Dynamic Float Maps APAB Delay Analysis Used to Demonstrate Cause and Effect 

​

The video shows how float maps made up of updated progressed programmes are used:

​

1. to identify the dynamic as-built critical path, and

2. to perform a detailed cause and effect demonstration that is very difficult to challenge. 

​

The one shown was from a real job that settled. 

​

The cause-and-effect graphic was printed from the computer and the printout was made up of 18 AO size drawings that were stuck together. The graphic was rolled out on the Contractor's head office boardroom table. The Employer's Representative, who was in attendance, then started taking things seriously. 

​

There were many other detailed demonstrations thereafter. The Employer eventually settled the claim submitted for over 300 million AED. 

​

The dynamic method is the automated approach referred to in the book titled: "Delay Analysis in Construction Contracts" by P.J. Keane & A.F. Caltetka, pages 236 through to 250, Section: 6.3 "Float Mapping - approach and methodology". It must be stressed that the approach relies on regularly updated and revised (as necessary) programme updates. If they are not prevalent, then the text is careful to advise the use of another delay analysis method. 

​

We are conscious of the pitfalls of poorly updated progress programmes and hence we offer the alternative method called "Static". "Static" is an approach that a delay analyst may and most likely will have to contemplate at some point in time. If the updated progressed programmes projected statements of "future intent" are not reliable and they do not reflect future intentions reasonably, then the criticality stated at each update will most likely be unreliable. However, the more linear the construction process the more likelihood that the updates will be OK and their statements will be, most likely, reasonably correct.

​

"Static" does not rely on activity relationships to calculate the as-built critical path. It relies on the actual % complete attrition compared to the planned for % complete (if the activity was to be built to plan). The approach is simple to understand please refer to the document below for a better understanding of the "Static" approach:

 

"Dynamic v Static Delay Analysis (establishing the as-built CP and sub critical as-built CP’s via a calculated method that removes any impressionistic or human element) – thereby removing delay analysis arguments".

 

The graph below simply refers graphically to the approach undertaken to calculate the as-built criticality of each activity, and hence determine, ultimately, at any moment in time (data date of the programme update), the most critical activity or activities. Which then enables the determination the as-built critical path by the "Static" method. Of course the bigger the programme update and number of up-dates, the bigger the calculation crunch. 

​

Thereafter, heat maps can be used to identify criticality and rates of criticality and likewise, different parts of the programme can be analysed independently of one another. For example, MEP Electrical can be split from MEP Plumbing. Civil, ABWF and MEP and be separated. A mixture of all three in certain areas can be analysed. What is required though is a sophisticated WBS.

​

​

​

​