Forensic Analysis using Deltek Acumen
Here is a bit of knowledge sharing for you peer professionals working in claims or forensics. Back in 2012 during my employment as a subject matter expert for Technip I was tasked with trying to capture delays for one of our Subsea projects to prove delays and the impact it had on the project. This analysis was performed on 11-Oct-12, however the need for an innovative way of analyzing Acumen was needed. At the time Acumen did not have the Time Phase Analyzer it has today. This presentation provides the slides presented during the 2013 Deltek Acumen Annual Summit.
A basis synopsis of our research was to perform a Retrospective Analysis using the Observational Dynamic Logic Method under as Contemporaneous/As-Is Taxonomy in order to try and isolate the schedule slippage caused solely caused by work progress based on its existing logic during the update period.
A good question was asked, "most of this can be done in P6 so what makes Acumen different?" The answer is P6 can only compare 3 baselines in one snapshot at a time and the graphics are limiting. So my answer to that question is that in Acumen we were able to provide a visual representation of all baselines in a time window analysis. P6 can not do this visually unless you export data to Excel and create charts.
So I share with you all the methodology and the live demonstration [live at the time presented] on the functionality of the software. Feel free to add comments or questions regarding the presentation.
Click this link to view the Video & Download Forensic Acumen Technip Case Study
Advanced Planing Analytics.com
Senior Scheduler/Estimator, Forensic Delay Analyst and Construction Defects Expert Witness, Change Management
8 年you will also note that Fuse has over 250 metrics, whereas P6 has only DCMA 14.
Owner @ Fearnsides and Associates - Construction Management Services Consultants - Claims, Delay Analysis, Commercial, Contract Admin & Management, Project Controls, QS & Expert Witness(delay, quantum & support).
8 年One other thing, on tracer logic does the software upload effectively all the predecessor and successor relationships to define the logic to be traced. I do something similar by say identifying an activity and then that activity can be traced back through all its predecessors and then identify by colour coding which activities are driving and which are not. For example an activity may have three predecessors and most likely only one will be driving, leaving the other two with free float effectively. I always produce a float map and then look at the as-built v as planned via windows (using the program updates CP's as guide in my first step in an "as, is" observational approach and then determine the as-built CP subjectively if the programme updates are out of whack with reality.
Owner @ Fearnsides and Associates - Construction Management Services Consultants - Claims, Delay Analysis, Commercial, Contract Admin & Management, Project Controls, QS & Expert Witness(delay, quantum & support).
8 年Interesting, I have not used Acumen Fuse, so I would be interested to know if the CP comparison is derived from activities that are driving with the least float or are they shown via just the least float.
Lead Quality Engineer,Quality Manager ,QMS -Lead Auditor ISO 9001 : 2015 , MS Projects Primavera P6, Certified Lean Six Sigma-LSSYB,LSSGB,LSSBB Certified CPD
8 年Interested