Use of Forensic Schedule Analysis Techniques to Support Effective Project Execution

One of the great benefits of performing forensic schedule analysis on a routine basis is that the methods for identifying specific delays and discussing those delays can be established among project leaders on all sides of the table. Instead of worrying about whether the contractor is manipulating the schedule or the owner is constructively accelerating work, the facts are laid out in a simple, straightforward manner, and the parties identify reasons for specific variances to the plan. If those variances include critical path delays, the parties have an immediate opportunity to discuss approaches to re-sequencing or a basis for negotiating time extensions.

Variances to the plan should be reviewed in a standard format on a bi-weekly or monthly basis while the immediate project issues are in the front of decision-makers’ minds. Delays must be addressed before they become so severe that the parties are more concerned with positioning for a claim than with attempting to get the project back on track. Identify the problems and work to solve them before success becomes a lost cause.

I apply the techniques of AACE International’s Recommended Practice for Forensic Schedule Analysis (RP 29R-03) actively during project execution to address delays while they are happening. The CPM schedule is simply a time-scaled model of the project execution plan, and it must be kept up-to-date as the project scope and execution conditions develop. Much as a 3D-CADD model is updated as the design progresses, the CPM schedule must be updated, evaluated, and adjusted as the project progresses. Otherwise, it is unlikely that the schedule will be a good model of what is happening in the engineering office or in the field.

Updating the schedule does not mean simply statusing it with actual dates and distributing a bar chart. Almost all CPM schedule updates include refinements to the plan that involve changes to logic, changes to activity durations, and activities that have been added or deleted. It is critical to identify and discuss these changes and quantify their impact to the overall plan. In doing this, the parties will develop an understanding as to whether the changes are appropriate refinements to address real execution conditions or inappropriate manipulation. In fact, clearly identifying the schedule analysis approach to all parties is the best way to minimize manipulation and refocus scheduling efforts on real mitigation to the benefit of all parties.

Over the past five years, I have prepared detailed, textbook-style examples of the application of the forensic techniques of RP 29R-03. Papers presenting five of the method implementation protocols from the RP are currently available on this website, and the final paper in the series will be presented at AACE’s 2012 Annual Meeting in San Antonio in July. I encourage you to become familiar with these techniques, and to apply them to each schedule update. In particular, I recommend the monthly application of MIP 3.4 to identify schedule variances and discuss revisions that have been implemented during the month.

Despite the gamesmanship, manipulation, and claims analysis that is so often the focus of CPM scheduling, I still believe that most owners simply want their projects executed on-budget and on-schedule without battling the other parties along the way. Similarly, engineers and contractors are in business to make money, and there is no better way to minimize risk and protect margins than by completing projects on time and within the authorized budget.