Level: Advanced
TCM Section(s):
6.4. Forensic Performance Assessment
Venue: 2023 AACE International Conference & Expo
Abstract: Each progress update after the baseline schedule has two components: the as-built portion and the as-planned portion. The actual progress is determined from the as-built portion to the left of the data date, and any future impacts, either gains or losses, forecasted in the as-planned portion are predictions only and not actual progress.Many schedule updates have as-planned changes that may significantly alter the predicted completion date, most commonly in mitigation or acceleration to regain lost time from the actual progress.
In Recommended Practice No. 29R-03, “Forensic Schedule Analysis” (FSA RP), the forensic analysis technique labelled Method Implementation Protocol 3.4, Bifurcated or Split Contemporaneous Period Analysis, is a methodology that uses the updated schedules to identify and quantify gain or loss to the project schedule. The process imports progress from the subsequent update into a copy of the schedule under consideration in order to determine the performance from actual progress. Then any non-progress changes (revisions to logic, durations, calendars, constraints, and other schedule settings) are identified and quantified for the effect on the predicted completion date.
While the FSA RP notes that it is necessary to analyze the net result (acceleration or delay) of the proposed non-progress revisions in the as-planned portion of the schedule, there are two ways to do this. One way is to ignore the as-planned revisions and give credit for gains only from the as-built performance, another way is to credit for both any as-built performance variance and any as-planned mitigation, counting on the analysis to be self-correcting as future period performance often will show if the mitigation was successful or not, and a third way is to acknowledge progress-only delay and conditionally acknowledge planned mitigation and delays only if they are actually realized. This issue is complicated when the mitigation is interrupted by other delays or gains and the analysis does not self-correct, at least not in the subsequent period (this is more often the case).
This paper will address the three approaches and discuss advantages and disadvantages for each, providing the reader additional insight that will strengthen any forensic analysis.
TCM Section(s):
6.4. Forensic Performance Assessment
Venue: 2023 AACE International Conference & Expo
Abstract: Each progress update after the baseline schedule has two components: the as-built portion and the as-planned portion. The actual progress is determined from the as-built portion to the left of the data date, and any future impacts, either gains or losses, forecasted in the as-planned portion are predictions only and not actual progress.Many schedule updates have as-planned changes that may significantly alter the predicted completion date, most commonly in mitigation or acceleration to regain lost time from the actual progress.
In Recommended Practice No. 29R-03, “Forensic Schedule Analysis” (FSA RP), the forensic analysis technique labelled Method Implementation Protocol 3.4, Bifurcated or Split Contemporaneous Period Analysis, is a methodology that uses the updated schedules to identify and quantify gain or loss to the project schedule. The process imports progress from the subsequent update into a copy of the schedule under consideration in order to determine the performance from actual progress. Then any non-progress changes (revisions to logic, durations, calendars, constraints, and other schedule settings) are identified and quantified for the effect on the predicted completion date.
While the FSA RP notes that it is necessary to analyze the net result (acceleration or delay) of the proposed non-progress revisions in the as-planned portion of the schedule, there are two ways to do this. One way is to ignore the as-planned revisions and give credit for gains only from the as-built performance, another way is to credit for both any as-built performance variance and any as-planned mitigation, counting on the analysis to be self-correcting as future period performance often will show if the mitigation was successful or not, and a third way is to acknowledge progress-only delay and conditionally acknowledge planned mitigation and delays only if they are actually realized. This issue is complicated when the mitigation is interrupted by other delays or gains and the analysis does not self-correct, at least not in the subsequent period (this is more often the case).
This paper will address the three approaches and discuss advantages and disadvantages for each, providing the reader additional insight that will strengthen any forensic analysis.