Using Programmes to manage Projects

There are three possible uses for the Programme of Works. First it can be used to monitor progress by comparing actual duration against planned durations. Second it can be used as a management tool, to decide the priority to be given to activities to ensure that the particular time obligation is achieved. Third it can be used to establish the contractor’s entitlement to extension of time. The use of programmes to monitor progress was examined in last month’s article. This second article examines the use of programmes to meet time obligations. The approach adopted by standard forms is also reviewed.

The main time obligations are to complete by a specified date, to progress the works to a specified standard (due diligence or due expedition) and to manage progress by taking steps to mitigate delays. The existence and extent of these obligations is determined by the terms of the contract.

Three types of programme are commonly used. The Progress Programme allows problems of progress to be identified. The Prediction Programme facilitates the prediction of future progress. The Management Programme is a model that allows an assessment of the effect on future progress of different corrective actions.

The terms of the contract will determine which type of programme is contractually necessary but the extent of management control required to ensure compliance with the time obligation will determine the type of programme which should be used.

The Progress Programme

The Bar Chart Plan is commonly used form of Progress Programme to monitor compliance with the obligation to complete by the specified date. Progress is monitored by comparing actual progress of each activity with the estimated durations and timings on the Bar Chart Plan. It is usual when monitoring progress by this method to do so against a "TimeLine" in which progress on each bar is compared to a Line representing the progress date. The Line shows whether or not the activity is on time to the planned programme and the approximate time remaining for each activity.

The fundamental assumption if this method of monitoring is to be used as a management tool, is that the Bar Chart Plan accurately models how the work is to be carried out. If progress is maintained closely to the Plan then the obligation to complete by a date will be achieved.

The difficulty arises when this assumption is incorrect. Actual progress may be different for a number of reasons, not least that risk events may or may not occur, performance may improve at a later stage in the duration of an activity or the method of working may be changed requiring greater initial preparation followed by rapid progress. In these situations, just when the programme is most needed to manage the work, the Progress Programme fails.

The Progress Programme has little value as a tool to manage the obligation to achieve a prescribed rate of progress or to measure the extent of compliance with the obligation to mitigate or manage delays.

The Prediction Programme

The Prediction Programme provides a means of up-dating the prediction of future progress by providing a model of the time dimension of the project. It does this by linking individual activities by Logic Links. The effect on the obligation to complete by a specified date of delay or acceleration of one activity can now be estimated. If the method of working changes then this can be taking into account by changing the model of logic links. The obligation to progress the work can also be effectively monitored.

The Linked Bar Chart is the most common Prediction Programme. Although specialist software applications make it easy to prepare the Linked Bar Chart, it is not necessary and for simple or repetitive work can easily prepared as a simple drawing.

If actual progress differs from planned, then the programme needs to be revised to show actual progress of activities, revised to show changes in the construction logic and the incidence of actual events. The management of information to provide accurate revisions to the programme may require considerable effort and certainly requires constant attention.

The personnel managing day-to-day activities may not have an overall view of the project and may not recognise or report changes in the planned rate of progress or changes in the method of working. A systematic approach to recording and reporting is required.

The Management Programme

The Management Programme provides a model for analysis and implementation of corrective action. It is the only programme that allows all three obligations to be effectively managed. The most common form of programme is the Critical Path Network, which allows the activities that are critical to completion to be identified. Those activities that are not critical will be identified by the extent of “float”. In practice float is an essential requirement of a Management Programme. Resources are of course limited on construction projects, so giving priority to critical or near critical activities is only possible without affecting planned completion, if lack of action on other activities can be accommodated by available float.

To be effective, the Management Programme needs to be based on up-to-date progress, represent an accurate prediction of future events as well as accurately model the time characteristics of the project by Logic Links. The requirements in this respect are the same as described for the Prediction Programme. The additional mathematical dimension is required of a Management Programme to allow the criticality of activities and float trends to be assessed and allow management decisions to be made based on priorities. The aim is to identify the corrective actions that need to be taken at the time of analysis by realistically predicting the future effects of a selection of actions.

The "benefit" to the project of a reduced duration for an activity depends on the incidence of the critical path following update of the programme. The effect of a shorter duration may change the critical path which will be shown by the Network Analysis. If that benefit is to be realised it is necessary to recognise construction restraints not shown on the programme, but assumed, which are not within the contractor’s control. In particular the assumption that design information will be available in sufficient time to allow the early start may not be correct. If the information is to be provided by third parties, whether subcontracted consultants or the Employer, the contractor may not be able to require or rely on supply of the information to suit his revised programme. This applies equally to work under subcontracts where there may be little the contractor can do in practice except rely on compensation under the subcontract and the obligation to progress the works.

It is an important aspect of a Management Programme that it should identify the activities by others and that the contract obligations of others is measured by reference to actual progress and the updated main programme. This is difficult to achieve in practice without a consistent project approach to the use of the Management Programme.

Standard Forms of Contract

A distinction needs to be made between the programme required by the contract and the programme required to manage the project. Frequently the two types of programme are not the same. The type of programme required by common standard forms is described below.

The full role of the programme in the FIDIC 1999 Forms is not clear. The description of the programme in Clause 8.3 does not specify the form that the programme should take. Although there is an obligation to submit a method statement, there is no obligation to represent the method of working stated in the method statement on the programme in the form of Logic Links between activities, to show the construction logic. It is suggested therefore that the obligation under Clause 8.3 can be satisfied by a programme in the form of a Bar Chart, together with the supporting report. It is suggested further, that in order to fulfil the role of the programme prescribed by Clauses 8.3, 8.6 and 4.21(h), and described below, that the Red and Yellow Forms require a Prediction Programme in the form of a Linked Bar Chart.

ICE 7th Edition Clause 14 requires the Contractor to submit both a programme and a method statement. These are two separate obligations which are not inter-related under ICE 7th Edition. The programme is intended only to fulfil the role of a Progress Programme. A Bar Chart will be sufficient to fulfil the function identified in the ICE 7th Edition, since it will show the order of carrying out the Works and allow actual progress to be monitored.

In the ECC 2nd Edition, the Accepted Programme is an important tool in the management and administration of the contract. There are extensive provisions for both the submission of programmes for acceptance and their revision. The term "programme" in the ECC Form means more than simply a bar chart, but also includes a method statement as identified at Clause 31.2. The ECC Form makes detailed provisions for programmes submitted for acceptance. The requirement to show "float" and "time risk allowances" at Clause 31.2 suggests that the programme is intended to be a Network Programme, since both provisions require the project dimension which such a programme provides. The provisions for revision to the Accepted Programme confirm this interpretation since the programme is clearly intended to fulfil the role of a Management Programme allowing analysis of the effects of events on future progress.

The MF/1 Rev 4 2000 Form only requires a Progress Programme in the form of a Bar Chart, subject to express provisions in the Special Conditions. Absent such provisions it is suggested that it would not be reasonable for the Engineer to require a Programme other than a Bar Chart. The Programme is intended to be a detailed document, although its role appears only to be to allow progress to be monitored.

The IChemE Red Book 4th Edition 2001 has a rather ambiguous approach to the use of the programme. The role of the programme is intended only to allow the monitor of progress and not fulfil the role of a Prediction Programme. It is suggested that a Bar Chart is sufficient to fulfil the required role. The Project Manager is required to approve the programme if it complies with the specified dates and is "otherwise reasonable". The Approved Programme is therefore intended to demonstrate the progress that the Project Manager considers could reasonably be made by the Contractor The Contractor's obligations are stated in terms of the Approved Programme in addition to his obligations to complete by the specified dates or periods (Clause 13.1) and to proceed regularly and diligently. Since the Contractor is required to use reasonable endeavours to perform his obligations in accordance with the Approved Programme, this does not prevent him adopting a different method of working if that is reasonable in the circumstances. It is suggested that the primary obligations are to complete by the specified dates or periods and to proceed regularly and diligently and that the obligation to follow the Approved Programme is a secondary requirement to achieve the primary obligations. This interpretation can be seen in the operation of Clauses 13.3, 13.6 and 43.2.