Optimistic baseline syndrome
Baselines built on best-case durations with zero contingency. SPI drifts below 0.95 inside the first 15% of the schedule — that is the leading indicator everyone misses.
Open EVM calculatorIntelligence Centre
Briefings for planners, PMOs and project leaders.
Seven focused references — failure patterns, the full FIDIC Delay Claim Library covering every EOT method, recovery playbooks, PMO dashboards, scheduling, EVM and the honest take on AI in project controls. Every section links back to a calculator you can run yourself.
01 — Failure patterns
Project Failure Database
Recurring failure patterns across real construction and EPC programmes — scope ambiguity, broken float, optimistic baselines, weak change control and unmanaged interfaces. Each entry is written from a practitioner lens: what failed, why the controls did not catch it, and which calculator surfaces the same signal early.
Float erosion before alarms fire
Total float quietly evaporates across the critical path while RAG dashboards stay green. Re-run float analysis monthly, not quarterly.
Open CPM calculatorCost overrun with no EAC refresh
CPI below 0.9 for three reporting cycles but the EAC is still the original baseline. Force a re-forecast the moment CPI breaches the threshold.
Open cost varianceChange control bypass
Field instructions issued without variation orders. The cumulative impact stays invisible until claims arrive twelve months later.
02 — Delay & claims
Delay Claims Library — FIDIC EOT Reference
A practitioner reference covering Extension of Time (EOT) entitlements, delay classifications and analysis methods under FIDIC conditions of contract — how to classify delay events by responsibility, which claims are time-only or time-plus-cost, and how to quantify and present them defensibly.
ECD — Excusable Compensable Delay
Employer-risk events under FIDIC where the contractor is entitled to an Extension of Time and cost compensation. Covers Sub-Clauses 1.9 (delayed drawings), 2.1 (late site access), 4.12 (unforeseeable physical conditions), 8.4(a)–(b) (variations and employer impediments), and 17.3 (employer’s risks). Records must link the event to critical-path delay and quantify cost contemporaneously.
END — Excusable Non-Compensable Delay
Neutral-risk events under FIDIC where the contractor receives an EOT but no money. Covers Sub-Clause 8.4(c)–(f): exceptional climatic conditions, epidemics or government actions, and unforeseeable shortages in commodity markets. Force Majeure under Clause 19 also falls here. Time is extended; the contractor bears the related cost.
NED — Non-Excusable Delay
Contractor-risk events. No EOT, no compensation, and the contractor remains liable for liquidated damages if completion is delayed. Includes inadequate resources, poor subcontractor management, defective work and rework, slow procurement, and any mobilisation or sequencing failure within the contractor’s control. Document the contractor’s mitigation efforts to limit exposure.
CD — Concurrent Delay
Simultaneous employer-risk and contractor-risk delays that overlap in time. Under the common-law interpretation applied to FIDIC (Malmaison / City Inn approach), concurrent employer delay still grants an EOT but typically bars prolongation cost recovery for the concurrent period. The SCL Protocol recommends identifying the dominant cause where possible. Document causation daily.
Impacted As-Planned (IAP)
Prospective method. Insert delay events as fragnets into the original baseline and re-run CPM. Quick to produce, but weak evidentially because it ignores actual progress. Rarely accepted in FIDIC arbitrations without strong contemporaneous records to support the hypothetical.
Time Impact Analysis (TIA)
Prospective, window-based. Insert the delay fragnet into the contemporaneous updated schedule at the moment the delay occurred. The SCL Protocol's preferred prospective method — defensible under FIDIC when monthly updates under Sub-Clause 8.3 were genuinely contemporaneous and properly statused.
Time Slice / Windows Analysis
Retrospective. Slice the project into discrete update windows and analyse critical-path movement in each. The SCL Protocol's preferred retrospective method when good updates exist. Highly defensible under FIDIC when monthly programme updates were maintained as a contractual deliverable.
As-Planned vs As-Built (APAB)
Retrospective, observational. Overlay the as-built programme on the as-planned to identify variance. Cheap and intuitive, but weak on causation — best used as a supporting exhibit alongside a forensic method in FIDIC disputes.
Collapsed As-Built (But-For)
Retrospective. Build an as-built CPM, then remove the employer-risk events to see what the completion date would have been but for those delays. Powerful when contemporaneous schedules are missing under FIDIC, but heavy on assumptions and requires careful expert evidence.
Acceleration — directed and constructive
Directed acceleration is instructed by the Engineer under FIDIC and must be priced and agreed. Constructive acceleration arises when an EOT is wrongfully refused under Sub-Clause 20.1 and the contractor must accelerate to avoid LDs — high evidential bar, requires denial, notice and proof of mitigation cost.
Prolongation cost (time-related preliminaries)
Recoverable site and head-office overheads incurred during the EOT period. Use Emden, Hudson or Eichleay formulae for head office, and actual time-related site preliminaries — never bar-chart preliminary lump sums divided by weeks.
Open prolongation calculatorNotice, records and the global claim trap
FIDIC Sub-Clause 20.1 requires notice within 28 days of becoming aware of the event. Without contemporaneous records linking cause to effect for each event, the claim collapses into a 'global' or 'total cost' claim — disfavoured in FIDIC arbitration and routinely struck out for lack of particularisation.
02b — Delay causation
Notable delay causes by party
The most frequent delay events seen on FIDIC-governed projects, classified by who bears the risk and whether the delay is excusable and compensable (ECD), excusable only (END), or non-excusable (NED).
ECD
Excusable Compensable
END
Excusable Non-Compensable
NED
Non-Excusable
CD
Concurrent Delay
Owner / Employer (ECD)
Late design / delayed drawings85%
Late instructions / variations75%
Delayed site access / possession70%
Interference by other contractors50%
Suspension of works40%
Contractor (NED)
Inadequate labour / resources80%
Poor subcontractor management65%
Rework / quality defects60%
Late procurement by contractor55%
Plant breakdown / inefficiency50%
Slow mobilisation45%
02a — Prolongation cost
Prolongation cost calculator
Quantify the time-related cost of an Extension of Time. Time-related site preliminaries are calculated from actual weekly run-rates; head-office overhead is recovered via Hudson, Emden or Eichleay. Indicative only — your contract, jurisdiction and records dictate what is actually recoverable.
Head-office overhead method
Site preliminaries
203,200
Head office (Emden formula (audited HO%))
130,769
Financing
3,597
Total prolongation
337,566
Hudson and Emden recover HO + profit as a percentage of contract value pro-rated over the original duration; Eichleay allocates audited HO overhead by the contract's share of total company billings. Profit is generally recoverable only where revenue was actually displaced. Always cross-check against your contract, the SCL Delay & Disruption Protocol and the governing law before submission.
03 — Recovery
Project Recovery Playbooks
Step-by-step routines for projects already in distress. The same first-90-day workflow used when parachuted onto a recovery: baseline triage, schedule resequencing, cost re-forecast, governance reset and stakeholder communication.
Week 1 — Diagnostic triage
Re-run the health score and portfolio index. Identify the three controls that are missing, not the fifty that are imperfect.
Week 2–3 — Schedule resequencing
Critical path risk score, float erosion analysis, and a frank conversation about which scope can be deferred to a second phase.
CPM toolWeek 4–6 — Cost re-forecast
Refresh EAC and TCPI. If TCPI exceeds 1.10 the project cannot be recovered on cost without a baseline reset.
Cost variance toolWeek 7–12 — Governance reset
Replace the RAG dashboard with a leading-indicator dashboard. Brief the steering committee on the new forecast with full transparency.
04 — Dashboards
PMO Dashboard Gallery
A reference set of the dashboards we actually use in PMOs — executive KPI views, portfolio health, risk exposure heatmaps and EVM control charts. Which metric belongs on which screen, and what decision it is supposed to trigger.
Executive KPI dashboard
Five numbers, one page, monthly. SPI, CPI, EAC variance, top-three risks, top-three issues. If it does not fit on one page the executive will not read it.
Portfolio health index
One composite index per project across the portfolio. Sortable, colour-coded by trajectory rather than current status.
Risk exposure heatmap
Probability × impact, weighted by proximity. Turns the risk register from a compliance artefact into a forecasting tool.
Risk heatmap toolRAID log on the same page
Risks, Assumptions, Issues, Dependencies — surfaced next to the KPIs so the conversation stays connected to the numbers.
05 — Scheduling
Planning & Scheduling Insights
Practical scheduling intelligence — how to set realistic durations, how to use earned schedule when SPI lies near the end of a project, when to compress and when to descope, and how to defend a schedule under independent assurance review.
Earned schedule versus SPI
Past the 60% mark, SPI converges to 1.0 even on late projects. Earned schedule keeps telling the truth right up to handover.
Schedule compression economics
Crashing the critical path is rarely linear. Model the cost of compression against liquidated damages before you authorise overtime.
Resource utilisation and levelling
An unlevelled schedule is a wish list. Run resource utilisation before signing the baseline, not after.
Procurement lead time as a hidden critical path
Long-lead equipment frequently sits on the real critical path, even when the CPM software says otherwise. Model it explicitly.
06 — Cost & EVM
Cost Control & EVM Insights
Earned value, forecasting and cash management — written for engineers, not auditors. The small set of EVM metrics that actually drive decisions, the failure modes of each, and the cash-flow consequences textbooks tend to skip.
CPI as the earliest leading indicator
By the 15% milestone, CPI rarely improves by more than 10%. CPI of 0.85 at 15% complete means the final overrun is already locked in.
EVM toolEAC: three methods, one number
EAC by CPI, EAC by CPI×SPI, and bottom-up EAC. Triangulate. If the three differ by more than 10% the team does not yet know what the project will cost.
Cash flow forecast vs cost forecast
Cost forecast tells you whether the budget holds. Cash flow forecast tells you whether you survive next quarter. Both belong on the steering deck.
Contingency reserves done properly
Contingency is not a flat percentage on top of the estimate — it is a risk-weighted reserve. Re-baseline it every quarter against the live risk register.
07 — AI vs reality
AI vs Real Project Controls
An honest practitioner view of where AI helps in project controls and where it does not. AI is excellent at narrative drafting, anomaly detection and pattern recognition across historical schedules. It is poor at replacing judgement on contractual matters, claims strategy and stakeholder politics. The boundary matters.
Where AI genuinely accelerates the PMO
Status report drafting, schedule narrative, risk-register summarisation and trend detection across multiple projects in a portfolio.
Where AI quietly fails
Setting baselines, judging concurrency in delay claims, advising on commercial strategy, and any decision where the source data is sparse or politicised.
Human-in-the-loop EVM
Use the calculators to compute the numbers, use AI to draft the narrative, and use the PM to decide. Never the other way around.
Glossary as the shared vocabulary
Most AI tools hallucinate when project teams use ambiguous terminology. A shared glossary reduces hallucination more than any prompt-engineering trick.
08 — Certification practice
PMP Question Bank — 100+ practice questions
A free, fully interactive practice bank covering every PMBOK 8th edition knowledge area and process group. Filter, shuffle, take it as study or exam mode, and get instant scoring with explanations.
Start practisingCoverage
105+
Curated questions across every knowledge area and process group.
Knowledge areas
- · Integration
- · Scope
- · Schedule
- · Cost
- · Quality
- · Resource
- · Communications
- · Risk
- · Procurement
- · Stakeholder
Process groups
InitiatingPlanningExecutingMonitoring & ControllingClosing
Study mode reveals the correct answer and rationale as you go. Exam mode hides feedback until you submit, then gives a percentage score with full explanations.
FAQ — Practitioner questions
Frequently asked questions
What is the Intelligence Centre?
An editorial briefing layer for working project controls practitioners — failure patterns, mega-project lessons, delay-claims reference material, recovery playbooks, PMO dashboards, scheduling, EVM and AI. Every section links to a calculator that turns the idea into a defensible number.
How is this different from the blog?
The blog publishes opinion and field notes. The Intelligence Centre curates recurring controls patterns and connects each one to a calculator on this site you can run yourself.
Which calculators are linked?
EVM, cost variance, critical path and risk heatmap — the four working tools shipped on this site, with more on the roadmap.
Is the content honest about AI?
Yes. The AI vs Real Project Controls section is explicit about where AI fails — baselines, concurrency in delay claims, and commercial strategy.
Briefings are the start. The calculators are where decisions happen.
EVM, cost variance, critical path and risk heatmap — all client-side, no signup.