Level: Intermediate
TCM Section(s)
6.4. Forensic Performance Assessment
10.1. Project Performance Assessment
Venue: 2024 AACE International Conference & Expo
Abstract: It is generally accepted that schedule delays are measured through project substantial completion. Most, if not all, existing standards and recommended practices for evaluating schedule delays primarily rely on measuring shifts in the project's substantial completion date. However, depending on the project's unique conditions, this approach may not always be the most suitable, casting doubt on the accuracy and practicality of applying existing standards and recommended practices.
Introducing an infrequently utilized but circumstantially beneficial approach known as the "intermediary method," this paper aims to address this limitation by measuring delays through interim milestones. This method reduces the uncertainty of changing projections of modeled downstream work. As the schedule analyst evaluates project progress and critical path, he or she would measure delay to the established milestone and then update that milestone once actualized or shifts in the critical path are realized. The intermediary method contains echoes of already established protocols and standards such as AACE RP 29R-03 MIP 3.3 or ASCE 67 but offers additional clarity and tools when straightforward application of those protocols is hindered by complicating factors.
In this context, delay measurement using the intermediary method becomes intimately tied to the delays or recoveries near the status date thereby establishing causality between project events and delay. This paper will begin by introducing the intermediary method, providing insights into its practical application, and identifying the specific project conditions that make it suitable. A theoretical exercise will be presented, and a case study will be analyzed to illustrate the method's effectiveness.
TCM Section(s)
6.4. Forensic Performance Assessment
10.1. Project Performance Assessment
Venue: 2024 AACE International Conference & Expo
Abstract: It is generally accepted that schedule delays are measured through project substantial completion. Most, if not all, existing standards and recommended practices for evaluating schedule delays primarily rely on measuring shifts in the project's substantial completion date. However, depending on the project's unique conditions, this approach may not always be the most suitable, casting doubt on the accuracy and practicality of applying existing standards and recommended practices.
Introducing an infrequently utilized but circumstantially beneficial approach known as the "intermediary method," this paper aims to address this limitation by measuring delays through interim milestones. This method reduces the uncertainty of changing projections of modeled downstream work. As the schedule analyst evaluates project progress and critical path, he or she would measure delay to the established milestone and then update that milestone once actualized or shifts in the critical path are realized. The intermediary method contains echoes of already established protocols and standards such as AACE RP 29R-03 MIP 3.3 or ASCE 67 but offers additional clarity and tools when straightforward application of those protocols is hindered by complicating factors.
In this context, delay measurement using the intermediary method becomes intimately tied to the delays or recoveries near the status date thereby establishing causality between project events and delay. This paper will begin by introducing the intermediary method, providing insights into its practical application, and identifying the specific project conditions that make it suitable. A theoretical exercise will be presented, and a case study will be analyzed to illustrate the method's effectiveness.