MANAGING RISK OF DELAY – Subject Series Summary Update

This summary update provides readers with an overview of prior posts and provides a baseline for future posts that will follow on a timely basis.  The last summary was posted on June 12, 2011.

This summary is very brief and simply serves as an index for readers to follow.  More robust summaries are provided in the June summary.  Of course, detailed descriptions are contained in the individual posts.

Ideally this summary provides a starting point to investigate best practice on many delay-related features of project management.

The Context and Challenge (Part 1) – Talk/Speech by Mr. Keith Pickavance

Time-Management Strategy (Part 2) – Strategy according to CIOB Guide

As-Planned Schedule / Accepted Programme (Part 3) – Establishing the Time Management Baseline

Schedule Preparation and Maintenance (Part 4) – Managing the Time Baseline

Earned Value Management (Part 5) – Importance and Management of the Time Baseline Tool

Critical Path and Earned Value Management (Part 6) – Managing with Critical Path, Earned Value Management and Productivity Tools

Earned Value and Schedule Performance Indicators (Part 7) – Time Management Tools

Schedule Specification Sources and Implementation (Part 8) – Managerial Tools with sources

Recognition and Notice (Part 9) – Managerial Alerting and Action Tools

 

Going forward, we will post other features of MANAGING THE RISK OF DELAY. [Read more…]

SCHEDULE VALIDATIONS AND AUDITS – Timing, Methodology and Conclusions – (Part 3 )

WHEN SHOULD VALIDATION AND AUDITS BE DONE?

Validation occurs when the initial or revised baseline schedule is submitted prior to the start of any construction field-site work, with the possible exception of mobilization, site preparation, ordering of long-lead time equipment or materials, permits, excavation, and installation of in-ground site utilities.

Validation is an extensive process and can be time consuming both initially and after each re-submittal of the proposed baseline ‘planned’ construction schedule until a valid baseline schedule is accepted by all significant stakeholders: Owner, Contractor, Subcontractors, Suppliers, Financing entities, and Permitting agencies.

Before a complete Validation process is performed an Appraisal is done to determine if the requirements for Validation are in place. [Read more…]

MANAGING RISK OF DELAY – Earned Value and Schedule Performance Indicators (Part 7)

This post is the seventh in a series of discussions regarding various aspects of time management as it relates to the risk of delay.  More specifically, we have titled the series MANAGING RISK OF DELAY [Subject Series], since we focus heavily on the managerial aspects of program / project management.  This post addresses some managerial tools relative to the integrated nature of time management using critical path and earned value management.

The challenge associated with managing all (critical and non-critical path) work is common to virtually all projects.  This challenge is true for most project management situations.  It is intensified in the case of larger and more complex projects.  Examples include Lump Sum Turn Key (LSTK), Engineer Procure Construct (EPC) and other similarly executed projects.  In addition to the normal issues associated with bulk progress, actions or inactions by the owner can add considerable complexity to this challenge.  Over the past seven years, M&M has program/project managed five projects exceeding $100 million (USD) in investment value (total installed cost).  Thus, practical/practioner experience is engendered in this discussion/post. [Read more…]

MANAGING RISK OF DELAY – Critical Path and Earned Value Management (Part 6)

This post is the sixth in a series of discussions regarding various aspects of time management as it relates to the risk of delay.  More specifically, we have titled the series MANAGING RISK OF DELAY, since we focus heavily on the managerial aspects of program / project management.  This post addresses some ideas regarding the integrated nature of time management using critical path and earned value management.

The challenge associated with managing all (critical and non-critical path) work is common to virtually all Lump Sum Turn Key (LSTK), Engineer Procure Construct (EPC) and other similarly executed projects.  In addition to the normal issues associated with bulk progress, actions or inactions by the owner can add considerable complexity to this challenge.  Over the past seven years, M&M has program/project managed five projects exceeding $100 million (USD) in investment value (total installed cost).  Thus, practical/practioner experience is engendered in this discussion/post. [Read more…]

PROGRESS REPORT – TAKING STOCK

This post is a progress or status report as McLaughlin and McLaughlin (M&M) assesses the status and progress of this Project Professionals blog.

Project Professionals commenced operations in late January 2011.  The initial posts were on January 24, 2011.  The blog and blogging were new to M&M and there was an expected learning curve.  The rate of learning was substantially improved by advice and assistance from several key advisors.  We wish to express our sincere thanks to all for the help.

The first full month of blogging was February 2011.  As April comes to a close, we find the visitor rate (sometimes referred to as the analytics) to be very encouraging.  The analytics for April reveal that visitors and page views have more than doubled since February.  Visits have come from over 40 countries.  As April draws to a close, we see the visitor activity continuing to increase. [Read more…]

Managing Risk Of Delay – Earned Value Management (Part 5)

This post is the fifth in a series of discussions regarding various aspects of time management.  More specifically, we have titled the series MANAGING RISK OF DELAY, since we focus heavily on the managerial aspects of program / project management.  This post addresses some ideas regarding preparation and maintenance of time management related to overall bulk progress.  Some might refer to this as Earned Value Management.

The challenge associated with managing all (critical and non-critical path) work is common to virtually all Lump Sum Turn Key (LSTK), Engineer Procure Construct (EPC) and other similarly executed projects.  In addition to the normal issues associated with bulk progress, actions or inactions by the owner can add considerable complexity to this challenge.  Owner/Employer delays can be masked among the myriad of activities that are the responsibility of other (than the Owner/Employer) stakeholders.  Even when detected or disclosed, these variances to plan are often dismissed as simply consuming available float.  Hence, the Owner/Employer (or other stakeholder) may rationalize these variations as having no impact.  Of course, the reality is that these sorts of departures may (or may not) add risk or disruption to the project execution.  Further, they may delay forecasted completion.  The managerial challenge becomes detection, assessment and quantification (should it be appropriate to compensate the contractor for the impacts). [Read more…]

Managing Risk Of Delay (Part 1)

This post addresses the general topic of time management and the relationship to managing the risk of delay.

Keith Pickavance is a prominent leader, speaker, expert and author in the construction industry.  His authoritative reference book, Delay and Disruption in Construction Contracts, is noted in our Reference Center.

Mr. Pickavance is President of CIOB.  Speaking in this capacity, he delivered an excellent talk entitled: Managing the risk of delayed completion in the 21st Century.

The link to this streaming video is here and is excellent.

The outline of this presentation is as follows: [Read more…]

Project Management – Single Asset Owners

This post discusses unique project planning and management challenges associated with projects that are owned by single asset owners.  Examples include power plants, large commercial facilities and process plants.  These assets tend to be project financed using the single asset as collateral.  The financing typically relies on revenue generated from operation of the asset.  Hence, delays in achieving revenue generating status can be extremely problematic.   Our conclusions and recommendations are based on decades of experience with many such projects.

Introduction

Revenue generating facilities (e.g. power plants, chemical process facilities) are sometimes owned by a standalone entity.  The design, engineering, procurement, construction, commissioning, startup and turnover of these plants and facilities can be particularly challenging for both owners and contractors.  The planning, scheduling and execution of these requires attention to some unique and compelling factors. [Read more…]