Construction Claims Playbook is a regular Civil Engineering Source series led by the ASCE Construction Institute Claims Avoidance and Resolution Committee to outline best practices for avoiding construction claims and provide dispute-resolution guidance for entire project teams.
Two divergent trends have emerged in the approach to project scheduling.
In many cases, projects are employing a more collaborative approach to scheduling, often in parallel with the application of building information modeling (BIM), integrated project delivery (IPD), or other collaborative approaches to project execution. In an alternative trend, some parties are becoming more resistant to sharing schedule details and native schedule data files. That approach is often based on personal experience that sharing more schedule data increases their risk of claims.
While industry reporting and research have emphasized the rise of collaborative contracting, they simultaneously report a continued increase in the quantity and magnitude of claims, including claims for project delay. While more collaborative scheduling is recommended, structural barriers in the industry have slowed its adoption.
The collaborative approach to scheduling
When the emphasis is on collaborative schedule management, a project’s schedule details, including native data files, may be shared freely among the parties. On some projects, personnel from the owner, contractor, and subcontractor may be given access to a shared database, with a process that gives one or more parties approval authority for updates and changes. Schedule updates are developed and reviewed together to optimize the plan for the benefit of all parties.
A recent article by S.F. Moosavi, “Key Scheduling and Reporting Requirements for Collaborative Contracts,” reviewed key requirements for updating schedules on collaborative projects. The article cited the importance of identifying and tracking interfaces and identifying near-critical paths (in addition to the longest path). Meeting those requirements requires quality input from multiple parties, usually including owner, contractor, subcontractor, and supplier personnel. The authors noted that “Periodic schedule updates are among the core requirements for effective management of any project. The same rule applies to collaborative contracts where a more transparent manner of communicating the status update is the essence of these agreements.”
Even if a complex project is delivered under a more traditional framework, many elements of the scope will be delivered and constructed by specialty suppliers and subcontractors. Coordination and information sharing among those parties is fundamental if the project schedule is to reflect a plan that all parties can work together to execute. In the paper, “Challenges and Framework for Subcontractor Schedule Development and Management,” author Pei Tang developed a framework for incorporating subcontractor input into schedules, including owner, contractor, and subcontractor perspectives.
The authors noted challenges such as gaps in input data from subcontractors, misunderstandings along communication chains from subcontractors and contractor schedulers, and misalignment between the contractor’s overall schedule and the subcontractors’ scopes of work.
In categorizing scheduling liabilities, the authors aligned a subcontractor’s “complete responsibility for scheduling and executing their activities” with “full access to the GC’s master schedule.” In other words, contractors that want to hold subcontractors to their schedules should give them the data that they need to do so. In general, better information sharing and more collaborative scheduling is seen as an aid to creating a more “cooperative and productive working environment,” thereby reducing the probability of disputes.
The independent approach to scheduling
The idea that more information sharing will reduce disputes sounds obvious as a theory, but it does not align with experience on many projects.
In a recent article in the ASCE Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, M.S. Kuinkel published the results of a survey of industry professionals selected for their knowledge in the area of updating CPM schedules. The survey received 38 valid responses to questions related to the difficulty of preparing realistic and effective project schedule updates. Although the sample size was relatively small, of all the factors surveyed, poor communication on projects was found to be the most significant factor preventing realistic schedule updates.
Interestingly, the most highly ranked reason for the “failure” of schedule updates was that “The person responsible makes some excuses.” That result implies that a single person may be accountable for the schedule, while “poor communication” implies broader responsibility. In line with that broader responsibility, the survey found that the second most highly ranked reason for schedule failure was that “Schedules are not given much importance.”
That reason implies that greater emphasis on communication and collaborative scheduling from project leaders could improve schedule management and reduce project risk, since many still do not view schedule collaboration as critical to project success. A single person could be accountable for monthly updates, but those updates will not be useful without the collaboration of contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers, which project leaders could require or at least encourage.
Some project personnel may see more risk than reward in open collaboration, based on the view that anything they say may be used against them. In a recent ASCE Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering article, Yanyu Wang noted significant social, technical, and financial barriers to sharing data across the civil engineering infrastructure industry. In other words, entities in our industry may not be as primed for data-sharing by default when compared with other industries, like manufacturing, in which detailed design and logistical coordination among manufacturers and their suppliers has become the default position. Thus, without an explicit direction to collaborate on an infrastructure project, many personnel may fall back on training or instinct, which may guide them to share as little information as possible.
Defining a scheduling strategy
Industry guidance suggests that better communication and information sharing is necessary for effective forecasting and schedule management. Regardless of the method of project delivery, timely project completion requires timely performance by many entities, including specialty subcontractors and suppliers. Owners and prime contractors should be willing to share detailed schedule information openly if they want to hold subordinate stakeholders accountable for timely performance. No party has unlimited resources, and better communication can help everyone to focus on the activities most critical to project success.
Some parties are willing to share schedule information only in PDF format, if they are willing to share information at all. In extreme cases, contractors may not provide any schedule details or updated data to others, insisting that the contract schedule governs in all cases – even after the contract schedule has been rendered irrelevant as a tool for time management. For example, in the middle of a building project that is behind schedule, a subcontract schedule may have required rough-in of utilities months ago, on floors that still do not exist. In cases like that, parties will strain for a sensible interpretation for what could be meant by the direction to “just follow the contract schedule,” and the project team may be unresponsive to requests for any further clarification. That is the type of poor communication that exacerbates problems and increases the risk of project failure and claims.
Still, parties should understand that the industry’s legacy contract paradigms and training have not necessarily been designed to promote collaboration. Project personnel who have been trained to protect their employer or client from risks will often default to a position that limits access to information on a need-to-know basis while simultaneously transferring the risk of delay and schedule changes to other parties as much as practicable. To counter that approach, subordinate parties should consider pressing for full contemporaneous access to schedule data. While one of the parties – often the prime contractor – might have significantly more control over the data, all parties should have free access to it if they are to be held accountable for executing their part of the plan.
Collaborative contract vehicles will not instantly displace decades of training and experience focused on tight control of information to manage contract risks. Project leaders must work to encourage better communication and collaboration.
Conclusion
Better communication and collaboration will lead to better schedules that provide a more reliable and useful model of the project plan. Plans change dynamically based on project events, and open communication will provide parties with the best opportunity to react, adjust the plan, update their own priorities, and mitigate delays.
Some parties will fall back on legacy approaches that seek to reduce risk by limiting information sharing while simultaneously working to hold others more accountable for schedule delays. Project participants should recognize those tactics and work to promote a more collaborative approach to scheduling to achieve timely project completion for the benefit of all parties. Open communication and better sharing of schedule data is recommended whether projects are delivered under a collaborative contract or under a more traditional contract.
Mark Sanders is a member of the ASCE Construction Institute Claims Avoidance and Resolution Committee, partner at the Wilmington, Delaware, office of QDR International, and has over 25 years of experience in engineering, construction, and dispute resolution. He is a licensed professional engineer in Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and a member of the California Bar. He currently serves as the president of AACE International.
Readers can email him at [email protected].
