was critical in retrospect is a vastly meaningful conclusion. If you were to successfully present that conclusion alone to an arbitrator / judge, you would be carried from the room atop shoulders with clients and lawyers slapping you on the back as you departed. Same for the site, where EOT’s haven’t been dealt with instantly.



Linking all the days together would identify the ABCP (- = activity and + = critical).

+++++++----

-------+++++++++++++++++-------

-----------++++++++++++++++++++++++*



And there is no problem with having concurrent criticality!



Regards

David

David B.,



1. Forgetting the word "path" for a second, and assuming excellent records exist, do you think you could work out what was critical to completion on Day 59 of a particular project that was already complete?



YES.



If your answer is Yes, then surely working it out for every day will represent the as-built critical activities throughout the job? This would be the ABCP, though perhaps another term for it might help.



WORKING IT OUT FOR EVERY DAY WOULD BE MEANINGLESS AS THE CRITICAL PATH MAY CHANGE DURING THE EXECUTION OF THE PROJECT I.E. THERE IS NO SINGLE ’OVER-ALL’ CRITICAL PATH. RATHER, THERE MIGHT BE AS MANY ’CRITICAL PATHES’ AS YOUR ANALYSIS POINTS...

Hi Planners



The point of my earlier question was that if in order to create an as built programme you need very good records and information i.e. a regularly updated programme with actual dates etc. I really don’t see the need in producing an as built programme with subjective logic which would only produce one longest path (can’t be a critical path if it is a historical document).

In a live regularly progressed programme the critical activities can change from update to update, and this is the key information that is most useful and reliable in a claims situation.

If the programme is properly administered and maintained as it progresses what better information do you need? In most cases claims do not become an issue if you maintain records good enough to produce an as built programme.



If a claim situation arises then any analysis that is produced is prepared against a programme that the client most likely reviews on a regular basis as part of the reporting process and not a programme produced purely in substantiation of a claim.



IMHO an as built critical path sounds like a chocolate tea pot.

Andrew,



Answering your questions:



’Well claims persons, if you can’t look back at a project’



To me, it would be wrong to look back, you have to "go back" in time and then look FORWARD in order to decide what was critical at the time. I do not think there need for ’a long hard think’.



I can identify critical activities, but I’d use the currect programme when the delay occurred (or became evident) and not the ’ABCP’, which to me does not exist.

Well claims persons, if you can’t look back at a project and determine what was a critical activity at a peticular point in that project then I’d have a long hard think.



EOT’s usually attach themselves to a critical activity or one which becomes critical due to the delay, so if you can’t identify them or they don’t exist what else leads to a EOT becoming due (in general)?

Hi Planners,



Some really interesting points in these threads.



I have constructed as-built programmes on a number of occasions for producing collapse analysis and that is all.



My question is, if an As built CP does exist, and I am not sure it can be reliably determined, to what use can it be put?



(Loaded question)



Regards



Paul

Uri,



Good point, but one that I think is relying on semantics.



Can I pose a question to you -



1. Forgetting the word "path" for a second, and assuming excellent records exist, do you think you could work out what was critical to completion on Day 59 of a particular project that was already complete?



If your answer is Yes, then surely working it out for every day will represent the as-built critical activities throughout the job? This would be the ABCP, though perhaps another term for it might help.



If your answer is No, please explain why?



Philip / Sigfredo - what would your answer be?



David

David Barry,



I say nay - as planning by definition refers to the future, and critical path is a planning concept, whereas AB is merely a record of what happened (i.e. past) in the project.



Garry France in his post from 7 December 2004, 18:19 provided us with an excelent example whereby prospective and retrospective analyses can lead to completely different results.



the AB in my opinion can not go together with the CP.



I think an AB v AP analysis is not in accordance with most forms of standard contracts, requiring a retrospective analysis.

Sigfredo



With the greatest respect, who made you the forum Judge? The burden of proof is not on one side of the debate. It would be more interesting if you put down arguments and logic why you think the ABCP doesn’t exist! Or is your point, simply, that since we’ve failed to convince you then it can’t exist?



My sense of the statistics you would get from this forum are that:

1 the substantial majority say Yes,

2 the courts say Yes

3 Philip and one or two others, to their credit, justify a No position

4 A number of people have changed their views from early in the forum.

5 We all agree a practical approach is better than computer jockey planning



Come on you nay sayers, let us hear the arguments for the No campaign. Oh, and laywers begone!



David

Philip,



Not one of those who believe that there is ABCP was able to convince me as well.



If I go back to one of my posts, I proposed to this forum to get statistics on who believe that there is ABCP and those who do not. Moreover, I would like to know which field of specialization they working on.



Cheers,

Se

Hi andrew,

Thanks for the suppott, it is like finding the "Holy grail", let’s be practical/

Philip,



So what’s new

I have disagreeed with ABCP since the birth of the thread

Hi Andrew,



I forgige the grammar, simply fot the sake of practicbility or alternatively pragmatism, this thread was hi-jacked by the lawyers, and forgot practical things.



Regards



Philip

PS Phillip, apologise for some of the grammar in that last post, but then I have just got back from the pub!

Philip,



Quite easy to build, not so easy to get right! If you update a programme (not the master, but a copy as you end up changing most of the links, adding lots and lots of activities, etc - do I hear a cry of horror from some people) as the project is built to reflect what has been done, why and what is remaining to do you will have a critical path at each update - part as built, part work to be done. So whats the difference I hear you ask from just updating the master programme?



It needs to be in ALOT of detail - I often build mine up from the daily plant and labour allocation sheets. Agreed it won’t show the whole as built picture and critical path until the end but it will demonstrate if done correctly a snapshot of the job at every update showing what, why, and when everything was done (I also like adding lots of notes to the programme)- very useful reference which can if required be compared to the master copy and it’s updates - they usually tell a different story as the master programme rarely contains enough information to get to the finer detail.



People don’t like changing the baseline master programme logic or activities for obvious reasons, some of which have been expressed in here, however I have sat with many a client / claims expert and produced the "alternative as built" programme and used it to demonstrate the course of events, normally backed up by documentation both during and after the project - haven’t had one take me to court yet!!!



People seem to get hung up on the master programme and believe it to be the only programme you can use to prove your case. Not entirely true - although it does normally carry greater weight than others - but if you can demonstrate that the other programme is a true reflection of events, then it’s as good and relavent as any other evidence - coming back to Egger (sorry) but right is right, wrong is wrong and you can dress something up as much as you like but you won’t beat a right call presented properly.



It has given me a considerable pleasure over time to unexpectedly produce to others a very detailed as built programme when discussing events / claims - the conversations tend to be quite short after they see it!



To get to your as built critical path Philip takes alot of work and time if it’s going to truely reflect events and therefore be useful. Strictly speaking, no you don’t have a complete ABCP until the end of the project but believe me, having that a part built one available at any time during a project can prove very useful. Hope this helped.

Hi Andrew,



I am still awaiting an answer to my question?

David,

Your thought appear pretty spot on to me. I don’t think anyone is getting personal, at the end of the day two cases to an arguement were put forward to be judged, one won the day the other did not. It is just unusual in this case that the wording of the judgement was so damning of the evidence put forward by one side, quote:



"there were times when the impression was created that Mr KP was not entirely familiar with the details of the report....",

"..used untested judgement of others in selecting and characterising the data for input into the computer program...."



We can all run around being polite and bury our heads in the sand saying that nothing was amiss and that KP and crew were hard done by or we discuss the facts and learn by it. Discussing the polite niceities and ignoring the facts won’t learn us anything.

Uri and all…



I agree totally that we do need the participation of as many PPers with knowledge, especially the specific and intimate knowledge, of the topics we are discussing. I also found your conflation of ‘respectable persons’ in your opening sentence amusing.



The Skanska case is important for planners and experts. Too few of these cases come to the TCC and are reported so widely. In a fast-moving discipline such as ours it is important that we know what the Courts are thinking, although they may not be precedents, they do give some pointers as to future conduct and what can be expected from expert witnesses and we all have lessons to be learnt.



It is also relatively rare that there is such a large amount of verbatim reporting in a judgement. As voyeurs we can only read the official reporting (lets say the Judgement in this instance) and what other learned commentators say about the matter. KP’s insight into the case is valuable as he has first-hand knowledge and is able, like Gary has done, correct some of our misconceptions or wrong inferences.



However what I object to is that you think some members of the forum are being too personal and not professional, you are of course entitled to your view but we need to share knowledge and respond honestly and openly to questions. In KP’s second posting of 22 March (I am not sure I was hard done by but I am sure Egger were as I am equally sure Laing were…) he makes some very pointed observations regarding the Skanska and GEH cases. I have only read the Judgements and reports on those cases, although I do know Gary, Tony and Jim, so maybe I have to make inferences and sometimes do jump to the wrong conclusions. If we are to believe what Gary says about the GEH then KP, it seems, is also guilty of coming to the wrong conclusions. I think it unfortunate that KP, in his subsequent replies, chose not to clarify my, and others’, misconceptions about what method of analysis he used in the Skanska case.



As for the issue of facts; it might be worth reading the SCL’s draft of the ‘Anti-Corruption Code for Individuals in the Construction and Engineering Industry’ (downloadable at http://www.scl.org.uk/papers/pdfs/121-stansbury.pdf). Section III, paragraphs 36 to 47 are about dispute resolution. There might be a few pointers here. It seems to me that it is acceptable to rely on ‘facts’ told/instructed by their clients so long as it is made clear, in the evidence, that is what is being done. As far as rejecting facts, that seems to me to be an oxymoron, a fact is either a fact or it is not (it could be an opinion, or an assumption or whatever else) and again so long as it ids being made clear that it is an opinion, assumption or whatever in the light of no supportable evidence then that should be okay. If there is no sufficient documentary evidence, statements by ‘witnesses of fact’ may assist here (rules and guidence can be found here: http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/document.asp?languageid=1&documentid=578).



As usual I should add that I am not a lawyer and my opinions may contain inaccuracies, inferences and downright lies!



Regards



David

Uri,



I do not think it is appropriate to rely on the untested information gleaned from your client. Where it differs from that of the opposing side, the Expert Witness should either carry out his own independent determination or present a range of opinion covering both propositions.



Not sure what this all has to do with ABCP!



On that subject Great Eastern certainly makes it clear that the courts consider the ABCP exists - while there continues to be some disagreement in this forum on the subject.



I think Gerry summed it up much earlier in the debate when he said the disagreement seems to stem from the word "path" rather than the ability to analyse/identify what was critical on a project at any given time in the past (assuming as Keith points out the information is available to do so).



David

www.preceptpm.co.uk

Hi Andrew,



Please explain how to build an ABCP any other way than retrospectively?

Guys,

I think we want and need the participation of KP and other respectable persons, so lets continue to be professional and stop being personal.

As for the issue of ’facts’, to what extent do you think the expert witness can rely on what he / she is being told by their clients (and reject the ’facts’ as presented by the opposing side)?

If there is no sufficient documentation, how can the expert witness test these facts?

Happy Easter from down under.

Seems the Egger case keeps coming up in various threads - hot subject of debate.



Firstly to answer the question, yes an ABCP can exist, trying to build it to reflect events with a high degree of accuracy is very very difficult especially retrospectively. It’s hard enough if your’e there at the time and know all the in’s and out’s first hand.



Secondly, KP and Egger, having read the proceedings a few times now along with some other articles I can only conclude that David’s comment on quality and reliabilty of evidence hits the nail on the head. Either KP was chasing a number of less than 100% justifiable claims on behalf of his client (now none of us do that do we) and so had to try and make the evidence fit the claim or the team putting the evidence together were at fault (or both). Also KP’s preparation and understanding of that evidence would appear to be questionable from comments made in the case.



As for the conspiracy theory put forward that authors of the Protocol are being singled out and systematically trashed by the legal system, I don’t really think so!!



Lesson to be learn’t - a claim put forward in a clear and concise manner with sufficient and proven documented evidence will win.



[Note from the Moderators: If what you intend to say is too impolite to type directly, why do you feel that it is acceptable to leave out the vowels but type it anyway? Does this technically absolve you?]

Keith,



You were not quite correct when you said “…in GEH the contractor was found to have caused 100% of the delay neither the works contractors nor the design team having caused any at all. Both results are inherently improbable and contrary to experience.” For example, in paragraph 131 of the judgment, reasons are set out for the delays not caused by the contractor (actually, Laing was a construction manager).



You also said “In neither case was the Judge aware of what was in the experts reports.” In GEH this was definitely not correct. It was very apparent that the Judge took a great deal of time to read both of the Experts’ reports and knew the contents well.



There are similarities between the two cases, but there are also significant differences, the main being one centred around the role of a contractor and the other the role of a construction manager.



Gary France

Mace

Keith and all…



Thanks for your reply.



Who ever suggested it was anything other than a serious discussion? However, I stand corrected but knowing that you are a proponent of TIA and that the judgement refers to it as a ‘sophisticated impact analysis’ and ‘of some hundreds of pages supported by 240 charts’ I think I and others have made the reasonable inference that you were probably using TIA.



As I said previously, we need some definitions of the methods we use so that we can all learn and identify. Garry France was good enough to relate some of his experiences in GEH, in particular to help identify the methods of analysis that both experts used, I do believe, in that Judgement there was some confusion in descriptions.



Maybe you would like to enlighten us as to the method you did adopt? I do not think that is really the important factor here though. Some commentators have sought to suggest as a result of this case that sophisticated computer-based analysis techniques should not be used. That is a great disservice that has been done to our discipline whereas the real problem was the ‘unreliability evidence based upon his inadequate research and checking’ and other such criticisms.



So, do I recognise a pattern in Egger and Great Eastern Hotel cases? Yes, unfortunately, I do.



Regards



David

I don’t take it personally. Heavens, if we did that how could we be impartial.

I am not sure I was hard done by but I am sure Egger were as I am equally sure Laing were.



In terms of similarities how about:



In Egger the the employer was found to have caused 100% of the delay to completion, the contractor and its sub-contractors being found to have caused none; in GEH the contractor was found to have caused 100% of the delay neither the works contractors nor the design team having caused any at all. Both results are inherantly improbable and contrary to experience.



In Egger the Judge found Egger had behaved badly by screwing the contractor down on price and then not giving it an EOTs during the course of the works. In GEH the judge found the CM had behaved badly by falsifying its programme updates.



In Egger I relied in the case of 2 events out of 120 on some evidence provided by my client and my analysis never got past first base. In GEH Tony relied on some of the evidence of his client and his was also discounted.



In neither case was the Judge aware of what was in the experts reports. In my case he was not aware of the content of my supplementary report either.



The two experts who were criticised and whose evidence was dismissed were, as you say, both on the protocol committee.



Are there any other similarities?



I did not mean to ignore you point on the AB CP of course I have a view but I don’t want to interfere in a spirited debate just to offer an opinion that frankly, does not add much because if you have the facts you can and if you don’t you cannot.