7/30/2019 16934

1/6

Terry W. Towle

ennessee, like many otherstates,embarkedon a prison construc-tion program that representedhe larg-est building construction effort in thestates history. Because of the sizeand complexity of the program, thegovernor of Tennesseeestablished acapital projects management team.This team was responsible or manag-ing the design and construction of the$210 million, loo-project, statewide,prison-system upgrade. Members ofthe capital projects management eamcame from the various state agenciesneeded o expedite the program. Thestate also contracted with a projectadministrator rom the private sector oprovide additional construction man-agementexpertise to the team.The use of a project administratorfrom the private sector combined withstate resourcesproved extremely suc-cessful. The Stateof Tennessee ecid-ed on this sameconcept o manage hedesign and construction of the Tennes-see State University (TSU) masterplan. Becauseof its high priority, this5-year, $113 million, 52-project pro-gram was assigned o the capital proj-ects management eam.Tennessee chose Fluor DanielInc., as project administrator of bothprograms. One of the major servicesprovided by the project administratoris third-party critical path method(CPM) scheduling. The successfulimplementation of third-party schcdul-ing proved to be a learning experience

for both the State of Tennesseeandthe local contracting community. Thisarticle outlines the problems faced andlessons earned rom third-patty sched-uling on the correctional and TSUcapital programs.Project sekction criteria for CPMscheduling are basedon size, complex-ity, and urgency of completion. Fcd-eral court-ordered time frames to in-crease apacity put the prison upgradeprogram under the gun. This madethe decision of which projects toscheduleeasy. Only 10 percent of theconstruction projects were selected orscheduling. However, these projectsrepresented 0 percent of the construc-tion dollars and the majority of thenew beds added to the system.The TSU master plan projectsscheduled were selected according tocomplexity, coordination requirements,and importance n obtaining the masterplan objectives. Trying to complete$113 million of construction on onecampuswhile keeping the university insessionposed unique coordination andscheduling problems. Construction orrenovation of classroom buildings hadto be completed in time for schoolsemesters. f a building were complet-ed without a minimum of 1 month formove-in before the semester started,we lost that semester.This put themaster plan further behind schedulebecause when the classrooms couldnot be moved into the new building,the currently used classroom spacewould not becomeavailable for build-

COST ENGINEERING VoL35ho. 2 FEBRUARY 993

7/30/2019 16934

2/6

ing and renovation.As a general rule, the State ofTennessee chedulesprojects in the $4million or greater range. Projects ofthis size attract more sophisticatedcontractors. One of the goals of thecapital projects management eam s toavoid legal action from delay claims.The CPM schedule provides the statewith the information to take actionwhen an item delays the project. It.also allows the state to defend itselfagainst delay claim issues.

T here were five major problemsencounteredwhen first trying to carryout third-party scheduling with statework. The first was the lack ofknowledge of the CPM technique bythe majority of contractorsand design-erswith which we were dealing. Wediscovered that many people did notfully understand how to break downthe project into appropriate work activ-ities. Most had difftculty reading thelogic diagram of the developed projectsequence. The majority of the localcontractors either scheduled using barcharts, or the construction superinten-dent ran the project out of his/herhead. To further complicate the issue,few participants of the owners con-struction management-teamnderstoodhow to use the schedule to evaluatedelay issues.Lack of trust turned out to beanother major problem in using third-party scheduling. Many contractorswere afraid that the state would usethe schedule as a weapon against themand not to help speedup the construc-tion process. Consequently, contrac-tors would often give inaccurate nfor-mation to try to protect themselves.People hated the fact that reports,which might show them as being bc-hind schedule, would be public. Inaddition, all state contracts contain aliquidated damages lause,and anotherfear of contractors was that the sched-ule could prove early in the project

that the contractor could not meet thecompletion date. The potential of thestate withholding possible damagesuntil the project was back on schedulebecame eal. This was the first timethe state, as an owner, became soinvolved in the contractorsbusiness.The third problem involved theactual developmentof the schedule. Itproved difficult obtaining accurateactivity durations and schedule logicfrom the general contractor and sub-contractors. There were a number offactors contributing to this situation:(1) Many contractors acked nterest nusing the schedule as a managementtool because t did not have a trackrecord in their eyes. (2) There was ageneralscarcity of planning experiencewithin construction teams. Rarely hadanyone ever sat down and sequenceda project from start to finish. (3)Many contractors tried to pad theirtime in order to ensure hat they couldeasily meet deadlines; no one wantedto commit to shorter, realistic dura-tions unless confronted.Accurate updating also becameaproblem as the projects progressed. Ifthe initial as-plannedscheduledid notaccurately epresent ow the contractorwould build the job in the field, theas-built schedule would require con-stant revision of durations and logic tomake it correct. Obtaining accurateinformation concerning percent com-plete for activities in progress alsoturned out to be difficult. Early opti-mism on the contractors part wouldgive the impression that the projectwas further along than what was actu-ally happening in the field. Finally,many times the contractor did not passon update reports to the subcontrac-tors, and the field ended up workingwithout a schedule.The fifth problem nvolved gettingthe original as-plannedschedulecom-pleted and approved. The originalspecifications called for acceptanceand approval of the schedulewithin 4weeks after notice to proceed. Weverified that this is very difficult toaccomplish. It took an average of 8.weeks to finish the schedule. Inade-

quate subcontractor nformation, espe-cially in the mechanical and electricaldisciplines, hampered the approvalprocess. Most of the contractors didvery little planning beyond the nextmonth or so. This made t difficult toget accurate planning information.Many just did not know what theywere going to do. Finally, the con-tractors did not want to commit inwriting to the schedule as the as-planned document. There were alwaysminor changes being made at the lastminute to get it just right.

T he first task in implementingCPM scheduling on a State of Tennes-see project was to sit down and talk.The owner, designer, contractor, majorsubcontractors, project administrator,scheduling consultant, and the capitalprojects management eam all had tocommunicate o each other their goalsand expectations or the project. Thiswas the time for the project adminis-trator to explain how CPM schedulingworks. In doing so, we reviewed howwe would and would not use CPMscheduling on the project, the type ofreports available, conventions, how wewould monitor progress, and how wewould evaluate delays. This meetingeducated everyone on the project. Italso went a long way in establishingtrust and a team atmosphere.The schedule is the contractors.This is an important concept that wemade sure everyone understood. Es-sentially, the project administrator wasthe secretary of the schedule. Thestate did not want an adversarial rela-tionship, nor did it want to be in-volved in collecting liquidated damag-es. The state did want the projectdelivered on time, and it wanted toknow if the designer or the state wereslowing the contractor down. This iswhy Tennessee supplied the sched-uling expertise to the contractor.Although the state did not ownthe schedule, he schedule had to con-

10 COST ENGINEERING Vol. 3YNo. 2 FEBRUARY 993

7/30/2019 16934

3/6

tain enoughinformation to enable theproject administrator to evaluate accu-rately the status of the project. Theway this was handled was to have thestates scheduling consultant developthe project activity list. This takestime, but it has many advantages.First, it is one of the quickest ways toget the scheduler completely familiarwith the project. Second, the teamcould get the scheduleapprovedquick-er if it could get the listing completedbefore the project bids. It also elimi-nated he need or a short-term start-upschedule. Third, it helped ensure amore accurate as-planned schedule.When a project- first kicks off, thecontractor is buying it out and get-ting it started. Contractors usuallydont have the time to break down theproject into appropriate activities.However, they usually dont have aproblem putting durations and workhours to a prepared ist.Preparing the activity list a lsogave the project administrator controlover the detail of the schedule andwhat type of activities would be in-cluded, while still keeping it the con-tractors schedule. This can be veryimportant because it will determinehow difficult the schedule will be toupdate and to keep accurate. Forexample: We did not get into the kindof detail where we were sequencingslab pours or doing finishes by roomsor erecting roof steel by quadrant.Project superintendentsalways seem ochange sequences n the field. Assoon as this happens, t takes a lot ofeffort to rework the logic and makethe as-built schedule accurate. Al-though we gave the contractor theoption to modify the activity list asnecessary, our experience was thatcontractors arely make changes o thelisting.Neither the state or the schedulingconsultant dictated durations or logic.Means and methods were strictly thecontractors decision. However, thescheduling consultant did questionactivity durations or logic that ap-peared inappropriate and requestedpe&omxmce data or detailed explana-

: : I, ,: I ,, : ,, I

tions of work sequencing.The development of the schedulelogic took place in 3 to 4 group meet-ings. Repre tatives/ from the generalcontractor, subcontractors, designteam, an6 owner attended the meet-ings. The concept s that everyonehasan equal say in the developmentof theschedule. The people who are actuallygoing to build the project are the oneswho must participate in these meet-ings. Having everyone at the sched-ule-development meetings promotesmutual understanding, buy-in, andacceptance f the schedule. Everyonehas ownership and wants to make itwork. By giving everyone a seat atthe table, we found that more accurateinitial baseline schedules are devel-oped. Total participation also helpswhen working out correct sequencing,agreeing on questionabledurations, ortrying to rush the approval process.The schedules on projects wereupdated every 2 weeks, except onsmaller projects, which were updatedevery month. The scheduling consul-tant physically walked the entire proj-ect with the superintendentand agreedon activity status. The scheduleralsohad direct contact with the subcontrac-tor superintendents at the progressmeetings. (The larger projects have astateconstruction observerassigned othem, which is another sourceof infor-mation.)

The project walkdowns, directcontact with supervisors, and usingconstruction observers and the design&am as resources ensures accurateupdating information. Pthelped&lim.i-nate the problem of early optimismand also let the scheduling consultantcatch changes going on in the field.This kept the as-built schedule asaccurate as possible and useful as amanagementand forecasting tool.If the schedule showed an earlycompletion date, we handled it in anumber of ways. First of all, thestatesspecifications say that the statehas purchased he entire contract timein the bid. This gives little incentivefor the contractor to leave the earlyfinish date. We have found that mostwant the schedule to cover the entirecontract time. This is to prevent theowner from planning its furnishings,equipment, and move-in on that date.The contractors either padded a num-ber of durations on the critical path orincreased he last clean-up durationand used it as a contingency item.Some add a contractor contingencyactivity, but most do not want to showtheir contingency. These techniquesalso help contractors show they areahead of schedule and eliminate thetension that develops between partieswhen reports show a project is behindschedule.After developing the schedulelogic and calculating the ftish date,the schedule may show a late com-pletion. The state will not approve aschedule unless it shows the projectcan be completed on time. If thescheduleshows a late completion date,another meeting is held. We sit downand review activity sequencing anddurations to find a way to ftish theproject on time. After spending allthat effort to get an accurateschedule,a late completion date will usuallymake the contractor sit up and takenotice. The contractor then will usu-ally end up hitting the job hard at thestart, where the most time can bemade up.If during an update the scheduledfinish date was beyond the contract

COST ENGINEERING VoL 35LfVo.2 FEBRUARY 993 11

7/30/2019 16934

4/6

1.3 -1.2 -1.1 -1.0 -0.9 -0.6 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.40.3 1 I0.20.1 I I I I I I I I II 11 11 2 4 6 13 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 2.3 30 34

REPORT DATE0 Rdsrmca lJn9 + TPR

Figure l-Time Performance Ratio

finish date, lie3ontractor was mmedi-ately notified. The project administra-tor requested a game plan from thecontractor by next update to get theproject back on schedule. This gameplan could include overtime work,changes n sequencing, or changes nduration. The project administratorwas also available to work with thecontractors to perform what-if anal-yses. Duration/sequencechangesmustbe reasonableand in the near term sothe results will immediate ly be notice-able. This stops the practice ofcrunching durations at the end of theschedule, leaving the impossible taskof trying to finish everything at onceat the end of the project.The main point is to let the con-tractor know immediately that it isbehind schedule. It is not enough toonly notify the contractor; the teamdeveloped a suggested game plan tobring the project back on schedule bynext update period. We then moni-tored the contractor for compliance tothe plan. The scheduler was alsoavailable to assist he contractor n try-ing different construction schemes.

The schedule s not worth,the effort ifyou cant pull useful tiormation fromit. The reports produced from thescheduling and updating effort willdetermine how effective the schedulewill be as a managementool. We tryto limit the amount of paper we pro-cessand avoid the foot-high computerreport syndrome everyone involvedwith scheduling has seen at one timeor another.An important point is that theschedule reports we produce must beunderstandable o a lay audience aswell as usefnl to the contractor. Thepresident of a university or the wardenof a prison most likely does not havethe time to decipher a complicated,lengthy report. Our schedule reportsconsist of a one- or two-page narra-tive, a summary bar chart, a 6-week-window schedule, time performanceratio (TPR) graph, earnedvalue graph,and trending analysis graph.The narrative is short and lists arecap of the last report period, presentprogress, otential or current problems,and a conclusion. The conclusionstates f the project is aheador behindschedule. If behind schedule, t tells

why and outlines what the contractorneeds o do to get back on track. Thenarrative is really the executive sum-mary that someonecan quickly go toand check the pulse of the project. Itis important that the conclusion statewhat the problem is, what caused t,and what must be done to fix it.Each project gets broken downinto eight or ten milestone activities.Foundations and slab complete, struc-tural hme complete, roof installed,permanent power on and conditionedair available are some typical milc-stones. All activities in the schedulefeed one of the milestones. Thesemilestones then make up a summarybar chart that everyone can read anduse to key in on the critical dates. Itis amazing how hard the field willwork to meet a published milestonedate. The workers may have beenworking half-heartedly until that datestarts to get close; then they willusually do what it takes to make t.The 6-week-window schedule isthe contractorsnear-termschedule hatis extracted from the master network.It usually covers 2 weeks behind andlooks 4 weeks ahead of the reportdate. It contains all the activitiesscheduled for the next 4 weeks. Thesuperintendent uses this windowschedule to, plan detailed work se-quencing for the next work period.We use the TPR, earned value,and trending analysis graphs depend-ing on the size and complexity of theproject. It would be overkill to use allthree on a $4 million project but maybe appropriate for a $15 million proj-ect. The graphical analyses ncludedin the reports have received the mostattention and positive feedback fromboth the owner and the contractors.We put these techniques in place andfound that the superintendentsusuallycant wait to find out what their num-ber is for that report period. Theyalso serve the owner well by giving aquick visual tool to check projectstatus.Figure 1 shows a TPR graph froman actual project, The definition ofTPR is the number of actual days to

12 COSTENGINEERING Vol. 35kNo.2 FEBRUARY 993

7/30/2019 16934

5/6

complete activities divided by thenumber of planned days for -thosesame activities. On this particularproject, the TPR started as a favorablemunber and eventually began creepingupward. At the point it first startedcreeping upward we met with thecontractor and told him that he wasstarting to slip, that we were con-cerned, and that we were available tohelp work out any problems, He im-mediately met with his subcontractorsthat were working in that time frameand put the pressure on them, Theyhit the ob with renewed effort. Whenthe contractors TPR started to ap-proach the 1.0 line, they again putforth every effort to try to stop thecurve from crossing that line.Figure 2 shows an earned valuegraph from a project. We base ourearned value on work hours receivedfrom the initial activity listing. Again,the graph will usually start out hug-ging the early start curve and thenbegin creeping towards the late startcmve. When this happens, we warnthe contractor that it is slipping. Peo-ple naturally hate to see the curveslipping downward, especially whenthe reports are made public.Figure 3 shows a trending analysisgraph from one of our projects. Weust+ly trend two milestones on aproject. The first is usually roof coin-plete, and after making this milestonewe will trend the substantial comple-tion milestone. As you can see, thecontractor got off to a slow start com-pared to what it planned. The trend-ing curve reacts drastically to slippageat the beginning. Using the graphs,we were able to get the contractorsand owners attention at the beginningof the project. We set up a meetingand developed a gameplan to get backon schedule. The project superinten-dent worked to get the curve to comeback down. That was his goal, andthe project finished on time.The graphs proved a quick wayfor people to judge how they per-formed during the last update period.With the scheduler pinpointing thereason for slippage, subcontractors

OCT NOV OEC 91 FEE MAR APR NAY JUN JUL AUG

0 EARLY START + LATE START 0 ACTUAL

Figure Z-Earned Value (Work hours)

0 1 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 16 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34REPORT DATE

cl ISOMETRIC DATE LINE + EARLY SCHEDULE DATE 0 EST COMPLETION DATE

Figure 3-Trending Analysisholding up the project had to put forthgreater effort to get those curves toshow positive. All the work involvedin developing and using a good CPMschedule goes to waste if you cantpull out and make available the pcrti-nent information in a useful and un-derstandable ormat.

he State of Tennessee as suc-cessfully implemented third-partyCPM scheduling on its major projects.The process proved to be a learningexperience for everyone involved Anumber of problems were addressedbefore CPM scheduling became auseful technique for managing theCOST ENGINEERING VoL 35lNo. 2 FEBRUARY I993 13

7/30/2019 16934

6/6

states Droiects. These Droblemswere-addressedn both the dkelopment andthe updating phasesof the schedulingPrOcesS.

process we are using to develop andupdate the schedule-still makes it ausefhl managementool in thesecases.Many of the contractorsare starting touse the scheduling process to theiradvantage. They have realized that ithelps them finish their projects quick-er. If the owner or designer s slowingthem down, they now have an easierway to prove it and take care of theproblem. It also gives them a bettertool to manage their subcontractors.This nonadversarialapproach o CPMscheduling has proven successful onover $155 &lion in projects to date.

For Construction. New York: JohnWiley and Sons.

For third-party CPM scheduling towork, it must be a team effort. Every-one must provide input. The schedul-er works closely with the general con-tractor, providing expertise necessaryto run what-if analysesand suggest-ing alternative courses of action toexplore. Shtie also lays all the cardson the table and identifies what andwho the problems are that might prevent finishing the project on time.They could be the owner, designer, orcontractor. The State of Tennesseewants its buildings on time, and itdoes not want to collect liquidateddamages.

Mueller, Fredrick Wm. 1986. n&grated Cost Ahd Schedule Con-trol For Construction Projects.New York: Van Nostrand Reinholdco., Inc.Terry FE Towceh&s a degree incivil engineeringfrom the Universityof Maine. He isemployed by FluorDaniel, Inc. and iscurrently assignedas con&w&on manager for the $141million new Charlotte ConventionCenter. He is a registered profes-

sional engineer, a certified projectmanagement professional, and a mem-ber of AXE. He is the author of anumber of articles on project manage-ment topics. For more information onthis article, contact the author at(704) 375-0585.

We have had mostly positivefeedback rom the contractors we haveworked with. There are some who arestill completely against the State ofTennesseebecoming involved in themanagementof their project. The

BibliographyBarrie, David S . and Boyd C. Paulson,Jr. 1984. Professional ConstructionManagement, 2nd ed. New York:McGraw-Hill, Inc.Davis, Gordon J. 1967. Keeping Proj-ect Costs In Line, Machine Design.Harris, Robert B. 1978. Precedenceand Arrow Networkiqg Techniques

Industrv March 15-l 7Phoenix, AZ April 19-21Ottawa, OntarioIrts April 21-23Ottawa, OntarioMarch 15-l 7New Orleans, LA April 19-21Denver, CO May 10-l 2Washqton, DC

To register, or for more information, call714-549-4773

or fax us at 714-549-0831

lRWAYNUE COSTA ESACAuFoANlA262ml4) 3494155