How to predict production output

Hi,

use TIA for Time Impact Analysis

Methodology: Prospective, dynamic approach.

Very easy.

Use CPM preferably CPM done in Primavera P3 ver 3.1

identify the impacting events could be one event or more than one event.

identify the activity or activities that the event or ecents are impacting.

run simulations. Hope you know what I mean?

from each simulations, determine the delays

for excel,

also very easy but this is not accepted as best practice in the international community or PP maybe.

so I dont recommend this practice anymore, it is just a waste of effort, time and money.

Sensei
Successful Project Management Consultant

do not use the

as planned as built

that is for the lazy, planning jokers mickey mouse and donald duck

go for dynamic approach using TIA

I think it is called

as built as planned (static approach)

Good Morning
In a critical path programme productivity is measured by using the inbuilt resource modelling software.
To start with the durations in your chart have to be generated by the anticipated output of the lead resource - taken from the cost plan.
In P3 this is very time consuming as each set of data has to be entered individually but in PowerProject your excell data can be cut and pasted in seconds.
Instead of multiple resources for different trades I have developed a simple system using 1 resource called "hours".
For instance if your cost plan has 1500 hrs worth of plaster work and your programme has 100 plastering activities then on average there will be 150 resource hours allocated to each chart activity. Setting a gang size of 3 will generate a duration of 50 hrs.
If your actual gang size is 2 plasterers then you can expect a duration of 75 hrs.
With resource modelling the increased durations will show the anticipated effect on the critical path.
Best regards
Mike Testro

Re As Built v As Planned

I have used this method to great effect in delay analysis for sub-contract works that relies upon the Main Contractor completing work ahead of the sub-contract works.
Any late handover - "As Built" - is plotted on the "As Planned" chart and the subsequent delay is immediately apparent.
It is simple - foolproof and indefensible.
So do not dismiss it out of hand.

Best regards

Mike Testro

It is svery implistic, young keyboard jockeys can do it..

Too good to be true (true picture of the project).

It hide your client faults hence concurrent delays.

No need to hire forensic scheduling analyze

It send wrong signal to project management practitioner

should not be promoted as the ultimate solution

If I work on the opposite side, such claims will not succeed because I used dynamic approach (true picture of the project).

It is very simplistic

(sometimes the hand is faster than the mind)

Hi Charleston-Joseph.
This is a good subject for debate.
The As Built v As Planned method is one of 4 accepted methods.
I only use it in the cirumstances that I described ie a sub-contract package sandwiched between other works. The last time was last November in an International Arbitration supporting an Italian Cladding company waiting for a French Contractor to complete the insitu concrete frame for an American client in Russia.
UK arbitration using the law of the state of New York.
The result was a pre hearing settlement in favour of the Italian Contractor.
My advice is to select your analysis method very carefully - sometimes a combination of different methods is needed.
Best regards
Mike Testro

I agree,

We have the option to select the most efficient, most effective and less cost.

I thank you for sharing your experience and opinion.

I think no need to debate, but what really bother me was the way my former(s) colleague convuluted the whole claims process at the expense of sound prospective project management practice in general and prospective project planning in particular because of the

"AS BUILT AS PLAN" claim methodology

Thanks charleston and mike. I really appreciate your opinions. I’m glad you guys are there to help us new planners. God bless!

Best regards

I have not gone thorugh all the posts but seems like the debate is about ’which method is better’. I might not be as experienced as the rest here so please feel free to correct me if i am wrong.
What i do not seem to understand is how can ’methods’ be compared when the purpose of each is entirely different.
’As-built vs As-planned’ only shows what happened in reality and might not be able to show all the delays as the contractor might have mitigated them by any means.
’Impacted vs planned’ shows in virtual what might have happened.
I believe you need to use both methods to fully analyse a certain claim or delay.

Hi Wasi

Everything depends on how good your As Built Records are.

If you can show a fully detailed As Built record that demonstrates clearly - Who did What Where and When - then you can use either the Time Impact Analysis or the As Built but For Method or the As Built v As Planned.

No detailed As Built records means that you have to fall back on the Impacted as Planned method which is very risky and easily defeated.

I often come across site diaries that state the number of tradesmen on site but not what they were doing or where on site they were working so the data is valueless.

For any form of analysis you need three things:

1. A baseline programme that is reasonable and responsive that reflects the Contract Programme

2. A schedule of events where each has an impact date that can be cross referenced to one or more activity.

3. A detailed As Built programme that underlies the baseline programme.

From that sort of starting point you have a reasonable chance of success.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Hello charleston,
Do you have a sample of prospective, dynamic approach of TIA that you can share. If you have please email it to me. my email add is denmark_zb@yahoo.com. Thank you very much

Regards,
Den