Cost Engineering Nov Dec 2013 - (Page 17)

TECHNICAL ARTICLE Forensic Schedule Analysis: Example Implementation, Part 3 Mark C. Sanders, PE CCP CFCC PSP Editor's Note: This article is the third and final installment in a series that presents a forensic schedule analysis (FSA) example implementation, prepared to address the application of procedures described in AACE Recommended Practice 29R-03-Forensic Schedule Analysis [1]. The techniques presented in this article provide additional variations on the techniques presented previously. All three articles in this series will be available at the AACE Virtual Library. The first article in the series, "Forensic Schedule Analysis: Example Implementation," was presented at the 2008 Annual Meeting as CDR.11, and is available as item number 21534. In 2011, CDR.493 was presented at the Annual Meeting and then published in the January 2012 Cost Engineering journal. It is available as item number 21970. In 2012, CDR.870; was presented. It is being published as the following reprint. It is available as item number 22022. Abstract: This article was first presented at the 2012 AACE Annual Meeting in San Antonio, Texas. It was the final installment in a series of Annual Meeting presentations that presented example forensic schedule analyses, performed according to the Method Implementation Protocols outlined in AACE Recommended Practice 29R-03. This article presents the remaining analysis methods-MIPs 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, and 3.9. Each of these techniques is a variation on one of the techniques previously presented at the AACE Annual Meetings. This article focuses on comparisons between the techniques and the reasons behind the different results found in each analysis. Finally, recommendations are provided for the continued development of example analyses, the continued refinement of analysis techniques, and the development of industry consensus in the area of objective forensic schedule analysis. Key Words: Critical path, delay, forensic schedule analysis, and projects M onstruction M IPs 3.4 and 3.5 are dynamic logic techniques similar to MIP 3.3. However, MIP 3.4 isolates a specific step for the analysis of logic changes made during the project, while MIP 3.5 addresses the modification of updates to correct errors and the recreation of updates that are missing. MIP 3.6 is the single-base application of the fragnet insertion technique of MIP 3.7, which was presented in Part 1 of this series. MIP 3.9 is the multiple-base application of the collapsed-as-built technique of MIP 3.8, which was presented in Part 2 of this series. The structure of this article is similar to the prior articles in the series. The major sections are as follow: * * * * * * * * * Model project to be analyzed. Analysis by inserting progress and identifying delays, then analyzing logic changes. Observational/dynamic/ contemporaneous split analysis per MIP 3.4. Analysis by modifying or recreating updates. Observational/dynamic/modified or recreated analysis per MIP 3.5. Analysis by inserting fragnets into the baseline schedule to model delays. Modeled/additive/single base analysis per MIP 3.6. Analysis by removing delay events from the schedule updates. Modeled/subtractive multiple base analysis per MIP 3.9. And, * Comparison, conclusion. commentary, and Model Project to be Analyzed The sample project referenced in this article is the same project used in the example implementations presented in the prior two articles in this series [2, 3]. COST ENGINEERING NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2013 17

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Cost Engineering Nov Dec 2013

AACE International Board of Directors
Cost Engineering Journal Information
Forensic Schedule Analysis- Chapter 2: Delay Analysis On Non CPM Scheduled Projects
Forensic Schedule Analysis: Example Implementation, Part 3
The 2014 ITCM Conference
Recommended Contractual Methods For Resolving Delay Events Prospectively or Retrospectively
The 2014 Annual Meeting
Professional Services Directory
Index to Advertisers
The AACE International Online Store
Calendar of Events

Cost Engineering Nov Dec 2013