The final schedule analysis method chosen for the determination of delays and the following processes is essential not only for the expert but for the attorney too, mainly because it can affect the opinions that provide evidence for the analysis of schedule.
Expert witnesses agree that the methodology chosen is firstly the best for the situation. The next criteria ensure that it should be the best industrially accepted methodology.
The use of the right industrially available most suitable methodology to be used depends on certain critical aspects. Even though the most experts witnesses would want to use the best possible methods the shortness of time allows other factors to play an important part in the final choice.
Never the less, the determination of the right methodology primarily requires the services of the most experienced and skillful delay expert to analyze the delay events and determine how to work around the available data to conclude. The article below highlight the critical considerations that experts of delay claims make when choosing a delay analysis methodology.
Critical Consideration While Choosing Final Schedule Analysis Method
The expert witness has a vital role to play in the determination of all final choice for the delay analysis methodology. The article below highlights the important aspects that the experts need to address and work around to determine the most suitable choice for the final schedule analysis method!
Availability Of Information
Some of the main considerations include the availability of sufficient progress relevant records, the availability of the mentioned along with the pertinent issues to any disputes and any resource limitations (time, cost, manpower).
The presence of progress related records along with their sufficiency goes on to determine which methodologies cannot be used for the case. As a general rule, the most widely used methods do require a vast amount of information in the form of progress related record. In the absence of these records, the expert has no choice but to opt for another methodology.
The other methodologies are often collapsed due to the limited information available. For example:
As-Built information isn't required for impacted As-Planned analysis
As –planned information isn't required for Collapsed As-Built analysis
In the absence of extensive progress related information. Experts have to work around the available information and choose a relevant method. But that’s not all in the presence of information, using methodologies may often be criticized due to the inconsistencies in results when compared to contemporaneous evidence collected.
Sufficiency Of Records To Be Used As The Basis
With schedule analysis methods generally requiring a complete set of progress records, important consideration about these records may consist of:
The degree of detail present in the schedule (number of activities representing the work)
The extent of the practicality of the sequencing induced into the baseline schedule and relevant updates (how similar are the "planned" and "real schedule”)
The consistency of any schedule updates (can they be compared between updates, and still make sense)
Sequencing in the schedule in schedule updates and tools used for field management (As-built dates)
Issues Being Addressed
In case all required records are sufficient and available and ready for use in the CPM analysis, t the nature of the issue may determine the methodology used for analysis. Concurrent or mitigation delays may not be viable for analysis using certain methods. Assessment of these issues may require time-to-time updates to the schedule’s critical path rather than using the static or baseline critical path.
In case of issues determining the methodology, other essential aspects come into play too. The attorneys should hence provide a detailed background of the situation to allow them to evaluate the situation and choose a method to be used.
Resource Limitations And Chosen Methodologies
Finally but most importantly, the resource limitations play an essential part in the determination of the methodology. Some are pretty complex and any external restrictions on cost and time for a CPM analysis may make them unideal.
Time and cost restrictions on the experts of scheduled delays appear sensible during the early assessment stages before the formal filing of claims. In case the schedule analysis method is chosen simply because of the time and cost limitations will not work to fulfill their objectives and may only be useful up to a particular time in the process of dispute resolution.
If the final choice has been decided based on the restriction of resources, the experts, attorneys, and the clients should discuss and become well versed in the risks associated with this approach and also the possibility and the risks relevant to the change in methodology at a later stage.
Conclusion
The final methodology was chosen matters, due to the advantages and disadvantages associated with each and the varying capabilities of each. Where some methods may work well with specific issues, others may not be able to perform too well. Some methodologies may appear too simple while others are more complicated requiring comprehensive detailing.
The complex choice requires consideration of numerous aspects — all the more reasons to opt for the right delay experts for the job. Experts with the right kind of experience and knowledge in the field can perform an effective, comprehensive analysis and decide on the best schedule analysis method to be used.
See Also: