Presented at the 2012 Construction CPM Conference, this presentation walks through the challenges of owner/contractor and JV disputes and reviews solutions and prevention techniques using Fuse.

1. Successful Dispute Resolution
using Acumen Fuse
enterprise project analysis
Dr. Dan Patterson PMP | CEO & Founder Acumen

2. 2
Agenda
! Introductions
! Fuse & forensics overview
! Case study #1: Owner/Contractor Dispute
! Case study #2: JV Dispute
January 24, 2012

3. Acumen: Proven Project Analytics
! Project Management Software Company
! Improving CPM scheduling & analysis
! Thought leader in Analytics
S1 > S5™ Framework Acumen Core Offerings
S5: Acumen Fuse®
Validate
S4:
Optimize
S3: Risk-
S2:
Adjust Risk Assessment Workshops
Critique
S1: Build
Software Training

4. 4
Why do Disputes Arise?
• “Planning the work” and “working the plan”
! Causes of failure
• “Unrealistic & inadequate planning” or “Poor Execution”
• Poorly contracted terms, Misaligned expectations
• Loosely defined scope/ High degree of change
! The challenge of CAPEX projects
! Large projects are inherently complex to model
! Gantt charts/CPM tools don’t lend themselves to team insight
! The Solution: Project metric analysis & Forensics
! Pinpoint root-cause of schedule flaws & true risk exposure
! Resolution of cost/schedule/risk/performance issues through optimization
! Study of event interaction using CPM… … to understand significance of deviations from a
baseline for potential use in a legal proceeding.
! Hindsight vs. Foresight approach
January 24, 2012

5. 5
Forensics & Metric Analysis
! Objective: to align plan & execution
! Planning
! Quality of schedule basis
! Realism of estimates
! Accuracy of sequence
! Risk-adjusted
! Execution
! Comparison of scenarios e.g. as planned V as built
! Windows analysis e.g. absorption of float
! Non-progress revisions – changes…
! Baseline compliance
January 24, 2012

6. Planning Forensics 6
Framework
• Schedule Basis
EPA LANL URS • Reflects latest scope/contractor
S1 updates
• Critiqued Schedule
SAIC Shaw NASA
• Structurally sound, no contingency,
S2 sound logic
General
DCMA Fluor
Dynamics • Risk-Adjusted Schedule
• Estimate uncertainty, risk events
S3
L3 GAO Battelle
• Optimized Target Scenarios
• Reduced hot spots, higher confidence
S4
Dow Chemical ConocoPhillips NAVAIR
• Team Validated Scenario
• Buy-in on mitigation plans
S5
SRS US Navy Bechtel
January 24, 2012

7. 7
Introduction to Fuse
Enterprise Project Analysis
! Fuse: analytics platform
! Improves schedule quality
! Insight into performance & forensics
! Fuse 360: goal-based acceleration
! Schedule Acceleration
! Decision-support
January 24, 2012

8. 8
Analysis Three Analysis Modules
Metric Analysis
Benefit:
Pinpoint shortcomings
!
Metric
! Slice and dice Analysis
About:
! 250+ metrics
! Industry Standard
! Unique-to-Fuse metrics
! Customizable
January 24, 2012

9. 9
Metric Analysis
January 24, 2012

10. 10
Analysis Three Analysis Modules
Logic Analysis
Benefit:
Identify & remove flaws
!
Metric
! Simplify complexities Analysis
About:
! Recognizes multi-project
relationships
Logic
Analysis
January 24, 2012

11. 11
Logic Analysis

12. 12
Analysis Three Analysis Modules
Forensic Analysis
Benefit:
! Schedule comparison Forensic Metric
! Calculate variances Analysis Analysis
! Identify changes
About:
! Any attribute or field
Any number of schedules
Logic
Analysis
!
January 24, 2012

13. 13
Forensic Analysis
As planned V
Key is not just what changed but
Half Step V As
the impact of the change
Built

14. Case Study #1
Execution Delay Dispute
! Project incurred massive schedule delays
! Disagreement as to root cause of delay
! Ongoing financial exposure was huge
! As expert witness, Acumen asked to:
1. Determine realism of schedule(s)
2. Give insight into highly complex plan
3. Perform schedule risk analysis
4. Pinpoint delay drivers (root cause)
5. Offer acceleration scenarios

15. 15
Schedule Critique
! Developed a library of core metrics to give
insight into schedule basis quality
! Drivers
! Missing logic
! Constraints
! Use of Lags Became the basis
! Effect of the 300
! Negative float metrics built into
! Logic Density™ Fuse
! Float ratio™
January 24, 2012

16. Fuse Schedule Quality 16
Index™
! Overarching schedule quality score
! Helped with assessing multiple versions
of the schedule
! Enabled trending of schedule quality
! Pinpointed shortcoming by contractor
January 24, 2012

17. 17
Logic Density
! Indicator as to the quality of logic
! Highlighted extreme schedule complexity
in early phase of execution

18. 18
Driving Path Analysis
! Pinpoint driving path(s)
! Specific Activity
! Trace forwards, backwards
! Two Activities
! Path between them
! Link visualization
! Show movement
! Highlighted breaks in the
driving path!

19. 19
Additional Logic Analysis
January 24, 2012

20. 20
Variance Analysis
! Pinpointed changes to plan on monthly basis
! Isolated owner of change
! Determined planned or unplanned
January 24, 2012

21. 21
Baseline Compliance™
! Used to determine how close a schedule
was planned and executed against it’s
baseline
! Measure of well the plan was being
executed
! More than just date comparison
! Looked at period-compliance
January 24, 2012

22. Compliance Scenarios

23. Compliance Metrics

24. Baseline Compliance™
Analysis
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Looked at correlation with
changes/correlation analysis

25. 25
Summary of Analysis
! Pinpointed specific shortcomings in
schedule
! Determined areas of repeated scope
change
! Determined owner/driver of unplanned
change
! Unique insight into true risk expousre
January 24, 2012

26. Case Study #2
Joint Venture Dispute
• Oil & gas CAPEX project
• Completion Nov 2018 (year later than JV board willing to sanction)
• Pre-FEED already slipped by 6 months
• Determine true first production date
• Understand & agree P50/P75 risk exposure
• Identify scenario to get project back to original target completion
Risk exposure Acceleration
Realism (S2)
(S3) (S4)

27. 27
Detailed Risk Analysis
! Hidden critical paths
! Risk Hotspots
! Risk exposure over time
January 24, 2012

28. 28
True Risk Profile
100
90
Team Perception
80
True Risk Exposure
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15
January 24, 2012

29. 29
Accelerated Scenario
! Choose
! Target date
! Duration acceleration
! Best possible
! Cleansed schedule
! Specific criteria
January 24, 2012

30. 30
Project Criteria Set
! Defined series of steps
! Steps contained rules
! Duration reduction
! Calendar adjustment
! Lag reduction
! Constraint elimination
! Set priority
! Earliest/latest
! Longest
! Easiest/least resistance
! Targeted activities
! e.g. exclude procurement
January 24, 2012

31. 31
Scenario #1 Analysis Results

32. Schedule 32
Acceleration Efficiency™
Example 1 Example 2
! 2 day project acceleration ! 2 day project acceleration
! requires 2 days of reduction ! requires 2 days of reduction
! Acceleration Efficiency =2/2 100% ! Acceleration Efficiency=2/3 67%
2 day activity
reduction 2 day activity
reduction
1 day activity
reduction
2 day project 2 day project
acceleration acceleration
January 24, 2012

33. 33
Results: Risk & Acceleration
! Balance between risk & acceleration
! Able to achieve12 month acceleration
! P50 dates reflected 10 month acceleration
January 24, 2012

34. Want to Avoid Dispute
Resolution?
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Fuse Quality Index™

35. More information:
White papers: www.projectacumen.com
Software Trial: www.projectacumen.com/trial
Twitter: @projectacumen
Email: info@projectacumen.com