Month: July 2017

Construction Scheduling. Schedule Progress Updates and the PM.

The Project Manager is responsible for many deliverables and processes for the project.

Scope, cost, communication, time, and quality.

Part of managing the cost and time is the coordination of work and subsequent reporting of work completed.

Many projects base the periodic invoicing on the percentage of work completed for that period. Others use Milestones for payments. There are other methods as well. For this post, we will work with the percentage of work based on the progress completed for each activity.

Correct updating and reporting of the schedule progress is a large part of the process. And invoicing is a big deal!

How does the PM report on the work completed? Should they use the percentage of time used for the activity? Should they use the percentage of actual cost expended? Should they use the percentage of work in place?

Depending on the contract type, there are options. Personally, I prefer to base the invoicing on the percentage of physical work in place. After all, why would an owner pay for your time or actual expenses, unless the work is T&M?

To update the progress based on physical work in place, you simply manually assign the physical percent complete for work in progress and set the scheduled finish date based on the planned remaining duration or finish date. It is that simple. The cost can be calculated in the software program or in a spreadsheet.

One of the useful things about using physical percent complete and letting the remaining duration or scheduled finish determine the duration percent complete is the variance between percent complete this creates.

If you have completed 50% of the work and the remaining duration or scheduled finish date results in a duration percent complete of 70%, it is obviously taking longer to complete this work than planned.

Perhaps this indicates a learning curve for this work. Perhaps there was a delay in material delivery once the activity started. There could be many reasons. But, the PM should know the reason and they cannot know to find out if they do not have an indicator that there is a problem.

Many people just assign the percent complete as duration percent complete and let the program assign the scheduled finish date based on the original duration and remaining duration values. This is a problem for several reasons. First, this method models the time used and remaining, not the work in place. Second, the scheduled finish date is based on the assumption that the productivity rate is as planned. Seldom is this correct. Finally, letting the duration percent complete value calculate the scheduled finish date does not model the remaining work for the project accurately. Basing an invoice on this method will result in inaccurate invoices for work in place and a schedule that is not valid for the remaining work. It’s a good practice to be accurate in these areas.

Although it is not often used in the typical layouts I see, displaying the “At Completion Duration” column in the layout also provides a quick flag for activities that are exceeding the original duration. Most layouts display the “Original Duration” and the “Remaining Duration” columns. But this doesn’t really alert the PM to a potential problem with activity progress and productivity.

I’m a big supporter of using physical percent complete for work in place and setting the scheduled finish date for work in progress by revising the remaining duration value or setting the date based on field input. I also like to display the “At Completion Duration” column in my layouts. I think providing the Project Manager with as many tools as we can to help them make intelligent decisions for managing the work is our primary function.

I’d love to hear what you think!

Please visit https://conschmanservices.com to learn more about Construction and Schedule Management Services, LLC

Please visit my LinkedIn account to learn more about me.

Please visit my “The Blue Book” ProView.

Paul Epperson CCM, PMP, PSP, PMI-SP

Construction Scheduling. Why Work When We Can Wait?

When the baseline schedule is developed correctly, the schedule logic is complete, activity durations and activity calendars are assigned, resources with cost may have been assigned, and activity coding is developed and assigned.

All of this creates the schedule network. This schedule network is made up of many sequences (logic paths) of activities.

Once the schedule is calculated (forward and backward pass), the schedule network will provide scheduled dates for activities not yet complete. At any given time, a small percentage of activities will have scheduled dates which show they should be starting and completing within a defined period of time, (say this week or this month…).

Some of these activities will be on the Critical Path. Some will be on the Near Critical Path(s). Some will have Total Float values which allow them to remain unstarted or incomplete for a period of time dependent on the Total Float value.

We all understand that the work on the Critical Path needs to be driven at all times. We understand that work on the Near Critical Path(s) also needs to be driven so it does not lag and shift to the Critical Path.

What about the activities with Total Float values which allow the work for these activities to lag without affecting the Project Completion Date?

Should this work be executed when it is convenient? Should this work be pushed out until it is on the Near Critical path(s)?

Part of the CPM Schedule development process was the analysis of the resources for activities to verify a specific resource did not have more activities scheduled to be underway than the resource could support. This can be done manually or using software programs that run Monte Carlo analysis for resource leveling.

That said, why would we want to allow work to slip? It is my opinion that any work which can logically be executed should be executed as long as the resources required do not exceed the planned resources for that time period. But, sometimes it is better to add resources to execute the work for a variety of reasons.

By allowing work to slip, only because there is no schedule driven reason to execute the work at that time, the work will eventually push out until the activities with a specific resource assignment are stacked resulting in an overallocation condition which forces some of this work to push out due to lack of resources. Whether the schedule is resource loaded or not, we all know that a subcontractor can only do so much with the forces they have on the project at any given time.

Allowing the work to slip also increases the risk of a late completion due to the potential of shifting of the Critical and Near Critical Path(s).

Finally, allowing work to slip has a negative impact on the schedule cost curve and distribution plan. The project may be reporting an on-time completion and the Critical Path may have an acceptable Total Float value, but if work is pushing out, the completed values will produce an unacceptable Cost Variance (CV), Cost Performance Index (CPI), Schedule Variance (SV), and Schedule Performance Index (SPI).

Projects with poor Earned Value metrics seldom recover.

I say, if the work is available to be executed, the resources are available, and executing the work will not lessen the focus on the Critical and Near Critical Path(s), it is wise to work in where you can, when you can.

I’d love to hear what you think!

Please visit https://conschmanservices.com to learn more about Construction and Schedule Management Services, LLC

Please visit my LinkedIn account to learn more about me.

Please visit my “The Blue Book” ProView.

Paul Epperson CCM, PMP, PSP, PMI-SP