It is imperative to be clear on the agreed-upon schedule and constraints.
One master schedule to reign them all, an agreement must be reached to use the same process and format across all contractors.
Far to often, there are several schedules. In any classic industrial project the owner may have a schedule which gets updated with input from different sources such as his analyst staff, contractors and suppliers. Then the general contractor delivering the project has a schedule that many times is not “linked” to the owner’s schedule, and various sub-contractors also have their own schedule. One project, one objective but the schedules are independent and not linked to each other, neither to the general contractor nor to the owner. Such a scenario is planning to fail and will end in a catastrophic project outcome.
There will be differences in stages and progress of completion between activities from contractor to contractor. There will not be identical and interchangeable paths to get from the current state towards the final completions state.
This is more common than one can imagine, each party does not necessary want to share to the other everything they know about the job. Behind this could be project claims, litigations or very aggressive stakeholders which the contractor seeks to shield himself to avoid payment conflicts and maintain cashflow and its ability to deliver the project.
The ultimate risk
The ultimate risk is that everybody loses efficiency because they are not pulling together.
In the best interest of the project, which is the same as saying in the best interest of the owner or client, it is important for all parties to work together using a single master plan.
It is essential and imperative that all parties understand the constraints they place on other parties by not meeting their expected commitment.
Lets take and example for reference: In the main turbine building, the mechanical contractor has completed the installation of a new 9FB General Electric Gas Turbine. He finished earlier than planned and has staff available to start a new activity, in short he decides to start installing the enclosure compartment of the system. He even gets paid a substantial part of the progress during his monthly progress payment. When the ironworker contractor moves in to install the support structure for the inlet duct, he is no longer able to perform the planned crane maneuver since the enclosure now interferes with the lift trajectory. The support structure must be installed in individual sections with manual rigging piece by piece and is finished six weeks later than planned. This causes the turbine filter house foundation to start four weeks later than planned since the area is used by the ironworker. Who reimburses the ironworker for the additional time required to install the support steel? Who reimburses the civil contractor for the delay to start the foundation work for the filter house?
Reflecting on the example above, little chances are for the structural or civil contractor to be reimbursed for the losses they suffered. Usually, delays will be incurred by others, but never needed to happen. To counter this problem, regular (weekly, daily) progress updates must take place. Each of these updates must be to a single master schedule, to which all participants have full access and a full understanding of its logic and constraints. It is a smart move for the project to provide a project scheduler who is in charge of the master schedule and who works as shared resource to all contractors, the general contractor and the owner.
To picture how the lack of using a project master schedule can hurt the client/owner in a single day, assume a plant overhaul project with 200 people working 24/7 and a daily incurred cost of $650.000. In addition, the daily loss of revenue is near 2 million dollar for every day out of operation. Each day such a critical shutdown is delayed, the owner is exposed to the risk of incurring the loss of 2.65 million dollars. This should not occur, yet it still continues to happen!
