Skip to main content

(CDR-3539) (Presentation Only) Enhancing the Implementation of the As-Planned vs. As-Built Analysis

In order to receive proof of CEU credits, you must watch this presentation in its entirety and complete the survey.

Venue: 2020 AACE International Conference & Expo

Abstract: The As-Planned vs. As-Built (APAB) analysis is the oldest of the schedule delay methods, comparing the baseline schedule (or some other planned schedule) to the as-built schedule or a schedule update that reflects progress. Although widely used, the method is also frequently rejected by courts – particularly when the analysis takes the form of a “total time” analysis. Every APAB analysis is not a “total time” analysis though. One of the better methods for performing a more sophisticated APAB analysis is the Daily Delay Measure (DDM). Based on a 2004 paper by John Livengood, DDM is an enhanced implementation method for the APAB. It allows for the identification of activities that are candidates for critical and near critical paths by comparing late start and finish dates of an appropriate baseline schedule with the as-built start and finish dates. This presentation will review the use of DDM through case studies, to show the current state of the DDM enhancements to the APAB, and to highlight the method’s strengths and weaknesses.