As-Built & Critical Path (The Revival)

Mat,

is the Critical Path in your As-built Schedule the same as the Critical Path in your Baseline or Target Schedule?

It is an illusion invented by lawyers.

Consider this, only planned Tasks, ie planned to be performed in the future, relative to some date, can be Critical or not because there is the possibility that they have zero Float, or some Float, because they have Early Start, EF, LS, LF. Any Task that has been done does not have any ES,EF,LS,LF or Float because it has an Actual Start Date and an Actual Finish Date.

I absolutely agree with Trevor. The As Built Program can not have critical path. I think the longest discussion in this forum revolved around this issue. Look for the topic with the most replies and viewing. the issues have been already discussed there at length.

i’ve seen and read that discussions, you’re right, it has been discussed at length but i don’t think it has been resolved.

if experts (or the best men in the industry) cannot resolve it, what will happen to ordinary guys like us? Is there nothing around to rely to? just in case you’re having the same problem?

if As-Built Program / Schedule cannot have critical path, how do you consider As-Built Project? Does As-built Project doesn’t have Critical Path the time it was done?

if there is Critical Path in your As-Planned Schedule, I suppose there should be in reality...

Anoon,

IMHO, the CP in the updated schedule can’t be the same as the As-planned schedule, it must be different and changed many times in the lifetime of the project due to the modified criticality % of the activities (which is due to delay in site activities or delay in delivery times or revised drawings etc...).

However if your claiming then you can prove whether the modified CP in the updated schedule is due to delay from the contractor/consultant/owner side (ie. u don’t have to wait till the end of the project to produce an AS-built schedule without a CP).

Regards,
Karim

Annon,

the ’updated schedule’is a different issue altogether. the as planned can remain exactly the same (very unlikely) or it can change (with or without changes to the CP), depending on the circumstances on the project.

the point is simple: when you look forward either prospectively or when planning aheaed there is (at least one) critical path whereas when you look backward i.e. retrospectively there can be no critical path.

i know this is hard to grasp. perhaps the easiest way will be to look at your software (even on MS Project) does actual activities have float? can they be critical or non-critical? of course not! criticality is a planning concept and activities with actual dates can not be nor critical neither non-critical.

I understand your fraustration due to the lack of agreement between the ’experts’. i think it is more to do with different schools of thoughts (new v old).

in any case, Delay Analysis will not be the only area (there are other, arguebly more important area like medicine in which there are arguments)in which ’experts’ do not agree!

Uri and All,

i got two (2) O’s, i suppose we’re not talking about Critical Path from a software (tool) point of view. Maybe that’s the difference between Lawyers and Engineers / Planners. A good Lawyer can make a dead person live.

Critical Path as-planned maybe different from reality. Sure, there’s no way to compute floats once the activities were completed. And maybe we all know that floats are subjective or speculative, it may exist or may not.

Maybe the question is, Is it right to use an As-built Schedule in determining the real Critical Path?

Or Claims must only be acted during the life of the project, once project is completed, there’ll be no more claims...?

Anon,

What i know is that if u want to issue a claim then u’ve to do it through the project’s lifetime, many contract types says that if the contractor want to issue a claim then he has to issue a notice to the engineer at his earliest (such as in Fidic) during the lifetime of the project.

The main reason to issue a claim is that the VO requested or the delay in issuance of dwg. or issuance of revised dwg. affected the "As-planned" schedule and its CP (which can be proved by comparing the CPs between the As-planned and the actual schedules).

What is after the project’s lifetime can be done by arbitration and that kind of stuff.

Karim,

i did not come from a Contracts & Claims background, but i suppose the issue of As-built Critical Path arise because of Claims.

again, the question is: Is it right (ethical, whatever you call it) to use an As-built Schedule in presenting the supposed to be real or actual Critical Path?

Anon,

Refer to Trevor & Uri comments, The As Built Program can’t have critical path because the CP activities got actuals.

IMO, it’s fair enough to use the updated schedule to present the real, modified, changeable, inconstant CP, it’s a fact.

Regards,
Karim

you forgot that i have 2 O’s!

An Updated Schedule or Current Schedule, may not be completed but with Actuals in it. So maybe you can call it a half-baked As-built Schedule, but i suppose, once completed, it will become an As-built Schedule.

Now, once completed, (using colors in the software), you’ll see all blue lines (if that’s your favorite color), without any reds at all.

Again, Is it right to use it as to present (or calculate) the supposed to be line of criticalities?

Anoon,

IMO, it’s fair enough to use the "half-baked As-built" Schedule to present the real, modified, changeable, inconstant CP, it’s a fact (and i like turquoise!!).

Ok Karim,

It’s fair enough, during the lifespan of the project. But what after the Project has been 100% completed?

What tool are you going to use (that would be fair enough)?

Well, If you have rights (which neither have been compensated nor approved in the project’s lifetime) then u can fly high and go for arbitration.

"arbitration", i believe this is where Lawyers come-in. And an impartial judge which is also a Lawyer.

it seems that Planning and Critical Path comes down to Law!

is it?

Yes, sometimes and in some cases it seems that arbitration is inevitable.

Annon,

you’ve asked: Is it right (ethical, whatever you call it) to use an As-built Schedule in presenting the supposed to be real or actual Critical Path?

my answer would be: NO! it is not right unless you have no other choice under the Contract.

see also the famous Protocols which recommend the Time Impact Analysis method over any other method (including the as built v as planned) and Keith Pickavence excellent books.

Uri,

i just transfered to another location...

you said No, but you are recommending As-Built vs. As-Planned analysis, isn’t it the same thing?

Time Impact Analysis - where is this applicable? During the life of the Project? or even after the Project has been completed?

Anoon,

I DID NOT recommend the As Built vs. As Planned. I said that the recommended method (by the Protocols and also by KP) is Time Impact Analysis and the AP v AB should be used only when there is no better choice under the Contract.

the TIA is applicable for BOTH scenarios - during the life of the project or after the project has been completed - looking at the issues prospectively i.e. putting together a ’status’ (or a snap-shot) programme using the information that was available at the time of the delay and ignoring new information that was revealed since the delay occurred (or became known, or ceased affecting the project depending on the language of the Contract).

Uri,

I’m more interested in retrospective approach. How they were proving it?