As Built Critical Path

Hi David,

The thread is moving faster than, you can open it or save your abswer, due to it’s size:-)

I agree, with everything, except the term AS Built CRITICAL path, call it anything you want to. I also believe that as I earlier stated, that unless the person was involved with the project from beginning to end, or unless every fact was completely documented or minuted, and agreed, it will be very difficult to analise it, I speak from experience.

Regards

Philip

Hi Gary,

So you did the post mortem, but what if the planner was not right, how did you find the correct history, this must mean you gleaned it from daily diaries, minutes of meetings, correspondence, etc, who says this info was all correct? I stated a little earlier, that the quality of the planning is important, that is, recording the facts.
What if the delays happened in different areas, and as result, in different logical paths, and started compounding the isuue?

Regards,

Philip

Philip wrote:

". . .it is something like an post mortem, how can you find an ilness in a corpse, that is critical, you can only analise what the problem was and try and prevent in the future."

But, Philip, isn’t that the point? And as Vladimir suggested, isn’t that a very important thing to do? (Along with assessing past responsibility and competence, of course!)

As to the name ABCP, personally I’ve always hated the term "total float" ascribed as an attribute of an activity. "Float" is fine; the "total" (even if followed by "slack"!) is just confusing, as the activities’ respective float is not "totalled" along a path.

However, the term has been in project management a lot longer than I have, so I’d better understand what it means when people use it (as they will!). Personally, I kind of like the term "actual critical path". But I don’t think this would allay your concrns. . .

BTW, Phil, I don’t know if you’re a cricket fan, but if you are, I may enjoy tweaking you a bit when West Indies start beating South Africa in a few days. . . (Just joking! South Africa should win.)

Hi Philip,

Thanks for your question.

The planner on the project was not right, although generally he recorded the progress position reasonably well, which the two planning experts (one for the defendant, one for the claimant) agreed to use as being mainly factual. However, the two of the big issues that had to be faced during the trial were that the project planner did occasionally record the progress incorrectly and this was discovered by photographic evidence and secondly he made changes to the logic of the programme which did not make sense. These logic changes did however alter the critical path of the programme at the time and gave incorrect completion date forecasts / progress reports on a number of occasions. This was not picked up during the project itself, only afterwards by the post-mortem planners. Progress photographs are really wonderful things in disputes. Regarding dairies, minutes, correspondence and reports, these were all examined as part of my work. As you can imagine, on a complex project such as GEH, the amount of documentation to go through was enormous.

On your second point, this is what is often called the concurrency issue. The big question here is what impact, if any, did these different secondary critical paths have. That was also a significant issue at the trial. Lets just say that these secondary, or concurrent, critical paths were also examined in a great deal of detail for the trial and it was crucial that the post-mortem planners look at these as well, which we did. The project planner (and the defendant) claimed these had an impact on the project, but the judge did not agree.

Concurrent critical paths is probably worthy of a new thread.

Regards,

Gary France

Slightly off topic ... assuming an ABCP is a reality - how does one go about finding it retrospectively; or perhaps more simply how does one etablish EOT entitlement retrospectively.

Not suggesting this be answered in this thread, so have started a new one.

Your thoughts would be very welcome - the new thread is entitled "Delay Analysis Methods"

Hi Philip,

The planner may not have been right, some of the records may not be accurate, but what is the likelihood of all of the records being incorrect? True there will be contradictions and inconsistencies in the records, nobody said it would be easy. The job of the analyst/expert witness is to research all of these elements and interview as many of the project team as possible, including the project planner. It can be a massive and time consuming task, as Gary said he was involved in Great Eastern for a year, this is not unusual.

The whole point of retrospective delay analysis is that this is a post mortem of the project. The forensic analyst researches/investigates what WAS critical to the problem.

Having read several of your posts, I think there is a slight problem with your thinking, in that when you write you do so in the future tense "is completed CAN be critical". In retrospective analysis it is about what WAS critical, like your example of the illness in a corpse, the illness WAS critical to the death of the corpse.

DW

Hi guys,

I think I have always stated that which is completed cannot be critical anymore.

The point I see coming out of this is hihdsight is perfect vision. Maybe we should try some more foresight as planners, and leave the hindsight to the planning pathologists.

By the way Stephen, SA should win this one, but not tway I would have liked it. With all the WI top players on a strike, it will not be the ideal reflection.

Regards,

Philip

Phillip,

Would you agree with, that which it completed cannot be critical anymore, but also that which is completed may have been critical at the time of it’s construction?

New name for ABCP - as built sequence of critcal activities

Any takers??????????????????

Hi andrew,

Iwould agree with something like delay causing activities, or retrospectivive analisis of problomatical activities, call it what you will.

Regards

Philip

How about:

The One True Path!

Bon Jour Stephen,

How about the "Path to Reality",

Regards

Philip

Ps the WI is doing well

You are sharp Stephen

Hi Stephen,

Et Tu

[Clearly, this thread has drunk its last dregs. Please begin another if you wish to continue restating your position. The Moderators]