In preparation for the publication of a new paper Assessing Delay – the SCL Options in the April edition of PM World Journal it has been necessary to review and update several of the existing Mosaic papers focused on forensic analysis. These updated papers are available for immediate download.
The major updates are to:
Assessing Delay and Disruption – Tribunals Beware. This paper, based on the AACE® International Recommended Practice No. 29R-03 Forensic Schedule Analysis. It: – Describes the origins, strengths and weaknesses of ‘Critical Path’ scheduling. – Outlines the current ‘state of play’ with regards to the practice of scheduling. – Describes the primary approaches to delay analysis, their strengths and weaknesses, including: – As-Built v As-Planned – Impacted As-Planned – Collapsed As-Built – Window Analysis and its variant, Time Impact Analysis. – Describes the type of record needed to support the delay analysis.
Delay, Disruption and Acceleration Costs. This paper examines the theoretical underpinnings of ‘delay and disruption’ costs to suggest a realistic basis for their calculation. It is designed to help non-experts see through the ‘smoke and mirrors’ of schedule claims to understand what is likely to be real, what is feasible, and what’s hyperbole.
Independent, Serial and Concurrent Delays. This White Paper provides an overview of the differences between independent, serial, and concurrent delays and the options for assessing the effect of concurrent delays.
New blogs and articles developed as part of the research are:
Concurrent Delays – UK High Court Decision Supports SCL Protocol. This article discusses an English High Court decision supporting the approach to concurrent delays advocated in the Society of Construction Law Delay and Disruption Protocol and our White Paper (above). This judgement is likely to be influential in the UK, Australia and most Commonwealth countries, requiring expert assessment and analysis to be founded in common sense
Delivering Expert Evidence is Becoming Harder. This article discusses a number of recent judgements that seem to have re-framed expert evidence, ‘the court is not compelled to choose only between the rival approaches and analyses of the experts. Ultimately it must be for the court to decide as a matter of fact what [occurred]. ‘…there is an overriding objective of ensuring that the conclusions derived from that analysis are sound from a common-sense perspective’.
Costain vs Haswell Revisited. This judgement has a number of important findings relating to schedule delay analysis including:
1. It is necessary to prove the delay event caused a delay to completion (a challenge for a Windows approach to delay assessment).
2. A CPM schedule is unlikely to provide a sound basis for delay assessment in agile and distributed projects.
This work and the publication in April of Assessing Delay – the SCL Options is part of a larger project to develop a controls paradigm for Assessing Delays in Agile & Distributed Projects. The internationally recognized approaches to assessing delay and disruption discussed in the papers above, are based on the premise there is a well-developed critical path schedule that defines the way the work of the project will be accomplished. Therefore, events that delay or disrupt activities in the schedule can be modelled using this schedule, their effect assessed, and responsibility for the assessed delay assigned to the appropriate party. The focus of this paper will be to offer a practical solution to the challenge of assessing delay and disruption in agile and distributed projects where the traditional concept of a ‘critical path’ simply does not exist and the effect of intervening events has to be considered in terms of loss of resource efficiency.
One of the ways the law tries to maintain consistency across multiple court cases in literally hundreds of court rooms is by following the same decision-making process used in previous cases to decide an outcome where similar matters are in dispute. This has the advantage of providing a degree of certainty, or at least consistency in the way laws and contracts are interpreted. But can make the law relatively slow to change when business practice changes. However, there are times when the Judges identify problems well before the practitioners! Costain Ltd v Charles Haswell & Partners Ltd [2009] EWHC B25 (TCC) (24 September 2009)is one example. This case related to the construction of the eleven separate structures, that constitute the Lostock and Rivington Water Treatment Works in Lancashire, UK.
As part of this court case, the design and construction contractor, Costain Limited, sought costs from its consulting civil engineer, Charles Haswell & Partners Ltd (Haswell), for the cost of delays caused by incorrect geotechnical advice provided by Haswell. Costain alleged that Haswell’s original design for pre-foundation ground treatment works failed to achieve the specified design criteria for two of the eleven project structures. This resulted in the need for unplanned piling works to support the two structures, which Costain alleged caused a critical delay to the project. As a consequence, Costain was seeking to recover the costs of the delay (prolongation costs) from Haswell.
The quantum experts in the case agreed on two tests for establishing Costain’s entitlement to prolongation costs:
First, whether the assumed delay to completion caused by the remedial piling had crystallised into the same actual delay to the completion of the project some sixteen months later, and
Second, whether all of the project’s activities were delayed by the piling to just two of the eleven structures.
The parties’ programming experts agreed on a common methodology for assessing the delay, which the judgment refers to as a ‘time impact analysis’ or ‘windows slice analysis’. The method described in the judgement appears the same as the Time Impact Analysis defined in the SCL Delay and Disruption Protocol and AACEi MIP 3.7 (for more detail on this see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PDF_Papers/P216_Assessing_Delay_The_SCL_Options.pdf).
There were some points of disagreement between the experts but ultimately, the Court found that the remedial piling on two structures was critical to the project at the time considered in the ‘windows analysis’ noting the experts have agreed that the delays to the RGF and IW were critical delays since those buildings were on the critical path of the project at the relevant time. Ordinarily therefore one would expect, other things being equal, that the project completion date would be pushed out at the end of the job by the same or a similar period to the period of delay to those buildings. However, as experience shows on construction sites, many supervening events can take place which will falsify such an assumed result. For example, the Contractor may rearrange his programme so that other activities are accelerated or carried out in a different sequence thereby reducing the initial delays. [Clause 233]
The assumption underpinning the expert’s ‘window’ analysis showing that a critical delay had occurred and the entitlement to a delay was based on the premise that the work on the rest of the project would follow the logic as shown in the CPM network. The Court rejected this assumption because the assumed flow-on of the delay to the overall completion of the works was not demonstrated: ‘I find that it has not been shown by Costain that the critical delay caused to the project by the late provision of piled foundations to the RGF and IW buildings necessarily pushed out the contract completion date by that period or at all’. [Clause 200 (ii)]
The second test asked whether a delay to work on part of the project would cause all of the project’s activities to be prolonged. In considering this test, the Court rejected Costain’s assumption that the remedial piling to two of the structures on the project prolonged all eleven structures: ‘If the contractor establishes [a critical, excusable delay], he is entitled to an extension of time to the whole project including, of course all those activities which were not in fact delayed … But the contractor will not recover the general site overheads of carrying out all the activities on site as a matter of course unless he can establish that the delaying event to one activity in fact impacted on all the other site activities’. [Clause 183-184]
The Court also found ‘no evidence has been called to establish that the delaying events in question in fact caused delay to any activities on site apart from the RGF and IW buildings. That being so, it follows, in my judgment, that the prolongation claim advanced by Costain based on recovery of the whole of the site costs of the Lostock site, fails for want of proof’. [Clause 185]
Costain failed in its claim for time related prolongation costs and only recovered the additional costs of installing the piled foundations, because ‘In the absence of any analysis between all the operative delays from the start to the finish, which is absent in this case, in my judgment it is simply not possible for the Court to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the assumption upon which this part of Costain’s case depends, is correct’. [Clause 235]
Conclusion – Distributed Projects are Different!
The fundamental problem outlined above was caused by the distributed nature of the project work. The Critical Path Method (CPM) assumes there is one best way to accomplish the work of the project and this is described in the schedule. In distributed projects there are multiple different ways the work could be accomplished. Therefore, any delay analysis technique based on the assumption that the sequence of work shown in a CPM schedule is the only way to accomplish the work is unlikely to prove the delay. A different approach is needed!
We are working on this challenge.
Scheduling Challenges in Agile & Distributed Projects defines the problem and classifies four different types of project from a CPM and controls perspective. Using this classification, the Lostock and Rivington Water Treatment Works was a ‘Class 4’ project where a CPM schedule was imposed, but is unlikely to prove effective. Distributed projects fall under Class3, where a detailed CPM schedule is not accepted as an effective controls approach – different processes are needed.
Predicting Completion in Agile & Distributed Projects (due for publication in the May edition of PMWJ) will define a process for measuring progress and predicting completion in Class 3 projects.
Assessing Delays in Agile & Distributed Projects (due for publication in the June edition of PMWJ) will define a process for reliably determining the effect of delay or disruption in Class 3 projects.
Last year, Project Managers 4 The World ran a 24-hours Talk-around-the-Clock in support for children and families from Ukraine. This year the PMI Ukraine Chapter and some of the world’s finest project management speakers are coming together for the second Talk-around-the-Clock virtual conference to crowdfund money and help charity organizations and show our support to the victims of the Turkish earthquake.
All of the international line up of speakers are working pro-bono meaning all of the revenue from this event goes to the UNICEF appeal. The virtual conference begins April 14, 10 AM UTC and will run for 24 hours until April 15, 10 AM UTC and includes 21 presenters, a panel discussion, and an opening and closing ceremony.
Military engineers have been a part of an Army for millennia. But until relatively recent times, the engineer was an individual who directed the work of troops, or civilian contractors. The military engineer may be an officer or may be simply a skilled civilian working for the State or military.
The shift to army’s employing skilled people in military units dedicated to engineering functions seems to be a development of the 18th century. In the modern world, the largest military engineering unit is the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
The USACE is an engineer formation of the United States Army that has three primary mission areas: Engineer Regiment, military construction, and civil works. Founded 16 March 1802 the Corps was and still is responsible for much infrastructure in the USA which also makes it one of the world’s largest project management organizations. The formal training of military engineers appears to have been a French development (quickly copied by other countries), whereas the formation of a military engineering unit seems to have originated in the UK.
UK Developments
Engineers have always served in the armies of the Crown with engineers leading the construction of castles and military fortifications for the time of William the Conqueror. The Royal Engineers trace their origins back to the military engineers brought to England by William the Conqueror, specifically Bishop Gundulf to construct Rochester Castle between 1087 and 1089, and claim over 900 years of unbroken service to the crown.
The origins of the modern corps, along with those of the Royal Artillery, lie in the Board of Ordnance established in the 15th century. In 1716, the Board of Ordnance established a Corps of Engineers, consisting entirely of commissioned officers. Manual engineering works were done by Artificer Companies, made up of contracted civilian artisans and laborers.
This started to change in 1772 when a Soldier Artificer Company was established for service in Gibraltar, the first instance of non-commissioned military engineers. The value of this small disciplined force was recognized during the Great Siege of Gibraltar (discussed below), working with other elements of the military to build and repair fortifications. Subsequently, the idea of a permanent military engineering unit was adopted by the rest of the British Army in 1787.
In that year, the Corps of Engineers was granted the Royal prefix, and a Corps of Royal Military Artificers was formed, consisting of non-commissioned officers and privates, to be led by the Royal Engineers. Ten years later, the Gibraltar company (which had remained separate) was absorbed, and the rest is history. So, what led to the Great Siege of Gibraltar, that brought a small army unit to national prominence?
The Great Siege of Gibraltar
The Great Siege of Gibraltar was an unsuccessful attempt by Spain and France to capture Gibraltar from the British during the American Revolutionary War, and was the largest battle of that war! Capturing the British base at Gibraltar was one of Spain’s primary war aims. The siege started on 16 June 1779, when Spain entered the war on the side of France and as co-belligerents of the revolutionary United Colonies.
The small Gibraltar garrison under George Augustus Eliott was blockaded from June 1779 to 7th February 1783 when the Peace of Paris came into effect. At three years, seven months, and twelve days, it is the longest siege endured by the British Armed Forces. Sustaining the siege was made possible by three large convoys each roughly a year apart, and British success in several related naval battles.
As part of the political maneuvering associated with the peace talks in Paris, the French and Spanish decided on a final major assault to capture Gibraltar. On 13 September 1782 the Bourbon allies launched their great attack using:
5,260 fighting men, both French and Spanish, aboard ten newly engineered ‘floating batteries’ with 138 to 212 heavy guns each
In support were the combined Spanish and French fleet, which consisted of 49 ships of the line, 40 Spanish gunboats and 20 bomb-vessels, manned by a total of 30,000 sailors and marines, and
They were supported by 86 land guns and 35,000 Spanish and 7,000–8,000 French troops on land.
The assault was a total failure, but Gibraltar was still under siege.
The final ‘nail-in-the-coffin’ for the French and Spanish came when the third British relief convoy under Admiral Richard Howe slipped through their blockading fleet and arrived at the garrison on 18th October 1782. A total of 31 transport ships, delivered vital supplies, food, and ammunition. The fleet also brought an additional three regiments of foot, bringing the total number of the garrison to over 7,000. These defeats in October finally forced France and Spain to negotiate the terms of the Peace of Paris and end the wars. The British and Americans had already sorted out their part of the agreement so this British victory marked the last major engagement of the American Revolutionary War.
Holding the Rock had proved a formidable undertaking, and when the siege was finally lifted on 7th February 1783 the victory against overwhelming odds was greeted with great rejoicing in Great Britain. But what led to the siege of Gibraltar and the French and Spanish support for the Americans – it’s a long and complex story?
War of Spanish Succession (1700 – 1714)
For convenience, the events that led to the siege can be said to have started with the death of the childless Habsburg King Charles II of Spain in 1700. The French Bourbon Monarchy sought to take over the Spanish crown by making the son of the current French King, the King of Spain, meaning the two crowns would merge when the young boy also became King of France. This triggered a war with Britain who was determined to stop France and Spain merging into a mega-power supported by the Hapsburg Empire. This war eventually ended in the 1713 & 15 Peace of Utrecht treaties, and the 1714 Treaties of Rastatt and Baden.
Under the agreements, Philip (a Bourbon) was confirmed as King of Spain in return for renouncing the right of himself or his descendants to inherit the French throne; the Spanish Empire remained largely intact, but ceded territories in Italy and the Low Countries to Austria and Savoy. Britain retained Gibraltar and Menorca which it captured during the war, acquired significant trade concessions in the Spanish Americas, and as a consequence, replaced the Dutch as the leading maritime and commercial European power.
The Seven Years’ War (1756–1763)
The Seven Years’ War was a continuation of the rivalry between Britain and the French / Spanish alliance. This war involved most of the major powers in Europe on one side or the other and was a global conflict fought in Europe, the Americas, and the Asia-Pacific regions.
The settlements that brought a end to this war involved no territorial changes in Europe but did involve transfer of colonial possessions between Great Britain, France, Portugal, and Spain:
France and Spain had to return conquered colonial territory to Great Britain and Portugal
France cedes its North American possessions east of the Mississippi River, Canada, the islands of St. Vincent, Tobago, Dominica, and Grenada, and some territory in India to Great Britain
France ceded Louisiana and its North American territory west of the Mississippi River to Spain
Spain ceded Florida to Great Britain.
The American Revolutionary War (1775 – 1783)
The American Revolutionary War offered the French and Spanish an opportunity to recover their losses from the Seven Years War. The French in particular, saw an independent America as good for France and bad for Britain.
From 1774, or earlier, American patriot forces were financed and supported by the Kingdom of France and, to a lesser extent, the Kingdom of Spain, and the Dutch Republic. After the American victory at the Battle of Saratoga the French could see the prospects of a long war, and possible American victory, and signed an alliance with America in 1778; shortly after, Britain declared war on France. Spain joined in 1779, and the Dutch in 1780, but as a ‘neutral’ the Dutch had been supplying the Americans since 1774.
As well as fighting in North America, these countries also attacked British possessions in Europe (Gibraltar and Menorca), the Caribbean, and India, with one of the primary Spanish objectives being the re-capture of Gibraltar.
The Peace of Paris that ended the American Revolutionary War involved a series of treaties between Britain, the USA, France, Spain, and the Dutch (United Provinces). As a result:
The United States was recognised as an entity and its Norther border with Canada was agreed to be along the Great Lakes. In return Britain obtained a trade agreement with the USA.
The British and the Dutch more-or-less re-established the status quo.
Spain regained its lost territories in North America including Florida and the Gulf Coast plus Menorca in the Mediterranean, Britain retained Gibraltar
The French and British agreed:
British would retain Newfoundland and adjacent islands, except Saint Pierre and Miquelon.
In the West Indies, the British crown returns Saint Lucia to France and surrenders Tobago, the French crown returns Grenada, St. Vincent, Dominica, St. Christopher (St. Kitts), Nevis and Montserrat to Britain, and
To more-or-less re-established the status quo in Africa and India.
So, at the end of the war, Spain had a good outcome in the Americas, France was nearly bankrupt (which is seen by many as one of the causes of the French Revolution), the USA achieved independence, and the British held onto most of their emerging empire. A fairly good outcome until the next round or wars between Britain and France started in 1793.
Conclusion
How much influence the British Army had on the formation of the United States Army Corps of Engineers is uncertain. The French provided military engineers to the revolutionary army and the French military engineers have a similar range of responsibilities to the USACE. Whereas the British REs don’t have the wide-ranging civil responsibilities of their USA counterparts but both forces have similar military roles.
We have supported two initiatives focused on celebrating the 20th anniversary of the launch of Earned Schedule in 2003. Earned Schedule (ES) resolved the long-standing dilemma of the EVM schedule indicators providing inaccurate information for late performing projects. ES provides the ability to predict project completion dates with more accuracy than CPM. It uses the same data as traditional EVM, but shifts the calculations from the cost axis to the time axis.
Our paper published in the March edition of PMWJ, rounds out our series on the history of Earned Value Management (EVM). Earned Schedule – the First 20 Years, traces the attempts to use EVM data to predict project completion dates from the 1990s through to the current time, including the development of ES during its first 20 years.
We were also a keen supporter of the PGCS world-wide webinar celebrating the anniversary. All of the presentations, and information on the presenters, sponsors and supporters are now available for review in the PGCS library at: https://www.pgcs.org.au/library1/2023-es-special-event/ You are encouraged to make full use of this free resource.
PGCS is a not-for-profit organization focused on helping improve project and program delivery and runs events throughout the year:
If you want to know who made clocks tick (and why they no longer do) you need our latest article, Measuring time.
This article looks and improvements in the devices used to track the time of day over the last 5000 years and how improvements in the devices used to measure time interacted with the development of calendars, and the appreciation of time both socially and in the management of projects.
The new ASQA approved Diploma of Project Controls is now live!
The Project Controls Institute Australia Team received ASQA accreditation for the Diploma of Project Controls as of 20th January and expect to commence delivery of training in the first half of 2023. Prospective candidates, trainer and interested organizations are encouraged to contact the team at aus@projectcontrolsinstitute.com
Pat Weaver
Lynda Bourne
Aavssitedev's Blog