Dr Nick
$14/per page/Negotiable
In the project you are studying, discuss which of the following kinds of analyses were performed?
Also, discuss how those applications that were not applied may be useful and where they may fit in.
I need you to write about the top part by reading the bottom discussion!!!!
The bottom discussion is that I already summit for last week!
Was the concept of "Earned Value" used in your Study Project?Were forecasting "to complete" and "at completion" used? If so, how and by whom?If applicable, what triggers were used to "activate" corrective actions/measures?Remember, part of this course is designed so that you can learn from your peers. So, feel free to ask questions of others. Also, it is ok if your study project does not use Earned Value. As such, don't try to force fit something that isn't there, just write about if you have it and whether you think it would be useful if it is not being used.
Posting:
The difficulty in assessing my “study project” was the fact that the start-up date was grossly delayed by 4 months in a 6-month set construction period, and no EAC was ever agreed upon by the stakeholders. Therefore, the project’s schedule was forecast to fail at the onset by the general contractor (GC), but optimistically presented and allowed by the construction manager (CM). A 5-month extension was arbitrarily granted for the project, without consideration for the impending winter season and inclement weather projected. As a result, southwest Missouri received one of the wettest Fall seasons on record, as well as record low temperatures during the winter months, and a new EAC or ETC was never established. Due to weather delays, the actual percentage completion curve appeared like a terraced field, whereby progress was made with a positive slope, shut down with a horizontal line, and repeated several times. Furthermore, the government shutdown last fall caused yet another horizontal line in the curve. The project was granted only a 30-day extension due to weather delays, with no provision in the owner’s requirements for change order increases to add labor resources to meet their revised schedule. Nonetheless, the project was not completed on time, but trade-off decisions were made by the GC to complete the project within budget, quality, and scope. Currently, the client is assessing liquidated damages since the project was completed 30-days beyond their revised deadline. In this situation, the CM agreed to the schedule, but the GC did not and communicated only verbally that he needed at least 30 more construction days. It is uncertain as to who will be forced to pay for liquidated damages imposed by the owner, but in my opinion as the GC, it is the CM’s responsibility in this case since it was the CM’s role for communicating schedules and forecasts to the owner. There may be more to provide in subsequent discussions on this issue.
Although the concept of earned value was not literally used in the project, it is obvious that the ACWP and BCWP were equal for this project, with not enough resources being applied to meet the imposed schedule. Rather than overspending to catch up, schedule milestones were sacrificed but may be at the expense of liquidated damages – a decision yet to be made. But the project was monitored very closely by the GC during construction to ensure that it was not overspent, especially since there was no provision allowed for cost increases since the government’s budget was rigid and fixed – yet another decision to accept or reject pursuit of the project. The owner at this point is very satisfied with the quality, scope, and cost of the project, but not the time. It would have made a tremendous difference if the concept of earned value was used or tracked regularly during the construction period to communicate project deviations, for project completion estimates, and to assess corrective actions due to schedule variances. Lessons learned have yet to be documented, but this course will definitely help with the assessment.