Issues of time impact analysis

Thanks for your replies Rafael and Trevor

Thankfully this will be short - composing on a BlackBerry on the way to the Little Britain Callenge Cup.

R - There was a mega-thread some time ago (maybe 3 or 4 years back) about the origins, definition and ownership of the term Time Impact Analysis (I’ll look it up when I get back).

What is generally accepted as being TIA in the UK wasn’t termed that when it was first developed. I think KP in the first edition of DDICC called it ’Snapshot’ analysis (don’t quote me, working from memory).

T - I said it was an ’untested hypothesis’ because the statement was in an academic report and I had not measured or quantified it in any way. Anecdotal evidence or common sense only. It would make make a good subject for a serious piece of research though.

David

Hi David

The CIOB recently did a questionaire based research on how Contractor’s manage time.

The dire results prompted KP to start the compilation of the his Best Practice Guide Book - which I am desparately waiting to see published.

So there has been some research on Contractor’s mis-management and another based on Architect / CA methods would be most welcome to balance the picture.

Best regards

Mike Testro

All,

Oh, a good debate could come out of this thread.

Very sadly have to say that reality and good practice are sometimes worlds apart, whether it’s on the part of the contractor or contract administrator, but hey, keeps me in work.

As for the state of delay analysis between USA and UK, haven’t got time to write a book so will decline to comment other than say if you take the AACE document, go through all the methods, pick out various bits from the methods given and combine them into one method - then you get UK TIA. There’s actually nothing done in the UK method that isn’t included in that document, all the bits just hasn’t been brought all together into one method. Basically take MIP 3.7, add some more bits from other methods such as stepped insertion, half stepping, etc and you have UK style TIA.

But then in Scotland, common sense and a narrative based on no CPM analysis at all may be enough, but I hear that particular case is up for appeal this month although the judgment may not be forthcoming for a few months yet. Fingers crossed.

Mike / All

As an update, the CIOB Guide to Good Practice in Managing Time in Complex Projects is very nearly finalised in draft. It goes out to industry consultation next month, and comments will be returned to CIOB for review by 08th January 2010, with the plan for it to be published in the Autumn 2010.

Regards

Toby

Mike

You know I am acutely aware of the CIOB survey, which I have many misgivings about. For instance, it found that the most frequently used software (in the UK I presume) to produce the project schedule was Microsoft Project at 52 percent! Anyone with any real experience of the UK Construction Industry knows that is not the case and the data is probably skewd by the complexity of the original questionnaire, the small response and the principal occupation of the respondents.

We are told that there were 73 respondents to the survey (a hit rate of about 18 percent). I am a little confused how many answered the planning and scheduling part of the survey:
Of the 73 respondents, 11 said that they did not have occasion to read, write or consider construction schedules, this section of the questionnaire was thus answered by 68 respondents.

The summary says:
In around two-thirds of building projects and four-fifths of engineering projects, it was perceived that the contractor was predominantly held to blame for any delay to completion.
This seems to be different to what the data shows (at least with regard to building projects):
… in 37% of all low-rise the contractor was predominantly to blame for the delay to completion. and … in 41% of all high-rise projects the contractor was perceived to be predominantly to blame for the delay to completion.

As you are aware the main contractor is not solely responsible for the time management of projects, or at least in my opinion, it should be a holistic team approach. There is a really confusing graph (Chart 17 – Method of time management) which is headed ‘The way time is currently managed on site’. The data shows:
52% Professional services
37% Project management
10% General contracting
1% Specialist trade contractor
The text that goes with the graph says:
Chart 17 indicates that in the experience of just over 50% or respondent answering this question a master time-management (sic)

Anyway, back to my original point of it being an untested hypothesis I don’t think the CIOB report, in the analysis published, has determined and relationship between the method or effort put into planning and the success of a project. For instance, of those that use what the report says are ‘sophisticated planning tools’ are their results by way of liability for delay to the completion of projects greater or less than for those who do not use project planning software. I think there is an assumption that that is the case but I don’t think the data actually establishes that.

The research was influenced by the members of the project team on the basis of their own experiences of project failure through delays, time-based claims and disputes. I have expounded at length elsewhere I do not like contractor bashing and references to ‘is you planner a monkey’. The authors do acknowledge that some projects are managed very well indeed – it would be useful to research the manner in which those projects are time managed, if they are any different from what the CIOB research seeks to suggest. But as the research does not tell us, as far as I can see other than by gut feeling (common sense?), is there a causal link between time management effort, techniques, software use, and so on and successful projects?

I have often wondered what differentiates a planning monkey from a ‘good’ planner. The CIOB report thinks it has the answer:
It was felt that the education of planning engineers should be mainly at university degree and post-graduate levels, while that of project schedulers should be at pre-degree (higher technician) and degree level though much is through work experience only. However, we have concluded that the education and training needed to prepare all those involved in the management of time on construction projects is unsatisfactory.
It would be very interesting to know what the formal specialist education of the authors of the report is and if it anywhere matches what they say a planning engineer/project scheduler should have. As they say regarding the thesis of the research:
This was expounded by members of the project team on the basis of their own experiences of project failure through delays, time-based claims and disputes.
It makes me wonder if this is an admission of ‘monkey’ status or even ‘humpty dumpty’ status.

David

The full CIOB report can be downloaded at http://www.ciob.org.uk/filegrab/TM_report_full_web.pdf?ref=880 and the summary at www.ciob.org.uk/filegrab/TM_summary_web.pdf?ref=881

Hi David

Working as a delay analyst I only come across failed projects and the usual cause of the failure is bad time management.

In most every case the contract programme was unfit for time management purposes and the construction team have - by and large - ignored it.

The same applies to whatever scale of project - house extensions to powerstations.

So who is going to do the training for future planners?

Is there anyone out there except you and I who knows how to do it properly?

Best regards

Mike Testro

I am flattered... but being a self-confessed ’monkey’ I think I’ll have to leave all the training to you!

I must say, I am amazed at this negativity to the work being done by the CIOB. David, I would suggest whatever "issues" you have you deal with.

The research was just the spark needed to get the "industry" talking about time management issues.

The guide will be a practical treatise on the process to be followed and standards to be achieved in the effective management of time.

By having the industry consultation, it will recieve a wider peer review, and as such will get enhanced credibility.

Its the start of a long process, and there will undoubtably be bumps along the way. However, if we don’t try and do something now, then the industry will continue to suffer from poor time management.

Regards

Toby

Toby

I suppose the easy way to close down a discussion is to say deal with the issues. Perhaps equally as productive would be to address some of the criticisms.

If you look back I was saying that whilst it is an untested hypothesis, it is fair to assume that many of the projects that end in disputes do so as a result of the contract not having been administered properly during the currency of the project. In other words I was generally agreeing with the suggestions of the CIOB report.

Mike came back and cited the CIOB survey and suggested in a roundabout way that it had proven the hypothesis – it has not done, those questions, as far as I can see from the data, were not asked.

I am on record, in letters published in Construction Manager for instance, supporting the initiative of the CIOB on this matter and have been calling for the very same thing in my published work over the last few years. In my first treatise on the subject, back in 1994, I said:

This report has highlighted a number of areas upon which recommendations can be made to reduce construction project delay disputes and to aid their resolution if they occur.
1. Ensure that all parties to the contract are aware of their obligations and rights under the contract. Ensure that notices are issued and responded to timeously.
2. Be aware of the current status of contract law. It is considered that disputes may arise because one or other of the parties are ignorant of case law.
3. Use programmes and project management software in a proactive manner to identify potential problems before they occur, thus allowing more opportunity to find solutions.
4. Keep adequate records – these will be invaluable in proving or defending your case.
5. Analyse delays contemporaneously, preferably both parties jointly.
6. Prevent disputes where ever possible. Delay analysis, especially when carried out retrospectively is time consuming and a potential waste of resources.

I am not espousing negativity of the initiative of the CIOB (I have been a Fellow for probably longer than you have been in the industry) but I do have misgivings about the quality of the research and the analysis and commentary on the results.

What I do object to, which you interpret as negativity, is contractor bashing and the insinuation that most of us involved in planning are uneducated monkeys. I think it somewhat hypocritical for a report, no matter how well-meaning and no matter how much I support it’s general aims, to be in parts, in my opinion, inaccurate, misleading and biased in its reportage. It seems you are unable to acknowledge that some elements of the report/survey are incomprehensible (chart 17?) and further they are the product of ‘experienced’ practitioners who, from my reading of their CVs the majority do not seem to hold the qualifications they propose the rest of us practitioners ought to have.

So… if I may dare make a suggestion (without appearing negative) – I trust the industry review will be more representative and capable (that is, people who do have occasion to read, write and consider construction schedules).

And a final point, what was the original schedule for publishing the guide? From what I recall (perhaps Mike could confirm this) the original timetable for the production of the guide was September 2009. Has the programme slipped!

David

The Proposed Appraisers are:

Clients, Public Housing Contractors, Main Contractors ,Consulting Engineers, Architects, Professional Bodies & Institutions, Quantity Surveyors, Construction and Project Management Firms;

in the UK, USA and Australia

Perhaps you could have volunteered to join the drafting committee if you felt strongly about it - no doubt it would have benefitted from your knowledge and experience.

Regards

Toby

Shahul

Even though I consider Time Impact Analysis (TIA) a methodology easy to apply I always had my issues to understand its limitations with regard to monetary compensation.

TIA is a methodology for schedule analysis to deal with Owner’s caused delays where Contractor’s caused delays are also to be included but the procedure alone can only resolve the issue on extension of time or EOTs.

Monetary compensation is a further issue whose analysis might start with the TIA procedure or any other forensic procedure, the question goes beyond. A TIA while establishing concurrency do exists it per-se cannot solve the matter on monetary compensation while concurrency exists. Here the Contractor argues concurrency does not exist but it was pacing while the Owner blames the concurrency on the Contractor.

The contractor is entitled to EOT’s when concurrency exists, on the other hand in order to be awarded monetary compensation he still must prove he would not have incurred in the claimed extra costs if the absence of the Owner’s caused delays.

Best regards,
Rafael

Toby

As you know I was on the drafting committee but I resigned when I was told that all documents that I submitted to the working group and any papers that I wrote would become the property and copyright of the CIOB.

I was unprepared to put in my own time and produce documents, whether they be used or not, which I would not be able to reproduce for my use and elsewhere (seminars, conference papers and the like).

As a result revoked any permission for anything I had contributed thus far to be used or reproduced in the guide. I understand that Mike was put in a similar position and that the drafting committee had to approach other commentators to assist in drafting, ones that had not previously volunteered of their own volition.

David

Hi Toby

As you will recall I spent some time on the drafting committe and completed all the comissions alloted to me plus a few extra that I volunteered to do.

After attending three reveiw meetings I quit because my own knowledge and experience was brushed aside as irrelevant.

I was one of a few who were advocating a practical approach to assist what I referred to as a newly promoted 30 year old construction manager faced with planning his first project.

It soon became apparent that the thrust was going to be aimed at the big companies that have their own planning departments - and built in systems that will not change.

I also reacted to the dogmatic "Thou Shalt" approach rather than "perhaps you should consider" tone.

I have now embarked on my own handbook "Basic Planning for Builders" which - now that the copyright issue has been ironed out - will include parts of my submission to the CIOB draft.

Best regards

Mike Testro

David

Thats not quite right.

As Keith Pickavance stated in an e-mail on 11th March 2009-"There is no question of being asked to, or of requiring the ’assignment of rights in previously published materials’ that is not and never has been in issue."


The work of the committee and the final publication is copyright of the CIOB and members of the committee assign all rights necessary for the CIOB to own, adapt and use as it sees fit any materials they contribute. However, members of the committee also retain their rights to use their materials in the future.

Mike’s case was slightly different I think.

Regards

Toby

Mike

Unfortunatly the majority of the group were not in agreement with your view on what the guide should be.

In any event, very good luck with your publication.

Regards

Toby

Toby

Sometimes you amaze me, first you say ‘Perhaps you could have volunteered to join the drafting committee’ when you know I was on the committee (or had that fact slipped your mind). Then in your rush to protect the process you seem to suggest you know more about my reasons for resigning than I do.

Look at what I said… I referred to documents I was producing and submitting to the working group, not ’assignment of rights in previously published materials’. In any case I believe I had already resigned by then in response to concerns about copyright of new work as such concerns were said to be ’untenable’ by KP.

Unfortunately, I was not party to what you state in your third paragraph about ownership of material by the CIOB but contributors retaining the rights to use such material in the future (that must also have been post my departure). Still seems weird to me, why can’t the author retain ownership and the CIOB have licence to use it? I do recall a couple of high profile contributors (from Australia for instance) objected to the original stance and my colleagues who remained on the committee (after I had departed) said that the change of heart and softening was brought in to prevent loss of valuable committee members.

It does make me wonder though why you hardly ever directly respond to points made in posts – you seem to just throw up chaff to deflect issues.

David

Hi David - Hi Toby

I have just noticed that the full title for the CIOB publication is:

The CIOB Guide to Good Practice in Managing Time in Complex Projects

That was my point entirely - why concentrate on "Complex Projects" - the majority of construction work is relatively simple and they still cock up the planning and reporting.

I suppose the thoughts are that if you follow the complex principles for complex projects then the simple projects will fall into place.

No one involved in simple projects will read the guide - and if they do I doubt if they will either recognise the language or try to apply the guidance.

At most maybe 10% of the industry will get some benefit and the rest will just have to muddle through.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Mike,

You cannot simply read a book and overnight become a big leaguer, you know it very well. Management is a bit of theory and a lot of experience. True management is not practiced by those in the academic world lost in space with their Operations Research theories; they just provide a somewhat limited assistance in a few practical applications.

Success is not merely capacity (skill, experience and knowledge) it has also to do with character and capital, although not all sureties stand to their credo the three "C’s" of surety still holds to date. Reading the guide will provide knowledge but not necessarily the rest.

The culprit of many failures I would blame it to the Sureties, Owners and their reps for taking the risk in qualifying the unqualified, this includes everyone on the team, from Sureties that bond anyone, designers who are always late, Project Managers specially when not at risk and of course the unqualified Contractor. This applies to the wheelbarrow job as well to the most complex. The emphasis should be on the qualification process, Government Agencies and private industry should set higher standards to all participants of complex projects

This guide is a valid topic that as many others deserve attention. Your request for guidance to the medium sized contractor I consider it as valid as what would be my request on guidance for prequalification of all team members. Note I am not excluding the owner, the contractor got to know how to identify which owner is problematic.

Shahul

Sorry this thread was hijacked but both themes are somewhat related, this happens at times but usually in the most interesting ways.

Best regards,
Rafael

Hi to all
I found more valuable info in this thread .Can we focus on the thread named window analysis keeping this thread aside

Hi Shahul

One thing you will find in PP is that a worthy thread will very often get hijacked and go off at many tangents.

This is usually a good thing.

Unfortunatley yours got taken away by the CIOB mafia - I think we have finished now.

As a moderator I cannot take individual entries away to another section - it’s all or nothing.

Are there any other topics from your original topic that you need to explore.

I will stop any other intrusions.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Rafael,

You asked:

"The contractor is entitled to EOT’s when concurrency exists, on the other hand in order to be awarded monetary compensation he still must prove he would not have incurred in the claimed extra costs if the absence of the Owner’s caused delays."


Turn that slightly on it’s head - as in any claim - a party must prove that they HAVE incurred losses as a result of the other parties actions. Subtle difference.

Andrew

Thanks for the correction, a subtle difference but appropriate, the phrasing is even easier to follow.

Best regards,
Rafael

Dera All,
i agree with anderw
a party must prove that they HAVE incurred losses as a result of the other parties actions.
based on the above role a decision should be taken regarding the compesation(EOT with assiociated cost or EOT without cost).