Primary Author: Greta A. Martin, PE PSP
Audience Focus: Advanced
Application Type: Application
Venue: 2013 AACE International Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, USA
Abstract: Although categorized separately, AACE’s Recommended Practice 29R-03 “Forensic Schedule Analysis,” indicates that Windows Analysis (MIP 3.3) and Half-Step Analysis (MIP 3.4) are nearly identical. As part of the same family of analyses, both methods use contemporaneously generated schedules, evaluate impact to the schedule from one update defined time period to the next, and take into consideration changes to the critical path via both progress and schedule revision. However, the key divergence between the two approaches is the creation of mid-period schedules in the Half-Step Analysis. As a result of this added step, and despite the methods’ similarities, these analyses can yield different results regarding delay quantification of in-period progress versus schedule revisions. Using a series of case studies, this paper explores the similarities and differences in the application of these methodologies, and will explain and quantify potential disparities in the end results.
Audience Focus: Advanced
Application Type: Application
Venue: 2013 AACE International Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, USA
Abstract: Although categorized separately, AACE’s Recommended Practice 29R-03 “Forensic Schedule Analysis,” indicates that Windows Analysis (MIP 3.3) and Half-Step Analysis (MIP 3.4) are nearly identical. As part of the same family of analyses, both methods use contemporaneously generated schedules, evaluate impact to the schedule from one update defined time period to the next, and take into consideration changes to the critical path via both progress and schedule revision. However, the key divergence between the two approaches is the creation of mid-period schedules in the Half-Step Analysis. As a result of this added step, and despite the methods’ similarities, these analyses can yield different results regarding delay quantification of in-period progress versus schedule revisions. Using a series of case studies, this paper explores the similarities and differences in the application of these methodologies, and will explain and quantify potential disparities in the end results.