Dilemma with consultant/project manager re updating
In the Open Standard
Rlin C.Member for 18 years 8 months
- Created
- 72
- 12
0
I do weekly progress update in our programme. At times, after update inputs, running the schedule results to out-of-sequence activities. In which case, I revise relationships to eliminate these out of sequence activities and to reflect the changes in sequence of works as they were implemented on site (e.g. two activities are initially planned as FS but in actual they started simultaneously, hence relationship is revised to correct the sequence). This revision to relationships often results to lesser delays compared to keeping “retain logic” when scheduling.
The consultant/project manager insists that during update, I am only entitled to make changes to percentages and actual dates. Apart from these, nothing should be revised as per FIDIC clause 14. He expects me to run the schedule and not amend anything afterwards. He insists that whatever resulting delay appears after scheduling is accepted as true and final. Somehow he thinks I am manipulating the programme to hide delays.
I explained that if relationships are not revised to reflect the actual situation, then the programme can no longer be used as reference for construction since it does not reflect the actual or the new forecasted sequence of activities. It is also rare that the planned programme is completely followed/implemented in actual due to several affecting actual conditions.
Let me know if I am making a right point about this. I don’t know how else to make the consultant accept my explanation regarding the changes made to eliminate out-of-sequence activities, which consequently reduce delay. Perhaps someone can show me publications regarding this so I can show it to him. Or maybe you can enlighten me on how to explain it further.
P.S. I only make changes in Current schedule not in Baseline programme.
Thanks,
Arlene
The consultant/project manager insists that during update, I am only entitled to make changes to percentages and actual dates. Apart from these, nothing should be revised as per FIDIC clause 14. He expects me to run the schedule and not amend anything afterwards. He insists that whatever resulting delay appears after scheduling is accepted as true and final. Somehow he thinks I am manipulating the programme to hide delays.
I explained that if relationships are not revised to reflect the actual situation, then the programme can no longer be used as reference for construction since it does not reflect the actual or the new forecasted sequence of activities. It is also rare that the planned programme is completely followed/implemented in actual due to several affecting actual conditions.
Let me know if I am making a right point about this. I don’t know how else to make the consultant accept my explanation regarding the changes made to eliminate out-of-sequence activities, which consequently reduce delay. Perhaps someone can show me publications regarding this so I can show it to him. Or maybe you can enlighten me on how to explain it further.
P.S. I only make changes in Current schedule not in Baseline programme.
Thanks,
Arlene
72 replies
Oldest first- 0Anoon Iimos ·Arlene,
For me, what you are doing is right. The Current Schedule is supposed to be dynamic which should reflect the actual conditions and the strategies being applied. However, to satisfy your Consultant, I suggest you create multiple Targets or Baselines (keeping back-ups) tailored to what he/she wants. Further, as a Planner, you should always consider the words ignorance and interests (of others). A lesson me-myself never learned by the way.
cheers! - 0Dieter Wambach ·Arlene
With intention out-of-sequence activities are shown in a log file for scheduling. A different sequence than planned might violate aspects of security. It has to be watched and decided by pm or another responsible person and so you are obliged to show.
Different start than planned will lead to a different finish date of that specific task by expected finish date, remaining duration or remaining units, depending on parameter settings. Following activities will be influenced by this "wrong" start and its influence on Project’s finish will be shown. The plan/schedule remains dynamic.
Sorry, for my opinion your consultant is right.
Regards
Dieter - 0Rlin C. ·Anoon,
Thanks for the affirmation & advice.
Dieter,
Your opinion is highly considered.
To other experts,
I’m awaiting more responses/opinions.
Kindly note that I use retained logic in running the schedule, amendments in relationships are only made to progressed out-of-sequence activities.
- 0R. Catalan ·Arlene,
Whether the approved baseline is reliable or not it should be followed as per contract conditions. That’s why we should be very careful that we have a schedule that has followed proper scheduling parameters prior submission for approval.
You’re right to affirm the current status of the project but not modify durations, relationships, etc. that might affect the scheduling parameters of the approved baseline, unless you have approval of the PM/Client to revise it.
Still you have a chance, you can start thru letters "schedule alerts" informing the PM that at that particular stage revision of the baseline is imminent to show current status of the project and request for baseline revisions. Some Client doesn’t mind in revising baseline schedule as long as it will not extend the contract finish date.
Regards,
- 0Rlin C. ·Revising the baseline is not actually the issue. It is approved and is being implemented. We don’t intend to initiate changes in baseline without PM/Client approval.
The concern is: Changing the logic of out-of-sequence activities (in the updated/current schedule) is not acceptable for the PM/client.
For example (for illustration purpose only):
Planned sequence
1. Steel fixing of core wall
2. Steel fixing of columns (Finish to Start with 1.)
Actual sequence implemented on site
1. Steel fixing of core wall
2. Steel fixing of columns (Start to start with 1.)
Action
Since both activities has progressed and appeared to be out of sequence with respect to baseline, FS was changed to SS (in the current schedule).
As the main contractor, these changes in logic of out-of-sequence activities are made to reflect the current/actual sequence of activities on site. Though the baseline was carefully planned (gone through deliberations, computations, revisions, resubmissions prior to final approval), somehow there are still minor changes in sequence of works when the construction has started, thus the need to change the logic of progressed activities.
In the case of the project I am involved with, changes in very few activities’ sequence do not call for revision of the entire baseline schedule (yet) or creation of a recovery/catch-up schedule.
Again, what is the best way to handle the situation? How do I explain this concept further? PM won’t accept, I on the other hand do not want to follow what he wants to implement – to keep the out-of-sequence activities out of sequence.
- 0António Faria ·Typically, if the PM/Client doesn’t want the Time Schedule revision, you can only use the Contract Time Schedule as a report tool. In the future, probably, the Client will use it as a document for Claim, if you have problems in your project (delay, additional costs, etc).
For controlling on-site activities make a new one. I’m sure that your PM wants to have a real idea what is going on your project and will let you make the changes needed to achieve it.
BR,
AF
- 0Se de Leon ·Hi Arelene,
What you are doing in the point of view of actually managing the project is right. You are reflecting what is really happening in field. I don’t believe that a baseline schedule should be something that is cast in stone except for the keydates and milestone dates in your contract. Schedules are supposed to be dynamic and responsive to the needs of the project.
I think your consultant is the typical consultant who likes to be seen as protecting the interest of the client even though most of the time they don’t make sense by trying to be academic in their approach about scheduling. You are just making sense of the baseline schedule by reflecting the reality. That’s how I view your situation.
My suggestion, if I may, if it’s clear in your contract that you can’t do what you’re doing, check the clause in your contract about "the duty of the contractor to mitigate delay". This could counterbalance his argument, perhaps. - 0Ronald Winter ·The first thing you need to do is to protect your rights to a proper claim. Be sure to clearly and dispassionately state your objections to this “directive.” State that the schedule you are forced to submit does not reflect your current workplan, nor can the CPM calculations derived from it be definitive of the actual float and criticality of the activities.
It is only YOUR schedule if you believe that it displays your intended work plan, otherwise it is only a required submittal dictated by the client and you are not bound by its findings. Formally submit this document to your client and tell them that you may be required to follow their directions, but you are not required to use inaccurate information when considering compensation for delays. Good luck! - 0Trevor Rabey ·2c worth.
The trouble with the baseline is that it is carved in stone even though it is obsolete and irrelevant almost immediately.
The baseline is not a promise to perform the project in strict accordance with every detail in the baseline.
Measuring performance against it, except for perhaps a few dates, is meaningless.
Looking forward rather than pining for the baseline is how projects get done.
An unchangeable plan is inconsistent with any notion of the critical path method and sensible construction management, which demands updating and re-planning frequently if not continuously.
Everything not yet done is subject to re-planning.
Once a Task has an Actual Start Date, any other Start Date (baseline or planned) as determined by predecessors etc, is irrelevant. A fact is a fact. You could drop all of the links.
A critical Path can only exist (be defined for) the future. - 0Pinan T. ·in the UAE, this normally happens:
Updated Baseline or Current Update from Baseline cannot be modified in relationships and durations.
A modified Programme reflecting the actual work can be submitted later on for Catch Up or recovery programme or Extension. But for now keep it as your record.
- 0Mike Testro ·Hi Arlene
Just one small comment regarding SS relationships.
You originally had two tasks on a FS link.
They both started simultaneously so you changed it to a SS link.
If the same task that linked the start of the 1st activity is the same one that links 2nd then you should use a FS link to both tasks - not just drop a SS link between the two.
This represents the true logic in the programme such that if the 1st task is delayed the 2nd will not be affected.
Best regards
Mike Testro - 0Anoon Iimos ·Mike,
I believe the example that was given by Arlene is practical. Though I’m not inclined to agree that she has to necessarily change the relationships (as established in her baseline) in her Current or Updated schedule. As Trevor said, once there are actual dates, the rest are irrelevant.
The example given was I supposed intended for labor resource (i.e. steelfixers). When doing high rise buildings, reinforcing bars are continuous (for columns or core walls) until you reach the roof deck (or a certain point). Now lets deviate a little, why you need to ban SS relationship when you can practically use it to allocate your steelfixers to work on columns and core walls at the same time or in the same floor? Supposing the segragation of the structural elements in your Plan is separating Columns from Core Walls?
Arlene,
As Dieter said, your Consultant is right, but you are also right in a way and very articulate as well.
cheers! - 0Se de Leon ·Right is a very strong word. I don’t think the PM is right in the strictest definition of the word right. He could be contractually compliant but not right. But as I said, contractually speaking, there could be a counterbalance argument to his argument.
IMO
P.S. On the issue of SS, I think there’s still no right or wrong argument at this moment. - 0Samer Zawaydeh ·Dear Arlene,
If you support your schedule with actual inspection records showing that the activities were actually SS, then you are doing the correct thing.
Good records showing actual time and duration of activities supported with the approval of the Engineer is the best thing a planner can do to support her schedule.
Best Regards,
Samer
- 0Andrew Pearce ·My opinion is that as PLANNERS we should be reviewing the programme as we work through the project. I believe that the CURRENT version of the plan (not the baseline) should be revised to reflect what is know has happened and what will happen in the future.
What is the point issuing a programme update that will show an activity starting (or finishing) in say 5 days when we know that it will be delayed by 2 weeks.
Remember the original Plan (baseline) contract programme is now only a piece of paper that records the original intent.
On a point of constructing the original plan I would think very carefully about the use of F-S links as there are very few situations were this is true. (unless your plan is at a very high level of detail, after erecting 2 columns F-S erect the beam spanning between them) I try to use a combination of S-S & F-F. - 0Nestor Principe ·Arlene,
Assuming the activities are in the critical path. Try to see what will happen if you did not change the relationship. Doing some analysis, which of the 2 scenarios will help you contractually.
Changing to SS relationship will show less delay or ahead programme. Keeping the FS relationship, using retained logic, will preserve your original planning and may be helpful in a claim situation.
Cheers..
- 0Se de Leon ·Hi Pearce,
I agree 100%. I don’t see the logic of reporting on a schedule that is obsolete and useless specially if it’s useless for site people. Schedules are not used only by PM consultants but more so should be a useful tool to those who are doing the actual work, i.e. site people. What the PM is requiring Arlene to do is to report on something that doesn’t make sense and publish an utterly ridiculous report. My other problem with issuing such report, this will undermine the credibility of the scheduler/planner.
IMO
- 0Mike Testro ·Hi All
The problem I always face when starting a delay analysis is creating an as built programme.
The usual and most direct source is the weekly progress reports.
When the contract programme changes and is being reported on it is almost impossible to establish an as built programme with any sort of continuity.
So please change your programmes as you wish but maintain the contract programme and continue your weekly progess % on that as well as your current programme.
Best regards
Mike Testro - 0Nestor Principe ·Good day to All,
My opinion..
In a scenario where partnering works, being proactive is a big plus.
If the works are delayed, contractor’s fault, you like to report you are under control, that is fine.
In a scenario where the client play hard with the contractor and the works are delayed, client’s fault, you want to protect your entitlement. This will dicate how you report.
That is how the contractor make business, plain and simple.
Cheers.. - 0Charleston-Joseph Orbe ·Dear All,
Arlene’s dilemma is not unique in the planning world. I expereinced it and I will continue to experienced this kind of delimma.
Since we are just doing our work to earned money for our family to live, I think, the solution can be found in each company that we worked, the project we are in at the present moment, the location of our workplace or project workplace.
IMHO, the approach is to update the baseline periodically without changes to the approved baseline programme relative to relationship. Any changes must have the agreement in writing by the client representative. In most cases, this will make the updated programme, current programm irrelevant to what will be the realistic activities at site in the succeeding weeks or months.
Why are we doing this? Simple!!! The periodic update of the baseline program must show the actuals and how this actuals impact on the schedule as originally planned and accepted. It will be used in future forensice planning exercise for evaluation for entitlement of claims for extension of time.
It is for this reason that another realistic program will be prepare in Microsoft Excel or Microsoft Project that show the realistic activities at site in the next four weeks or sometimes called the four weeks rolling program.
Cheers,
Happy Planning and Scheduling
- 0Charleston-Joseph Orbe ·But if your company is not sohpisticated or dumb and moron,
so what can you do. follow your instinct, follow advised in PP (it will make you more confuse),
Or if your planning manager cannot give direction, then, it is really a bad situation.
On the brighter side, I’m always around since I’m a project control manager and as such, I have developed project control procedures, forensic planning methodology and procedures.
It is always my habit to raise into higher standard the planning and scheduling profession, forensic planning analyze profession by documenting AACEI recommended practice or other professional body norms.
cheers
Happy Planning and Scheduling - 0Dieter Wambach ·Arlene
in post #12 you wrote you know how to solve this dilemma. Can you share, how?
To give you another reason which led myself to my reply: Cooperation between planner/scheduler and pm - or consultant - needs som basis of confidence. Changes to plan in agreement with pm, site manager or other responsible person is normal and has to be reflected by the planner. Changes without such an agreement may reduce confidence or even be a "good" basis for later claims and advocates may be delighted. Activities planned to run in parallel will depend on the same predecessor and drive successors - new fs-links. Here I fully support Mike.
Changes to predecessors’ links after an activity was started are irrelevant, will even lead to confusion, and to reduced confidence into your work - for my opinion.
Again: It’s your plan and it’s up to you to reflect changes in planning in agreement with the responsible persons and under written notice for major changes.
But I’m really curious for your decision.
Regards
Dieter - 0Rlin C. ·Mr. Dieter,
It was actually post #9 (by Ronald Winter) which assisted me the most. Though all opinions/advice are enlightening, I see Ronald’s advice as most suitable. I’ll be submitting two updated schedules, one satisfying the submittal, the other reflecting the current site situation. Problem solved. =) - 0Andrew Pearce ·Hi Mike,
You obviously have a great deal of experience but perhaps you have lost track of reality? Or do you only use MSP?
If every planner were only to use FS links then how small do the activity durations have to be for that logic to be correct?
Example logic tests!
Do you have to complete a concrete slab befor you start kickers for the next level of columns?
Ok so we split the slab into individual pours
Do you have to complete all of the decking befor you start fixing rebar?
Ok so we split the pour down into 1 day work units, then perhaps the F-S will be correct!
Perhaps we should start a Poll on use of links, my pet hate being the F-S neg duration!
Happy Planning those of you with jobs! - 0Charleston-Joseph Orbe ·Dear Arlene,
In your post #28, you did acknowledge that Mr. Ronald Wintir Post #9 helped you. I understand you because somehow I think we came from the same country. While Mr. Ronald approached is the most effective way, you have to consider also that Mr. Ronald comes from US of A.
It may not be the solution when you worked in UK influence country or commonwealth country.
Although they (US of A and UK) profess to be allies in the world arena, there are details that these two profess the opposite ways. Believe me for I have worked in lots of countries.
Please reconsider my previous post. You also have to check what the contract says.
cheers
Happy Planning and Scheduling - 0Mike Testro ·Hi Andrew
Have a look at the thread - Ban these planning abominations.
An activity is where one trade can work in one location on its own.
If a task is more than 10 days it is too long.
If on a slab the work is broken down into grids then set up a cascade for each grid and link the grids then set it under a summary bar.
It is very quick when you use copy paste for each section then filter on each task and do a global FS link between grids and then between levels.
Best regards
Mike Testro. - 0Mike Testro ·Hi Arlene
The point is that you do not have to submit both schedules to the PM.
Tell him that you are recording progress on two different programmes.
Give him what he wants on the original schedule and keep your own reports to yourself.
When he asks to see both reports you will have won.
If he doesn’t ask then you will have a correct record for the eventual delay claim.
Best regards
Mike Testro
- 0Rlin C. ·Mike,
Well, I have been submitting the updated schedule for the past 6 months and we decided to stick by our updating system. And to satisfy the incumbent Planning Engr’s requirement, we will submit another update according to his specification. With this, I am anticipating that he will eventually realize which report truly reflects the status of the project.
R. Catalan / Charleston,
As I’ve said, everyone made a valuable point, but with regards to applicability of solutions to the current situation I’m in, I chose to adopt post#9. I see it as most suitable.
There is more to the story than what I’ve told/consulted in this website. As much as I want to elaborate the entirety of my story, it will only be boring [and it might be read by the involved parties ;-)]. So I guess not everyone will approve of my decision but thank you so much for taking time sharing your views. I considered your advice and will consider them in the future as well.
- 0R. Catalan ·Arlene,
For 6 long months your PM did not comment on your updated schedule? ... and at the same time you also continued in submitting another update using the old/approved baseline scheduling parameters? You agree on both then.
If he/she has not replied maybe you can use FIDIC clauses related to submission of revised programme whenever the previous is inconsistent with actual progress.
Mike,
As a forensic planner/analyst, what would you expect at the end of the line if there’s a disputed EOT?
- 0Se de Leon ·Going back to the original query.
Is there really a clause in FIDIC that says, you can not change logic, and the only changes you can make is on percentages and actual dates even though the project is not delayed? Can a PM consultant interfere in the means and methods of a contractor though the project is not delayed, he’s just changing his means and methods as per what the reality in the field is showing?
I think the issue is not as simple as following the whims of a PM consultant and convering your a..
If the project is delayed, then this question is not valid. As long as the changes made by the contractor will not affect the scheduling by the other party using the baseline schedule, I don’t think the contractor has an obligation to follow the PMs directive on this. Unless there’s a clear clause in FIDIC to the contrary.
IMHO - 0Nestor Principe ·One reason I can think of, is your schedule is interfaced with another schedules. Revision in the logic of your schedule will create problem with the others.
Or they simply want you to submit status of the approved schedule. In some cases it is required in the contract. Are you also required to submit current schedule or sort of rolling schedule?
Cheers.. - 0Se de Leon ·Let us say, there’s no other interface schedule. The only interface is the schedule of the Engineer, meaning IFC schedule.
Can a PM consultant interfere in the means and methods of a contractor even if the project is not delayed and it does not affect the IFC schedule?
Is there really a clause in FIDIC that will tell the contractor not to change its logic, only actual % and dates?
- 0Nestor Principe ·FIDIC, I assume is the General Condition of the Contract. We also have Special Condition.
Se - What is IFC?
There is a clause in the contract that the PM/Engineer/Client can instruct the contractor to submit revised schedule when it deems the approved schedule is already obsolete. The contractor can request for the instruction to be issued.
Cheers.. - 0Charleston-Joseph Orbe ·Se,
Refer to your post # 38,
For FIDIC, the fundamental of planning and scheduling is found in cluase 14
The only time that baseline program will be revise is upon the instruction by the client representative, after evaluating that the baseline program is delayed.
Not the word by word, but, somehow to that effect.
So the fundamentals in planning and scheduling exercise and deliverables must be base on what the contract says.
It is for this reason that in the event your contract department is very strong in presence within the project, then, it is better to follow what the contract says.
But some contract superseeded the FIDIC clause 14 by incorporating special conditions, particular conditions...
However, contract basically, invoke that whoever is higher in quality will be implemented.
So if the particular condition is rubbish or the special condition is rubbish, then, you have to follow FIDIC clause 14.
The dilemma continues before, in my case, why I will complicate issues. Whatever is convenient for me and the project team are happy is also ok with me.
But since I got the experience, I will cover my tracks because at the end of the day, a lot of fingerpointing will always happened especially if the project fail.
Cheers,
Happy Planning and Scheduling - 0Charleston-Joseph Orbe ·This Dilemma will always face planning and scheduling engineers may it be the present generation or the future generation.
It is for this reason that we have to find a unified solution.
Hi Mike.
It is not right to stop this thread since a lot of planning and scheduling engineers are still struggling on what to do, not only Arlene but also me, at the present moment, and I believe in the future.
The more planning and scheduling engineers will share their experience, the more we will have option on who to follow, what to follow, what methodology to follow, etc., etc.,
Cheers,
Happy Planning and Scheduling - 0Charleston-Joseph Orbe ·Se,
You don’t need a FIDIC expert to understand FIDIC clause 14. It is a very straighrfoward clause. You only need to know the English Language, the syntax, deductive reasoning and
the willpower to believe in what you understand after being train to understand the english language.
Cheers,
Happy Planning and Scheduling - 0Alex Wong ·Dear All,
The dilemman will apply to both world, the engineer facing the same issue whether to accept such program reflect the true sequence and progress and update the rest of the master programme.
Because if the logic is being maintain and the contractor told you that it is not the true picture but the engineer still using it to update the master schedule. The proceeding contractor who bring all his equipment to site and found out that its completely different from what that master programme indicated ... who is to blame
My answer to this entire dilemma is "Common Sense"
And, in addition to the common sense is something call resource driven logic and non resource driven logic.
As long as the CPM is still maintain its non-resource driven logic, I believe the project still hold its origial critical path.
i.e. the methodology of building a high rise can be differ in different situation, when it is submitted as a master programme, it may have a very different sequency of event and it is purely driven by resource.
HTH
Alex
Log in or join to reply
ProjectControls.com is free to join. Members can post questions, reply, vote and follow discussions.
Existing members: your original username and password still work. Forgot password?