**This comment could not be dropped on the related Topic, but here.
Lack of Due consideration for effect of Changes – Most projects fail to complete as planned or fail in the RP due to many changes (either to upgrade or apply new techs, etc), yet both parties fail to consider the effects of the duration these changes have on the project and on the overall schedule. Most clients have rigorous MOC processes and while this is done per the required CONTRACT terms, they forget that some changes considering the additional engineering, Procurement (PO timing, Material delivery, etc), fabrication/construction and delivery will never allow the schedule to be the same no matter how convincing the presentations and plans may be. Yet, sometimes despite how hard the contractors try to make the client see reasons, they continue to see changes as something that can be done in between without any effect on the project schedule.
Emmanuel Udoon October 31, 2019 at 7:28 pm
Changes cannot be ruled out sometimes because the owner discovers late that certain enhancements might improve the performance or the ROI of the project. However, insisting that the additional scope be completed without change in project duration could be very unreasonable sometimes. While it is true that additional scope items might be completed by mobilizing additional resources, many times that is not practical because of limitations imposed by offshore projects environment or brownfield, where additional resources might lead to overcrowding and reduced productivity. It is left to the contractor to be transparent with the client and demonstrate the likely outcome of each scenario, and allow the owner to take the decision, and live with the consequence.
ENIEDI EBONGon August 25, 2019 at 10:36 am
A STEP-BY-STEP APPROACH – This is a very detailed, simplified, direct pointing facts and best approach for recovery plan/schedule ‘assembly’.
Sadly, many professionals would not go this route especially most senior management level decision makers because they will consider it time ‘wasting’ and involvement of too many personnel who should be busy working (I guess – working the project to further slippages) instead of allowing them avail themselves of the required meetings and direction for gathering these needed information.
Always and as the case has mostly been, the Planning Engineer or Consultant is expected to do some adroitness and “manufacture” blind dates that is already late from ‘manufacture’.
Thank you sir for sharing this.
Emmanuel Udoon September 25, 2019 at 7:22 pm
That is often the problem. We do not have the time to take the car for service. But we find all the time to fix the problem when it breaks down and we get stock on the road.
Subscribe To Our Newsletter
Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from our team.
**This comment could not be dropped on the related Topic, but here.
Lack of Due consideration for effect of Changes – Most projects fail to complete as planned or fail in the RP due to many changes (either to upgrade or apply new techs, etc), yet both parties fail to consider the effects of the duration these changes have on the project and on the overall schedule. Most clients have rigorous MOC processes and while this is done per the required CONTRACT terms, they forget that some changes considering the additional engineering, Procurement (PO timing, Material delivery, etc), fabrication/construction and delivery will never allow the schedule to be the same no matter how convincing the presentations and plans may be. Yet, sometimes despite how hard the contractors try to make the client see reasons, they continue to see changes as something that can be done in between without any effect on the project schedule.
Changes cannot be ruled out sometimes because the owner discovers late that certain enhancements might improve the performance or the ROI of the project. However, insisting that the additional scope be completed without change in project duration could be very unreasonable sometimes. While it is true that additional scope items might be completed by mobilizing additional resources, many times that is not practical because of limitations imposed by offshore projects environment or brownfield, where additional resources might lead to overcrowding and reduced productivity.
It is left to the contractor to be transparent with the client and demonstrate the likely outcome of each scenario, and allow the owner to take the decision, and live with the consequence.
A STEP-BY-STEP APPROACH – This is a very detailed, simplified, direct pointing facts and best approach for recovery plan/schedule ‘assembly’.
Sadly, many professionals would not go this route especially most senior management level decision makers because they will consider it time ‘wasting’ and involvement of too many personnel who should be busy working (I guess – working the project to further slippages) instead of allowing them avail themselves of the required meetings and direction for gathering these needed information.
Always and as the case has mostly been, the Planning Engineer or Consultant is expected to do some adroitness and “manufacture” blind dates that is already late from ‘manufacture’.
Thank you sir for sharing this.
That is often the problem. We do not have the time to take the car for service. But we find all the time to fix the problem when it breaks down and we get stock on the road.