Checklist for Compliance

What to look for in a programme review

When the programme is submitted, the CA should ask the following questions:

1. Does it comply with contractual obligations, milestones or restraints on working hours methods?

2. Is the entire scope of the work represented?

3. Are any activity durations questionably too long, or too short for the scope of work they represent.

4. Are there any obvious errors in the programme related to the sequence or timings of the works.

5. Are any requirements of the employer’s professional team too onerous e.g early completion programmes, unrealistic time allowances for approvals or supply of information, which constitutes employers risk?

Review of CPM Programme submittal

1. many contract administrators and other professionals are still of the view that a CPM submittal should consist of several pages of activity listings and/or a barchart plot or two.

2. A CPM submission for review should in fact consist of a full copy of the computer files necessary to recreate the programme; everything else is just frills.

A CPM submission, both for the baseline for review and subsequent updates should consist of three discrete items:

1. The activity details, including description, original and remaining durations, and percentage complete. In conjunction with this, you should see, for each activity, other computer information such as early and late start and finish times, and total float

2. The logical relationship that connect the various activities together to form a network which makes CPM work. Full details of any lags and leads, i.e imposed times durations between activities, is a must in the submittal.

3.‘Constraints’. The true logic of a network can be overridden by the programme containing various time constraints on an activity or activities.

These will artificially reduce total float and could create an invisible delay, or even lead to the activity just expanding to take all the available time. This will never show up on barchart plot and is only found in a ‘constraint’ listing and/or a copy of the computer files.

If satisfied that the information is sufficient for a proper review, here are five basic checks that should be carried out using the computer files provided by the contractor:

Test 1: Does the ‘longest path’ filter identify a reasonable critical path for the project?

• Make sure the longest path is reasonable and then check the reasonableness of near critical paths

Test 2: Are they any open-ended activities in the programme?

• In general, there should be only two open-ended activities in the entire network: One beginning activity with no predecessors, and one completion activity with no successor. Every other activity should be logically tied into the network. Furthermore, every activity should have its finish constrained with at least one FS (finish-to-start) or FF (finish-to-finish) successor relationship to another activity. Likewise, every activity should have at least one SS (start-to start) or FS (finish-to-Start) predecessor relationship to another activity.

Test 3: Do any of the activities have too much float?

• Activities with too much float may indicate missing logic links, or logic links that have been overridden in a subsequence progress update. Identify any such activities.

Test 4: Are there any unnecessarily long gaps in work flow when grouping activities by work area and sorting by early start dates?

• In most cases once work begins in a particular area or phase of the project then the programme should allow work to continue uninterrupted in that area or phase.

• Long calendar gaps in a work area or phase may indicate less than ideal workflow and suggest an adjustment of preferential logic links to create a better plan.

Test 5: Are there activities with unnecessary contractual-assigned constraints?

• As Constraints override the network logic in calculating activity start/finish dates and total float they should be used sparingly, if at all. A better approach is to use activity durations and network logic to model the project, and thereby eliminate constraints.

Five basic checks

Test 1: Does the ‘longest path’ filter identify a reasonable critical path for the project?

• Make sure the longest path is reasonable and then check the reasonableness of near critical paths

Test 2: Are they any open-ended activities in the programme?

• In general, there should be only two open-ended activities in the entire network: One beginning activity with no predecessors, and one completion activity with no successor. Every other activity should be logically tied into the network. Furthermore, every activity should have its finish constrained with at least one FS (finish-to-start) or FF (finish-to-finish) successor relationship to another activity. Likewise, every activity should have at least one SS (start-to start) or FS (finish-to-Start) predecessor relationship to another activity.

Test 3: Do any of the activities have too much float?

• Activities with too much float may indicate missing logic links, or logic links that have been overridden in a subsequence progress update. Identify any such activities.

Test 4: Are there any unnecessarily long gaps in work flow when grouping activities by work area and sorting by early start dates?

• In most cases once work begins in a particular area or phase of the project then the programme should allow work to continue uninterrupted in that area or phase.

• Long calendar gaps in a work area or phase may indicate less than ideal workflow and suggest an adjustment of preferential logic links to create a better plan.

Test 5: Are there activities with unnecessary contractual-assigned constraints?

• As Constraints override the network logic in calculating activity start/finish dates and total float they should be used sparingly, if at all. A better approach is to use activity durations and network logic to model the project, and thereby eliminate constraints.