Calling time on delays to complex projects

Between December 2007 and January 2008, the CIOB conducted a survey of the industry’s knowledge of different methods of project control and time management. The research revealed that complex projects were more likely to be badly delayed than delivered on time, and that the standards of education and training in the management of time on construction projects was generally below a satisfactory standard.

With a view to reducing the incidence of delay in major projects, the CIOB co-ordinated a working group that draws on skills from the US, Australia and the UK, and represents firms such as Ernst & Young, EC Harris and Balfour Beatty. Since September 2008, that group has been working on A Guide to Good Practice in the Management of Time in Complex Projects. The first draft, a document of around 50,000 words, is to be released this month for peer review.

The guide stresses that the most effective time management strategy starts in the design stages of a project. As it points out, if time-effective considerations have not been considered during the design stages, then the opportunities for recovery of delay will be limited during the construction stages.

Accordingly, it’s no longer enough for the contractor’s planner to programme the works alone, after the tender has been won. To achieve the most effective time-management strategy from the project’s inception, the employer, design team, contractor and subcontractors all need to contribute in due time to the effective planning of the project.

The word ‘programme’, often used to describe a printed paper copy of what is no more than a bar chart, is not used in connection with the management of time in complex projects. Instead, the guide focuses on a scientific approach using a constantly-revised predictive time model.

The guide argues that complex projects – defined as having one or more of a list of characteristics, and in which the work content, resources and sequence necessarily change from time to time – cannot be time-managed by monitoring techniques that are rooted in comparison of data against a fixed baseline programme. Instead, programme management software should be used to build a predictive model that allows teams to foresee and measure the consequences of missed targets.

One of the defining features of the guide’s time model is that it will be created in different ‘densities’, depending upon the proximity of the work to be carried out. Early works in the immediate future would be modelled with information on sub-contractors, resources and productivity; later works would have a lower density of information. The model would also be revised occasionally so it is always consistent with the latest and best information.

Then, because progress data will be entered only against a fully resourced schedule, the as-built record will provide data standards and productivity feedback for future benchmarking.

The working schedule would be updated with the resources used and degree of progress actually achieved, the likely effect of any delays on the completion date, and the likely effect of any proposed acceleration or recovery measures. This will enable construction managers and contract administrators to know the consequences of events that have occurred, and to use the time model as the foundation for their decision-making.

The guide proposes that the schedule is no longer to be printed out in hard copy, but exist as an electronic database, with consultants and clients sharing access to it as well as contributing their data. Progress records would be kept on a related database providing instantaneous access to, and retrievability of, as-built data.

The guide is not based upon any contractual regime or procurement process and, subject to amendment of existing forms of contract to remove inconsistencies, can be used in any jurisdiction, under any form of contract, with any type of project.

While not everyone in the industry will agree with everything the guide advocates, I expect everyone will agree it is about time something was done to minimise the appalling wastage caused by delay in major projects.