Observational / Dynamic / Modified or Recreated (MIP 3.5) A Description

3.5 looks like 3.3 or 3.4 except that it uses contemporaneous schedule updates that were extensively modified or ‘updates’ that were completely recreated. 3.5 is usually implemented when

contemporaneous updates are not available or never existed. The fact that it does not use the contemporaneous updates places this method in a fundamentally different category from the standpoint of the nature of source input data.

It is a retrospective technique that uses the modified or recreated schedule updates to quantify the loss or gain of time along a logic path and identify the causes. Although this method is a retrospective technique, it relies on the forward-looking calculations made at the time the updates would have been prepared. That is, it primarily uses the information to the right of the updates’ data date.

While 3.5 is still categorized as an observational technique since it does not involve the insertion or deletion of delays, it is not purely observational when seen in the context of the level of data intervention by the analyst. 3.3 and 3.4 are purely observation in a sense that the analyst is interpreting what is observed in the behavior of the network from update to update and measuring schedule variances based on unaltered, existing logic models. Because of extensive data intervention by the analyst in using 3.5, the observation is made on the behavior of the networks on which the analyst had significant control.

June 25 2007 If there were non-progress revisions to the baseline during the project, the method must recognize those non-progress revisions. Otherwise the modification or the reconstruction is not complete or proper. As such, a properly implemented 3.5 is considered a Dynamic Logic method. If non-progress revisions did not occur on the project, the results of 3.5 would be very similar to one that would result from 3.2.

3.5 can be implemented with or without the half-step process. But unlike the contemporaneous methods 3.3 and 3.4, because the modification or reconstruction is under the control of the analyst, the label ‘as-is’ in distinction to the ‘split’ is irrelevant.

B. Common Names

1. Update analysis

2. Reconstructed update analysis 3. Modified update analysis 4. Month-to-month

5. Window analysis 6. Windows analysis

C. Recommended Source Validation Protocols

1. Implement SVP 2.3 (update validation) and,

2. Implement SVP 2.3 D.1 or D.2 (reconstruction) and, 3. Implement SVP 2.1 (baseline validation).

D. Enhanced Source Validation Protocols

1. Implement SVP 2.2 (as-built validation)

E. Recommended Implementation Protocols

1. Recognize all contract time extensions granted.

2. Identify the critical path activity that will be used to track the loss or gain of time for the overall network.

3. Separately identify activities that will be used to track intra-network time losses and gains, such as on interim milestones.

4. Use both the longest path and the least float criteria to identify the controlling chain of activities.

F. Enhanced Implementation Protocols 1. Daily Progress Method

June 25 2007

G. Identification of Critical & Near-Critical Paths

• Identify and understand all related contractual language.

• Identify the negative float theory being used by the opposing analyst.

• For each analysis interval, identify the calculated critical path using the longest path and the

lowest total float concept of the validated update(s) corresponding to the analysis interval.

• The near-critical activity-set in each analysis interval is the one that yields the most number of

activities using one of the following methods:

• lowest float value in the update PLUS the average duration of all discrete delay events

contained in whole or in part inside the analysis interval, or

• lowest float value in the update PLUS duration of the analysis interval.

H. Identification & Quantification of Concurrent Delays & Pacing

• Determine whether compensable delay by contractor or owner is at issue.

• Identify and understand all related contractual language.

• For each delay event, distinguish the cause from the effect of delay.

• Determine whether literal or functional concurrency theory is to be used.

• If applicable, determine the near-critical threshold (see 4.3.)

• If applicable, determine the frequency, duration and placement of the analysis intervals.

• For each analysis interval, identify the critical path(s) and the near-critical path(s) and explain all relative delayed starts and extended duration of activities that occurred in the previous analysis interval on the same chains of activities.

• In cases where difference in full-hindsight approach versus ‘blind-sight’ approach results in a

significance variance, use both approaches for evaluation of concurrency.

• For each suspected pacing delay event, identify the parent delay(s) and establish the order of

precedence between the parent delay and the pacing delay.

• For each suspected pacing delay event, evaluate whether enough resources could have been

realistically employed to perform the paced activity within its original planned duration.

I. Determination & Quantification of Excusable and Compensable Delay

(See method 3.3.)

J. Identification & Quantification of Mitigation / Constructive Acceleration

(See method 3.3.)

K. Specific Implementation Procedures & Enhancements 1. Fixed Periods

June 25 2007 The analysis periods are of virtually identical widths (duration) and may coincide with regular schedule update periods. Note that the fixed period implementation can be further processed into Grouped or Blocked implementation as described in 3.3 and 3.4.

2. Variable Periods

The analysis periods are of varying widths (duration) and are characterized by their different natures such as the type of work being performed, the types of delaying influences or the operative contractual schedule under which the work was being performed.