Latest:
...and against
00:00 02 Mar 1995
|
Sir; I read with interest Doug Masson's article, Following a
Critical Path (CJ, 16 February 1995), but consider that perhaps Mr
Masson is a little out of touch with current developments in the
use of Critical Path Methods in delay claim analysis.
The criticism that CPM methods are essentially prospective is a little difficult to understand. Surely this is what the majority of construction contracts envisage in their extension of time clauses. JCT 1980, for instance, at clause 25.2.1.1., obliges the contractor to inform the architect of any incident that is or is likely to delay the progress of the works.
Recent research has suggested that many delay-based claims that end up in the courts could have been avoided if the contract had been administered properly during the project; individual delay claims being notified, ascertained and awarded contemporaneously instead of leaving them until the end of the project when hindsight is clouded by time and commercial pressures.
Using this premise it seems logical that a delay claim should also be formulated in this manner; delays be analysed in a chronological sequence reflecting the manner in which they would have been analysed had the analysis been carried out contemporaneously.
Current methods of simulation using CPM are more sophisticated than merely looking at the activities and delaying events on the critical path. They also include the actual progress of the project at the time the delaying event occurred; the changing nature of the critical path and the effects of action taken (or that should have reasonably been taken) to minimise potential delays.
By using facts as the data for the simulation (actual activity starts and finishes, actual weather down-time, actual delivery dates and data from other contemporaneous documentation) the eventual result is more akin to an as-built network.
As-built bar charts are the classic method of illustrating project delays but, as they are not dynamic, cannot demonstrate the cause of the delay. Deducting the delays from an as-built programme will not make it shrink, it will merely reduce the number of, or duration of, the activities. To shrink it would take expert opinion to guess what would have happened and the positions and durations of activities adjusted accordingly.
CPM can be used to formulate as-built networks which would shrink if delays were deducted. The construction of as-built networks as a first step in delay analysis is, however, so open to manipulation as to make it unreliable.
As to the Galoo case, I have not had the benefit of reading the full judgement. Your readers may, however, be surprised to discover that it is not a construction related case but one involving auditors, trading losses and dividend payments.
David W Bordoli
The criticism that CPM methods are essentially prospective is a little difficult to understand. Surely this is what the majority of construction contracts envisage in their extension of time clauses. JCT 1980, for instance, at clause 25.2.1.1., obliges the contractor to inform the architect of any incident that is or is likely to delay the progress of the works.
Recent research has suggested that many delay-based claims that end up in the courts could have been avoided if the contract had been administered properly during the project; individual delay claims being notified, ascertained and awarded contemporaneously instead of leaving them until the end of the project when hindsight is clouded by time and commercial pressures.
ADVERTISEMENT
Using this premise it seems logical that a delay claim should also be formulated in this manner; delays be analysed in a chronological sequence reflecting the manner in which they would have been analysed had the analysis been carried out contemporaneously.
Current methods of simulation using CPM are more sophisticated than merely looking at the activities and delaying events on the critical path. They also include the actual progress of the project at the time the delaying event occurred; the changing nature of the critical path and the effects of action taken (or that should have reasonably been taken) to minimise potential delays.
By using facts as the data for the simulation (actual activity starts and finishes, actual weather down-time, actual delivery dates and data from other contemporaneous documentation) the eventual result is more akin to an as-built network.
As-built bar charts are the classic method of illustrating project delays but, as they are not dynamic, cannot demonstrate the cause of the delay. Deducting the delays from an as-built programme will not make it shrink, it will merely reduce the number of, or duration of, the activities. To shrink it would take expert opinion to guess what would have happened and the positions and durations of activities adjusted accordingly.
CPM can be used to formulate as-built networks which would shrink if delays were deducted. The construction of as-built networks as a first step in delay analysis is, however, so open to manipulation as to make it unreliable.
As to the Galoo case, I have not had the benefit of reading the full judgement. Your readers may, however, be surprised to discover that it is not a construction related case but one involving auditors, trading losses and dividend payments.
David W Bordoli
ADVERTISEMENT
Most Viewed Articles
ADVERTISEMENT