Updating Programme

Hi Tim

The approved baseline must NOT be changed and progress should be reported on the original programme throughout the project.

This provides your true as built data for when the claims start.

If variations require more or less activities then these can be adjusted on the original programme and saved as Project + VO 01 + VO 02 etc.

If you want to make other changes for your own reasons then save the original file into a new file and change that.

In your example if the long delivery period is 100% complete earlier than planned then the successor task will start earlier thus reflecting the true situation on site.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Hi 

I can understand the approved baseline cannot be changed unless agreed.

My question is for the changes are for the remaining activities when updating the programme (after changing the data date). The update will still be reported against the agreed baseline.

Hi Tim

No, i am not referring to the first option. Both can be adopted. When the baseline schedule is meaningless than you update the schedule as you see fit. This can be updated labor  units, changing logic, adding new activities, cost and expenses. The main purpose is to have a workable schedule. In many often i work with three baselines. The contractual baseline, the internal use baseline and the current schedule baseline. The day to day work i measure in relation to the agreed internal use baseline for internal reporting. The current schedule i use when i am developing a new baseline witch has not been agreed internally. The contract baseline i use for reporting tot the client. When i report to the client, i report the last updated schedule with the original baseline schedule in the background. So i do no see additional work. Just assigning the baseline you see fit.

Regards Johannes

Good article worth reading.

Thanks You

Thanks Johannes for your opinion

Schedules are dynamic and trying to manage a job using outdated baseline is wrong, unfortunately the main function of CPM as a tool for management have been hijacked.

I suggest keeping two versions of your schedule, one for contract administration and another for day to day administration and perhaps more aggressive as to provide adequate buffers without obstructing the view with the use of buffer activities or even worst by inflating activities duration.

You use old baselines for as long as they are valid, as soon as they are no longer valid then new baseline is what you must use. Using outdated baselines is never a bit satisfactory even an Over the Target Baseline is better than an outdated baseline. 

The failure to obtain timely baseline updates can create monumental effects such as the case of the Big Dig, where baseline was rarely updated and there were multiple contractors.

http://warnercon.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/AContinuouslyChanging1.pdf

A delay by one contractor could delay another so while a revised baseline would have prevented the confusions no one cared. For the delaying contractor the revised baseline should be considered Over Target and or Over Schedule but not necessarily for the others.

Besides the hijacking of the schedule for forensic purposes there is the hijacking for Earned Value Management especially when unscrupulous program managers insist on keeping all variance on the few updates they allow as they encourage holding baseline updates as much as possible as you can see everywhere on the literature.

From: http://www.acq.osd.mil/evm/docs/OTB-OTS%20Guide%20121205.pdf

Adjusting Variances: A key consideration in implementing an OTB is to determine what to do with the variances against the pre-OTB baseline. There are essentially five basic options.

•  Eliminate all Variances
•  Eliminate the Schedule Variance (SV) Only - if agreed
•  Eliminate the Cost Variance (CV) Only - if agreed
•  Eliminate Selected Variances - if agreed
•  Retain All Variances - if agreed

As you can see even all powerful DOD, the father of the creature, recognizes that if EVM is to be used for management purposes then the contractor can opt out options 3.5.6.2.2 to 3.5.6.2.5 by merely not agreeing, leaving only as an alternative option 3.5.6.2.1.  To me as a contractor I would never accept/agree to any option other than 3.5.6.2.1, it is easier to implement and validate from the contractor as well as from the owner's point of view.

If you opt for option 1, Eliminate all Variances, it shall not take much effort to tackle this issue by doing the right thing by keeping on a separate file the progress history, preferably tracking of projected at completion statistics every update discloses, to me more relevant than current period statistics

As a matter of fact for construction jobs I do not recognize the validity of any of the manipulations proposed on the alternatives 3.5.6.2.2 to 3.5.6.2.5 available at the discretion of both parties if in agreement. I consider them abominations, no wonder optional, only if both parties agree. I only recognize the first option and seems like many construction contractors believe so. I cannot understand why DOD complicated it so much, even when I do not advocate the last option it would keep some order by allowing only options 1 and 5, Eliminate all Variances or Retain All Variances(if agreed). 

Please note the article refers to OTB an OTS (Over Target Baseline and Over Target Schedule) but following variance on contractual baseline is similar.

Another hijacking of the schedule is the hijacking for Payment Purposes that add much difficulty to Earned Value and to any comparison against Baseline Schedules.

From: http://www.nflaace.org/index_files/john_orr_cost_loaded_schedule_updating_pdf.pdf

The increased functionality of modern schedule database software provides management information far beyond that contemplated by the original proponents of CPM network scheduling for use in construction. These useful yet competing purposes can diminish the value of the schedule as a time management tool if the distinct purposes and functions are not understood and the status update information is not segregated accordingly. We have observed that the addition of cost-loading and contractual requirements to base progress payments on the monthly schedule update can create inherent problems if the project management team focuses on the cost tracking purpose to the exclusion of the time management purpose. Schedule update percentage information may be added which distorts schedule projections if they are not based on time but instead linked to dollars/payment. Progress payment withholds that are linked to both cost and schedule status percentages will result in a schedule with many “out-of-sequence” activities. The fully progressed as built schedule will therefore have actual finish dates assigned that reflect completion of remedial or punch-list-type work, rather than the actual completion date of the original scope of the activity. This invalidates comparisons between the as-planned and as-built schedules.

In this case, you have to make the comparision between baseline and actual data in one programme so that you no need to change baseline programme and also you can see the target for remaining activity. below is for your infomation

I really enjoyed this information and its very useful to have such open discussion information forums which is very helpful in transferring useful informations like this.