Level: Basic
TCM Section(s):
7.2. Schedule Planning and Development
Venue: 2023 AACE International Conference & Expo
Abstract: Normal scheduling practice on construction projects to determine if a project has gained or lost time during the update period is to update the schedule with actual progress, calculate the schedule and compare the forecast completion date to both the forecast completion date in the prior update and the required completion date. That process can—and often does—provide misleading information.
Looking only at the forecast work to the right of the data date ignores an important source of critical information. Comparing actual progress to planned progress during the update period provides significant insight into whether the project is actually gaining or losing compared to the schedule. When actual losses during a schedule update are immediately “offset” or mitigated by changes to durations or logic of future work, the project end date does not move, and no loss is assigned in the period. Mitigating delays to maintain and achieve on-time performance is a worthy goal, but when it simply makes a project appear to be on schedule when it may not be, it can:
This paper discusses an analysis method that addresses this situation and allows for a proper analysis of actual critical path delay and realized mitigation independent of predicted future critical path performance.
TCM Section(s):
7.2. Schedule Planning and Development
Venue: 2023 AACE International Conference & Expo
Abstract: Normal scheduling practice on construction projects to determine if a project has gained or lost time during the update period is to update the schedule with actual progress, calculate the schedule and compare the forecast completion date to both the forecast completion date in the prior update and the required completion date. That process can—and often does—provide misleading information.
Looking only at the forecast work to the right of the data date ignores an important source of critical information. Comparing actual progress to planned progress during the update period provides significant insight into whether the project is actually gaining or losing compared to the schedule. When actual losses during a schedule update are immediately “offset” or mitigated by changes to durations or logic of future work, the project end date does not move, and no loss is assigned in the period. Mitigating delays to maintain and achieve on-time performance is a worthy goal, but when it simply makes a project appear to be on schedule when it may not be, it can:
- Cause problems for the owner who discovers after it is too late to adjust that the project will finish later than planned
- Require the contractor at the end of the project to accelerate work at great cost to meet the unrealistic end date created by the mitigation
This paper discusses an analysis method that addresses this situation and allows for a proper analysis of actual critical path delay and realized mitigation independent of predicted future critical path performance.