Terminal Float

Thanks Matthew

Pretty much what I have read elsewhere but I am wondering if it is a correct application, at lease of the terminology.

If the contractor’s accepted programme is just left hanging and completing before the contract date dose that ’terminal float’ automatically get assigned as contingency or a time risk allowance if it is not specifically noted as that?

To me terminal float means ’float at the end’, which is not the same as a ’contingency at the end’. As I said, I am worried that we are confusing float and contingency and being aided and abetted in this by those who use precise language loosely?

Thanks again for taking the time to post.

David

David,

Considering that your view is still "under development", i guess this is where terminal float might apply. Perhaps if you can explain further if what’s the meaning of the term terminal and its relation to float, then there might be further discussions and confusions.

regards

Hello Anoon

Thanks for replying. I guess I got carried away in my post... all I really wanted to know is:

Can anyone tell me where the term ’Terminal Float’ came from? I have heard it referred to recently in conjunction with the NEC contracts. A Google search on those terms does throw up a few learned papers that mention it and there are a couple of references to it in other threads on PlanningPlanet.

I imagine it was contrived by a non-planner and really means time contingency (or buffer) at the end of the project.

Thanks again

David

Hi David,

I believe all people got carried away sometimes. And I supposed you’re an educator and always wanting to know the scene behind certain things.

Why did you say that it was contrived by a non-planner?

regards

Anoon

Thus far in the lexicon of planning ‘float’ has a specific meaning and generated as a function of the network. Contingency is not float, simplistically it is time (or money or some other resources) allocated to take guard against some future risk. It seems to me that someone, somewhere coined the phrase, or misused the phrase ‘terminal float’ to mean ‘time contingency at the end of the project’. Which is why I think it was contrived by a non-planner as a planner would know what float really is. All I am trying to find out is where/when the usage came about.

David

ps. No, I am not an educator, I have been involved in the sharp end of planning, the doing, for 30 years!

David,

I believe you are both, a Planner and an Educator. Why did you call "the doing" is the sharp end of Planning? What is the dull end?

Anoon

Excuse me if I don’t address you question, maybe if you ask me in a different thread, I would prefer this thread to be about terminal float, not whether I am and educator or not and what is the difference between planning at the sharp-end and not planning at the sharp-end. I fear a closed mind that seems to think the only alternative to sharp-end is dull-end is of little use to me.

Apologies for sounding rude but I am trying to find out some thing that is important to me and, I think is important to our discipline. If you can’t see the importance of being able to differentiate between float and contingency then maybe you should look and learn, you don’t have to get involved in every thread, just take part in those you can contribute to for a change. Chat with Charlie if you want inane banter.

David

David,

I think terminal float is open to interpretation, depending upon the construction of your plan.

If the finish date of a baseline programme is agreed by the client as being prior to the contract finish date, then the difference between the two can be construed as either float or contingency.
I would say it depends as to whether the contract finish date is a milestone/activity in your plan.

If it is, then the difference (according to PERT) is float.

If it is not, then it would become client agreed contingency.

Regards,

Oliver

Oliver...

I sort of agree with you in that ’terminal float’ could be defined as a period of free float at the end of a project.

What I am suggesting is that ’contingency’ is not float. It is a defined period (perhaps at the end of a project) to take account of say, unforeseen risks.

So it is possible to have an identified contingency period and a period of free float (or terminal float) at the end of a project.

Not specifically identifying and utilising some of that possible free float as a contingency means it remains as free float.

Why I think this is important is that some people are I think conflating float and contingency and in doing so dilute the precise meaning of the words and will lead to misunderstanding and misinterpretation of culpability for instance in the event of delays.

Thanks for your contribution and for taking the time to reply.

David

David,

If contingency is not float, who is responsible for putting or considering this so-called "contingency period" into the schedule? The Client or the Contractor?

regards,

Anoon

Hi Anoon,

As a planner, most of the times, WBS and WBS dictionary reflect the project scope evolution, as it becomes more detailed until the work package level is reached. So, there is a need to include small reserves, both in terms of duration and cost as well.

These contingencies to be used at the discretion of the project manager to deal with anticipated, but not certain events. THESE EVENTS ARE "KNOWN UNKNOWNS" and are part of the project scope and baselines (time and cost).

These contingencies need to be added in the form of progressive ellaboration. e.g. where the work to be accomplished in the near term is planned in detail at a low level of WBS, while work far in the future is planned for WBS components that are at a relatively high level of WBS.

Floats are relected in the schedule and can be used by stakeholders, whereas, contingencies are consumed at the discretion of PM only.

Hope I am Clear.

Cheers,

Raviraj

Raviraj,

PM of what? PM representing the Client or the Contractor?

by the way, my project scope / baseline does not include contigencies, am I allowed to add this contigencies even if not required in the contract?

regards

Anoon,

PM of contractor of course.

The contingencies build into the program are not highlighted to the client and is limited to the planning team and management of contractors only.

Even for subbies (Sub-Contractor), the contingencies are not given and duration to complete the activity is less compared to the baseline program agreed with the client.

Contingencies are mostly in cost controlling and monitoring and as efficient planner, every body would like to have these contingencies build into the cost sheets and program, so that even if there is any impact in the cost, profit margins will never go down.

As far as contingencies in the duration of program are considered, every planner/construction manager would like to have some contingencies build into the program for safer side.

Have you ever heard of "Rollling Wave Planning". Contingencies play a major role in Rolling wave planning and is of utmost importance during those early high level WBS programs.

Cheers,

Raviraj A Bhedase

Anoon

Im my ver humble opinion I believe all prudent parties to a project ought to include contingency in their plans (and costs) - given the historical eveidence of delays and overspend, not to do so is negligent.

As far as I know there are not contracts that say ’contingency periords should not be included in project schedules’.

Whether you show your contingency periods (which I advocate) or add then covertly (extending durations or whatever) is up to you but taking the latter course is fraught with it’s own problems.

David

All,

I’m not sure if these two gentlemen (David & Raviraj) are trying to corrupt my already confused and very little intelligence (forgive me, I just thought I had one).

I happened to work on the Client side at the moment and you are telling me that the PM of the Contractor has all the right to allow "contigency period" or contigencies in any way at his own descrition? I understand that it is always the Contractor who’s preparing the program/schedule based on his approved methodologies but to establish his own contigency and hide it from the Project Team is not good to me.

cheers

Anoon

Is there any alternative?

Anyone with any degree of real-world management and scheduling experience will realise that contractors often increase the duration of activities they feel contain risk of not completing according to schedule. In my experience, for instance, piling contractors/subcontractors almost always do this because a plant breakdown or delay in delivery of materials can have a dramatic effect on a crucial activity at the beginning of the project. This is what I mean by covertly adding contingency (which you will see I do not recommend – for a number of reasons).

In the UK, at least, most construction programmes have an activity called, snagging, final clean or pre-handover works. Again, this is usually a way of adding an element of contingency to the end of a programme.

Of course the contractor can add contingency in whatever way he wishes. Being excessive could extend the programme too much and make him uncompetitive and risk not winning the job. But is that worse than winning a job in which there is a great risk you won’t be able to do?

I would have thought a client would think better of a contractor who has allowed contingency, it is more of a guarantee that the project will complete on time. Most clients, I think, would prefer to have a guaranteed later completion date than a risky early completion date.

Sometimes it is useful to think about financial contingencies as an analogy to time contingencies. What is wrong with the contractor adding a bit of risk money into his project (it might make him uncompetitive but that is a chance he calculates). In the same way, a prudent client would have some financial buffer – if not I think he is likely to go bust almost as often as he makes a profit. Canny clients also have time contingencies (that they might not disclose to the contractor) – do you really think it a good idea fro the client to give the contractor a drop-dead date for completion that has no buffer against the time he has promised the facility to, say, a tenant?

So, Anoon… do you still think it wrong for the contractor to add contingency to the programme? Keeping it secret I would say is not good practice but it is far better than having no contingency at all. Do you know of any contracts that say contractors should not allow contingencies?

Are you related to Charlie by any chance?

David
x

Anoon,

To clear your doubts, please go through PMBOK, 3rd Edition. Contingencies are never part and parcel of contracts, its the terminology used by the project manamagement team. But, please go through PMBOK and also go through rolling wave planning.

This will definitely clear all your doubts.

Cheers,

Raviraj A Bhedase

David,

I can’t think of any reason why you ask if i’m related to Charlie in any chance? (i supposed you’re referring to Charlie Orbe), the answer is No! But what i’m sure of is that I’m more good looking than him in person!

Going back to the topic, there are lots of alternatives but I supposed these alternatives are all contained in the Contract. The Contract, Rigth or Wrong once signed by the concerned parties is the Authority, which means that they have accepted it in the first place. If they found later that there’s something in the Contract that is not practicable, then, that I Don’t Know!

Raviraj,

My eyes are not working properly and i’m tired of reading, but thanks anyway.

cheers

David,

"Terminal float" - is the period between an early completion date that the contractor says he can achieve and the actual contract completion date. The NEC specifically protects this if applicable.

Hello Andrew

Long time no see…

Yes, I know what you say about terminal float but I was asking about the origins of the term. As discussed below it does not actually exist in the NEC suite.

Somewhere along the way there has been conflation of terminal float, contingency and risk allowance (it is the latter that is protected in the NEC). I have a bit of a bee at that moment that non-planners are using our precise language imprecisely and as no-one can be arsed to challenge it ends up becoming received wisdom and dilutes the accuracy of what we do.

KP has also invented a couple of new (in my opinion unnecessary) terms; internal float and external float – which I believe muddy the waters even further!

Regards

David

David,

Haven’t come across the use of internal or external float yet - how does he define them?

As for where "terminal float" actually came from, I don’t know, "end float" used to be what I called it for several years but I guess that’s not posh enough.

I have always tried to keep these things simple. Please let me know if I have this correctly:

Float is time built into the schedule by the contractor to protect himself against his or the owner’s minor delays during the project. Isn’t float used on a first come, first serve basis?
End Float would therefore be the difference between the contact completion date and the actual completion date.

I have never heard the term "Terminal Float" used.

Contingency is a dollar value built into the contractor’s Estimate/Bid to cover unforseen and/or un-estimated costs or situations. Isn’t this usually a standard % of the contract value?

Heather,

I agree with you.

We will define float in the old fashion way.

the new definition are inventions of your cousins on the other side of the continent to just propagate there superiority in the use of the english language.

The same that happens in the TIA.

But.... they are influential only in commonwealth countries as an extension of there long lost empire.

the rest of the world follow the leader

Cheers,

Charlie

Charlie,

what are you trying say? who is the leader of the world? does he/she has any relation to Terminal Float?

regards

Charlie,

I doubt that the illigitimate use of the terminology has anything to do with nationality, it stems from lack of understanding of the project management lexicon.

Heather,

In my out of the blue opinion, i disagree that float is to be used on a first come first serve basis, and also disagree that some party in the project team will be authorized to use or own it by itself, Why? For me, Float is intended for the Project itself! and to use it, must be agreed by all Parties! Though it is usually prepared by the Contractor, once the program is approved, they must declare the floats and open it to the Project Team. Then the whole team must decide on what to do about it!

Anoon,

Your view will only happen in the event the original meaning of the "float" will not be convuluted by some native born english.

Believe me, for as long as the float will evolve and morph into something which we dont know anymore, ownership of the float will have no meaning.

The best way is to stick to the original meaning and assigned a different word (English - need) maybe japanese, Hindi to new usage of float.

What do you think???

Is there a best way to describe float in Antartica???

Cheers,

Joseph

i suppose it would be best to describe it in Tagalog Charlie..huh?

Joseph,

Once again you are making no sense whatsoever.

Your stupidity in the distasteful comments you make about the English is only surpassed by the lack of project management knowledge you behold.

Oliver

P.S

The only convulution happening is your attempt to speak the Queens English.

I will respond to the substantive points in Heather’s post later but in the mean time I feel I must respond to yet another of Charlie’s racist rants (on completion of this posting I shall report you to the moderators).

Unfortunately Charlie, what you are saying in agreeing with Heathers interpretation is, in fact, developing a new meaning for float, not ‘the old fashioned way’. If you care to take a look at any of the glossaries that define such things I believe you will find that contingency is a purposeful allocation of time or money to take account of unforeseen risks, whereas float is something generated by the logic, durations and sequence of operations.

Anoon… have you considered the ramifications of what you are saying about ownership of float? In this instance I agree with Heather although I think she would have better said “Isn’t float generally used on a first come, first serve basis? Of course it all depends on what the particular contract says but, in my limited experience, I have found contracts that make observations on the ownership of float virtually impossible to administrate effectively. For that reason I think that the NEC suite, in introducing ‘contractors risk allowance’ have overcome some of the problems – it is just unfortunate that some less well-informed commentators have decided to rebadge this ‘terminal float’. In anycase, you have managed to go off-topic again (can’t you concentrate and keep to the subject in hand?) – the thread is about the origins of the term ‘terminal float’.

Again, Charlie, would you care to enlighten us as to the ‘original meaning of the "float"’ and how it had been ‘convuluted by some native born english’ (I assume you mean ‘convoluted by some native born English’). I suspect you were referring to me then (if not who?) – but of course, yet again you arte making assumptions as you know nothing about where I was born, what my mother tongue is or what my ethnicity is.

Even you must be aware that Critical Path Analysis and the like was developed out of researchin the 1950s predominately UK by the ESI for power station construction and in the US for the Polaris programme. As a result the terminology and definitions are essentially in, and were originally in, English.

You will see that the Forum Rules and Guidelines say “Messages should preferably be in English. While the membership is worldwide with many languages represented, it is prefereble to maintain discussions here where the majority of our members can participate.” I am unable to lower my standards to correspond in imprecise language and perhaps the pidgin English you appear to condone. For those who are not aware, I understand Tagalog is one of the major languages of the Republic of the Philippines and along with along with English is the co-official language. However, Wikipedia tells me that English is more prevalent in the fields of government and business.

Charlie, Anoon; there is not an obligation to get involved in every conversation in the forum. May I suggest if you have nothing valid to contribute and just want to snipe at the English speakers here (or even the ‘native born english’) then you do it some place else.

Guys and gals,

Float is now simply LS-ES or LF-EF. Period as in .

Then, Total Float and Free Float.



Terminal float, external float, internal float, etc.

We could add "float as in float during parade, floating as in swimming in the sea, floating the ship, etc. etc,


Float should only be as per conventional way no convulution of the english language, please in this way there will be no supremacy in the use of the english language.

I’m not the racist. I’m not propagating the supremacy of individuals in the use of the english language.

English language now is international. The world take possession of this wonderful language.


Cheers,

Charlie

i prefer an ice cream over a root beer!

I think I made sense.

We should reject "Terminal Float"

In this way, our understanding of FLOAT will be simple and easy.

It will also make it cheaper to resolve disputes in construction project.

Can you imagine in a dispute or claim situation wherein everyone will be able to resolve the issues and all of a sudden someone practitioner of ’TERMINAL FLOAT" shouted that resolution will not be possible because of "TERMINAL FLOAT".

This will only be additional money for claim specialist. No resolution will be at hand.

In conclusion we will reject convoluting of "FLOAT" by tweeking english language, the international language (not anymore the sole mastery of native born english).

Cheers,

Joseph

Hi ME,

For the sake of democracy in this plannet, you can say whatever you want to say.

What have been done with the terminology??


Did any planning software incorporate this terminology in the planning process.

Surely not Primavera or Microsoft Project.

How can this be accepted in our plannet???

Cheers,

Joseph

Hi Guys,

I don’t have anything much to contribute except to say that Matthew seems to have carried out an extremely thorough investigation. The term itself seems to have been around for a fair while, but on-one seems to know where it came from. Perhaps, as Andrew suggested, it’s merely a posh name for what he used to call End Float.

What isn’t useful, however, is Charlie/Joseph saying that the term should be rejected, that makes no more sense than saying that he rejects rainy days. Nor is it useful for him to make his usual pointless, spiteful remarks about English people.

It would be far better if we followed the original premise of this thread when David set it up and tried to find out where the term came from, what it means and how we can best use it.

Chris Oggham

Hello to all,

The term is really rubbish.

ME did not establish the reliability of his research.

If this is accepted Can you imagine this:

Act Id Desc FF TF Terminal Float

1 Exc 10 5 ?????????????

How do you computer terminal float for 25,000 activities.

Is this terminal float taught in English school for example in London bridge????? Can you answer this Chris and David also ME.

Is terminal float taught in Europe or US of A.


NO one know this because this is just an invention to promote the superiority of the english language by native born english speakers.

Cheers,

Joseph

Charlie,

If a contractor chooses to complete a project early then there is a period of time between his planned completion date and the contractual completion date.

If you don’t want to call this period terminal float, what do you want to call it?

It’s ceratinly some kind of float, the planned completion date being the EF date and the contractual completion date being the LF date.

Charlie,

I sense eith either hatred or jealousy of ’natural born engligh speakers’?

Which one is it?

Hi Guys,

It no longer surprises me how anything Charlie/Joseph doesn’t like/agree with/understand is always rubbish/should be rejected/banned. What is quite remarkable is his consistent ability to attribute just about anything to a conspiracy "to promote the superiority of the english language by native born english speakers."

Remarkable certainly, but rapidly becoming extremely tiresome as his pointlessly offensive remarks draw people’s attention away from the purpose of the thread.

Chris Oggham

I rather just call that "Contigency Time", if I am contractor.

Hello to all,

Please present how you will show TERMINAL FLOAT in the Network or schedule.

The basic in PERT CPM is to find the critical path.

What will become of your critical path if there is terminal float.

Tell me.

Tell the whole planning planet.

Please tell me if approve baseline schedule show contingency, terminal float, hidden float, etc.

I dont think so that consultant or project management will approve baseline programme with contingency, terminal float, hidden float, etc.

Maybe in UK or in England as in Native English Speaking people.

Oliver, I’m not jealous with native english speaking nationalities. I’m interested in there bizzare ways of propagating superiority in the use of english language, not anymore for them to exploits others since english now is possess by the international community also our beloved planning planet

cheers,

Joseph

Hi David,

I had a bit of a look round at the weekend to see if I could find out where the term Terminal Float came from, with a singular lack of success. Like you I found mention of it in a number of papers, but there seems to be nothing to suggest where the term originated. Since that was the question in your original post i don’t know what else to say.

Charlie/Joseph,

Your fixation with this supposed "propagating superiority in the use of english language" is the only thing that is bizarre. It’s also rapidly become extremely boring, so if you’ll accept some advice from a, to use your phrase, "native English speaker" - get a life.

Chris Oggham

Chris,

for as long that the term is not accepted by the international community, the term is not incorporated in respectable planning software accepted by the international community (Primavera, Microsoft Project, etc. I stand on my post.

Please tell the whole planning world how will you claim for extension of time.

"Our claim for extension of time is 360 days, but actually, we will less 150 days due to terminal float that we incorporate in the approve baseline programme".

Come on, what a stupid claims, funny and clowning around, waste of time.

I thinks if no one can elucidate on this issues and its impact in forensic planning and claims, we will just accept it as an invention by native born english speakers.

Cheers,

Joseph

Charlie,

Do you actually read any of the other posts before making your own? I don’t believe you can do as if you did, you would know that what David asked was where did the term Terminal Float come from.

The fact that the term exists means that it is gaining or has gained some credibility and acceptance. So, as usual, you have missed the point and resorted to your usual drivel about native born English speakers.

Chris Oggham

Another useful english term..W@nker.

Charlie,

We always speak english, maybe we could speak your ’native speak’?

Charlie,

Still waiting for a reply as to what you want to call what the rest of us are happy to call "end" or "terminal" float.

Something that is internationally usable and recognisable.

Andrew,

I really this type of float.

It is not accepted in the academic community.

It is not accepted in the international community.

It is not accepted in the planning software industries.

It is not accepted in planning planet.

It is just an idea that has no basis but prop up to confuse the planning practioner.

It has no accepted logic, no accepted computation

It is better to forget this thread ever existed.

What do you think. Is "TERMINAL FLOAT really worth pursuing.

Will is help forensic claim analysis???

Cheer

Charlie

Charlie,

It’s been around for alot of years - since whenever the first contractor decided he could finish a project early!

The NEC familly of contracts, now used internationally, not only recognises it, but has express provisions to deal with it.

The only thing not accepted in the academic, international, planning software, planning plannet, planning and claims community appears to be your opinion.

Apologies for being out of this thread but I have been on holiday.

It seems to have developed another life... mainly, as usual, because Charlie can’t concentrate on a topic and decides to go off on another of his chip on the shoulder racist rants!

Anyhow... Charlie - may I suggest you read Glenlion Construction Ltd v The Guiness Trust (1986)(you can find a brief synopsis at http://www.planningengineers.org/publications/legalcases.aspx (or just do a Google search). I think this was the first case that highlighted the problem that could arise by producing a programme with ’terminal float’.

My original question (that arose from study of the NEC suite) came about because some commentators were calling terminal float ’contincency’. I don’t think float and contingency are the same thing, float can be used as a contingency but until it is designated as such it is still mere float and has less potency that contingency.

Thats all folks.

David