T H E J O U R N A L O F A A C E I N T E R N AT I O N A L | T H E A U T H O R I T Y F O R T O TA L C O S T M A N A G E M E N T

M A R CH/ APRIL 2019

Journey Map to a More

Mature Schedule Risk
Analysis (SRA) Process

ALSO:

Comparison of the AACE International and ASCE

Forensic Scheduling Consensus Documents

Liars and Schedules

Also included in this issue: Preliminary

CONFERENCE BROCHURE
The Top 10 Reasons
To Join AACE International
Ready to advance your career and begin enjoying the advantages
that our members enjoy? Whether you are an experienced cost
engineer or a student, we have a membership ready for you.

1 Time 6 Technical Development

Gain access to a wealth of resources that will save you time and
money! You’ll stay informed about the complexities of the cost and
management profession - plus you’ll have access to discounts on
educational programs, publications, and more!
Increase your knowledge and expertise by joining one of AACE
International’s many technical subcommittees, subcommittees, and
Special Interest Groups (SIG’s) at no additional cost to members.
Discuss industry problems with your peers or help experts develop new
and improved techniques and practices for the profession.

2 Information
Locate thousands of technical papers and publications in the Virtual
7 Networking
Library. AACE’s database is keyword searchable for quickly locating By attending a local section or our Annual Meeting for interesting
appropriate reference articles. speakers, informational tours, social dinners and much more. The
online Membership Directory is an excellent source for a list of contact
information on thousands of members. Join one of our many technical
3 Career subcommittees and participate in the AACE Forums - a great way
to tap into the collective wisdom and experience of our world-wide
Members can post resumes at no additional cost in our Career Center
membership.
and keep your career on track through information sources such
as our annual Salary and Demographic Survey of Project and Cost
Professionals.
8 Excellence
Our certification programs are independently accredited by the Council
4 Learning of Engineering & Scientific Specialty Boards. AACE certifications are a
recognized credible standard in the cost management field. A recent
We offer numerous online learning courses on estimating and project
study shows that individuals with an AACE Certification earn 17.4%
management. The Approved Educational Provider program helps
more than their counterpart without a certificate.
maintain high quality development courses and providers. AACE also
holds many seminars throughout the year.

9 Discounts
5 Resources On products and services ranging from AACE International Conference
& Expo registration fees, archived webinars and presentations,
Starting with the TCM Framework and Recommended Practices that
certification examination registrations, and more!
are available for free only to members to our bi-monthly publication
Cost Engineering featuring articles for cost professionals around the
world. Through the AACE International website, the Cost Engineering
journal is a great current resource for members and as a member, you
10 You!
gain access to an archive of past issues. We are your professional partner bringing you information and support
you can trust. Join and become part of a unique network of individuals
who are dedicated to improving the cost and management profession.

JOIN TODAY! web.aacei.org

CONTENTS
MA R CH/ APR I L 2019

TECHNICAL ARTICLES
8 Journey Map to a More
Mature Schedule Risk
Analysis (SRA) Process
DR. DAVID T. HULETT, FAACE

18 Comparison of the AACE

8 International and ASCE
Forensic Scheduling
Consensus Documents
MARK C. SANDERS, PE CCP CFCC PSP

26 Liars and Schedules

NELSON E. BONILLA, CCP FAACE

18
ALSO IN THIS ISSUE
3 AACE International Board of Directors
3 Cost Engineering Journal Information
4 Letter from the Editor
7 Special Feature: FAA Makes Major Drone ID Marking Change
33 Professional Services Directory
34 Calendar of Events
M A RC H/A PR IL 2 019

26
For additional industry news and updates,
you can always visit us at web.aacei.org.
1
 2018
COST ENGINEERING
Print Edition

ONLY
$39
A combined print version of all six issues plus shipping and handling
Click the Amazon button to

of the 2018 Cost Engineering journal, order through AACE!

AACE International’s peer reviewed

professional technical journal, are now Typically offered only in
digital PDF format as an
available for purchase in hard copy print AACE member benefit, this
format at Amazon.com. print edition is perfect for:
M A RC H/A P RIL 2 019

• personal resource collections

• corporate media rooms
If there in sufficient interest in the print version, plans are to offer • university libraries
a combined print edition at the end of each publication year. • engineering schools

2
 COSTENGINEERING
AACE INTERNATIONAL
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PRESIDENT
Dr. Alexia Nalewaik, CCP FAACE
president@aacei.org ESTABLISHED 1958 | Vol. 61, No. 2 March/April 2019

PRESIDENT-ELECT
Douglas W. Leo, CCP CEP FAACE Hon. Life MANAGING EDITOR Marvin Gelhausen
preselect@aacei.org mgelhausen@aacei.org
PAST PRESIDENT
Charles E. Bolyard, Jr. CFCC PSP FAACE GRAPHIC DESIGN Little Fish Design Company
pastpres@aacei.org info@littlefishdesigncompany.com

VICE PRESIDENT ADVERTISING SALES Cassie LoPiccolo

ADMINISTRATION
304.296.8444 Fax: 304.291.5728
Christopher P. Caddell, PE CCP DRMP
vpadmin@aacei.org clopiccolo@aacei.org

VICE PRESIDENT
FINANCE HEADQUARTERS
Patrick M. Kelly, PE PSP 1265 Suncrest Towne Centre Dr
vpfinance@aacei.org
Morgantown, WV 26505-1876
VICE PRESIDENT +1.304.296.8444 Fax: 304.291.5728
TECHNICAL BOARD web.aacei.org
Larry R. Dysert, CCP CEP DRMP
FAACE Hon. Life
vptechboard@aacei.org AACE® International - The Authority for Total Cost Management®
VICE PRESIDENT OUR VISION - To be the recognized technical authority in cost and schedule
EDUCATION BOARD management for programs, projects, products, assets, and services.
Peter W. Griesmyer, FAACE
vpedboard@aacei.org OUR MISSION - The members of AACE® enable organizations around the
world to achieve their investment expectations by managing and controlling
VICE PRESIDENT
CERTIFICATION BOARD projects, programs, and portfolios; we create value by advancing technical
Brian Evans, DRMP EVP PSP knowledge and professional development.
vpcertboard@aacei.org
Cost Engineering (ISSN: 0274-9696/19) is published digitally on a bi-monthly production schedule by AACE International,
Inc, 1265 Suncrest Towne Centre Dr, Morgantown, WV 26505 USA. Copyright © 2019 by AACE International, Inc., All rights
VICE PRESIDENT reserved. This publication or any part thereof may not be reproduced in any form without written permission from the
NORTH AMERICAN REGIONS publisher. Access to the bi-monthly Cost Engineering journal digital files is a benefit of AACE International membership
Les McMullan, FAACE and requires a member login and password. There is no subscription service for the Cost Engineering journal other than
vpregions-na@aacei.org AACE membership. Digital access is on an individual use basis and not available on any group access basis. AACE assumes
no responsibility for statements and opinions advanced by the contributors to its publications. Views expressed by them or
VICE PRESIDENT the editor do not necessarily represent the official position of Cost Engineering, its staff, or AACE International, Inc. Cost
Engineering is a refereed journal. All technical articles are subject to a review by the AACE International Cost Engineering
INTERNATIONAL REGIONS Journal Review Committee. Abstracts are only accepted in our annual AACE “Call for Papers” for our Conference & Expo.
Mohammed Rafiuddin, CCP PSP Accepted abstracts must be followed up with a full approved manuscript that is presented and attendee evaluated at
vpregions-intl@aacei.org one of our Conference & Expo events. Top rated manuscripts will be considered for publication in the Cost Engineering
journal. Any unsolicited abstracts received at other times throughout a year will receive e-mail notice to submit in our next
VICE PRESIDENT “Call for Papers.” PHOTOCOPY PERMISSION: Authorization to photocopy articles herein for internal or personal use, or
MARKETING BOARD the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by AACE International, Inc., provided that the base fee of US$4.00
is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 USA. Telephone: 978.750.8400. The
John Blodgett
fee code for users of the transactional reporting service is ISSN-0274-9696/02 US$4.00. Payment should be sent directly to
vpmktboard@aacei.org CCC. Copying for other than personal or internal reference use without the express permission of AACE is prohibited. E-mail
requests for photocopy permission to editor@aacei.org. ADVERTISING COPY: Contact Cassie LoPiccolo, 1265 Suncrest
VICE PRESIDENT Towne Centre Dr., Morgantown, WV 26505-1876. Telephone: 304.296.8444, extension 1122. E-mail: clopiccolo@aacei.com for
MEMBERSHIP BOARD rates. Advertisers and advertising agencies assume liability for all content (including text, representation, and illustrations)
Mark von Leffern, EVP PSP of advertisements published and also assume responsibility for any claims arising and made against the publisher. The
vpmemboard@aacei.org publisher reserves the right to reject any advertising that is not considered in keeping with the publication’s mission
and standards. The publisher reserves the right to place the words “advertisement” with copy which, in the publisher’s
opinion, resembles editorial matter. All advertising accepted for publication in Cost Engineering is limited to subjects that
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR directly relate to the cost management profession. Current rate card available on request. COST ENGINEERING DEADLINES:
Charity A. Quick, MBA CIA CCT Submissions for Cost Engineering must be received at least 8 weeks in advance of the issue date. Send to: Editor, 1265
cgolden@aacei.org
M A RC H/A PR IL 2 019

Suncrest Towne Centre Dr, Morgantown, WV 26505-1876 USA. Deadlines do not apply to technical papers.

Policy Concerning Published Columns, Features, and Articles

Viewpoints expressed in columns, features, and articles published in Cost Engineering journal are solely those of the au-
LEARN MORE AT: thors and do not represent an official position of AACE International. AACE International is not endorsing or sponsoring the
web.aacei.org/about-aace/structure author’s work. All content is presented solely for informational purposes. Columns, features, and articles not designated as
Technical Articles are not subject to the peer-review process.

3
 LETTER FROM THE

EDITOR
Building a Technical Article,
A New CE Feature
BY MANAGING EDITOR MARVIN GELHAUSEN

With this issue of the Cost Engineering journal, TECHNICAL ARTICLE ONE:
Page 8
we are premiering a new feature, “How to Build a
Technical Article.” The goal is to provide you, our Journey-Map to a More Mature Schedule Risk
readers, with insights on the takeaways that the Analysis (SRA) Process, by Dr. David T. Hulett,
author of each technical article intends for you to get FAACE. This article was first presented as
RISK.2890 at the 2018 AACE Conference &
by reading their article. For potential new authors,
Expo. Hulett says the takeaways he wants
the goal is to share insight and tips from these readers to get are that there are more capable
M A RC H/A P RIL 2 019

established AACE authors on how to select a topic
and why to submit a potential new technical paper
in our annual Call for Papers. Featured in this the
March/April 2019 Cost Engineering journal:
4
and sophisticated Schedule Risk Analysis (SRA) capabilities to aspire to
and he hopes each reader will ask and consider what is their risk analysis
maturity level.
In considering what topic to base his article on, Hulett notes that
a consulting client wanted to know about the maturity level of their
risk analysis system. “They said I could use it for a broader audience,”
 notes Hulett and so he had the Forensic Schedule Analysis, with
foundation for drafting a new “Becoming a good speaker the American Society of Civil
technical article. Engineering (ASCE) Standard 67-
Hulett had also completed on a professional topic with 17, Schedule Delay Analysis.
a risk management maturity In deciding to compare
exercise for Petronas, the other professionals in the room these two consensus documents
Malaysian National Oil Company, from two associations, Sanders
so he had some experience with is good training for business. decision was based on his prior
pulling together a report on the work and involvement with
maturity level of a customer’s risk It helps your networking at both associations during the
analysis system. As he started creation phase of developing the
pulling together the draft of his the conference if you have two documents. “After working
technical paper, he came up with on both the AACE and ASCE
the term “Journey-map” from a something to say about a forensic scheduling documents,
paper he and a coauthor wrote on I wanted to highlight the
that subject for a PMI Asia-Pacific presentattion you are going value of participating in both
conference in 2008. processes and the importance of
Hulett believes risk analysis to give, and people look up professionals working together to
is currently a hotter topic than create and publish peer-reviewed
it was 5 – 10 years ago. He says to you when they see your consensus practices. I also wanted
many organizations are adopting to share some very specific
this as a standard. He notes that name on the program.” comparisons between the two
industries such as those in oil documents as I thought that there
and gas, aerospace and defense, DR. DAVID T. HULETT, FAACE was far more agreement than
and government agencies are disagreement between the views
using this capability. He says, of the two committees.”
“A reader can decide what capabilities they want, particularly for large Sander’s presentation and technical article are thus more general and
complex projects.” He believes “there is not enough detail given to “do it not related to a specific project connected to his day to day work and
yourself” in this article.” However, for additional references on this topic, employment duties. This article was developed based upon his volunteer
he refers readers to the books and other papers he has written, including activities and networking with AACE and ASCE. The main takeaway he
those he has done for AACE. is trying to get you the reader to gain from spending time with this article
Hulett explains that he generally gives five or six presentations per year, and reviewing the comparison appendix is to, “encourage more people to
so if you multiply this by the 20 years he has been doing this, you will see get involved in the development of consensus documents.” Sanders notes,
that he is an established author and presenter with AACE and with other “It is very hard work to build consensus on complex technical subjects.
associations and conferences. “I have had probably four articles published However, participation from dedicated professionals on these projects is
in Cost Engineering before this one,” adds Hulett. Readers can visit the one of the best ways to improve practices across a field.”
AACE Virtual Library where an advanced search by the author’s name will The author believes that schedule analysis continues to be a trending
pull up 16 prior documents. topic in the industry. He says, “practices that have evolved relatively
“The opportunity to get your thoughts together is valuable,” explains recently are quickly spreading around the world. There are some
Hulett in commenting on why others should consider presenting an practices that we have dismissed as outdated in the U.S. that I have seen
abstract in the annual Call for Papers. He adds, “The experience of writing gaining new traction in other countries. Bringing more people into the
the paper is valuable as well. Becoming a good speaker on a professional discussion of schedule analysis practices will improve those practices
topic with other professionals in the room is good training for business. around the world.”
It helps your networking at the conference if you have something to say Like Hulett, Sanders is an established AACE author and presenter. “I
about a presentation you are going to give, and people look up to you attended my first AACE Annual Meeting in 2003. I have presented 15
when they see your name on the program.” papers at conferences over the years. I haven’t been able to attend every
year, but I have attended most years as I think it is the most valuable
TECHNICAL ARTICLE TWO: conference in the world for people that are involved in the management
Page 18 of infrastructure engineering and construction.” Registration is open for
the 2019 AACE Conference & Expo that will be June 16-19 at the Sheraton
Comparison of the AACE International and ASCE New Orleans, New Orleans, LA. Information is available at: https://web.
Forensic Scheduling Consensus Documents, was aacei.org/conferences-events/2019ConEx.
first presented at the 2018 AACE Conference For AACE members and/or nonmembers who have not submitted an
& Expo by Mark C. Sanders, PE CCP CFCC abstract and technical paper during the AACE “Call for Papers” for the
M A RC H/A PR IL 2 019

PSP, as CDR.2845. The CDR tag references
the Claims Dispute Resolution category, one
of 14 categories of technical presentations featured at AACE’s premiere
conference. Sander’s presentation was first listed as CDR.2845. An added
feature of this article is that a link is provided to an appendix document
in which Sanders compares AACE Recommended Practice 29R-03,
next AACE Conference & Expo, Sanders advice is to, “Get involved.” He
explains, “We always need new people participating.” To get started he
advises potential authors to do a literature review using the AACE virtual
library to understand what other people have already written on a topic.
Once an abstract and paper is accepted, Sanders said new presenters
should, “Share and practice your presentation with friends and colleagues
5
 and let them give you advice on how to make it better.” A search of the
AACE Virtual Library will pull up 19 documents, which includes five prior
Cost Engineering journal articles.
When Sanders isn’t busy at work, doing volunteer projects with AACE
and/or ASCE, he says he has, “been an avid rugby player since college,
and I still get out on the pitch a few times a year. It’s hard to make time for
activities while managing work and kids, but I think it’s a very important
thing to do to stay in good spirits. Watching my kids run around always
makes me want to get out and play with the old boys. There are few
feelings better than making a great play in a game with friends.”
TECHNICAL ARTICLE THREE:
Page 26
With a catchy, short title, Liars and Schedules,
Nelson E. Bonilla, CCP FAACE, a past president
of AACE, first delivered his presentation as
PS.2816 at the 2018 Conference & Expo. Bonilla
says his topic was selected and influenced
by a desire to, “share with my professional
colleagues one of those “defining” moments of my career. It was
during a presentation of the project baseline schedule, when the client
representative interrupted the review with the statement: “Nelson, I have
seen as many liars as schedules.” Bonilla says, “It was a defining moment,
as the client representative statement was not a question, but rather a call
for action into what I would do as lead project controls during project
execution to make certain the project baseline was met.”
“As planners/schedulers our duty is to be active participants in the
project and to work with the team to ensure delivery of the project to the
committed dates,” explains Bonilla. His article is based on a past project.
However, he adds, “I also wanted to tie a real project experience to AACE’s
Recommended Practices.”
In explaining the takeaways, he wants you the reader to get
from his article, Bonilla says, “Our role as project controls is not
merely as observers/reporters for a project, but instead are active
participants in the successful execution of it.” He adds, “Software is a
tool to help us get information. Our real job is to use the information
for analysis and to actively engage stakeholders to deliver on their
commitments. When delays
occur in a project, promptly work
with the team to develop work “AACE’s Recommended
arounds to assure the committed
end date is met.” Practices are the
Bonilla adds, “It is
unfortunate that we continue fundamentals that must be
to see projects late and over
budget, when it is known effectively applied to avoid
that most project execution
problems are the result of the disastrous results we see
poor application of project
execution fundamentals. AACE’s in many projects. My wish for
Recommended Practices are
the fundamentals that must the article is to create for the
be effectively applied to avoid
reader ‘a defining moment’ in
M A RC H/A P RIL 2 019
within his article apply to all industries. But to be specific, he says, “I
have applied them to petrochemical, power, infrastructure, mining,
telecommunications, biotechnology and industrial projects.” He
concludes, “My wish for the article is to create for the reader ‘a
defining moment’ in their professional career.”
Bonilla explains that he has been an AACE member for 40 years and
actively involved with the AACE Conference & Expo, for most of those
years. Like the other two authors featured in this issue, Bonilla too is an
established author/presenter. “As far as ball park figures of presentations,
I would say about 40 presentations and 10 written papers for AACE
and other professional associations,” noted Bonilla. He has three prior
Transaction papers posted at the AACE Virtual Library from 1992, 2006
and 2018.
To a potential author, Bonilla encourages him/her to write. He says,
“To help him/her I would suggest:
Define: Is there a professional issue that I am passionate about?
Research: Has the subject been previously discussed?
Deliberate: What would be my contribution to the profession?
Conceptualize: Develop a proposed outline, review it and update
it as needed.
Develop: Write and rewrite.
Review: You and subject matter experts, modify as needed.
Review: Volunteer non-subject matter experts. They give you
excellent feedback for clarity.
Submit: Do not wait until last minute
Prepare: For the presentation, display your passion on the subject
and enthusiasm. Be yourself.”
As far as selecting a topic, Bonilla notes that there are multiple subjects
and topics that every cost/schedule professional face daily. He says, “Your
approaches to problem solving is of interest to many individuals, who will
learn from your experiences.”
Bonilla recently retired from Fluor after 30 years with the organization
and a very rewarding career that took him to many projects and locations
around the world. “I am gratified that Fluor afforded me extraordinary
opportunities and provided the best training one could wish for project
controls, project management and soft skills needed for career success.
At Fluor, I learned from many
industry giants and I continue
to share those lessons with
professionals worldwide.”
As far as hobbies, Bonilla
says he will continue to add to
his hiking experiences. “For this
year, 2019, I will do the ‘Camino
de Santiago,’ the Portuguese route.
I will hike 12 days from Porto,
Portugal to Santiago de Compostela,
Spain.” To wrap things up, he says,
“As far as my family, I am proud to
say that two of my children work
in the engineering and construction
industry and both are members

the disastrous results we see of AACE. They visited me at many

in many projects.” He says, work locations around the globe
the project control/project their professional career.” which I am sure enriched their
management practices included life experiences.”
DR. DAVID T. HULETT, FAACE

6

FAA Makes Major Drone ID Marking Change
For the past few months, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has
been hinting at the possibility that drone markings’ specifications will
have to be modified in order to satisfy law enforcement concerns regarding
visibility and accessibility to said markings. The FAA has published a rule
in the Federal Register requiring small drone owners to display the FAA-
issued registration number on an outside surface of the aircraft.
Owners and operators may no longer place or write registration
numbers in an interior compartment. The rule is effective on February 23.
The markings must be in place for any flight after that date. This interim
final rule does not change the original acceptable methods of external
marking, nor does it specify a particular external surface on which the
registration number must be placed. The requirement is that it can be seen
upon visual inspection of the aircraft’s exterior.
When the FAA first required registration of small drones in 2015, the
agency mandated that the registration marking should be readily accessible
and maintained in readable condition. The rule granted some flexibility by
permitting the marking to be placed in an enclosed compartment, such as a
battery case, if it could be accessed without the use of tools.
Subsequently, law enforcement officials and the FAA’s interagency
security partners have expressed concerns about the risk a concealed
explosive device might pose to first responders upon opening a
compartment to find a drone’s registration number. The FAA believes this
action will enhance safety and security by allowing a person to view the
unique identifier directly without handling the drone.
The FAA has issued this requirement as an Interim Final Rule — a rule
that takes effect while also inviting public comment. The FAA issues interim
final rules when delaying implementation of the rule would be impractical,
SPECIAL FEATURE
BY JUAN PLAZA
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. In this case, the agency has
determined the importance of mitigating the risk to first responders outweighs
the minimal inconvenience this change may impose on small drone owners
and justifies implementation without a prior public comment period.
The FAA will consider comments from the public on this Interim Final
Rule, and will then review any submissions to determine if the provisions
of the ultimate Final Rule should be changed. The 30-day comment period
will end on March 15, 2019. To submit comments, go to http://www.
regulations.gov and search for “RIN 2120-AL32.”
As Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao announced last month, today the
FAA also posted proposed new rules to let drones fly routinely at night and
over people, and to further integrate them safely into the nation’s airspace. The
comment period for these proposals begins tomorrow and will end April 15.
All these movements around drone rules and extensions to the original
Part 107 seem to indicate that the regulator is preparing the industry for a
more comprehensive set of laws that would allow for the full integration of
manned and unmanned aircraft in controlled airspace. We are still a few years
away from full integration but the steady pace of changes and relaxation of
certain regulations in Europe and the USA is a welcome development.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
M A RC H/A PR IL 2 019
Juan Plaza received a degree in Geodesy and a master’s degree in digital
photogrammetry from Universidad Central de Venezuela and a MBA in
international finance from Florida International University. He has over 750 hours
of experience in photogrammetry navigation and camera operation in aircraft and
holds a Commercial, Multi-engine Pilot certificate. He is the CEO of Juan B Plaza
Consulting, a services’ firm specializing in UAV and general aviation issues.
7
 Journey Map
to a More
Mature Schedule
Risk Analysis
(SRA) Process
BY DR. DAVID T. HULETT, FAACE

ABSTRACT
Organizations vary in their appreciation of the potential
impact of the risks that could affect their achieving time
and cost goals while completing the project’s scope. This
article lays out a risk analysis maturity model that allows
organizations to determine: (1) where they are today
on the scale from “not aware” to “advanced integrated
cost-schedule risk analysis” and (2) where they want to
be, what is their optimal level of risk analysis maturity.
The levels of maturity are described along with their
benefits and properties including tools and outputs that
distinguish them from other maturity levels. [For a brief
discussion of cost risk maturity, see 13, p. 210]. This article
does not mandate that organizations strive to achieve
full advanced cost-schedule integration methods and
M A RC H/A P RIL 2 019

tools (level 5) unless that is desired. Often some projects

will require more or less risk analysis maturity depending
on size, complexity, type of project or other criteria. This
article was first presented as RISK.2890 at the 2018 AACE
International Conference & Expo.
8
INTRODUCTION
Advancing the maturity level of an organization’s Schedule Risk Analysis
(SRA) process is the responsibility of both the organization’s leadership
that instill the risk aware culture and individual employees who implement
and participate in it.
ORGANIZATIONAL SRA MATURITY
The organization needs to assess its current risk-aware corporate maturity
and then set goals to become more risk analysis-mature if desired. Those
actions are key success factors for risk analysis and management maturity.
Risk-aware leadership demonstrates needing information about project risk,
the “good, bad and ugly” of projects to be more successful in managing all
three. The organization’s leadership should demonstrate that it needs the
results of the SRA to make decisions. Also, the risk-mature leadership does
not tolerate actions or attitudes that punish, impede bias or prohibit the
discussion of potential threats to the program’s finishing date.
INDIVIDUAL SRA MATURITY
Risk analysis progression can be described as a graduated set of steps
of greater SRA maturity. The journey toward the highest levels of risk
analysis maturity requires a risk-oriented awareness, as well as specific
risk analysis and supporting skills. It is a multi-attribute process
that includes personal attitudes, understanding of more modern and
sophisticated methods and where they apply, getting the right training
for the maturity level to be achieved, having available and learning the
right tools and gaining the practice and experience needed to bring it all
together in an integrated process. Some of the tools and capabilities are
directly related to schedule risk analysis while others are key capabilities
and tools that perform supporting roles such as project scheduling or data
gathering by risk workshops or confidential interviews. As well as the risk
analysis skills described below the well-rounded risk-mature individual
should master all of the supporting skills that are needed for the current
and higher-level maturity. This article does not cover some advanced risk
analysis features, such as probabilistic branching or probabilistic calendars.
It is focused on the basic differences between maturity levels, the way risk
to activity duration (and to cost at maturity level 5) is handled at each
level, and the benefits and weaknesses at each level.
SEEKING RISK ANALYSIS MATURITY –
WHERE ARE YOU COMFORTABLE?
Not all organizations need to achieve the highest level of risk analysis
maturity, though the lowest levels should be soon left behind in favor of
methods that follow recognized principles and provide management with
actionable information on project risk that will contribute to decision making.
The lowest levels of risk analysis can be implemented without
specialized tools and training, although there are software tools that may
help the application of, say, qualitative risk analysis (level 2 as indicated
in Figure 1). The highest maturity levels, those involving quantitative risk
analysis, require specialized tools that implement Monte Carlo simulation,
with training and gaining experience in skills that some organizations do
not have at the outset of the risk analysis journey toward higher maturity.
The journey-map shown in Figure 1 will give some organizations a
place to be comfortable in practicing risk analysis on projects. They may
choose to practice different levels of maturity on different classes (e.g.,
sizes) of projects. Their choice should also take into consideration the
desires of the owner or customer who might need more assurance than
the contractor. Every organization, except the most risk mature, will find a
description of the next highest aspirational step.
Participating in the organization’s SRA process is the responsibility
of most people assigned to the project’s concept, design, execution,
commissioning and control. Others that bear the responsibility include
those in health-safety-security-environment, regulatory compliance, legal,
financial, strategic planning and other areas. Individual employees who
implement and participate in the risk analysis and management process
may be specifically assigned risk analysis activities, but all can contribute
from their experience and observations.
THE STEP-WISE JOURNEY OF SCHEDULE RISK ANALYSIS
PRACTITIONERS
The steps in order of increasing risk analysis maturity can be called by
various names, but these six describe the path the fully mature SRA
professional-practitioner will probably follow:
0 Unaware of Schedule Risk Issues
1 Risk Awareness
2 Qualitative Risk Analysis
3 Basic Quantitative Schedule Risk Analysis (traditional,
activity range estimating)
4 Modern Quantitative Schedule Risk Analysis
(modern, Risk Drivers Method)
5 Advanced Integrated Cost-Schedule Risk Analysis
(using the Joint Confidence Level Method)
Starting with level 2, these are the skills in order of their awareness and
tool development for the profession as a whole. Some in the SRA profession
have not progressed beyond levels 2 or 3, but the profession has done so.
CONTRIBUTORS TO ACHIEVING THE NEXT LEVEL INCLUDE:
• Participate in appropriate training in project risk concepts and
analysis (concepts familiarity)
• Learn the risk analysis software as needed to participate in the next
level (tools proficiency)
• Performing risk analyses mentored by those more “risk mature”
(serving apprenticeship)
• Performing risk analyses as leader of the analysis team (displaying
capability and leadership)
• Supervising others less “risk mature” (sharing with others)
• Creating an organization-wide database of past projects with their
characteristics and performance results, normalized to reflect
overruns experienced from schedules promoted at the sanction step.
The database will have the benefit of providing an “outside view”
against which to measure the results from quantitative risk analysis
PICTORIAL VIEW OF THE RISK ANALYSIS MATURITY LEVELS
Each level of risk analysis maturity, except level 5, has a successively more
mature level:
M A RC H/A PR IL 2 019
FIGURE 1 Risk Analysis Maturity Levels
9
 Level 0: Unaware of Cost or
Schedule Risk
The project manager and teams rely on the project scheduling software
to provide dates for key milestones and project completion. Nobody
questions the duration inputs or the computed project finish date and
other results of that exercise. Project management fails to question project
assumptions underlying the schedule.
DISTINGUISHING FEATURES AT LEVEL 0
• Individuals rely entirely on the results, specifically the milestone
and project finish dates that result from running project scheduling
software. They defend those dates.
• Individuals are not alert to any threat to achieving the finish date
produced by the schedule.
• They deny and/or refuse to discuss any items that might put the
schedule in jeopardy.
• When faced with contrary results from other projects risk-unaware
individuals will claim “this project is different” or “it won’t happen on
my project.”
• Project management and leaders claim that they “know how to
manage” even if their past performance on projects included
overruns in the schedule.
WEAKNESSES AT LEVEL 0
The organization may attempt to rely on and support the schedule software’s
result long after it becomes obvious the project is not performing to those
dates. Risks are not addressed so they may happen when they could be avoided
or their impact on the schedule may be larger than necessary. Surprises and
“firefighting” responses after the risk occurs are common at this level of maturity.
Level 1: Basic Risk Awareness
This level indicates awareness of project risk as something to consider
when reviewing on or reporting using the project scheduling software’s
calculated finish date to determine when the project may finish. It
represents opening people’s eyes to the benefits of probabilistic thinking
about projects without necessarily being able to conduct organized risk
analysis or recognizing that there are processes and tools to help them.
DISTINGUISHING FEATURES AT LEVEL 1
This level is characterized by the lack of a systematic way to think about risks.
Risk may be discussed frequently and decisions may take account of the risk
posed by alternatives, but the influence of risk is not analyzed or universally
required before decisions are made. Many organizations perform informal
risk management in this way without benefitting from the use of systematic
methodologies available today. The success or failure to address risk depends
on the intelligence and awareness level of organizational management.
Individuals at this maturity level show awareness about activity
duration uncertainty and exhibit willingness to examine assumptions
that underlie the schedule. These attitudes imply that the organization is
questioning the deterministic scheduling results without necessarily having
the tools or systems to examine the role of risks and uncertainty directly.
At this basic level of risk maturity is awareness that the schedule is
M A RC H/A P RIL 2 019
only correct when the durations are known with certainty and things go
according to plan. The organization realizes that “go according to plan”
occurs infrequently and that to improve on the deterministic plan requires
recognizing and dealing with risks to the activity durations. The risk aware
organization may realize that it does not know the finish date just by
looking at the results of even the most sophisticated scheduling software
10
tool, but it has no organized structure or tools to help it proceed beyond
this awareness.
CAPABILITIES REQUIRED AT LEVEL 1
The main tools are awareness at the top of the organization that project
schedule cannot be assured. Project team meetings are conducted to
discuss the project’s prospects of finishing on time. Any risk management
at this level relies exclusively on management’s experience and ad-hoc
approaches that are discussed in various project or team meetings.
The ability to think and talk freely and candidly about uncertainty that
could affect the schedule durations and the view of whether the schedule
is realistic may be found. The organization will probably need to address
and enhance the ability to identify and combat barriers to free and open
discussion of risks that could affect the schedule.
Individuals could look at the project in light of the results of actual
projects with similar outcomes to consider what to expect. This approach
has been called the “outside view” following Daniel Kahneman [7, 10].
BENEFITS / STRENGTHS AT LEVEL 1
If a project schedule has been developed the risk team may recognize whether
the activity durations have been biased, usually to produce an earlier finish
date, by forces such as management mandates, customer or competitive
pressure, etc. If scheduling bias is discovered the schedule may be re-baselined.
To achieve this level of SRA maturity individuals need to adopt a way
of thinking probabilistically about finish dates that may differ from the
deterministic way they were taught or became accustomed to while in their
prior experience. This attitude about risk affecting schedule milestone
dates may require practice. It will certainty require management’s
reinforcement by the organizations risk culture.
WEAKNESSES AT LEVEL 1
Since the risks are not addressed in an organized way, some important
risks may be overlooked. Even with the risks that have been identified
they may not be the root causes of schedule variability. This level lacks
an organized way of calculating how individual risks affect the schedule
through the probability, impact if it occurs, the activities they affect and the
complex logical relationships that cause the risk to affect the risk-critical
paths and hence the finish date. While a risk may seem to be important
it may not be the most important, and at level 1 there is no mechanism
to prioritize the risks to determine which to address first. At level 1
addressing risks is ad hoc and therefore may be quite inefficient.
Level 2: Qualitative Risk
Analysis Maturity
This level of maturity represents examining project risk to schedule (and
to other objectives such as cost, quality and scope) using qualitative
methods that lead to developing a project risk register [4, 17, 18].
DISTINGUISHING FEATURES AT LEVEL 2
Qualitative risk analysis is often viewed as a low-cost and easily-
understood but organized method of addressing project risks. Maturity at
level 2 may be sufficient for some projects or some organizations. Many
organizations manage project risk including risk handling using the risk
register that includes scoring risks as high, moderate and low importance
to the project objective being examined.
CAPABILITIES REQUIRED AT LEVEL 2
Included in this group of capabilities to be reinforced are:
• Ability to identify and name project risks
by the sentence structure of “cause (a fact)
leads to something that may happen (the
risk) that has consequences (the impact).”
This structure helps the organization focus
on the uncertainty that may happen rather
than confuse it with the cause that is a fact
or the effect that is the result or symptom of
the risk projected on the project.
• Ability to understand a risk’s probability as
the concept that a risk will happen to the
extent of affecting the project finish date to
a greater or lesser degree, in other words
“uncertainty that matters.”
• Ability to estimate within a range the effects
of a risk’s occurring on the project finish FIGURE 2 Typical Risk Breakdown Structure
date (and other objective such as cost,
quality and scope).
• Ability to participate in or even lead a risk
workshop to help identify and estimate the
probability and impact parameters.
• Qualitative risk functionality leads to the
ability to create and maintain a Project Risk
Register. Done well, the risk register helps
management identify and handle effectively
individual risks.
• There are some software tools that support
risk register development but standard
spreadsheet tools are often used effectively.

Qualitative risk analysis has benefits of

being simple and easily complied with. A useful
tool to identify the risks is the Risk Breakdown
Structure (RBS), a generalized example, [See
17, 18 for other examples] to be tailored to
the specific project before being used in risk FIGURE 3 Typical Definitions of Impact
identification, is shown in Figure 2. The RBS
should help the organization to realize that the
causes of risks come from many directions. Risk
identification should address technical risk but
also risk arising from external, organizational
and even project management sources.
The impact of risks on the total project objective
selected must be defined for the qualitative risk
exercise by project management. This permits the
assessment of risks’ impact to be assessed using
compatible measures so the risks’ importance can
be assessed relative to each other. An example of FIGURE 4 Classifying Risk by Their Probability and Impact
the definitions of impact at five levels from very
low to very high and for four different objectives is project at hand. Risks should be evaluated separately for their impact on
shown in Figure 3. [See 4, 17, 18 for other examples]. These definitions need time, cost and quality. Quite frequently projects emphasize either schedule
to be scaled appropriately for the project at hand. These definitions should be (“schedule driven”) or cost (“cost driven”). Risks may be more important
tailored to the specific project (e.g., planned overall duration and cost), and for the project depending on which objective is affected. A simple
the organization’s risk tolerance for a specific project. The example in Figure 3 probability and impact (PxI) matrix for both threats and opportunities
M A RC H/A PR IL 2 019

should be tailored to the project as well as to the organization’s risk tolerance.
The project manager needs to determine which combinations of
probability and impact warrant a “red,” yellow” or “green condition as
shown in Figure 4. The zones of the probability and impact matrix that
are designated as low, moderate or high risk needs to be established by
management in view of the definitions established and the specifics of the
is shown in Figure 4. [See 17, 18 for other examples]. The ranges of
probability and impact that qualify as red, yellow and green need to be
consistent with the probability and impact range definitions such as those
in Figure 3. The combinations of probability and impact that show as red
in the red-yellow-green scheme are viewed as the most important and serve
as the Attention Arrow, coined by David Hillson [9].
11
 BENEFITS / STRENGTHS AT LEVEL 2
Handling risk at maturity level 2 is often enough for many projects.
The smaller, shorter-duration, lower-cost projects that do not affect the
commitments or reputation of the organization might be handled with the
development and maintenance of a risk register.
The risk register can also record the mitigation of risks and their
assessed improvement in lowering the probability, reducing the impact,
or both. More elaborate risk register approaches will display the timing
of the mitigation and a waterfall of planned improvement in the outlook
associated with that risk.
WEAKNESSES AT LEVEL 2
There are limitations to this method of handling project risks:
• It does not provide an estimate of the probability that the scheduled
finish date will be overrun or the amount of contingency that should
be added to the schedule to provide a desired level of certainty. This
is because: (a) each risk is assessed independently and the risks
are not analyzed simultaneously as if they may occur, with their
probabilities, on the project, and (b) the risks are not analyzed
within the framework of the project schedule so the analysis does not
account for the structure of the strategic project plan.
• Gauging the impact of a risk on the finish date, which is required
for the PxI matrix, implies a basic understanding of which activities
within the project schedule are affected by the risk, whether it is on a
risk critical path or not, and its effect given that uncertainty and other
risks are also potentially at work. In practice, thinking this deeply
and in this much detail during the risk data collection phase is hardly
ever done, in part because it is so difficult. This analysis is particularly
difficult without the benefit of the project schedule as a framework for
cause-effect analysis.
• Risks are often identified and calibrated in risk workshops. Risk
workshops often omit or avoid some of the most important risks that
are known but not talked about, called the “unknown knowns” [21].
Hence, the risk registers often omit some of the most important but
embarrassing risks.
• Some people put numbers 1-to-5 to the probability and impact
ranges and then treat these numbers as if they were cardinal values
to be multiplied together to
determine the red-yellow-green
shading of the cells in the PxI
matrix. (This is called “semi-
quantitative” analysis in some
risk management standards.)
Handling these probability
or impact levels as cardinal
numbers that can be added,
multiplied, or otherwise
numerically compared is a
fallacy. In fact, the impact
ranges are ordinal so that high
impact (4) is higher than low
impact (2) but not necessarily
twice as bad – just relatively
M A RC H/A P RIL 2 019
Level 3: Basic Quantitative
Schedule Risk Analysis Maturity
Maturity level 3 recognizes that project schedule success is affected by
uncertainty of the estimated durations of the activities in the project
schedule and can be analyzed statistically by applying Monte Carlo
simulation (MCS) with specialized but available software.
DISTINGUISHING FEATURES AT LEVEL 3
At maturity level 3, possible fluctuations of activity durations from planned
is represented by applying, directly to the activity durations individually,
probability distributions, typically described with a 3-point estimate of
possible days representing minimum (low, optimistic), most likely, and
maximum (high, pessimistic) days. The 3-point impact is assessed for
the activity durations, often using workshops or interviews of the activity
leaders. At this level, the 3-point estimate represents the influence of all
risks and uncertainty that would cause the activity’s duration to fluctuate.
Probability distributions such as those shown in Figure 5 are used. The
schedule model is computed or “iterated” many times using specialized
Monte Carlo software that imports a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule
from scheduling software. Each iteration of the schedule produces a finish
date (and other schedule data) for the project that is consistent with the
CPM logic and the activity durations chosen at random for the duration of
each uncertain activity for that iteration.
The results are shown by a histogram and cumulative distribution of
possible finish dates consistent with the assumptions applied as shown in
Figure 6.
CAPABILITIES REQUIRED AT LEVEL 3
Skills required at this level of maturity include an ability to understand and
assess the quality of the project schedule used in the analysis. Many mature
SRA practitioners have become competent in project scheduling including
the theory and concepts, as well as learning the scheduling software
available of necessity, since many schedules do not comply with best
practices. This means becoming familiar with scheduling best practices [8].
Activity duration ranges are collected from project participants in
interviews or in workshops. Individuals can provide 3-point estimates
from their own analyses and experiences on past projects.

higher. These numbers cannot

be added, multiplied, divided
or otherwise mathematically
manipulated.

FIGURE 5 Probability Distributions Commonly Used at Maturity Level 3

12
 Practitioners at this level of maturity need to understand the contingency is recognized as a recommended practice [1] and maturity Level
fundamentals of probability and of Monte Carlo simulation software at 3 is incompatible with that practice because it does not identify specific risks
a conceptual and intuitive level. Happily, the mathematics and statistics that would drive the result.
required are provided by the software.
Most Monte Carlo software built to simulate schedules until the late • While the analyst responsible for any activity may list one or more risks
1990s uses this method which applies activity variability distributions as being considered when specifying the probability distribution for that
directly to activities’ durations without specifying the risks that could activity’s duration, the distribution consolidates all such risks as applied
cause that variability. This method is still used today by many risk analysts to that activity’s duration. The individual impact of each risk cannot be
at this maturity level. distinguished because they are all combined into one distribution.
• Risks can impact several or many activities in the project schedule.
BENEFITS/STRENGTHS AT LEVEL 3 Placing impact distributions on each activity independent of the risks’
Applying probability distributions directly to the activity durations (or cost impact also on other activities masks the fact that variations may be
line items) has the benefit that it facilitates Monte Carlo simulations and correlated to other activities affected by the same risk, so the method
provides assessments of the project finish date using the project schedule. cannot represent the total impact of most risks.
The use of the schedule platform avoids some of the weaknesses of level 2 • The risks cannot be prioritized since they are not individually
qualitative/risk register analysis because it substitutes the project plan’s identifiable and used as drivers of the simulation. Risk prioritization
logical relationships and the calculations of the results based on that schedule using tornado charts at level 3 is based on correlation of the activities,
using Monte Carlo simulation software instead of the human brain’s attempt rather than risks, with the finish date. Hence, activities can be
to calibrate the impact of the risk register risk on the project completion date. prioritized but the risks themselves cannot be prioritized at level 3.
It also provides a probability distribution of the possible finish date of the • Sometimes the analyst specifies correlation between activity
project, see Figure 6, that was not available at maturity level 2. durations. However, individuals are particularly ill-equipped to
The methods at level 3 use the project schedule that is a comprehensive specify these correlations directly, having little information or
tool describing the project plan. This platform can handle project risk that experience on which to base the size of these coefficients. The effect
affects different paths through the schedule consistent with the logic of of correlation can impact the projected finish date and probability of
the plan that includes parallel paths and merge
points. Hence, this method recognizes the
important contribution to schedule risk of the
merge bias [14] that may occur when an activity
or milestone has two or more predecessors and
the schedule impact of the risk along the shorter
path exceeds the free float at that merge point.
Simulation of the project schedule provides
results that are not available from the qualitative
risk register methods at level 2. Key information
needed to manage the project includes the
probability of finishing by the scheduled date and
the amount of days contingency required to provide
a targeted level of certainty (e.g., the P-80) which
are shown by the cumulative distribution. Figure 6
shows the output from a Monte Carlo Simulation
and highlights the 80th percentile (P-80) date, as FIGURE 6 Typical Schedule Risk Analysis Result
well as the probability of finishing as scheduled.

WEAKNESSES AT LEVEL 3
Most of the weakness at maturity Level 3
revolves around the lack of identifying and
modeling identified risks because the probability
distributions are applied directly to activity
durations. These distributions must incorporate
the influence of all sources of uncertainty and
identifiable risks. These distributions, placed
directly on the activity durations rarely if
ever incorporate the notion that the risks
have probability of occurring in addition to
M A RC H/A PR IL 2 019

impact on durations. Essentially these activity

duration distributions represent the image of
all risks applicable to that activity projected on
the activity’s duration without discriminating
between the risks’ individual impacts. The use
of identifiable risks to drive the calculation of FIGURE 7 Effect of Correlation at 100% Imposed Directly on Activity Durations

13
 overrunning the scheduled date as shown in Figure 7. In that figure,
all activities’ durations are either independent (“not correlated”)
or 100% positively correlated (“Correlated 1.0”) with each other,
pairwise. The scenario results differ significantly toward the ends of
the distributions.
Level 4: Modern Quantitative
Schedule Risk Analysis Maturity
DISTINGUISHING FEATURES AT LEVEL 4
The main capabilities available at maturity level 4 are gained because the
Monte Carlo simulation is driven by (1) identified project-specific and
systemic risks specified by their probability and impact and assigned to
all activities they affect, and (2) uncertainty that is 100% likely, can be
assigned as reference ranges by groupings of activities, and is of unknown
origin so its impact on the finish date is unlikely to be reduced. These are
shown in Figures 8 and 9 [12]. Figure 8 shows that uncertainty ranges
based on inherent variability, estimating error and estimating bias, if
any, may affect activities in groups of similar types such as engineering,
procurement, etc.
FIGURE 8 Uncertainty Applied as Reference Ranges
M A RC H/A P RIL 2 019
FIGURE 9 Identified Risks with Their Risk Parameters
14
Figure 9 shows the set-up of several risk drivers with their (1) unique
ID and name, (2) probability of occurring with some impact, (3) impact on
duration (and cost in this case) expressed as distributions of multiplicative
factors, and (4) activities they will affect if they occur. Expressing the
risks as multiplicative factors so that each iteration chooses a multiplier,
if the risk occurs, that will be used to multiply the scheduled duration.
The probability shown is implemented by having the risk occur on some
percentage of the iterations. A probability of 70% implies that the risk will
occur on a randomly-selected 3,500 of the 5,000 iterations.
The use of identified risks allows those risks to be assigned to many
activities if applicable for the project. This also implies that some, perhaps
many, activities are affected by more than one risk. These characteristics
closely model the reality, particularly in complex projects, and produce
benefits discussed later in this article.
When combined with the logical structure of the schedule, with parallel
paths, merge points and critical paths, placing the influence of risks onto
the right detailed tasks gives the result more accuracy and transparency.
CAPABILITIES REQUIRED AT LEVEL 4
The risks have to be identified to be calibrated and to be modeled in the
Monte Carlo simulation. Risk identification is required and discussed at
level 2 where the risk register is first developed. Risk identification for
quantitative risk analysis is needed at level 4. Usually the risk register is
not complete so further risk data gathering is needed.
One difference from qualitative risk analysis at level 2 is that when the
risks are applied to activities’ durations the impact measure is the range of
making activity durations longer or shorter rather than level 2’s concept
of the range of making the project finish date earlier or later. At level 4 the
impact values affecting specific activities’ durations are clearer and simpler, at
a more detailed level and therefore easier for project team members to assess.
In addition, working with clients across multiple commercial
and government sectors, risk data collection interviews find that the
risk register is always incomplete. This is implied by the fact that risk
information collected using confidential risk interviews, often a component
of maturity level 4, discovers risks that are not in the risk register. Hence,
enhanced methods of risk data collection are employed at level 4.
The risk analyst will often decide to develop a summary schedule for
the risk analysis. Common contractor-developed schedules are not always
compliant with scheduling best practices and, in any case, they contain
more detailed activities than are needed in a strategic risk analysis [3]. A
summary schedule needs to include
representation of all the work in the
project according to the plan at the
time of the analysis. The summary
schedule’s paths should be visible
and have similar total float values
and linkages to other paths as in
the detailed schedule.
BENEFITS/STRENGTHS
AT LEVEL 4
Using the project-specific and
systemic risks to drive the
simulation allows the analysis
model to follow reality more
closely than at level 3. In particular,
the method used at this level of
maturity known as risk drivers
models how activity durations
become correlated, removing the
need for the analyst to estimate those values. Modeling correlations in
this way also produces a correlation coefficient matrix that is nonnegative
definite, i.e., have no negative eigenvalues. [4] Modeling correlations and
generating correlation coefficients during simulation is shown in Figure 10:
FIGURE 10 Modeling How Risks Affect Activities’ Durations
said, “There are no facts about the future” [15] so one needs to recognize
their inherent biases and try to offset them [20]. This is why confidential
interviews are often used to put the interviewees in a safe environment
where they can say what they really mean without fear of contradiction or
unwanted repercussions. An expert interviewer can usually identify the
biases in the interviewee’s responses and overcome or correct for them.
Still, there is a need to check the results from Monte Carlo simulation
using individual risk data inputs against historical experience with similar
completed projects. One approach to interrogating the historical data is to
perform regression analysis on large databases specifically developed to
illustrate the experience of executing projects against their planned cost
and schedule. The analysis of the historical data typically examines the
influence on cost and schedule results of systemic risks that tend to be
present in large and complex projects. Systemic risks include: [2, 11]

Since identified risks are used to drive the simulation, those risks can be • Completeness of scope definition
prioritized: (1) by their marginal impact on the PRA results, (2) at a target • Quality of project controls
level of confidence such as the P-80, and (3) by calibrating the risks’ priority • Quality of project scheduling
order by days saved if they were fully mitigated. This information is useful • Quality of team development
for project management to determine whether to implement mitigation so • Extent of new technology in the project
that its benefits in days saved are worth the cost of the mitigation actions • Extent of complexity
proposed. This prioritization measure is better than traditional “tornado
diagrams” expressed in activities rather than risks and using correlation of This analysis of historical data brings the perspective of an “outside
those activities with the finish date instead of days saved. The results of a view” [7].
risk prioritization using this method are shown in Figure 11 [6].

Level 5: Advanced
Integrated Cost-
Schedule Risk
Analysis (ICSRA)
Maturity
This level of maturity recognizes the important fact that
activity durations and costs are related. If the activity has
labor-type resources, the costs will be higher if the task
takes longer and the ICSRA approach is to model these
cost increase in proportion to the extension of duration.
Indirect costs can be placed on hammock activities and
will react in proportion to the variation of the detailed
activities supported. The project cost budget built on
the schedule using resources should exclude a cost
contingency because the MCS modeling approach will
FIGURE 10 Risks Prioritized by Days Saved if Mitigated produce an estimate of cost contingency and should not
double-count the contingency in the estimate [13].
WEAKNESSES AT LEVEL 4
Maturity level 4 exhibits the strengths derived from the use of uncertainty DISTINGUISHING FEATURES AT LEVEL 5
and identifiable risks that are lacking at level 3. One issue to confront is Level 5 builds on all the capabilities of level 4, including basing the
that some projects, often the smaller and shorter projects, do not have a analysis on the project schedule and using uncertainty and project-specific
project schedule to use. Sometimes the schedule available is not consistent risks to drive the Monte Carlo simulation.
with scheduling best practices. On occasion a summary analysis schedule The distinguishing characteristic at level 5 is that the schedule
needs to be built. is resources loaded with the costs, both direct and indirect, of the
As with all of these Monte Carlo-based risk analyses (Levels 3 – 5) the project without contingency having been applied. The resources are
main source of risk data is derived from individual project participants distinguished by being time-dependent (labor plus equipment rented by
M A RC H/A PR IL 2 019

and other Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) who have knowledge from their the day) and time-dependent (material plus equipment to be installed
experience in the field and on other similar projects. They bring whatever and perhaps some subcontracts). Only the time-dependent costs respond
data they may have as well as their knowledge of the specific project and in to schedule variability. Resource use or “daily burn rate” for labor
general. There are some cautions about this method of data collection. and total cost for materials may be affected independent of schedule
Individuals are known to exhibit biases when discussing uncertainty variability because of typical cost-risk variables like uncertain labor rates
concepts which are about future events. An eminent statistician once or world price of materials.
15
 CAPABILITIES REQUIRED AT LEVEL 5
Often the project schedule is not loaded with resources
or those resources are not associated with cost categories
matching the budget. To place the costs by resources on the
schedule activities the cost estimators and the schedulers need
to communicate at a common detailed level using the same
Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). This communication is not
always easy since the estimate and schedule may have diverged
and be using incomplete or incompatible WBS.

BENEFITS/STRENGTHS AT LEVEL 5
The Monte Carlo simulation will compute the cost that is
related to the schedule result for each iteration. A consistent
pair of finish dates and cost is calculated, both reflecting the
effects of uncertainty and risk for any iteration. The costs that
result will be affected by that iteration’s assumptions. In this
way, the cost and finish date results would be computed for
the same project (structure and risks) in the iteration. Each
iteration could be the project’s results, but the analyst can
only make statistical statements about the probability of a FIGURE 12 The P-80 Values for Cost and Finish Date
finish date being earlier or later than a particular date.
The analysis does not identify which party must pay for
the extra costs. Depending on the contract there may be a
presumption that the owner or the contractor pays the cost.
Of course, there may be compensable reasons for the work to
have taken longer and in making claims the owner may pay
some or all of the cost even with a lump-sum turn-key contract.
Histograms for schedule are the same as at level 4.
Histograms for cost reflect both the indirect effect of schedule
risks on activity durations with time-dependent resources and
cost-risks on labor’s burn rate and on time-independent resources.
A new concept of project risk is available from the
integration of cost and schedule at maturity level 5. This is
the concept of providing estimates of finish date and total
project cost that have a joint probability of both occurring at
some percentile. This concept is needed because given the P-80
confidence level for schedule and cost separately there are
results for the other objective that do not have a P-80 chance
of being met. To look at finish date and cost that both finish
at the P-80 (or whatever certainty level is desired) the analyst
has access to a scatter diagram.
What this joint probability of cost and schedule does is to FIGURE 13 Selecting a JCL-80 Cost and Finish Date Target
allow the analyst to choose a combination of finish dates and
costs that have, for example, an 80% likelihood of success of to meet the blue dots. This movement, toward a joint cost and finish date
success with both objectives. Finding the dates and costs where both cost and success, shown in Figure 13, will imply a later date and higher cost than
schedule are 80% likely to succeed will generally require a later finish date and those resulting from the separate histogram and cumulative distribution of
higher project cost than those found using the typical histogram P-80 values time and cost.
for cost and finish date separately. Choosing the most likely point on the linked blue dots needs to be
This is shown by using the scatterplot shown in Figure 12. There the P-80 done for an 80% joint cost and schedule confidence level (JCL-80) forecast.
time and cost from histograms and cumulative distributions for cost and finish The term “JCL” is the NASA term for this analysis [16] NASA requires the
date derived from the simulation separately but not shown, are indicated by larger projects to implement JCL and uses a 70% target JCL level.
the cross-hairs in Figure 12. The scatterplot shows that in this case there is only The most likely values would be found on the scatter diagram where the
a 74.6% probability of both occurring (i.e., 74.5 % of all iteration scenarios or iterations are most heavily concentrated. Figure 13 shows one such likely point.
3,730 of the 5,000 iterations are in the lower-left quadrant from that point). The JCL-80 point chosen is July 8, 2022 which is about 7 weeks later than the
M A RC H/A P RIL 2 019

Looking at both cost and schedule together in Figure 12, the values
of cost and finish date both need to be increased to meet on the line
indicated by the iteration results connected blue dots. Anywhere on that
necklace of blue dots will yield an estimate and finish date forecast that
has an 80% chance of meeting both objectives. As can be seen, the target
values for cost and finish date need to move in a north-easterly direction
16
P-80 finish date and $2.629 billion, which is about $84 million above the P-80
cost. Specifying this date is done by finding the most likely JCL-80 date and
cost, staying in the part of the scatterplot where the results are most dense.
The added cost and schedule days allows management to specify
a budget and finish date that are both likely to meet the desired
confidence level.
WEAKNESSES AT LEVEL 5
The weaknesses at level 4 are
present at level 5.
In addition, there is an
unresolved issue in picking the
specific cost and finish date that
is the most likely combination
to provide a probability of both
achieving both cost and finish
date targets at the chosen JCL level
of confidence. Figure 13 shows
a combination chosen to be in
the area of the scatterplot where
the simulation results are most
concentrated. Such a point would
be the most likely combination
that provides the desired level of TABLE 1 Summary of Key Characteristics by Risk Maturity Level
confidence. If the scatterplot were
viewed as a 3-dimensional ridge of possible results, this point would be the
one on the necklace of connected dots with the desired joint success result.
The problem is that at this point the choice of a JCL combination of cost
and finish dates is judgmental to some extent. While uncertainty in the
single most likely JCL point with desired joint success probability properties
would be expected in a statistical analysis, some users, including reports
to Congress for funding or to the board of directors, may require choosing
single-point precise values. One approach to improving the accuracy of
finding the most likely JCL combination has been offered at a recent NASA
cost-schedule symposium [19].
Conclusion
The levels of risk analysis maturity ranging from no awareness to fully
integrated cost-schedule risk analysis have been described with their
capabilities required, benefits and strengths and weaknesses at a general
level. Illustrations are given for the main inputs and outputs at levels 2 – 5. A 17. Project Management Institute, A Guide to the Project Management
summary is show in Table 1 for the main characteristics of risk maturity levels.
REFERENCES
1. AACE International, “Contingency Estimating – General Principles,”
Recommended Practice 40R-08, AACE International, Morgantown,
WV (2008 or latest revision).
2. AACE International, “Risk Analysis and Contingency Estimating Using
Parametric Estimating,” Recommended Practice 42R-08, AACE
International, Morgantown WV, (Rev. 2011b or latest Revision).
3. AACE International, “Integrated Cost-Schedule Risk Analysis using Monte
Carlo Simulation of a CPM Schedule,” Recommended Practice 57R-09,
AACE International, Morgantown, WV, (2011a or latest revision).
4. AACE International, Risk Assessment: Identification and Qualitative
Analysis, Recommended Practice 62R-11, AACE International,
Morgantown, WV (2012 or latest revision).
5. Book, Stephen A., “A Theory of Modeling Correlation for Use in Cost-Risk ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Analysis,” Third Annual Project Management Conference, NASA, 2006.
6. Druker, Eric, Graham Gilmer and David Hulett, “Using Stochastic
Optimization to Improve Risk Mitigation,” AACE International Annual
9. Hillson, David, Effective Opportunity Management for Projects,
Exploiting Positive Risk, Marcel Dekker, Inc, 2004.
10. Hollmann, John K., “Risk.1027, Estimating Accuracy: Dealing with
Reality,” Transactions, AACE International, 2012.
11. Hollmann, John K., Project Risk Quantification, Probabilistic
Publishing, 2016.
12. Hulett, David T., Practical Schedule Risk Analysis, Gower Publishers, 2009.
13. Hulett, David T., Integrated Cost-Schedule Risk Analysis, Gower
Publishers, 2011.
14. MacCrimmon, Kenneth and C. A. Ryavek, “An Analytical Study of the PERT
Assumptions,” Research Memorandum RM-3408-PR, Rand Corporation, 1962.
15. Moses, Lincoln, Administrator of the Energy Information
Administration, 1979 Annual Report to Congress, DOE/EIA-0173 (79)
/ 3, US Department of Energy, 1979.
16. NASA, Cost Estimating Handbook, Appendix J Joint Cost and Schedule Level
(JCL) Analysis, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2015.
Body of Knowledge (PMBOK®) Guide, Fifth Edition, Project
Management Institute, 2013.
18. Project Management Institute, A Guide to the Project Management
Body of Knowledge (PMBOK®) Guide, Sixth Edition, Project
Management Institute, 2017.
19. Steiman, Sam and David Hulett, “Identifying the Most Probable
Cost – Schedule Values from a Joint Confidence Level (JCL) Analysis,”
NASA Cost and Schedule Symposium, Goddard Space Flight Center
August 14 -16, 2018.
20. Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman, “Judgment under Uncertainty:
Heuristics and Biases,” Science, New Series, Vol. 185, No. 4157, (Sep. 27, 1974).
21. Wikipedia, “There are Known Knowns,” from Donald Rumsfeld,
Secretary of Defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_
known_knowns Wikipedia, cited 12/24/2017.
Dr. David T. Hulett, FAACE, is with Hulett &
Associates, LLC. He can be contacted by sending
e-mail to: david.hulett@projectrisk.com
M A RC H/A PR IL 2 019

Conference, 2015.
7. Flyvbjerg, Bent, “From Nobel Price to Project Management: Getting
Risks Right,” Project Management Journal, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 5 – 15,
Project Management Institute, 2006.
8. GAO, Schedule Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Project Schedules,
GAO-16-89G, Government Accountability Office, 2015.
17
 Comparison of the AACE
International and ASCE
Forensic Scheduling
Consensus Documents
BY MARK C. SANDERS, PE CCP CFCC PSP

ABSTRACT
This article compares the guidance presented in AACE International’s
Recommended Practice 29R-03, Forensic Schedule Analysis, with the
guidance presented in ASCE’s Standard 67-17, Schedule Delay Analysis, which
was published in August 2017. The article presents a brief background on the
development of consensus documents by technical organizations and the
relationship of consensus documents to expert witness testimony. Readers
can use this link to a pdf that compares the guidance presented in the two
documents on topics including the endorsement or rejection of specific
techniques, analysis of concurrent delay, negative float and offsetting delay,
and schedule corrections during analysis. This article was first presented as
CDR.2845 at the 2018 AACE International Conference & Expo.
M A RC H/A P RIL 2 019

18
INTRODUCTION
AACE International’s Recommended Practice 29R-03, Forensic Schedule
Analysis, was originally published in 2007 [11]. At the time, the only “similar
protocol” that existed was the Delay and Disruption Protocol, published by
the Society of Construction Law, and there was some shared participation
between the two groups [11, pp. 9, 105]. The Delay and Disruption Protocol,
(Guidance Section 4, pages 46-49) lists “Guidelines on dealing with disputed
extension of time issues after completion of the project—retrospective delay
analysis” and provides guidance on potentially appropriate uses for various
delay analysis techniques in forensic applications [15].
RP 29R-03 was last revised in 2011, and again cited SCL’s protocol
as the only similar one available [12, p. 11]. In August 2017, the American
Society of Civil Engineers published ANSI/ASCE/CI Standard 67-17,
Schedule Delay Analysis, which was developed by a committee under
ASCE’s Construction Institute [10]. The purpose of this article is to
compare ASCE’s new standard to AACE’s current recommended practice.
Both documents have created significant debate within the community
of practitioners. The debate extended beyond the content of the documents
themselves and included the way the documents were developed,
characterized, and titled. To treat those issues, this article begins with a
discussion of the development of consensus documents in professional
practice, in general, and then discusses the development processes used by
AACE and ASCE, specifically. Then, the article compares the content of the
two documents in detail, discusses six of the most contentious issues, and
states conclusions based on the comparison.
Consensus Documents in
Professional Practice
CONSENSUS DOCUMENTS FOR GUIDING PRACTICE
Nearly all modern professions that require a significant degree of training, THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONSENSUS DOCUMENTS
skill, and care have published codes, frameworks, guidelines, manuals,
recommendations, or standards that provide a reference for understanding Forensic schedule analysts take interest in how consensus documents are
their practices [3]. While these documents go by many names, the
development process is typically similar. They are drafted by a group
working under the auspices of a professional organization that exists to
guide, and often promote, the profession and the services of its members.
The documents are developed by a consensus-generating process
under the procedures used by each organization or committee. All such
documents are termed “consensus documents” herein. See Endnote 1.
Consensus means general agreement or majority of opinion [9]. It
does not mean unanimous agreement. In drafting consensus documents,
few decisions regarding the wording of specific content are likely to be
unanimous. It is expected that some members of a drafting committee will fundamental concerns” [13, pp. 4, 9]. Those critics stated that “in
disagree over specific content, and committees often use a voting process
to resolve those disagreements.
Once the committee has prepared a draft, it is circulated to known
practitioners for comment. Some documents are circulated more broadly,
even to the public at large, for comment. The document may be revised and
recirculated several times, following the procedures that govern the committee.
If the process is completed, a consensus document is published. Many concerns were raised with its designation as a “standard.” There were
such documents become a reference as to the customs and practice of the
profession. They may be revised periodically as customs and practices
evolve. As time passes, they may become references as to the standard
practices of the profession. However, remembering that consensus is not
universal agreement, reasonable members of a profession may continue to
disagree with some portions of a consensus document.
A difference between a professional’s individual practice and the
guidance in a published consensus document adds at least some small
burden or risk to such a professional. First, the more the consensus
document is accepted as an industry custom, the more likely that practices
that deviate from that custom may be challenged. Second, industry
custom can form the basis for establishing the professional standard of
care—or duty owed—by a professional [7, pp. 1, 4-5]. Failure to meet the
professional standard of care may be considered negligence when it results
in an injury to one to whom the duty was owed. (See Endnote 4).
The concepts of duty and negligence function as a warning siren
for many modern professionals, who sense a risk to reputation, career,
and livelihood when these words are spoken, but a claim of negligence
regarding forensic schedule analysis is unlikely. Instead, forensic schedule
analysts are likely to be more concerned with how a consensus document
might be used to test their qualifications as experts for testimony or with
how those documents might be used to impeach that testimony. Those
issues are addressed in the next section.
Despite the challenges, it is critical for professions to develop and
promulgate consensus documents that provide a reference for their
practices. The documents provide a basis for assessing individual practices,
for capturing and improving a profession’s body of knowledge, and for
training newcomers. Without an effort to produce such peer-reviewed
documents and to drive consensus on their content, professional practice
is too much left to the whims of any one individual and too susceptible to
unqualified practitioners.
True professionals share their knowledge to help their peers and the
profession as a whole and are respected for doing so. Society has greatly
benefited by the efforts of accountants, doctors, engineers, lawyers,
and other professionals in developing consensus documents to guide
their industries. The effort for forensic schedule analysis has now been
underway for 15 years. While building consensus is difficult, the effort
must continue.
AND EXPERT TESTIMONY
characterized for the same general reason as other professionals—because
that characterization will affect how the documents are used to measure
an analyst’s own practices. It is far more likely that a forensic schedule
analyst’s practices will be measured to qualify as an expert, and not in a
negligence action in which the analyst is a defendant. Still, some of the
risks are similar. To hold oneself out as an expert is to risk reputation—and
perhaps career and livelihood—should that assertion be disproven.
In 2009, perhaps with these risks in mind, critics of RP 29R-03
pointed to AACE’s characterization of its document as a “Recommended
Practice” as a “primary global concern” and the first of two “overarching
its current form, the RP cannot and should not be considered a
‘Recommended Practice’ or ‘Standard’ for the performance of forensic
schedule analyses,” and called for “elimination of the designation
‘Recommended Practice.’” They also stated that the designation “connotes
a highly reliable and accepted industry standard.”
During the development of the ASCE consensus document, similar
differences of opinion regarding which term— “recommended practice”
or “standard”—carried more weight. In both cases, critics argued that the
M A RC H/A PR IL 2 019
documents (or their drafters) were over-reaching and seeking to imply
more of a consensus than what exists.
In fact, the characterization of a consensus document by the
publishing organization does not determine whether that document
is treated as a custom by the industry. Even if it did, compliance with
industry custom does not, by itself, determine whether a practice is
19
 reasonable under particular circumstances. Practitioners must apply their
own skill and experience. Both the AACE and ASCE documents take
significant pains to emphasize that point.
Ultimately, whether a forensic schedule analysis is useful as expert
testimony in the U.S. is determined based on the Daubert standard.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms, Inc. 509 U.S. 579 (1993) [8]. The Supreme
Court established this standard for the admission of expert testimony
for all courts in the U.S. in 1993. Thus, the fact that a forensic schedule
analysis may have been accepted as expert testimony prior to 1993, does
not mean that the technique must be accepted based on precedent. The
Daubert standard must be applied.
Prior to Daubert, the Frye standard allowed expert testimony based
on “general acceptance.” Frye v. United States (1923) 54 App DC 46, 293
F 1013, 34 ALR 145. Daubert replaces the general acceptance test with a
test rooted in the Federal Rules of Evidence, which the Court determined
superseded Frye. The Daubert standard includes whether the evidence
is “scientific knowledge,” which is determined, in part, based on whether
the theory and methodology have been subjected to peer review (though
this alone is not required or dispositive) and on “the existence and
maintenance of standards controlling the technique’s operation.”
Daubert at 593 [8].
A notable feature of Daubert is that the court rejected the testimony
of eight experts, “each of whom also possessed impressive credentials,”
in favor of the testimony of one, who based his conclusions on studies
that had been subjected to “full scrutiny from the scientific community.”
Daubert at 583. Thus, Daubert increases the importance of consensus
documents in grounding expert testimony in publications that have
undergone an extensive peer-review effort.
Considering Daubert, efforts to quash the emerging consensus
Two groups of (primarily) U.S. experts have published consensus
documents for forensic schedule analysis have been misguided. It is critical
that the practice establish and maintain such documents if the techniques
are to be accepted as expert testimony. The level of peer-review given
to individual technical papers in this area is too far below the level of
review undertaken for consensus documents to be an adequate substitute.
Moreover, individual papers are not maintained and updated in the
manner that consensus documents are.
Thus, the establishment and maintenance of consensus documents
is uniquely helpful in meeting the Daubert standard. Those interested in
providing expert testimony on forensic schedule analysis should, therefore, to support each of ASCE’s 35 guidelines. The review found differences
participate in the consensus-building effort, recognizing that consensus
does not mean universal agreement and that participation does not
prevent application of their individual skill and expertise to a particular said to directly contradict the substance of the guideline. Certainly, the
analysis, as specifically stated in both the AACE and ASCE documents.
DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES USED BY AACE AND ASCE
AACE has called its consensus document a “Recommended Practice,”
consistent with its process and guidelines for developing content to
“address practical needs of the professional community” [2]. AACE requires debate. The remaining subsections focus on six concepts that reflect broader
that RPs align with its overall Total Cost Management Framework, and
requires peer review, public review, and separate review by the AACE
Technical Board prior to publication. A disposition log is required for
comments received. AACE requires that the chair of the subcommittee
responsible for each RP validate that all public comments have been
addressed. Detailed processes for how to address comments (e.g., voting
M A RC H/A P RIL 2 019
publications as standards where appropriate. However, ASCE does not
intend to substitute its standards for the professional standard of care
[10, copyright page] Also, see Endnote 6. Moreover, Standard 67-17 is
a “nonmandatory standard” based on ASCE’s Rules for Standards
Committees. Nonmandatory standards provide “a series of options,
suggestions, methods or instructions, but normally shall not recommend a
specific course of action” [5, p. 3] and see Endnote 2.
ASCE requires peer review, public review, and separate review by the
ASCE Codes and Standards Committee prior to publication. A disposition
log is required for comments received. In addition, ASCE and ANSI have
explicit requirements for voting and comment resolution that are more
extensive than AACE’s guidance, which leaves more of those process
details to the relevant technical subcommittee, with oversight by the
Technical Board.
Both organizations follow publicly available processes for developing
consensus documents, and both require public review. The processes
do not guarantee that the documents will be error-free, and either could
be criticized in some manner. While ASCE followed an ANSI-accredited
process and had more explicit rules for voting on content, AACE had a
broader committee membership, with 21 original members and 33 total
members through 2011, compared to ASCE’s 12 committee members.
Still, both processes were consistent with the methods of similar
professional organizations, and both were based on an open and honest
consensus building process (per the author’s personal observations
and participation in the committees’ efforts). Any dissatisfaction with
the results is best addressed through future participation in efforts to
improve the documents.
COMPARISON OF THE TREATMENT OF SPECIFIC ISSUES
documents that must be compared. As Standard 67-17 is the more recent
publication, the text of its 35 guidelines was used as the framework for the
comparison, and the content of RP 29R-03 was reviewed for statements
that agreed or disagreed with each guideline. The detailed comparison is
presented in this paper’s appendix.
While significant debate may continue related to each of the individual
guidelines, the review found little direct contradiction between the text of
the two documents. In fact, the review found that RP 29R-03 had content
in the details in most cases but found no direct contrast for 27 of the 35
guidelines. This means that there was no text in RP 29R-03 that could be
lengthier narrative associated with each guideline differed with related
narrative in RP 29R-03. However, in large part, the content of the two
documents was found to be conceptually consistent.
The comparison of the detailed guidelines can be reviewed in the
appendix, which may be referenced or updated as a tool to support continued
differences in the approach taken between the two documents.
DEFINITIONS: CRITICAL, CRITICAL PATH AND CRITICAL DELAY
Standard 67-17 includes definitions for 15 terms “for reference as used
within the context of this standard” [10, pp. 3-4]. Among the 15 terms,
ASCE defines “Critical delay,” “Critical path,” “Critical activities,” and

and whether votes are to be governed by a simple majority or otherwise) “Offsetting delay.” The last of these introduces a term that highlights
are left to the subcommittee, with oversight by the Technical Board. differences between AACE and ASCE’s treatment of criticality, delay, and
ASCE has called its consensus document a “Standard,” consistent with concurrency on complex projects.
the processes of ASCE’s Codes and Standards Committee, which applies AACE maintains Recommended Practice 10S-90 (10S-90), which
the due process requirements of the American National Standards Institute provides definitions for terms applicable to any of its RPs [1]. Many of the
[4] [5]. ASCE follows an ANSI-accredited process and characterizes its definitions provided by Standard 67-17 are similar to the AACE definitions,
20
but some differ in important ways. For example, AACE defines a “critical
activity” as “An activity on the project’s critical path” [1, p. 34]. ASCE uses
the same term for “Activities with zero or negative float” and states that
they “may not be on the critical path” [10, p. 5].
Differences in defining terms for the elemental building blocks of
the critical path method are barriers in drafting consensus documents
for forensic analysis of CPM schedules. As a result, the absence of more
universal definitions for key terms, which adequately consider modern
usage drove the development of a separate paper presenting proposed
revisions to 10S-90, in the hope that it will be used as a more universal
reference [14]. AACE’s practice of separating definitions for common
terms from individual RPs is a useful approach. This practice facilitates
the development of consensus definitions across the relevant practices of
project management, project controls, and forensic analysis.
The definitions for critical, critical path, and critical delay have a
wide-ranging effect in dispute resolution as it is widely (though perhaps
not universally) settled that delay must be critical to be compensable. It
is unfortunate that there is limited modern consensus on what it means
to be “critical,” with seemingly half of practitioners focused on a negative-
float theory and half on a longest-path theory. Both AACE and ASCE make
allowances for both theories through definition or narrative discussion.
Generally, ASCE’s definition and discussion favor the negative-float
theory while AACE’s favor the longest-path theory. ASCE describes “critical
delay” as, “A delay that causes an impact to the project completion date,”
and considers activities with negative float to be critical, even if they are
not on the critical path itself. One interpretation of this language is that
activities with negative float are impacting the project completion date (or
some other constrained milestone that may have associated damages if not
completed by the time required). The language in ASCE’s discussion of
float further highlights this approach [10, p. 9].
AACE emphasizes the longest-path theory, stating, “Most practitioners
would agree that the longest path is the true critical path” [12, p. 113]. In
addition, AACE rightly advises the analyst to look to any contract-specific
definition or theory that might necessarily apply to a specific project
or analysis. AACE also highlights the divergence of the two theories in
analyzing concurrent delay. The differences that come to light in the AACE
and ASCE definitions are further highlighted in the discussion of concurrent
delay and in the discussion of negative float and off-setting delay.
CONCURRENT DELAY
Both the AACE and ASCE committees recognized the complexities
created when two or more delays overlap, and both consensus documents that occur thereafter on a separate path may have a mitigating effect on
discuss these situations. ASCE provides three guidelines specific to
concurrent delay [10, p. 15]. These three guidelines (Nos. 18-20 of 35)
are compared directly to the text of RP 29R-03 in the appendix. There is
little direct contrast. AACE’s discussion is far more extensive, providing
numerous examples of the potential combinations of concurrent delays
and the results of each combination with respect to excusability and
compensability [12, pp. 98-113].
AACE offers two theories of concurrent delay—termed “literal” and
“functional” concurrency. ASCE’s language is more consistent with literal
concurrency, as it describes a portion of the delays occurring at the same
time [10, p. 15]. ASCE describes concurrent delay as typically excusable, but
noncompensable, and states that concurrent delay should be apportioned
where possible. None of these statements contradict AACE’s stated positions. small number of issues. When a project is significantly behind schedule
It is likely there are points within AACE’s 15 pages of commentary
with which some members of the ASCE committee would disagree, but
ASCE’s short presentation does not bring significant points of contrast
to light. More contrast is likely to arise from the approach taken toward
determining what activities are critical in any analysis.
ASCE’s lean toward a negative-float theory of criticality would likely
give rise to a greater magnitude of concurrent delay on a project that
was significantly behind schedule for reasons with split responsibility.
The negative float theory allows for delays to two separate paths of work
to be deemed concurrent, when both paths are behind schedule, even
though one path is driving the project completion date to be more behind
schedule than the other.
The underlying belief in the negative-float theory is that the project
would not be completed on time unless both paths could be recovered.
Thus, both paths are independently delaying the project completion date.
The underlying belief in the longest-path theory is that another day of delay
or a day of savings will have no effect on the forecast project completion
date unless it occurs on the longest path. Thus, even though another path
may be negative, delays on that path are not considered critical unless they
affect the forecast project completion date.
The negative-float theory that underlies ASCE’s discussion appears to
require an analysis of delay to the “Current adjusted completion date,” as
defined by ASCE, although that exact term does not appear in the section
on concurrent delay [10, pp. 5, 15]. The discussion of concurrent delay
uses the terms “contract milestone or project completion date.” Any future
update of Standard 67-17 should clarify whether “project completion
date” as used in relation to concurrent delay is intended to mean “current
adjusted completion date.”
Complicating factors include the fact that the “current adjusted
completion date” as defined by ASCE, is less likely to appear explicitly
in the contemporaneous CPM schedules as it requires that the schedule
reflect “A contractually required completion date adjusted to reflect
prior excusable delay” [10, p. 5]. In addition, negative float values in the
schedule are often referenced to interim contract milestones, as opposed
to project completion. These factors could introduce additional subjectivity
into an analysis, making it harder to reproduce the approach consistently.
NEGATIVE FLOAT AND OFFSETTING DELAY
The difference in emphasis on the negative-float and total-float theories
further appears in ASCE’s application of a concept that it defines as
“Offsetting delay,” “A delay that may occur when a contractor is behind
schedule and the owner later causes a delay to the contract completion
date” [10, p. 5]. The term is applied in the sixth of ASCE’s 35 guidelines (§
4.6), which states: [10, p. 8],
“In situations where the completion date is adjusted properly for
change orders and the contractor is behind schedule, owner delays
assessment of damages.”
The narrative accompanying this guideline applies the terms “current
as adjusted contract completion date” and “offsetting delay,” as defined
by ASCE in Standard 67-17 [10, pp. 5, 8]. (The italics in the first term
are added to highlight slight differences compared to the term in the
definitions section. Again, any future update of Standard 67-17 should
clarify whether the intent is to apply the term exactly as defined). This
guideline affects a situation where reasonable analysts have differed,
and the guidance in Standard 67-17 is likely to be the document’s most
contentious point, as it takes a firm position in this debate.
While broad comparison of the ASCE and AACE consensus documents
shows significant correlation, a distinct contrast can be drawn for a
M A RC H/A PR IL 2 019
on multiple paths with responsibility for delay on one path on one
side of the contract and responsibility for delay on another path on the
other side of the contract, the way that concurrent delay is analyzed
can have a significant impact on liability and damage calculations. To
date, analysts continue to be of two schools of thought in such cases.
21
 p. 9]. (Recall that the first fundamental concern was the characterization
Further effort is required in this area, whether the result of that effort is a
consensus approach or a clarification of two or more approaches and their of the document as a “Recommended Practice”). In fact, the absence of
appropriate applications. explicit citations did not mean that legal precedent was ignored. The
Considering the relative mathematical complexity of the question and committee members had their experience and knowledge of legal
the fact that most of the cases that have been presented to the courts are precedent in mind. They simply did not incorporate explicit citations.
mired in other issues, which have likely polluted or obscured the analysis Instead, AACE emphasized its focus on providing “technical principles and
and the facts, forensic schedule analysts are better served by their own guidelines,” with application to be based on applicable law [12, p. 1].
continued efforts to develop an objective, logic-based approach. While ASCE included several legal citations, with the view that these cases
professionals will continue to take notice of relevant rulings, waiting have guided what is deemed to be acceptable. AACE did not, with the
for the courts to dictate an approach is not the primary way to develop view that the technical analysis should be guided first by the views and
professional consensus. As emphasized in Daubert, the courts will be understanding of skilled and experienced practitioners. AACE also noted
better served by theories pursued for scientific inquiry than for litigation.that its document is meant to be applied internationally, including in both
Daubert at 584 [8]. Professionals should take notice of that guidance, as common law and civil law jurisdictions.
much as any other. See Endnote 5. Explicit citation is helpful as a reference to the origin of a scientific
concept, to its acceptance based on precedent, or to an example of
CONSTRUCTABILITY/AFTER-THE-FACT CORRECTIONS implementation. Of course, the law is a living thing, and there is a danger
Performing an analysis when significant information is not available or of over-reliance on citation when authorities may be superseded. If an
with different information than was available during the project is often argument relies entirely on precedent, and that precedent is superseded,
laden with unwanted risk for the analyst. As challenging as these cases can the argument is no longer supported. An underlying logical or scientific
be, there was no direct contrast in recommendations between the AACE RP foundation is less likely to be displaced so quickly.
and the ASCE standard. ASCE’s referenced cases, with only one exception, were published
ASCE provides five guidelines on the issue—Guidelines 27 through before any broad consensus document was available on forensic
31 (§§ 10.1 through 10.5) [10, pp. 19-20]. Notably, the text is more scheduling. At least one case cited by ASCE appears to suffer from age
extensive than that provided for concurrent delay. ASCE states that as techniques and consensus on CPM scheduling and forensic analysis
project schedules “should be presumed correct as they were used techniques have evolved. In the section on critical path, ASCE footnotes
during the project, unless otherwise shown to be inaccurate” [10, pp. a decision that emphatically quotes, “there is but one critical path at any
19-20]. Meanwhile AACE states, “the analyst will inevitably encounter one point in time,” calling any statement to the contrary an “egregious
an instance when the contemporaneous project schedule contains an fallacy” [6], Blinderman Constr. Co. v. United States 39 Fed. Cl. 529, 586
anomaly that could affect the assessment of critical project delay” [12, p. (1997). While these may be mere dicta, ASCE’s definition plainly states
30]. These statements approach the question from opposite sides, but are that, “There can be more than one critical path in the schedule,” and such
not contradictory. In fact, while the words “presumed correct” may give a direct contrast is disconcerting [10, p. 5] and see Endnote 3.
pause to some analysts, there is no reason to reject the evidence of an Many of the decisions cited by ASCE will not be binding on courts in
uncontested business record. Only with other evidence could the schedule, most jurisdictions, though they may be persuasive. Thus, it is imperative
as used during the project, be deemed incorrect. that any consensus document be firmly based in logic and science first and
Both documents emphasize a preference for use of the supported by citation with discretion. Despite the criticisms from 2009,
contemporaneous schedules, when available. Both advocate a preference ASCE’s consensus document applies citations sparingly. The majority of
for correction of those schedules, when necessary, as opposed to ASCE’s content is based on a technical foundation that is not explicitly
abandonment of the contemporaneous schedules. Both recommend that referenced to case law. While citations may be helpful, a firm technical
corrections to contemporaneous schedules be minimized and made only foundation is imperative.
when necessary. Both suggest that changes may only be necessary for
logically impossible or contractually impermissible details. Both require ENDORSEMENT OR REJECTION OF SPECIFIC TECHNIQUES
that any corrections be documented and disclosed. Thus, on this issue, the Another significant criticism of RP 29R-03 was that it put all techniques
documents are aligned on all key points. “on an equal footing and without consideration of their legal standing and
acceptance” [13, p. 2]. The RP does not explicitly rank techniques, based
LEGAL PRECEDENT AND CITATION on whether some are better or more accepted than others. However, the RP
What role, if any, should legal precedent play in a consensus document does provide statements enjoining practitioners from certain techniques in
on forensic scheduling? The question was considered at length by both certain forums.
the AACE and ASCE committees, which arrived at different answers. AACE’s approach was, in many respects, like the approach taken
At one end of the spectrum, a purely technical document could ignore by SCL in its Delay and Disruption Protocol. That document also chose
legal precedent as an inappropriate source of guidance for analyzing to recognize that parties may use simple techniques like the impacted-
questions based in math, science, engineering, and construction practice. as-planned method (AACE’s MIP 3.6) to review delay issues, but also
The judges that give the common law have minimal background in identified that technique’s flaws in stating: [15, pp. 46-49],
these areas. At the other end of the spectrum, one might argue that the “The usefulness of the impacted-as-planned technique is restricted due
questions of forensic scheduling are inherently based in contract law, to the theoretical nature of the projected delays that are determined using
M A RC H/A P RIL 2 019

as much as they are based in the fields listed previously. If that is the
case, then the law of contracts—statutory and common, as applicable—is
an important starting point in determining how to answer the questions
raised in a forensic schedule analysis.
Critics argued that AACE ignored legal precedent in RP 29R-03, citing
that as the second of two fundamental concerns with the document [13,
22
this technique and uncertainty as to the feasibility of the Contractor’s as-
planned programme.”
The first publication of RP 29R-03 included subsections with each MIP
titled “Strengths & Advantages” and “Weaknesses & Disadvantages.” For
the impacted-as-planned method, the weaknesses included two statements:
[11, p. 63] and see Endnote 7,
 • “Because it does not rely on an as-built schedule it is perceived as an
analysis based on a purely hypothetical model.
• 3.6 cannot, by itself, account for concurrent delays.”
The current publication of RP 29R-03 includes subsections with each
MIP that list “considerations” and “caveats.” The current RP states that MIP
3.6 is “Suited primarily for the use in identifying and quantifying potential
delays rather than actual delays,” and the list of caveats for MIP 3.6 has
been greatly expanded from the list of weaknesses provided in the original
RP. The caveats are as follow: [12, p. 75] and see Endnote 8,
• “Because it does not rely on as-built data, it is a hypothetical model,
especially where the project is actually constructed differently than
the baseline schedule logic.
• Susceptible to unintended or intended manipulation due to modeling
if only one party’s delays are considered, since the method cannot
account for the impact of delays not explicitly inserted.
• Accuracy of the duration of critical path impact for any given delay
event degrades in proportion to the chronological distance of the
delay event from the data date of the schedule.
• Since it relies only on the initial as-planned critical path to
analyze delays, it does not account for changes in logic or
durations of activities
• Does not necessarily consider the chronological order of delays.
• Extremely sensitive to the order of fragnet and logic insertion.”
While not an explicit rejection of the technique for forensic application,
the listed caveats provide little hope for successful application of the
technique in any U.S. forum in which the trier of fact is bound or
persuaded by precedent. The technique is described as hypothetical,
susceptible to unintended or intended manipulation, and most likely
incomplete and inaccurate. The caveats listed in 2011 clearly set MIP 3.6
far below other MIPs that are not presented with similar caveats. The
mere presence of two techniques in the same document does not put
the techniques on the same footing for acceptance purposes, but in fact,
provides an opportunity to review the techniques in parallel, contrast
them, and thereby set them apart.
ASCE’s consensus document does not explicitly accept or reject any
technique by name. In fact, there is no explicit reference to any named
technique in the document [10]. However, the “as-planned v. as-built” and
“impacted-as-planned techniques” (AACE MIPs 3.1, 3.2, and 3.6), for
example, would not meet several of the guidelines outlined by ASCE. Most
clearly, those techniques are unlikely to meet Guidelines 1 (§4.1) or 3
(§4.3), which state: [10, p. 7],
“Because the critical path is dynamic, delays should be evaluated
based on the critical path during each delay. . .. The critical path may shift
throughout the course of construction on the basis of delays, progress,
and circumstances resulting in changes to the plan at different times on
the project. These changes are intended to be identified and tracked in
contemporaneous project schedules.”
“Delay must be critical to the current adjusted completion date for
consideration of a time extension.”
Unless the project has proceeded closely to the original plan up to
the point of delay, the impacted-as-planned technique cannot meet the
stated criteria. However, in cases where the project has proceeded mostly
according to plan prior to delay, the impacted-as-planned technique is not
clearly prohibited by these guidelines. In cases where permitting or design
delays have occurred before construction begins or there is a substantial
construction delay early in a project, the impacted-as-planned technique
could be applied, if done carefully, without violating any of the 35
guidelines outlined by ASCE. Thus, the document provides no final mortal
blow to put the much-maligned technique out of its apparent misery.
While critical of the original publication of RP 29R-03 for not explicitly
ranking the methods, critics also captured the challenge in providing a
universal explicit ranking, stating: [13, p. 1],
“If there is a single universal truism, it is that while several methods
have been seriously questioned and/or rejected by the courts, no single
method has been adopted by the industry, the courts, or the boards of
contract appeals as the correct or preferred method of analysis.”
While methods that do not recognize the dynamic nature of the
critical path or analyze delays considering actual project events are
disfavored, neither the AACE nor ASCE consensus documents have
explicitly endorsed, rejected, or ranked methods on a universal basis. It
appears that the consensus from both groups is that an explicit ranking
that could address all forensic situations was either impossible, impractical,
or unhelpful. Regardless, no such ranking has been incorporated in any
consensus document to date.
Conclusion
Consensus documents are a necessary feature of modern professional
practice. They guide practice in medicine, law, finance, and engineering. If
forensic schedule analysis is to be regarded as a professional practice, then
it requires the development and maintenance of consensus documents to
guide it. Consensus documents are an important tool in the continuous
improvement of professional practice.
If a forensic schedule analysis is to be admitted as expert testimony,
it should be guided by consensus documents. Without written practice
standards, practices risk being labeled as junk science. Worse, they risk their
ability to objectively distinguish good work from bad on any consistent basis.
Without that ability, the junk science label would be appropriate.
Consensus documents do not hamper innovation. Their development
and maintenance encourage discussion and debate, and they help to
raise the level of practice in a profession. Consensus documents are not a
substitute for the skills, experience, and judgment of a professional, nor do
they require universal agreement in their content or universal application
of their guidance. Instead, professionals are expected to apply the
guidance provided, as appropriate for a specific set of circumstances, using
their skills, experience, and professional judgment.
AACE and ASCE have published useful consensus documents for
forensic schedule analysis, which join SCL’s protocol and place the
professional practice in a far better position than it was prior to 2002.
While the documents have slightly different goals, there is significant
overlapping content and significant correlation on most issues. In the
review conducted for this article, 27 of the 35 guidelines in ASCE’s
standard had no direct contrast with AACE’s recommended practice.
However, there are issues where the documents disagree, and six
areas were explored in this article. At times, the disagreements are not
necessarily explicit in the text of the documents but are found in how
practitioners interpret the text or believe certain points will be emphasized
in practice. For example, the mere presence of certain techniques in
the AACE document, even with caveats, will continue to find critics.
The leanings toward the negative-float theory of criticality in the ASCE
document will find others.
M A RC H/A PR IL 2 019
Continued discussion and debate will help to build further consensus.
Ultimately, forensic schedule analysis may be guided by a unified
document, that includes input from many more interested practitioners.
Approaches that seem irreconcilable today could be unified in a document
that represents additional points of view, and the unification of multiple
codes and standards has significant precedent in engineering practice.
23
 Until then, multiple documents will be maintained separately, but not
without cross-participation between the committees. The profession will
continue to benefit from the time and knowledge put into developing
these documents.
ENDNOTES
1. Associated with Reference 3. The AACE TCM Framework is an
example of a consensus document useful for guiding professional
practice. A sampling of the incredibly broad range of documents
developed through professional consensus processes include:
American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law Second, Contracts,
Washington, D.C., 1981; American Concrete Institute, Building
Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and
Commentary, 2014; American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Ed., American
Psychiatric Publishing, Arlington, VA, 2013. All provided as
examples. If there is an example of an occupation that is called
“professional” without a published consensus document outlining
at least some part of its practice, then it is likely professional only in
the sense that practitioners are paid for their services.
2. Associated with Reference 5. The Standards Writing Manual
defines nonmandatory standards at p. 3 and the Rules for Standards
Committees defines them at p. 14. Using appropriate nonmandatory
language, Standard 67-17 states on p. 1, “The 35 guidelines
included in this standard generally reflect best engineering
principles associated with schedule delay analysis and reflect
standard of practice in the United States construction industry.
However, individual cases may not follow the general standard. .
.. This standard should be used in accordance with the schedule
practitioner’s professional experience and knowledge, along with
facts specific to the reference project.”
3. Associated with Reference 6. In Blinderman Constr. Co. v. United
States 39 Fed. Cl. 529, 586 (1997) [6]: confusingly, this case is
quoting Mega Constr. Co. v. United States, 29 Fed. Cl. 396 (1993),
which court references this portion of its discussion to Sterling
Millwrights, Inc. v. United States, 26 Cl. Ct. 49, (1992). Sterling notes
“There very well may be more than one critical path on a project,
and the critical path may change during the life of a project, i.e.,
activities that were not on the original critical path subsequently
may be added. It is also true that delay of a critical path item may
not result in a per se delay in completion because the critical path
is only an educated estimate of the impact of delay; lost time in
one phase may be made up in later phases.” When the Blinderman
court quotes Mega Constr. Co. in stating “there is but one critical
path at any one point in time” it is not clear that it fully agrees
with or understands the statements in Sterling. As the courts took
significant exception to other flaws in the analyses in Blinderman
and Mega Constr. Co., this may be a case where it can be said that
bad facts make bad law. Regardless, ASCE’s definition for “Critical
path” directly contradicts Blinderman in stating, “There can be
more than one critical path in the schedule,” unless the reader is
expected to understand the definition as meaning that there can be
more than one path, but not more than one at the same time. That
interpretation would not be reasonable. To say that there can be
M A RC H/A P RIL 2 019
more than one path without qualification would have no meaning
in this case if it did not mean that there could be more than one
at the same time. The court in Blinderman terms this view an
“egregious fallacy.”.
4. Associated with Reference 7. Note that in that in Dal Pino’s book,
Do You Know the Standard of Care, on page 1, it states: “Codes
24
and standards are becoming more standardized and national in
nature, meaning more uniformity and perhaps a higher level of
engineering skills across the country.” On pages 4-5, it states: “There
is no better way for a court to understand how engineers should
perform their services than by observing the collective actions of the
industry itself, which includes the actions of clients and engineers.
The industry norm is therefore the most ‘reasonable’ approach to
engineering and represents the ‘reasonable’ standard. The industry
norm for engineering is typically presented to the court by expert
witnesses—members of the profession who have the experience and
standing to testify about its customs and norms.”
5. Associated with Reference 8. Most references here are to the Daubert
standard as a general approach to admitting expert testimony. The
quote referenced at 584 regarding theories developed for litigation,
as opposed to scientific inquiry includes a requote of the Ninth
Circuit and reads, “Contending that reanalysis is generally accepted
by the scientific community only when it is subjected to verification
and scrutiny by others in the field, the Court of Appeals rejected
petitioners’ reanalyses as ‘unpublished, not subjected to the normal
peer review process and generated solely for use in litigation.’” A
review of Daubert that further relates the standard to published
consensus documents and peer review processes is available from
Kolar, R., “Scientific and Other Expert Testimony: Understand It;
Keep It Out; Get It In,” Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel,
FDCC Quarterly, Spring 2007.
6. Associated with Reference 10. ASCE contrasts its standards with
the professional standard of care on the copyright page: “ASCE
does not intend, nor should anyone interpret, ASCE’s standards to
replace the sound judgment of a competent professional, having
knowledge and experience in the appropriate field(s) of practice, nor
to substitute for the standard of care required of such professionals
in interpreting and applying the contents of this standard” [10].
7. Associated with Reference 11. As noted, this was the original
publication of RP 29R-03. The comment on other existing protocols
appears as Footnote 2, p. 9. The contributors to the original edition
are listed on p. 105. For the cited example of how the originally
published RP listed strengths and weaknesses for each MIP, see p. 63.
8. Associated with Reference 12. In the current revision of RP 29R-
03, as of the writing of this paper, the citation to the SCL protocol
appears in Footnote 2, p. 11. For the cited example of considerations
and caveats for MIP 3.6, see p. 75. The changes in the headings
of these subsections reflected some lingering dissatisfaction with
the “strengths” and “weaknesses” headings from both committee
members and reviewers. In fact, there is still disagreement over
whether aspects of some MIPs can be characterized as universally
positive or negative. For example, simplicity of application could be
a positive attribute, but if one believes that simplicity is the result of
a flawed approach, then it is inappropriate to characterize simplicity
as a strength. There is no utility in being simple but wrong.
REFERENCES
1. AACE International, Cost Engineering Terminology, Recommended
Practice 10S-90, Morgantown, WV, Rev. October 31, 2017.
2. AACE International, “Recommended Practice (RP) Development
Process” and “Recommended Practice (RP) Development Guidelines,”
Morgantown, WV, 2013. Note: Versions referenced were annotated
“Rev. 2013-11-14.”
3. AACE International, Total Cost Management Framework, 2nd Ed.,
H. Lance Stephenson, Ed., AACE International, Morgantown, WV,
2015.
 4. American National Standards Institute, “ANSI Essential Requirements:
Due process requirements for American National Standards,” New York,
January 2015.
5. American Society of Civil Engineers, “ASCE Rules for Standards
Committees,” effective since October 1, 2016, and “Standards Writing
Manual for ASCE Standards Committees,” revised February 9, 2017.
Note: Both accessed January 12, 2018 from (https://www.asce.org/
uploadedFiles/Technical_Areas/Codes_and_Standards).
6. Blinderman Constr. Co. v. United States 39 Fed. Cl. 529, 586 (1997).
7. Dal Pino, J. “Do You Know the Standard of Care?” American
Council of Engineering Companies, Council of American Structural
Engineers, Washington D.C., 2014.
8. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms, Inc. 509 U.S. 579, Notes:
9. Dictionary.com, definition of “consensus,” reviewed January 12,
2018.
10. D’Onofrio, R. et al., Schedule Delay Analysis, American Society of
Civil Engineers, ASCE Standard ANSI/ASCE/CI 67-17, Reston, VA,
2017.
11. Hoshino, K., Forensic Schedule Analysis, Recommended Practice 29R-
03, AACE International, Morgantown, WV, June 25, 2007.
12. Hoshino, K., Livengood, J., Carson, C., Forensic Schedule Analysis,
Recommended Practice 29R-03, AACE International, Morgantown,
WV, April 25, 2011.
13. Lifschitz, J., Barba, E., and Lockshin, A., “A Critical Review of the
AACEI Recommended Practice for Forensic Schedule Analysis,”
Reprint, originally published in The Construction Lawyer, Volume
29, Number 4, American Bar Association, Fall 2009.
14. Nagata, M. and Sanders, M., “Proposing a Better Definition of
Critical Path,” AACE International 2018 Conference Transactions,
PS-2842, June 2018. Pre-publication draft referenced as paper to be
published concurrently with this one.
15. The Society of Construction Law, Delay and Disruption Protocol,
Oxfordshire, England, October 2002.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Mark C. Sanders, PE CCP CFCC PSP, is with Alpha
3 Consulting. He can be contacted by sending e-mail
to: msanders@alphathree.com

Voting ends March 15 —

VOTE NOW!
The 2019 AACE THE 2019 SLATE OF CANDIDATES
International election AT A GLANCE
will be conducted
electronically through PRESIDENT-ELECT DIRECTOR-REGION 6
4 p.m. on March 15. Christopher Caddell, PE CCP DRMP Mike Bensussen
Mohammed Rafiuddin, CCP PSP Roger Nelson, PE PSP

Biography and Goals/

VP-ADMINISTRATION DIRECTOR-REGION 8
Objectives of each Scott A. (Gator) Galbraith, CFCC Abhijnan Datta, CCP
candidate can be Sandra Mejia-Villegas Sankar Subrahmaniyam, EVP

viewed at:
web.aacei.org/about-aace/ DIRECTOR-REGION 3 DIRECTOR-REGION 10
structure/elections/slate-of- Eric Cannon, PSP Oscar Siles Chavez
candidates Katrina Washington Knight, CCP Carlos Ortega
M A RC H/A PR IL 2 019

DIRECTOR-REGION 5
Jason Audette
Ashley Garza

25
 Liars and Schedules
BY NELSON E. BONILLA, CCP FAACE

ABSTRACT
A schedule is a road map made by the project planner/scheduler that should
guide those involved toward project execution. However, without the full
engagement of project stakeholders in the schedule development, the final
document will lack the execution team ownership and will merely serve as
a target for criticism. In line with these requirements, this article will address:
Roles and responsibilities of the project team members that would ensure
the success of the planning/scheduling effort, requirements and objectives
for the development of a plan/schedule, the role of the planner/scheduler in
ensuring that stakeholders are actively engaged in the schedule development
and reviews, and the big picture as the driver of the schedule. In addition. the
success of a project planner/scheduler and his/her role as a key partner in the
project execution requires that he/she be a team integrator. Otherwise, the
schedule will not be useful as the road map for project execution. This article
was first presented as PS.2816 at the 2018 AACE International Conference & Expo.
M A RC H/A P RIL 2 019

26
INTRODUCTION
This article will address items from AACE’s Recommended Practice 14R-
90, “Responsibility and Required Skills for a Project Planning and Scheduling
Professional” [1]. Key items will be illustrated with actual project examples.
This article will close with an overview of a construction project that was
the source of the presentation title.
WHY THE PAPER TITLE?
During the first project review and presentation of the baseline schedule,
an owner representative stated: “Nelson, I have seen as many liars as I
have seen schedules.” His statement prompted me to ponder on the most
important objectives of the project schedules and the role of the planner/
scheduler to achieve effectiveness.
Thus, this article is a result of a reflection on the professional duties
and responsibilities of the planner/scheduler, or more broadly, on the
function of project controls professionals. For brevity, henceforth, the term
“planner” will be used to refer to the role of planner/scheduler. According
to the statement by the owner representative, I saw the responsibilities of
the controls team to be:
1. Developing project controls deliverables that are realistic and well
supported, with active engagement and participation of stakeholders. overcoming issues that arise from unforeseen changes. In practice, every
2. Actively participating in the project from its initiation to completion project must have a plan regardless of project size or definition. When
and monitoring the baseline metrics.
3. Informing stakeholders promptly of any adverse deviations from
the project baseline and working collaboratively with the affected
entities to propose recovery plans.
4. Engaging the team immediately after discovering negative trends
to develop recovery plans to the project’s cost/schedule, and
monitoring results of implemented plans.
5. Forecasting project costs at completion, as well as project end dates.
From the perspective of the owner representative, the above
responsibilities must be met by the contractor’s project controls team.
Otherwise, project deliverables are nothing more than lies created by
ineffective individuals.
WHAT IS A SCHEDULE LIE?
For an Engineering/Procurement/Construction (EPC) project, a qualifiable and delivery dates for the equipment are not available. Consequently, the
baseline schedule defines the project’s planned end date. Thus, if the
forecasted or actual project completion date cannot be improved or met, it and/or historical information available within the organization or should
is just a schedule lie.
The term qualifiable is included above, as the following basic
requirements for completing and managing a plan/schedule that meets
professional standards must be respected:
1. A well-defined Scope [9].
2. Project stakeholders support the planning/scheduling effort.
3. Clearly defined roles/responsibilities of the planner [1].
4. Planning and Scheduling Best Practices noted as follows are applied more difficult and costlier to resolve.
[1],[7],[9]:
• Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)
• Schedule design and management plan
• Schedule basis
• Schedule baseline
• Activities definition
• Proper activity coding
• Well supported activity durations
• Proper use of calendars
• Resource loading
• Float management
• Use of documented few or no constraints, [4, page14]
• Schedule updates and reporting
• Progress measurement
• Change management
• Schedule recovery
• Risk management
THE FAILURE TO PLAN
Failure to plan generally occurs if an organization does not have a
planning culture, which would necessitate the following:
• A designated planning/scheduling team.
• Support of the organization’s leadership for the planning effort,
conveyed by demanding participation of stakeholders in project
planning activities. In other words, the planning effort is not solely
the planner’s responsibility.
Lack of planning during project execution is usually justified by
claiming, “Why plan, when everything is changing?” While changes
are inevitable, a planning culture in an organization certainly helps in
project definition is lacking, a high-level plan should be developed,
which must include its basis and assumptions. As the project is better
defined, the level of detail will expand accordingly. It is worth noting that,
during the early project phases, a baseline plan/schedule is issued, and
any changes to the baseline plan will be managed through the change
management process [7, pages 255-265]. If project changes are substantive,
a project re-baseline plan/schedule is required [7, pages 229-230].
Another common justification for the failure to plan is “lack of
information.” In this case, the planner is responsible for working with the
project team to identify the required information and specify the dates to
be used during the plan development. However, some information may not
be readily available to the team and the planner. In such cases, the planner
must fill the gaps using his/her prior experience and the organization/team
expertise. For example, a requisition/purchase order has not been issued
for a major piece of critical long-lead equipment. As a result, manufacturing
planner must gather the data based on documented previous experience
solicit the data from team members (procurement/mechanical engineering)
based on their experience and knowledge.
Finally, failure to plan occurs when project stakeholders claim to be
too busy performing their work and do not have the time to support the
planning effort. This lack of commitment to the planning process will
result in reactive project execution that will only address the short-term
issues (current crisis), while neglecting to reflect budding long-term trends.
Failure to take a long-term perspective will make any subsequent issues
THE PLANNER’S DILEMMA, THE SCHEDULE LEVEL OF DETAIL
One of the most controversial and difficult decisions that must be made
early in the project pertains to defining the level of detail to be used with
M A RC H/A PR IL 2 019
the CPM schedule [2]. In many cases, the level of detail is dictated by
the project owner’s schedule specifications, or by the project leadership.
However, a more detailed plan will require more resources for developing,
updating and maintaining the plan, all of which are within the scope of
the planning function. A failure to fulfill all the planner’s responsibilities
will undoubtedly occur when the owner/project leadership is unwilling to
27
 approve the staffing required to support the development and maintenance
of very detailed schedules. As a result, the planner often needs to dedicate
long exhaustive hours to various details, which are at times tedious and
yield a schedule that cannot address most of the planning responsibilities.
Yet, the planner will likely be accused by the owner/project leadership of
being ineffective, which is true, but for the wrong reasons.
In some cases, the planning team is instructed by the project leadership to
add unnecessary and irrelevant activities to the project CPM schedule. These The following construction requirements are also within the purview of
superfluous details make schedule updating a grueling effort and distract the
planners from performing their required duties. For example, a project director
may request that all activities be listed on the schedule, including weekly project
team meetings. This would allow the project director to proudly proclaim to
project stakeholders that all project activities are included in a single document
(the schedule). However, planned meeting activities that do not have direct
impact on the project execution should not be presented in the CPM schedule,
as this is not an administrative project calendar. Adding inconsequential project
data to a CPM schedule will create unnecessary work for the planner, reducing
the time he/she can dedicate to analysis and problem solving.
PLANNER/SCHEDULE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The duties and responsibilities of the planner and scheduler are described be conducted by the planner, as the findings can be used to engage the
on AACE International’s Recommended Practice 14R-90, “Responsibility
and Required Skills for a Project Planning and Scheduling Professional” [1].
The planner/scheduler roles and responsibilities can be summarized
as follows:
• Collecting project data that represents a diversity of stakeholders’
professional opinions/facts and using his/her professional judgment
and experience to merge the data into a cohesive initial plan.
• Leading the planning effort by engaging the project team during the initial
and subsequent reviews of the execution strategy that best meets the
agreed/contractual project end date and project performance metrics.
• Monitoring project performance metrics, identifying deviations,
finding causes, and engaging the project manager and other
responsible parties in addressing the sources of these deviations.
• Monitoring the impacts of recovery plans.
Requirements for the Planner
THE PLANNER KNOWS THE PROJECT
The planner must have a comprehensive knowledge of the work scope
and required services, as well as be fully familiar with the contract and
any clauses related to the schedule and change management. The planner
needs to know the required project deliverables and be able to incorporate
those deliverables into the schedule.
In addition, the planner must understand the needs of the team, the
owner, the client counterpart, and all partners, as well as knowledge of the
work processes of the various disciplines involved in the project execution
(engineering, construction, procurement, contracts, accounting, etc.)
As an example, for an EPC facility, the planner must be familiar with
the following engineering processes:
• Discipline interfaces
M A RC H/A P RIL 2 019
• Logical sequence of activities
• Interdependencies among activities
• Deliverables
• Material Take-Offs (MTOs)
Familiarity with the following material management processes is also required:
28
• The requisition processes
• Project quantities-Material Take Offs (MTOs) versus bill of materials
• The expediting processes
• The inspection processes
• Traffic and logistics
• Warehousing and material handling
the planner:
• Roles/responsibilities of the disciplines
• The constructability processes
• Construction sequencing
• Required dates for approved for construction (APC) drawings
• Required-At-Site (RAS) dates for equipment and materials, and
• Subcontracting plan
As can be seen from the extensive lists presented above, a full
understanding of the project is necessary for the preparation of the initial
plan. In the early project phases, a project plan needs assessment must
various disciplines required for project execution.
Prior to commencing the initial plan development, the planner should
engage with each discipline lead and all pertinent groups to obtain
information on their deliverables and completion dates. This should be
followed by data analyses that would inform the initial integrated plan.
Subsequent planning requires that the planner engage project team
members in a group discussion to address project phases, identify potential
issues and conflicts, and propose mechanisms for their resolution.
THE PLANNER COMMUNICATES
Communication is one of the key planner responsibilities in every project.
In particular, he/she must demonstrate leadership to assure that each
planning/scheduling meeting is held regularly and yields positive outcomes.
The communication needs for the planner to succeed on the job are best
described in the article “5 Habits of Highly Effective Communicators” [10].
Among these, the following three habits are particularly relevant for ensuring
that the planner responsibilities are executed efficiently and effectively:
1. Make the complex simple
2. Be visible, and
3. Listen with your eyes as well as your ears
MAKE THE COMPLEX SIMPLE
Some planners like to present voluminous reports generated by the
scheduling software packages used in the project. In most cases, such reports
are included just to dazzle the audience, while generating little discussion and
discouraging engagement of the relevant parties in the planning effort. The
“Make the Complex Simple” concept is illustrated in Figures 1 and 2.
FIGURE 1
Bioreactor
Area Model
 The 3D bioreactor area model, shown in
Figure 1, was difficult to construct because of
numerous mechanical and electrical equipment
components designed for a small geographical
construction area. Thus, to complete the
installation, prior effective planning was
necessary. In addition, during the execution
process, the work of various trades had to be
carefully coordinated to properly sequence
their activities and to reduce the possibility of
damaging previously completed elements. The
construction difficulty was compounded by
the coordination required for the installation of
several equipment skids, as well as the awkward
installation of the bioreactors (large round blue
vessels) shown in the middle of Figure 1.
Figure 2 shows a partial view of the two-page
Gantt chart generated manually which depicts
the work activities for the installation of the
Figure 1 Bioreactor area.
The Gantt chart depicted in Figure 2 was
color coded by construction discipline and it
was sent to the pertinent disciplines prior to
the area construction meeting. Their feedback,
which was incorporated into a revised Gantt
chart, became the team schedule for the initial
area construction planning meeting. The Gantt
chart was sufficiently simple to allow discipline FIGURE 2 Bioreactor Area Installation (Partial) Gantt chart
interfaces to be immediately apparent, while
clear work sequencing ensured that the planning representatives of various affected disciplines, the planner should propose
meeting was effective. alternatives that are cost-effective and will meet the original schedule dates.
Throughout the planning process, Figure 2 served as a base for team In most cases, the project leadership receives regular progress reports
discussions. Representatives from all disciplines were able to discuss their from the planner, focusing specifically on deteriorating performance
work activities and their sequencing, while appreciating the impact that these indices for the project (a frequent occurrence). In progress reports,
would have on the work activities of others and vice versa. All questions and problems must be presented succinctly, clearly stating the reasons for
concerns could thus be addressed with active engagement of all attendees. underperformance and their impacts on the schedule. It is also essential
Based on the conclusions reached during the planning meeting, the chart to note if these are due to casual and unusual circumstances or stem from
was updated, reflecting the agreed-upon activity sequences and durations. a more serious issue of having used optimistic performance metrics in
The finalized data was incorporated into the CPM schedule software. In the original plan. In the latter case, the planner needs to analyze impacts
subsequent project progress discussions, representatives of different of underperformance on the overall schedule, communicate with affected
disciplines preferred to use hand-generated Gantt charts, as opposed to the disciplines, and collaboratively identify alternative scenarios that can assist
bar charts and reports generated by the CPM scheduling software. with recovering the original schedule cost-effectively.
Having a simple document that was understood by everyone
during the planning meeting also ensured rapid team integration and LISTEN WITH YOUR EYES AS WELL AS YOUR EARS
overall commitment to the project plan (team ownership), including One of the main responsibilities of the planner is being physically present
responsibilities assigned to workers in each discipline, pertinent activities, on the work site, as this will allow him/her to directly observe job progress
their sequencing and durations. and engage in conversations with the team. This practice encourages
communications and allows any issues to be noted and addressed in a
BE VISIBLE timely manner, whether they are immediate, or pertain to potential short-
Most planners/schedulers are not intimately familiar with the full and long-term challenges.
details of the project’s scope of work. This is, in fact, not an issue, as The planner also needs to trust the work plans produced by leaders
determining the scope is the stakeholder’s responsibility. Nonetheless, the of various disciplines and ensure that these are realized in practice. In the
planner works with team partners to resolve scope problems impacting engineering and construction industry, being overly optimistic about future
the planning effort and the schedule; he/she needs to know the team work performance and improvements is a common attitude when discussing
M A RC H/A PR IL 2 019

stakeholders, their roles and responsibilities, deliverables, interfaces, and
other relevant information. For example, if a major piece of equipment
is to be delivered later than originally planned, the planner works with
the material management group to ensure the expedited delivery of
the equipment. Subsequently, the planner works with the construction
team on resequencing of the impacted activities. After meeting with the
current underperformance or delays. For example, in an underperforming
construction area, the planner needs to discuss and review progress and
completion dates with the superintendent. This should be followed by a
review of the recovery plans, including any revised dates. These updates
should then be verified by physically inspecting the construction areas to
ensure that the recovery plan and improvements are being achieved.
29
 THE PLANNER/SCHEDULER NEGOTIATES
Planners must possess excellent negotiating
skills, as they are often called upon to resolve
disagreements among various disciplines. This is
particularly important if schedule is affected, in
which case the planner must propose dates that
are acceptable for all conflicting parties, while
ensuring their commitment to these agreed-upon
schedule changes.

THE PLANNER SEES THE BIG PICTURE

From the project outset, planners need to adopt
a “Big Picture” mindset. This could be reflected
in a simple document that would be used during
the planning sessions with the representatives
of various project disciplines. For an EPC
facility, the planner may be able to use a generic
template [8, page 12]. Alternatively, a high-level
time-phased logic diagram like the one shown FIGURE 3 The Big Picture-Engineering, Procurement and Construction of a Process Plant
in Figure 3 can be generated. This document
provides an overview of the project timeline and
the involvement of various disciplines. This basic
chart helps in subsequent gathering of more
detailed information from pertinent disciplines
and allows determining the timing and sequence
of work activities.

THE PLANNER AND

PROJECT QUANTITIES
During the planning phase, it is a strongly
advised to develop resource loaded schedules
[7, page 175-181]. The schedules are resource
loaded for leveling the resources, issuance of
planned resources and commodity quantity
installation curves during the baseline
development [6].
During the conceptual/basic engineering
of an EPC project, commodity quantities are
typically less accurate, owing to the lack of FIGURE 4 Planned/Actual Pipe Installation Curve
precise definition. As the project evolves to
the detailed engineering phase, the accuracy production. These curves will give the first warning sign of potential
of the quantities will improve. It is judicious for the planner to engage schedule delays against the plan. This will allow the planner to promptly
continuously with the person(s)/group(s) that are generating, tracking, or address deviations from the plan, elucidate the reasons for these
purchasing commodities, as this will allow for the quantities to be updated deviations and propose potential solutions in collaboration with the
in a timely manner. If there are any substantive quantity changes, the appropriate individuals (schedule recovery) [5]. A typical example of time-
planner must promptly assess their impact on the schedule. phased planned quantity curves from the baseline schedule compared
More productive communication with pertinent disciplines is a major against actual quantities installed is as shown in Figure 4.
benefit of the planner involvement with commodity quantity tracking and
installation planning. For example, construction discipline representatives
will easily understand the need to install 3,000 linear meters of pipe in The Project
each period, as opposed to achieving a 4% progress for piping during that In this section, a case study of a fiber optic network installation in Mexico
period. In the former case, the piping lead will review the quantities to be is presented, clarifying the concepts introduced earlier of this article.
installed and the installation location. Based on prior experience, he/she The project’s scope included the installation of a fiber optic network
will determine the workforce crew required to be able to complete the task of 5,424 Km in Mexico, in a record-setting time of nine months. It was
M A RC H/A P RIL 2 019

during the designated period. If the question is about achieving a given
percent progress for piping, the discipline will answer, but not having the
quantities will not provide a basis of calculation and will add undesired
uncertainty to the answer.
The baseline schedule should include planned commodity quantities
curves, which are used to compare the projected against the actual
30
a turn-key lump sum, with incentives of USD 1 million per day for early
completion, or USD 1 million per day for early completion, or USD
250,000 per day of liquidated damages for each day late. The maximum
incentive/penalty for the project was $10 MM USD. The project
required over 5,600 permits with 20 different federal, state, and local
governmental agencies.

FIGURE 5 Project-Installation of over 5,000 Km of Fiber Optic
Cable Network
The geographic scope of the project is depicted in Figure 5. The
black and yellow lines show the aerial and underground fiber optic cable
installations, respectively.
Early in the plan and schedule development, the planner participated
in the development of the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) with project
task holders. In this case, early communication with project task holders
and their engagement in the development of the WBS ensured that the
planning function and the schedule development was a team effort.
For this project, the WBS was based on geographic location. It
comprised of the aerial and underground routes (designated by black and
yellow lines, respectively, in Figure 5). At the higher levels of the WBS, the
project was divided by routes, then by urban and rural zones. The final
level of the WBS was designated for project segments, as shown in Figure 6.
FIGURE 6 WBS for Installation of Fiber Optic Cable Project
The schedule development process continued with the development of high-
level work durations for the various routes for planning purposes. To calculate
activity durations, a top-down (high level) approach was taken by defining the
number of kilometers of work to be accomplished per day for each route. This
high-level schedule also allowed the planner to identify potential problem areas,
as indicated in Figure 7. The estimated productivity (km/day) was based on
previous project experience and was discussed with the construction team.
The calculation of project durations, shown in Figure 7, also included
several routes, highlighted in yellow, which exceeded the contractually
required 234 workday schedules (nine months, working six days per week).
The planner working with the construction team reviewed and calculated
the required number of crews necessary to reduce route work durations. In
addition, the crews and equipment locations and movements along the routes
were analyzed to reduce long-distance travel and optimize cost and schedule.
The final document served as the starting point for the planning effort.
FIGURE 7 Development of Project Durations
Once the high-level plan (by route) was developed, the planner
gathered the quantities to be installed at the lowest (segment) level of the
WBS, as shown in Figure 8. The planning team subsequently reviewed the
quantities with the area construction superintendents responsible for the
segments, discussing the detailed construction activities for each segment/
route. They sequenced the work, calculated the number of crews required
for those activities and validated the previously established route durations
shown in Figure 7. The resource analysis for the 9-month baseline schedule
indicated that crews would need to work on 16 routes concurrently, each
route requiring nine crews responsible for both rural and urban zones.
M A RC H/A PR IL 2 019
FIGURE 8 Detail Quantities by Segment
31
 Once the project was initiated, the CPM
schedule baseline and the schedule basis [3] for
the project was issued. In addition, craft and
commodity quantity installation curves per
route/segment were generated on a weekly basis,
using the resource loaded schedule as a baseline
[8]. The statement, “I have seen as many liars
as schedules” that prompted this article was
made by the owner representative during the
presentation of the baseline schedule.
During project execution, the scheduler
continuously monitored the schedule and
actuals (quantity installed, the craft used)
against the baseline plan. All deviations were
quickly addressed with the team, and the
proposed improvements were immediately
implemented to resolve underperformance and
avoid schedule delays. Given the significant
monetary penalties (liquidated damages) for the
project, the scheduling group and project task
holders worked together early in the project to FIGURE 9 Field Progress Measurement Process
resolve underperformance, gain project float and
to avoid schedule delays. This strategy benefitted
the project at the subsequent stages, given many
delays that were not anticipated during the
schedule risk analysis [9].
An early task on the project by the
planning/scheduling team was to develop
the procedures for managing and controlling
the project. These procedures were written
with graphics and flowcharts to facilitate its
understanding by team members. A graphic
example of the progress tracking (quantity
based) is illustrated in Figure 9.

PROJECT WEEKLY STATUS REPORTS

Because of the fast construction pace, the client
received weekly status reports and progress
status presentations were issued. Each week,
project leadership reviewed the maps and charts,
such as those shown in Figure 10. The map
shown in the left panel was used extensively FIGURE 10 Progress Status Reports
to highlight progress by segment and activity.
Progress on construction activities was shown on the map using an easy
to read color scheme to facilitate the progress review. In addition, key Conclusion
installation quantities were presented in time-phase charts, such as those The planner does not merely issue project reports, asking the execution
shown in the right panel. team for comments. In practice, he/she must be actively engaged in the
Despite the many challenges encountered during the project execution, daily execution of the project and must:
all delays were promptly resolved, and the project was completed ahead of
schedule. The joint venture was rewarded with the maximum contractual • Know the project
project incentives. • Negotiate required durations with affected disciplines
When the owner’s representative stated that he had “seen as many • Collaborate with the team to address issues that may compromise the
liars as schedules,” during the initial presentation of the baseline project schedule, and
schedule he was not referring to a document, or a report (schedule) • Engage the team in managing those issues and to assure the
M A RC H/A P RIL 2 019

presented to him. He was questioning whether the schedule presented
was realistic and what the project controls team (particularly planning)
would do to assure timely project completion. The responsibility of the
planning/scheduling team did not end with the issue of schedules and
reports, as they oversaw working with the team to resolve any issues
associated with schedule delays.
32
presented schedule is achievable
If the principles discussed in this work are applied during project
execution, the planner will fulfill his/her role. This is best exemplified by
the praise, “Nelson, you were the conscience of the project,” I received
from the client representative at the end of the successful project. This
meant that, throughout the project duration, the planning team not only
generated valid reports but also participated in resolving issues affecting
the project schedule with the entire project team.
REFERENCES
1. AACE International, “Responsibility and Required Skills for a Project
Planning and Scheduling Professional,” Recommended Practice 14R-
90, AACE International, Morgantown, WV, September 19, 2006
2. AACE International, “Schedule Levels of Detail – As Applied in
Engineering, Procurement and Construction,” Recommended Practice
37R-00, AACE International, Morgantown, WV, March 10, 2010.
3. AACE International, “Documenting the Schedule Basis,”
Recommended Practice 38R-06, AACE International, Morgantown,
WV, June 18, 2009.
4. AACE International, “Schedule Update Review- As Applied in
Engineering, Procurement, and Construction,” Recommended Practice
53R-06, AACE International, Morgantown, WV, June 18, 2009.
5. AACE International, “Recovery Scheduling - As Applied in Engineering,
Procurement, and Construction,” Recommended Practice 54R-07,
AACE International, Morgantown, WV, June 18, 2009.
6. AACE International, “Analyzing S-Curves,” Recommended Practice
55R-09, AACE International, Morgantown, WV, November 10, 2010.
7. Carson C., and Relyea Oaklander, CPM Scheduling for
Construction Best Practices and Guideline, 1st edition, Project
Management Institute, Inc Newtown Square, PN, 19073, 2014.
8. Douglas, Edward E. III, 2016, PS-2171, “RTFC – Preparing Project
Contract or Baseline Schedules,” AACE® International, Morgantown WV.
9. Hollmann, John. K, Project Risk Quantification,1st edition,
Probabilistic Publishing, Sugarland, TX, 2016.
10. Tardanico, S., “5 Habits of Highly Effective Communicators,” Forbes
magazine, Nov. 29, 2012.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Nelson E. Bonilla, CCP FAACE, is a past
president of AACE International. He can be
contacted by sending e-mail to:
nelsonbonilla.aacei@gmail.com

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES For additional information about

DIRECTORY
advertising with us, please contact:
Cassie LoPiccolo
1.304.296.8444 x 122
clopiccolo@aacei.org

N
NEW AACE

EW
RECOMMENDED

!
PRACTICES
PUBLISHED
AACE® International Recommended Practice
90R-17: STATUSING THE CPM SCHEDULE
– AS APPLIED IN CONSTRUCTION
TCM Framework: 9.2 – Progress and
Performance Measurement

AACE® International Recommended Practice

91R-16: SCHEDULE DEVELOPMENT
TCM Framework: 7.2 – Schedule
Planning and Development
M A RC H/A PR IL 2 019

MEMBERS, DOWNLOAD FREE: OR, FIND THESE IN OUR

VIRTUAL LIBRARY ONLINE STORE

(enter “90R-17” or “91R-16”

in the search field)

33
 CALENDAR OF
EVENTS
MARCH
1 2019 Chicago Trade Show and Symposium
University Club of Chicago
www.seaoi.org
5 Construction Network Construction Law Seminar
Long Beach Marriott, Long Beach, CA
www.construction-network.net
5 SEAOI March Dinner Meeting
Restoration of Chicago Union Station’s Great Hall
Cliff Dwellers Club, 2005 S. Michigan Ave., 22nd floor, Chicago, IL
www.seaoi.org
7 CMAA 2019 California Construction Law Update
Long Beach Marriott, Long Beach, CA
sccmaa@cmaasc.org
12 CMAA Dinner - DSA With a Focus on the Future
The LA Hotel Downtown, 333 South Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA
sccmaa@cmaasc.org
12 Construction Network VIP Breakfast - Metrolink
City Club, 555 S. Flower, 51st Floor, Los Angeles, CA
www.construction-network.net
13 Construction Network VIP Breakfast - LA World Airports
City Club, 555 S. Flower, 51st Floor, Los Angeles, CA
www.construction-network.net
14 Construction Network VIP Breakfast - LA Metro SR-710
North Project
City Club, 555 S. Flower, 51st Floor, Los Angeles, CA
www.construction-network.net
20-21 4th annual Aerotropolis
Pullman Bangkok Grande Sukhumvit, Thailand
http://akragessuumits.com/ftpupload/MKTCL/SAV39_AERO.pdf
21 CMAA Breakfast of Champions
Boulder Canyon Pumped Storage Project
The LA Hotel Downtown, 333 South Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA
sccmaa@cmaasc.org
21 SEAOI Assessment & Repair of Steel Building
Structures Seminar
Association Forum, 10 S. Riverside Plaza, Ste. 800, Chicago, IL
www.seaoi.org
21 CMAA LADWP’s Boulder Canyon Pumped Storage Project
M A RC H/A P RIL 2 019
The LA Hotel Downtown, Los Angeles, CA
sccmaa@cmaasc.org
27 CMAA Claims Management Guidelines
Long Beach Marriott, Long Beach, CA
sccmaa@cmaasc.org
34
SUBMIT TO: AACE International web.aacei.org
1265 Suncrest Towne Centre Dr., Morgantown, WV 26505-1876, USA
PH: 304-296-8444 | FAX: 304-291-5728 | editor@aacei.org
Please submit items for future calendar listings at
least 60 days in advance of desired publication.
28-29 Second Latin American Congress Of Cost Engineering
Organized by the Bolivia Section in Region 10 UTEPSA -
Universidad Tecnológica Privada de Santa Cruz de la Sierra
aace-bolivia.org or: contacto@aace-bolivia.org
APRIL
4 Construction Network VIP Breakfast
U.S. General Service Administration
City Clue, 555 S. Flower, 51st Floor, Los Angeles, CA
www.construction-network.net
9 CMAA Dinner - The Future of Transportation
The LA Hotel Downtown, 333 South Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA
sccmaa@cmaasc.org
16 Construction Network VIP Breakfast
LA Convention Center Capital Program/Area Expansion Update
City Club, 555 S. Flower, 51st Floor, Los Angeles, CA
www.construction-network.net
18 CMAA Breakfast of Champions
University Trends and Realities in 2019
The LA Hotel Downtown, 333 South Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA
sccmaa@cmaasc.org
18 The 16th Annual SEAOI Midwest Bridge Symposium
Maggiano’s Little Italy, 111 W. Grand Ave., Chicago, IL
www.seaoi.org
30-May 2 AEC BuildTech Conference & Expo
Donald E. Stephens Convention Center, Rosemont, IL
aecbuildtech.com
MAY
7 CMAA CODE Committee
Empowerment of minority, small and women owned businesses
LB Marriott, 4700 Airport Plaza Drive, Long Beach
sccmaa@cmaasc.org
15 CMAA SoCal’s 27th annual Awards Gala - Building Our Future
Hyatt Regency Long Beach, 200 S. Pine Ave., Long Beach, CA 90802
sccmaa@cmaasc.org
20-25 The 10th International Structural Engineering
and Construction Conference (ISEC-10)
University of Illinois at Chicago
isec-society.org/ISEC_10/
M A RC H/A PR IL 2 019

3
Click here to view the preliminary
CONFERENCE BROCHURE

Save
the
Date!
June 16-19, 2019
Sheraton New Orleans
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
 Reasons to Attend
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Develop key
skills that will help you excel in your day-to-day work. Gain
vital knowledge of practices and strategies that will propel
your career forward.
GLOBAL ACCESS: Discover new partnerships,
resources, and technologies to help grow your business and
services inside the Expo Hall, the largest in the field of total
cost management.
NETWORKING: Establish and expand your network of
thought leaders and peers, from around the world, who you
can reach out to for advice and resources year-round.
VALUE: Save time and money as no other event will
connect you with the entire field globally - and in less than
one week. Members who register early get the best rates. Save
$100 on your registration by staying at the host hotel.
INSPIRATION: Fuel your passion each day with insights
and personal reflections from our world-class keynote
sessions, special guest speakers, learning opportunities, and
shared conversations with colleagues.
ATTENDING THE AACE CONFERENCE
& EXPO IS A MUST FOR: cost estimators
| project managers | planners | schedulers | project
controls managers | cost estimators | claims and dispute
resolution managers | decision and risk managers | and any
professionals working in total cost management
For project and cost controls professionals
who are seeking to learn and demonstrate
the expertise to ensure successful project
outcomes, AACE International is the only
source for superior technical resources and
connection to industry thought leaders.
For more information, visit AACE’s website.
2 2019 ConEx
Timely and Thought Provoking
Our distinguished keynote speakers at AACE’s Conference & Expo will offer attendees
their knowledge and insights on today’s most pressing issues and events impacting the
field.
MONDAY KEYNOTE:
Meagan Johnson Generational Humorist
Think you have already heard everything about the
multiple generations? Think again!
Meagan tackles the generational challenges, myths and
misunderstanding head on. Unwilling to accept standard
by-the-book Generational Generalizations, Meagan
demonstrates to audiences, through her own in depth
research and program customization, that all generations
have differences and strengths that go beyond mere age
and appearance. Move beyond complaining about the
generations and revisiting old generational information.
Learn from Meagan Johnson what you can do right now to
make the most of all the generations.
TUESDAY KEYNOTE:
Drew Tarvin Humor Engineer
Drew teaches people how to get better results while
having more fun. He graduated from The Ohio State
University, Magna Cum Laude with a degree in Computer
Science and Engineering and a minor in playing video
games. While at Ohio State, Drew also started an improv
group, despite never having done any theater and being
very much an introvert (if you know Meyers Briggs, he’s
INTJ; if you know Star Wars, he’s R2D2).
After graduating, Drew worked as global project manager
at Procter & Gamble where he managed million dollar
projects for a $350 million business, earning multiple internal
awards for his leadership, communication style, and jokes he
included at the ends of emails (true story). In 2009, he started
Humor That Works, a consultancy on how to use humor to get better
results, and in 2012, he left P&G to lead his company full-time. Since then, Drew has
helped more than 200 organizations increase productivity through humor—including P&G,
GE, ESPN, Microsoft, the U.S. Navy, PepsiCo, and the International Association of Canine
Professional (also a true story). Drew is the best-selling author of Humor That Works: 501
Ways to Beat Stress, Increase Productivity, and Have Fun at Work.
@AACE_Tweets | #myAACE 3
Schedule at a Glance Partners: Exhibits & Sponsorship
Visit the AACE website for the complete conference schedule.

TECHNICAL PROGRAM
The papers presented in the technical program represent the best and most current
tools and techniques used in the industry today covering a wide range of programs and
projects. There are over 100 hours of presentations to choose from over a four day period,
organized in a variety of tracks such as:

• ADVERSE CONDITIONS (ADV)

• BUILDING INFORMATION MODELING (BIM)
• CLAIMS AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION (CDR)
• COST AND SCHEDULE CONTROL (CSC) Exhibit Hall
• PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (DEV) Hours:
• ESTIMATING (EST) Sunday: 3:45PM-8:00PM
• EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT (EVM) Monday: 7:00AM-3:30PM
• FUNDAMENTAL SKILLS (SK) Tuesday: 7:00AM-3:30PM
• GLOBAL PROJECTS (INT) EXHIBIT DETAILS
• IT/IM IN PROJECT AND COST MANAGEMENT (IT)
• OWNER ISSUES (OWN)
• PROJECT MANAGEMENT (PM)
• PLANNING AND SCHEDULING (PS) CONFERENCE & EXPO CONFERENCE & EXPO
• DECISION AND RISK MANAGEMENT (RISK) EXHIBITORS: EXHIBITORS:
• TOTAL COST MANAGEMENT (TCM)
• TOTAL COST MANAGEMENT ANALYTICS (TCMA) Administrative Controls Kelar Pacific Showcase your organization’s brand in a highly
Management LoadSpring Solutions focused environment.
Alice Technologies Long International

At a glance video
Ankura Nomitech Sponsorship of the 2019 Conference & Expo is
ARES PRISM Omega Project Solutions a great opportunity to gain exposure to global
BASIS OnTrack Engineering leaders in the field of total cost management and
Bechtel Palisade to promote your products, services, and image
Here’s a glimpse of what you can expect at the 2019 Conference & Expo. Command Alkon Plan Academy among total cost management professionals.
Conquest Consulting Plan Grid
Group Project Time & Cost We have an array of cost-effective options
Cost Engineering Riskcast Solutions that will enhance your image and visibility
Consultancy Safran among 2019 Conference & Expo attendees. Our
Deltek Schedule Analyzer sponsorship opportunities are among the most
D.R. McNatty & Software cost and time-effective means of capturing the
Associates Sword Active Risk Conference & Expo attendee’s attention while
EcoSys/Hexagon PPM Taurus Project Controls promoting your organization.
Elcosoft Consulting
Eos Group Trimble For more information on becoming a sponsor
Exponent Turner & Townsend and how it will benefit your organization, please
Graphic Schedule University of Wisconsin- contact Cassie LoPiccolo clopiccolo@aacei.org
HCSS Platville Online +1.304.296.8444 ext. 1122.
InEight Value Management
Intaver Institute Strategies
4 2019 ConEx @AACE_Tweets | #myAACE 5
Pre- and Post-Conference Hotel & Travel Information
Seminars & Workshops AIRPORT:
The Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport (MSY) is a public airport conveniently located
At the Conference & Expo, choose from nine different highly interactive, just 13 miles from the Sheraton New Orleans Hotel.
participatory learning opportunities designed for wherever you are in your
career. Perfect for new and experienced practitioners who focus on all GROUND TRANSPORTATION:
aspects of total cost management. Gain valuable skills and important Taxi: At the Louis Armstrong International Airport, taxicab booths are located on the first level of the
takeaways that you can deliver back to your organization, while also Terminal outside of Baggage Claim Belts 1 and 14. Passengers must wait in line at one of these booths for
prepping for the next phase of your career. Register today! taxi service.

CHAIN REACTION: Shuttle: The Louis Armstrong International Airport also offers shuttle options to/from the Sheraton New
Chain Reaction is designed as a collaborative AND competitive event Orleans.
where teams compete against each other by collaborating in small
groups. Each team will be responsible for the planning, assembly, HOTEL:
design, and decoration of one portion of the large machine. Ultimately, SHERATON NEW ORLEANS The host hotel for this year’s Conference & Expo is the Sheraton New
in the end, teams must cooperate and communicate with other teams Orleans and AACE has a block of discounted rooms available here:
to connect their individual portions into one big, functioning machine.
Chain Reaction as a fully collaborative or semi-competitive program provides the
opportunity to form memorable bonds and strengthen core relationships. This unique event is scheduled RESERVE A ROOM
so that you can have a networking continental breakfast, collaborate and compete in the morning, grab
a to-go lunch, and still get to the first technical session on time. (Both meals are included in the price.) Single/Double Occupancy: US $190/night++
Triple Occupancy: US $215/night++
Quadruple Occupancy: US $240/night++
SEMINARS: Current tax rate: 15.75% state and local sales tax + $3 per room/
For complete descriptions of the seminars, visit: SEMINAR DETAILS night

MEMBER NON- Sheraton New Orleans

SEMINAR INSTRUCTOR EARLY MEMBER 500 Canal Street
RATE* EARLY RATE*
New Orleans, LA 70130
THURSDAY - FRIDAY, JUNE 13-14 USA
A.1 CCP Certification Exam Prep Mills $1300 $1450
A.2 DRMP Certification Exam Prep Terouhid $1300 $1450 STAY IN THE HOST HOTEL AND SAVE
SATURDAY - SUNDAY, JUNE 15-16 $100 OFF YOUR CONFERENCE & EXPO
B.1 Project Controls from the Owner’s REGISTRATION:
Cabano $1150 $1300 Earn a US $100 discount off your Conference & Expo registration by staying at the
Perspective
B.2 PSP Certification Exam Prep Nosbisch $1150 $1300 host hotel, the Sheraton New Orleans. Use the link above to access AACE’s hotel reservation website.
Your hotel reservation confirmation email will include the discount code (not the online confirmation
SUNDAY, JUNE 16
number - you’ll find the code under the “Rate Details” part of your confirmation email from the hotel.) To
C.1 Chain Reaction Team Bonding $300 $450 be used when purchasing your conference registration. Hotel discounts must be taken at the time of your
WEDNESDAY - THURSDAY, JUNE 19-20 registration. Hotel discounts will not be applied retroactively.
D.1 Advanced Project Controls from the
Williams $1150 $1300
Owner’s Perspective
D.2 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Dysert $1150 $1300
D.3 Estimating A to Z Leo $1150 $1300
D.4 Intro to Decision Risk Management Wageman $1150 $1300

6 2019 ConEx @AACE_Tweets | #myAACE 7

REGISTER TODAY!
Visit AACE’s website today to register for the Conference & Expo. An
early registration discount is available through May 17.

FULL TECHNICAL 1-DAY PROGRAM

PROGRAM JUNE 16, 17, 18, OR 19
All prices in JUNE 16-19
US dollars. EARLY LATE EARLY LATE
By By ONSITE By By ONSITE
05/17 06/07 05/17 06/07
Member* $ 1075 $ 1175 $ 1275 $ 675 $ 725 $ 825
Non- $ 1325 $ 1325 $1425 $ 775 $ 825 $ 925
Member
Student ** $ 625 N/A
Guest(s)/ $ 200
Youth ***
* Full-time university professors who are AACE members are eligible for a
$100 discount off the member rate.
** You must be a student member of AACE to be eligible for the student rate.
Students are not eligible for the hotel discount.
*** Guest registrations will not be extended to anyone who is currently
an AACE member, who is actively engaged in the practice of total cost
management, or is employed by any company or organization engaged
in total cost management, or is employed by an organization or company
that offers training and/or professional development in the field of total cost
management. Guests may attend a technical session only with the primary
registrant if the primary registrant is a speaker/presenter.

REGISTER TODAY!

ADD THE CONFERENCE RECORDINGS TO

YOUR REGISTRATION FOR ONLY $195
If you are unable to attend all the sessions you would have liked to, or
just want to recap what is presenter, then this is for you. By purchasing
this collection of recordings from all of the presentations at the
conference in conjunctions with your conference registration, you will
have saved well over $500!

FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA

Stay up-to-date by following us on social media.

8 2019 ConEx