Monday

Monthly Archives: February 2023

Shining the light towards low-carbon construction

Two of the world’s longest serving lighthouses are closely related. The original lighthouse was the Pharos of Alexandria. This lighthouse was constructed in the third century BCE by Ptolemy 1st and is counted among the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. The second is the ‘Tower of Hercules’. This is the oldest known working lighthouse. It has an Roman origin, built in the 1st century CE, on a peninsula about 2.4 km from the centre of A Coruña, Galicia, in north-western Spain. So, what’s the connection?

Pharos of Alexandria

Following his conquest of Egypt, Alexander the Great founded the city of Alexandria, in331 BCE, as his new capital, and a showplace linking Greek and Egyptian culture.  The presence of a natural harbor and a nearby supply of fresh water combined with an already existing colony of Macedonians made the selection of the site, an easy choice.

Alexandria was one of the world’s first planned cities. From its Gate of the Sun to its Gate of the Moon, temples and palaces lined its spacious streets. The city witnessed the romance of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra, the genius of the greatest mathematicians, and boasted the world’s first and probably greatest public library (see: The Great Library of Alexandria – The first Google?). The development of Alexandria into a centre of world trade continued under the Ptolemaic dynasty.

Pharos was a small island located off the coast of Alexandria. As part of the harbour development, Alexandria and Pharos were connected by a mole spanning more than 1,200 metres (0.75 miles), called the Heptastadion. The east side of the mole became the Great Harbour, and on the west side lay the Royal Harbour.  The Pharos was built at the extreme Western end of the island, marking shoals and the entrance to the harbour, by the architect Sostratus of Cnidus, a friend of the Ptolemaic kings. A second, shorter causeway ran from the end of the island to the rock on which the Pharos was built.

According to the sources, the 135-meter-high lighthouse was built between c. 300 – 280 BCE, during the reigns of Ptolemy I and II. The structure has three stages, all sloping slightly inward; the lowest was square, the next octagonal, and the top cylindrical. A broad spiral ramp led to the top, where a fire burned at night and for many years a mirror reflected sunlight during the day. The main building materials were blocks of limestone and granite.

How the fire was maintained during the lighthouse’s 17 centuries of operation is uncertain wood was always in short supply and expensive, oil or naphtha are possible alternatives. There appears to have been a cadre of trained operators, who lived in the Pharos and were responsible for the logistics and uninterrupted operation of the light as the rulers of Egypt changed from the Ptolemaic dynasty, to the Romans, to the Arabs. 

The lighthouse was severely damaged by three earthquakes between 956 and 1323 CE, eventually becoming an abandoned ruin. The Salten of Egypt converted base of the tower into a fort in 1480, reusing some of the stoned form the original construction.

The ‘Tower of Hercules’ – Spain

The Tower of Hercules is the oldest known working lighthouse. The tower was built in the 1st century CE, on a peninsula about 2.4 km from the centre of A Coruña, Galicia, in north-western Spain. It was built by the architect Gaius Sevius Lupus, from Aeminium in the province of Lusitania (present-day Coimbra, Portugal) using the original plans of the Pharos of Alexandria. The tower has been in constant use since the 2nd century CE and is considered to be the oldest extant lighthouse.

The original tower was shorter and wider than the one in the photograph by Alessio Damato. The original 34-metre (112 ft) Roman core was surrounded by a spiral ramp. Then in 1788, the tower core was given a neoclassical restoration, including a new 21-metre (69 ft) fourth story. This restoration was undertaken by naval engineer Eustaquio Giannini and was finished in 1791. His work protected the central core of the original Roman monument while restoring its technical functions.

Within, the much-repaired lighthouse, Roman and medieval masonry may be inspected, including a cornerstone with the inscription MARTI AVG.SACR C.SEVIVS LVPVS ARCHITECTVS ÆMINIENSIS LVSITANVS.EX.VO, identifying the architect and dedicating the structure to Mars, the Roman god of war.

Final thoughts

The longevity of both of these structures, and many of the more modern lighthouses built in the 18th century are a testament to the durability of a well-constructed stone structure.  In an age where minimizing the embedded carbon in structures is becoming increasingly important, should we be shifting back to durable stone in preference to concrete with its effective life-span measured in decades?

For more on the history of construction management see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-ZSY-005.php#Bld

Earned Schedule’s 20th Anniversary – Free ½ Day Webinar 8th March

PGCS in collaboration with the developer of Earned Schedule, Walt Lipke, and seven other international experts will be running a free webinar on 8th March to celebrate the 20th Anniversary of Earned Schedule in the EVM marketplace. The webinar will run twice to make the sessions accessible to everyone, regardless of where you are in the world.

The presenters are:
Walt Lipke:  Earned Schedule, 20 years of innovation, past – present and future  
Kym Henderson:  Validating Earned Schedule, the research and studies  
Keith Heitzman & Patrick Weaver:  Interview with Keith Heitzman (NASA Contractor) 
Robert Van de Velde:  Act Fast, Think Fast: Agile Schedule Performance
Paulo André de Andrade:  Research on a categoriser to enhance expected project duration forecasting performance using ES
Mario Vanhoucke:  A 20-year academic research journey summarized in one presentation
Michael Higgins:   Telling the time in the UK
Yancy Qualls:   Do You Trust Your IMS? (Earned Schedule vs. Traditional IECDs in a forecasting accuracy showdown) 

Registration is free, and each of the presentations will be made available to webinar participants for review after the event.

For more information, including detailed timing of the sessions, and a link to register see: https://www.pgcs.org.au/library1/2023-es-special-event/

Incentive contracts are not new

The idea of incentivizing a contractor to achieve the objectives specified in a contract are far from new. One example of this is the glazing of the Great East Window of York Minster in the early 15th century.

The cathedral was built between 1220 and 1472 on the site of an older Saxon cathedral. Its Great East Window was glazed between 1405 and 1408. The window is the largest medieval stained-glass window in UK at a bit over 9m wide x 23m tall (larger than tennis court), containing over 300 glazed panels. It was one of the most ambitious windows ever to have been made in the Middle Ages. The design contains two biblical cycles, Creation and Revelation, the beginning and the end of all things. Beneath the heavenly realm at the head of the window, populated by angels, prophets, patriarchs, apostles, saints, and martyrs, there are three rows of 27 Old Testament scenes from the Creation to the death of Absalom. Below this, scenes from the Apocalypse appears, with a row of historical figures at the base of the window. The complex narratives that the window explores represented a true collaboration of teams of clergy and craftsmen, combining advanced liturgical knowledge with the glass-painters’ genius.

Walter Skirlaw, bishop of Durham between 1330 and 1406, has been recognized as the donor of the Great East Window. Its creation was the work of celebrated Coventry glazier John Thornton. Little is known of Thornton’s career, but he was presumably a master glazier of some renown when he was awarded this major work at York Minster. Skirlaw had served as bishop of Coventry so it is likely he was at least in part responsible for bringing Thornton to York.

Neither the size or location of Thornton’s York workshop is known, but the glazing contract formed between him and the Chapter at York reveals that he alone was responsible for the design of the window and much of the key painted details. Analysis of the painting styles shows that there were several glass-painters at work on the window. Nonetheless, the window is characterized by the consistently high standard of painting exhibited across the whole window, demonstrating that Thornton selected his collaborators with great discernment and applied strict quality control.

The contract between Thornton and the Church to glaze the window, has a base price of £46 plus an incentive fee of £10 payable if the work was finished within 3 years.  The project was completed within the allowed time and Thornton received his full payment of £56 which is the equivalent of £375,000.00 in today’s money (US$450,000+).

The records held by York Minster show several ‘modern’ aspects of this contract:

  1. The project was the equivalent of a ‘design and construct’ contract
  2. Incentive fee payments were in use in the 15th century
  3. Quality was both important and controlled.

We don’t know how much interaction there was between the clergy and the glaziers, but it is likely for such an important commission, there were regular reviews of both the detail design before work on a panel started, and the completed panel before installation. 

On a closing note, Thornton’s fee contrasts significantly with the £11 million recently paid to the York Glaziers Trust to restore and clean the window.

For more on the history of construction management see: The evolution of construction management – Building Projects

Are numbers real?

Our article ‘Are Numbers Real?’, looking at the origins, and some of the irrational aspects, of the numbers we use every day has been updated and expanded. The focus of the article is the transition from Roman to Arabic number systems, briefly touching on earlier and later numbering systems.

Download the paper from: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/Mag_Articles/P008_Are_Numbers_Real.pdf

For more project management history see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-ZSY.php

CSR, TBL, and Too Many Other Acronyms

Our latest article, CSR, TBL, and Too Many Other Acronyms looks at the relationship between ESG, CSR, TBL and a range of other concepts that relate to the need for organizations to act in ways that are socially and environmentally sustainable.

The concepts are good for everyone and central to good governance, but does the alphabet soup of acronyms that are appearing help or hinder the achievement of good governance outcomes?

Download CSR, TBL, and Too Many Other Acronyms : https://mosaicprojects.com.au/Mag_Articles/AA029_CSR_TBL_+_Too_Many_Other_Acronyms.pdf

For more on sustainability see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-TPI-005.php#Process3  

Scheduling Challenges in Agile & Distributed Projects

Our paper looking at the scheduling challenges in agile and distributed projects has been published in the February 2003 edition of PM World Journal: https://pmworldjournal.com/

Critical path theory is based on an assumption that to deliver a project successfully there is one best sequence of activities to be completed in a pre-defined way. Consequently, this arrangement of the work can be modelled in a logic network. However, while CPM has proved to be an effective controls tool for many types of projects, it is equally apparent the CPM paradigm does not apply to a wide range of other project types including soft projects and distributed projects.

The focus of this paper is to:

  • Briefly define the management assumptions that support the use of CPM scheduling, its origins, and limitations
  • Develop a classification framework of project characteristics to help define the potential usefulness of CPM scheduling
  • Briefly describe some of the management approaches currently used in non-CPM projects including agile and lean, their benefits and limitations
  • Consider the application of the framework discussed above applied to a typical wind farm project
  • Develop general recommendations for the management of non-CPM projects focused on optimizing the efficient use of resources.

Based on this foundation, two additional papers will look at:

  1. Implementing a robust system for reporting progress and predicting completion in agile and distributed projects that can be applied to any class of project.
  2. Assessing delay and disruption in agile and distributed projects where the use of a CPM schedule is not viable.

Download Scheduling Challenges in Agile & Distributed Projects: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PDF_Papers/P208_Scheduling_Challenges_in_Agile_+_Distributed_Projects.pdf  

For more on this topic see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-SCH-010.php#Issues-A+D

Project Management in the 15th Century

The challenges faced by Filippo Brunelleschi, a goldsmith and clock maker, who went on to become a prominent architect in the Italian Renaissance included politics, wars, and competing interests focused on destroying his credibility.  It seems nothing much has changed for innovative project leaders in the intervening 600 years.

Brunelleschi’s primary claim to fame is the design and construction of the dome to complete Florence’s new cathedral. For most of the construction period, the Republic of Florence was one of the wealthiest city states in what is now modern Italy, and to show off its wealth the Republic decided to build a monumental cathedral.

Work on the Cathedral Santa Maria del Fiore started in 1296 under the direction of the Opera del Duomo, to a design proposed by Arnolfo di Cambio. As part of the design process a 30-foot long model of the cathedral complete with its massive dome and ornate finishes had been constructed, and the members of the Opera, and anyone involved in leading the detailed design or construction processes swore an oath to faithfully reproduce the model at full scale.

By 1380 (84 years after the start) work on the body of the cathedral was nearing completion, Arnolfo di Cambio had died, and no-one had a clue how to build the massive dome – it was wider and higher than anything previously built. As a committee faced with a difficult decision, the Opera did what most committees do, nothing! After 30 years of procrastination, a public bid was finally issued in 1418, to find someone to design and build the dome.

The biggest challenge was the shortage of timber. Arches and domes are traditionally built using centring that supports the incomplete structure until it is joined at the top and becomes self-supporting. However, the size of the dome (143 feet 6 inches in diameter – 46 meters), and the height of the dome, the base started at 170 feet above ground level, meant there were insufficient large timbers in the North of Italy for the work. 

The design by Filippo Brunelleschi held the most promise, but it was so futuristic that was almost incomprehensible to the commission members. His proposal was to build the dome without support from the ground. The notoriously hot-headed goldsmith may have won the competition to design the dome for the city’s cathedral, but the way forward was far from clear.

Building a massive self-supporting dome had never been attempted before, and had no formal training as an architect or engineer. He had spent a decade in Rome studying the Roman architecture and construction techniques but the quality of his self-study was unknown.  

The novelty of the design, and Brunelleschi’s lack of a track record, coupled to his innate tendency to secrecy, generated perplexity and doubts in the minds of the Opera and so a no-decision approach was adopted. After a year’s delay they appointed two principal construction managers (capomaestro), Brunelleschi and Lorenzo Ghiberti plus two other ‘architects’ as their deputies to design and construct the dome.   This arrangement was about as successful as one would expect and after a lot of politicking and intrigue Filippo eventually assumed full responsibility for the construction, but Lorenzo never gave up trying to regain ascendency and the politics and intrigue continued at many levels.

Brunelleschi eventually built the dome between 1420 and 1436, following the design he had presented to the Opera in 1418. The lantern on the top was added some 10 years later following another design competition won by Brunelleschi. His dome still stands in the centre of Florence despite earthquakes, lightening and wars. But why is Filippo Brunelleschi’s successes important?

In my view, there are several reasons. Probably the most significant is the fact that Filippo Brunelleschi was one of the very first master builders and architects to be publicly recognised. He is buried in the crypt of the Santa Maria del Fiore, has two biographies, and is remembered in history – before his time architects and master masons were generally seen as being only slightly more important than other trades.  

He also looked after his workforce, wages were set by the Opera and Guilds, but Filippo was responsible for safe working conditions:

  • Workers were not allowed to ride in the cranes. Walking up and down 500+ steps may not be fun but it was a lot safer. Riding on crane loads in modern times continued through to the 1970s in most parts of the world.
  • The wine workers drank with their lunch had to be cut with at least 50% water. Drinking wine was a lot safer than drinking water in the 15th century, but with a clear drop of 200+ feet to the floor, everyone needed to stay sober.  Very heavy fines were enforced if someone broke this rule, in modern times alcohol and drug testing on construction sites is a relatively new innovation.
  • The spiral staircases to the dome were one-way, two for going up, two for descending.
  • As well as work platforms inside the dome the workers were fitted with leather safety harnesses. 

Finally, he was an innovative designer. Detailed designs were drawn, and 3D models made for the complex brick, stone and timber components of the dome, and for the cranes and other equipment used to build the dome. Unfortunately, very little of this work survives, so we still don’t know many of the secrets embedded in the dome’s structure. For the whole duration of the project, Brunelleschi personally managed the stakeholder relationships. With an obviously concerned client, the Opera, he provided detailed information in terms of costs, execution times and the quality of the work. He also managed the relationships on-site with the various master builders responsible for the different sections of the dome, and worked with them to replan the work and resources when necessary to absorb delays. And he had to contend with a population who felt the cathedral needed finishing in a hurry.

The success of Filippo Brunelleschi’s efforts can be appreciated by anyone visiting Florence.  If you have found this post interesting, Brunelleschi’s Dome – How a Renaissance Genius Reinvented Architecture by Ross King is a good read.

For more construction management history see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-ZSY-005.php#Process2

CPM Scheduling – the logical way to error #2

A few weeks ago, we published some of the ways logical inconsistencies can be built into network logic (see the post here /2022/05/18/cpm-scheduling-the-logical-way-to-error-1/).  This post covers some more of the logic challenges from Section 3.5 of Easy CPM. For the most part, this type of problems will not show up in the automated checking tools applying test such as the DCMA 14 point assessment (see more on the DCMA assessment and schedule quality at: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-SCH-020.php#Overview).

The naming convention is borrowed from Miklos Hajdu.  In all cases the links shown in the diagram are the controlling links, in a ‘live’ schedule there are likely to be many other links as well.

Increasing Normal Decreasing Neutral

An increase in activity B will delay completion, but a reduction has no effect. There are two variations on this type of construct.

A 1-day increase in the duration of activity B will increase the project duration by one day, however, reducing the length of activity B has no effect on the project’s duration.

Increasing Neutral Decreasing Reverse

An increase in activity B has no effect, but a reduction will delay completion. Again, there are two variations on this type of construct.

A 1-day increase in the duration of activity B has no effect on the project’s duration, however, reducing the length of activity B by 1-day will increase the project duration by one day.

Easy CPM, is designed for people who know how to drive scheduling tools and want to lift their skills to the next level. The book is available for preview, purchase (price $35), and immediate download, from:
https://mosaicprojects.com.au/shop-easy-cpm.php