COMPARISON OF WHAT IF, FAST TRACK, AND CRASH PROGRAM METHODS FOR ACCELERATION
OF PROJECT DELAY
Ratih Prawirawati
1, Agus Suharyanto
2, Alwafi Pujiraharjo
21
Student/ Master Program/ Civil Engineering Department/ Engineering Faculty Brawijaya University
2
Lecturer/ Civil Engineering Department/ Engineering Faculty Brawijaya University Jl. MT. Haryono No. 167 Malang, 65145, East Java
Correspondence: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
One of the obstacles that often arises in working on a project is project delay. Delays cause the project implementation duration is not as planned in employment contract. The similarities of the What If, Fast Track, and Crash Program methods can all reduce project delays, while the difference is seen in the duration and cost. Each method has a different duration and cost, depending on the results obtained from each of these methods. Comparison of costs incurred by the What If method is less than the Crash Program method, while the Fast Track method is the least compared to the other two methods. Comparison of the duration of the What If method is longer than the Crash Program method, while the Fast Track method is the shortest compared to the other two methods. The results of the calculation of the acceleration of the duration obtained from the three methods cannot restore the initial duration of the project, therefore the researcher tries to combine the three methods to restore the initial duration of the project, and the result of the combination of the three methods is the combination of the Fast Track Crash Program method and the combination of the Fast Track Crash Program method. Track What If both can restore the initial duration of the project which is 241 days. However, if the method is reversed into a combination of the Crash Program Fast Track and What If Fast Track methods, the resulting results are different, namely, they cannot return the initial duration of the project. The costs incurred from these combinations are both less than the realization costs, but still higher than the planning costs.
Keywords : Crash Program, Fast Track, Delay, Acceleration, What If
1. INTRODUCTION
In construction project implementation process, delays are usually caused by unplanned obstacles or problems. Delays cause the project implementation duration not as planned planned in the employment contract.
Delays cause project costs to increase, and cause many demands from project owners to complete them on time, therefore an appropriate method is needed to speed up the project. Many methods are used to speed up this delay, including the Fast Track method, the What If method, and the Crash Program method. The purpose of this study is to reconstruct the project and develop a project that is late using the comparison of the Fast Track method, the What If analysis method,
and the Crash Program method based on control and cost. This study aims to compare the results of the calculations obtained from the three types of methods, so that the results of the third comparison of these methods can be used by contractors, consultants, and construction practitioners as a comparison in deciding what should be used to propose projects, so that the effect losses arising from delays in this project can be minimized. This research type is analytical descriptive and the problem boundaries in this research are:
1. The data used of this study are come from contractors, the implementation time of all methods begins on the same date with the project planning.
2. The projects used as research material are projects that have delay more than 5% of the planned time, this is based on the S curve, project data and reports.
3. Adding the number of workers and working hours for each delayed work item based on the needs of project acceleration and each method.
4. Heavy equipment is assumed can be used for 24 hours.
2. LITERATURES REVIEW
2.1. What If method at Critical Path Method (CPM)
According to [1] the "What If" analysis is sensitivity method that often carried out behind the decision-making process, due to uncertainty and doubt in reality. The “What If”
analysis on the CPM model asks “What if there is delay in one of the activities. Here you will see the role of float in non-critical activities, then the duration acceleration step is carried out on the following activities so that the project duration is not delayed and runs effectively.
The activities duration acceleration is carried out by increasing the working hours and the number of workers per day, and according to [3] What If Analysis is quantitative analysis with qualitative approach, using general and broad questions to find out the possibilities that will occur from existing problem. What If Analysis also can be referred to as data simulation whose purpose is to analyze the characteristics or properties of complex system under a given hypothesis.
2.2. Fast Track Method with CPM
According to [2], the Fast Track method is a scheduling method whose project completion time is faster than the normal time, in the conventional method the application of design and construction is carried out overlapping which is carried out on the critical path of the project duration so that the duration can be accelerated.
2.3. Crash Program Method
One of the ways to speed up project duration is to use the Crash Program method.
This method is used to correct the delayed schedules by using network planning on the critical path, this is carried out by optimizing non-critical work to critical work. One of the methods that often used in the Crash Program method is to cross-exchange between time and cost, by increasing the time for workers,
increasing the number of workers, and increasing the material amount with the aim to shorten the duration or time which will affect the project additional costs. This method can increase the resources use and direct costs. To fix the delayedschedule on the critical path in network planning, the smallest cost slope is used with the formula [4] :
... (1)
2.4. Workers Productivity
According to [5] the activity productivity is highly dependent on several factors, including:
1. In construction projects, there are several working groups, the foreman or supervisor of realization who oversees the workers from various types of work in realization such as stone masons, carpenters, blacksmiths, electricians, plumbers, help builders, and so on.
2. Overtime hours are additional hours of work carried out outside normal or predetermined working hours. This situation can occur when construction project experiences delay
3. Contractors have two ways to find realization workers, the first is by directly looking for workers to work at realization and the second can give work packages to sub-contractors to find the realization workers.
4. The number of workers must be based on the ratio of the number of workers to the project scale or the workplacearea. The relationship between activity duration and work productivity can be expressed in the following equation:
... (2)
According to [1] the project duration can be accelerated by increasing worker productivity on the ongoing project activities.
Durationacceleration can be done by using equation (2), which is done on only 2 variables, namely the variable working hours and the number of workers. However, the total working hours cannot be used as variable because it is constant in each activity, the formula for increasing the number of workers in an activity is:
... (3) And the working hours addition on the following activities with the formula:
... (4)
3. RESEARCH CONCEPT FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY
3.1. Research Concept Framework
Conceptual framework is the flow or research stage that shows the influencing and influenced variables. Based on the research purposes that have been explained, the conceptual framework for the comparative research of the What If, Fast Track, and Crash Program methods for accelerating project delays is shown in Figure 1.
3.2. Initial Identification Stage
The type of research used is descriptive analytical research. The project subject used in this research is the Klamono Bridge Replacement project. The project is eligible as a research subject because it has a delay of more than 5% based on project data. The purpose of this study is to reconstruct projects that have experienced delays by using a comparison of the What If, Fast Track, and Crash Program methods for project acceleration. The results of the calculation of the comparison of these methods can be used as a solution for project acceleration
3.3. Data Collection Stage
Data collection stage is process where researchers collect data for research purposes.
The data collection includes direct interviews with the implementing contractor, conducting direct observations/observations to obtain data related to research, and conducting library research activities, namely seeking information or special references related to this research activity through scientific sources such as previous research, books, journals, references, and so on.
3.4. Analysis and Evaluation Stage
The analysis and evaluation stage is stage where the analysis and evaluation process is carried out from the results of obtained data collection and processing. This stage is the
improvement stage. The following are the stages of improvement process carried out, namely:
− Identify the root causes of project delays, then reconstruct using the method.
− Improvement recommendations, namely by formulating proposals for improvement by combining two methods in order to achieve improvements in accordance with the wishes.
3.5. Conclusion and Suggestion Stage
The conclusion and suggestion stage is the final stage in the research. Conclusion is a summary or essence of the results from the analysis and evaluationstudied. This conclusion is the result of answers to the problem formulation and research purposes that have been described in the initial chapter.
Suggestions are given at this stage in order to provide input, both visible objects and further research so that they can be taken into consideration.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The project used in this research is the Klamono Bridge Replacement project. Based
Project Delay
Observation, Previous Research, Literature Study
Construction Projects with delays above 5%
Entering project data into MS Project
Reconstruct reanalyze the project using What If, Fast Track, and Crash Program
methods
Results and Conclusions
Figure 1. Research Concept Framework Chart
on data and observations the project objects analyzed from 17thweek to 25thweek the project experienced delays of more than 5% (delay deviation above 5%). In the 17thweek, the implementation progress only reached 23.11%
from what had been planned at the beginning of the week 17th, namely 36.41%, so there was deviation between the implementation progress and the plan, which was 13.30%. Finally, the work on the southern causeway project that was planned for 241 days delayed become268 days.
At the beginning, the project plan was completed on November 14, 2018 delayed become on December 1, 2018. The delay can be seen from the implementation of 25 weeks.
In the 26th week the progress was almost close to the plan, namely the implementation progress reached 74.31% of what has been planned, which was 77.56%, so that there was deviation between the implementation progress and the plan which was 3.25%, from the data obtained the value of concept indicator the value of result in 17thweek, namely BCWS (Budgeted Cost of Work Schedule) = IDR 2,388,603,705, BCWP (Budgeted Cost of Work Performed) = IDR 1,515,918,419, and ACWP (Actual Cost of Work Performed) = IDR 1,322,06,538. The work that was on the critical path after progress was the work of Medium Quality Concrete fc "30 MPa for Lower Buildings and Concrete Drill Piles with diameter of 800 mm, can be seen in Figure 3.
Next will be calculated to find the SI (Cost Performance Index) and CI (Shedule Performance Index) values as follows :
dan
Analysis of variance was used to control project costs by identifying variances in the implementation cost expenditure data against the planned costs periodically or within certain time. In the 17thweek of project implementation, SI = 0.63 < 1 and CI = 1.15 >
1. The variance value indicated that the project was experiencing delays but the implementation costs incurred were smaller than planned. Medium Quality Concrete Work
fc "30 MPa for Lower Buildings and Concrete Drill Piles of 800 mm diameter was chosen because it was on critical path, in management the work can be accelerated by increasing the project durationwith the What If and Crash Program methods or by advancing the implementation schedule by using Fast track method while for acceleration Technically, the work of Medium Quality Concrete fc "30 MPa for the Lower Building can be accelerated such as by speeding up the work in fulfilling the workvolume, by casting simultaneously on the under-bridge building consisting of casting abutments, pillars, and Foundation.
4.1. Project Acceleration With What If Analysis Method
Acceleration analysis of What If method can be done by adding workers and overtime hours of workers on critical path work items.
The CPM scheduling model is scheduling model that starts from the activity and the activity ends. In the calculation taken the work item Medium Quality Concrete fc 30 MPa for Lower Buildings.
A. Calculation of the number of workers For the calculation of the number of workers on the work item of Medium Quality Concrete fc 30 MPa for Lower Buildings, the worker coefficient is obtained from the coefficient of the handyman head, handyman and worker, while the activity data are :
Work volume: 179,989 m3 Duration: 84 days
Worker coefficient: 0,8032 H/Org The number of workers in one day is:
Number of worker=
Number of worker, n = =
1,72people= 2 people B. Analysis calculation
1. Activity data entered from the CPM model includes :
• The duration of the planned activity was ds = 84 days.
• The grace period (fload) = 0 days means critical activity,
• Number of workers, n= 2 people
• Working hours in a day was H= 8 hours/day and the effective H = 7 hours/day
• Total man hours needed to complete activity C1 was
mh = d x n x H = 84 x 2 x 7 = 1176 man hours
2. Overall work activities were delayed by 11% of the duration. The delay in work items was called delayp.
delayp = 11% x 84 = 9.24 days → 10 days
3. Calculating the duration acceleration feasibility, d’s
d’s = ds + float - delayp
= 84 + 0 – 10
= 74 days (acceleration done because d’s< ds )
4. Accelerated by adding workers Δn = n’- n = - n Δn = - 2 = 0,270 person
Total increase in the number of workers = 2 + 0,270 = 2,270 people→ 3 people/day
5. Accelerated by adding overtime hours
ΔH = H ’- H = - H ΔH = - 7 = 0,946 hour/day The maximum overtime working hours to carry out work activities for Medium Quality Concrete fc 30 MPa for Lower Buildings was optimum H
= 3 hours.
Checked whether ΔH ≤ΔH opt ↔ 0.946 rounded up to 1 ≤3 meets. Total additional working hours = 7 + 1 = 8 hours/day. After doing a What If analysis to the cost of workers for the addition of overtime hours for 1 hour for 6 times a week, the results obtained in the form of wages for workers who were issued after the What If analysis were greater than the cost of the wages of the planning workers On the Medium Quality Concrete work fc 30 MPa the cost of the planning work wages was Rp.
632.370.288 to Rp. 676.464.132. then the calculation was carried out so that the cost slope value was Rp.
4.409.385. After that, the overtime wage was calculated and the value was Rp. 44,093,847.
Figure 2 MS. Project of Planning
Table 1. Comparison of Project Costs After What If Analysis
No. Project Cost Project planning costs (241 days)
Project Cost after update (268 days)
Project Cost after What If (258 days)
241 268 258
1. Project contract value IDR 6,559,990,000 IDR 6,559,990,000 IDR 6,559,990,000
2. Additional overtime fee - - IDR 44,093,847
3. Delay charge - IDR 177,119,730 IDR 111,519,830
Total Project Cost IDR 6,559,990,000 IDR 6,737,109,730 IDR 6,715,603,677
C. Calculation Results of What If Analysis From Table 1, it is found that the project cost after the What If analysis was greater than the planning cost and less than the realization project cost.
4.2. Acceleration with Fast Track analysis Fast Track acceleration analysis can be done by pulling the critical path. The addition of the number of workers or working hours is not done in Fast Track analysis but by pulling the critical path forward or accelerating work items on the critical path.
In Figure 3, the work item for a concrete drill pile with diameter of 800 mm was not carried out by Fast Track because it did not cause delays, and the work that can be done by Fast track was Medium Quality Concrete workof fc 30 MPa because the work has duration that can be moved forward and the work item which is followed by only 800 mm diameter concrete drill piles that can be carried out simultaneously, with initial Predecessors 31SS + 70 days then the Fast Track acceleration was carried out to 31SS + 38 days.
After doing Fast Track, the work item of Medium Quality Concrete fc 30 Mpa for Lower Buildings and 800 mm diameter concrete drill piles was no longer critical, but the Work Safety and Management work items and Quality Management work items become critical, but these items cannot be done the Fast Track because the cut off of the project was on July 1, 2018 and the work has been carried out.
The project planning duration is 241 days, after a delay it changed to 268 days and after the Fast Track was carried out it become 250 days.
Based on the above calculations, Fast Track analysis succeeded in reducing the duration of the delay by 18 days, but did not make the project duration return to the initial duration.
From Table 2, it is found that the project costs after the Fast Track were still higher than the planning costs but less than the realization project costs.
4.3. Acceleration with Crash Program Analysis
In Crash Program analysis, acceleration is done by increasing work time on work items that are on the critical path. The work item in the realization which is on the critical path is the work of Medium Quality Concrete fc 30 MPa for Lower Buildings and 800 mm diameter concrete drill piles. The work that can be analyzed is the work of Medium Quality Concrete fc 30 MPa, while the work of the 800 mm diameter concrete drill pile does not need to be carried out by the Crash Program because the work is only on the critical path but does not cause project delays.
In the Crash Program analysis with the addition of overtime hours for 3 hours for 6 times a week to the two work items shown in the table above, the results are in the form of faster work completion time than the realization project time In the fc 30 MPa Medium Quality Concrete work for Substructure, it can be accelerated from 84 days to 66.8182 days (rounded up to 67 days).
After the calculation was done, the duration of the Crash Program work item of Medium Quality Concrete fc 30 MPa was included in the MS Project. Furthermore, the Crash Program analysis was carried out on the cost of workers for the addition of overtime hours and the results obtained in the form of worker wages issued after the Crash Program analysis was greater than the cost of the planned workers' wages. In the Medium Quality Concrete work fc 30 MPa the cost of planning workers' wages was Rp. 632,370,288 to Rp.
900,697,477. then calculate the cost slope with the results obtained that was Rp 15,783,952.
Furthermore, from the calculation of the cost slope, an additional calculation of the cost of work items in the Crash Program was obtained, which was Rp. 268,327,189. From Table 3 it was found that the project cost after the Crash Program analysis was greater than the planning cost and the project cost was realized.
Table 2. Comparison of Project Costs in Fast Track analysis
No. Project Cost Project planning costs (241 days)
Project Costs in Realization (268 days)
Project Cost after Fast Track (250 days)
1. Project contract value IDR 6,559,990,000 IDR 6,559,990,000 IDR 6,559,990,000 2. Delay charge IDR - IDR 177,119,730 IDR 59,039,910 Total Project Cost IDR 6,559,990,000 IDR 6,737,109,730 IDR 6,619,029,910
4.4. Calculation Combination of Several Method (2 Analysis Methods)
In the calculation of acceleration analysis using the What If, Fast Track, and Crash Program methods, the results showed that these methods can accelerate the duration of project delays but cannot return the project to the beginning of planning. Therefore, the author wants to try to combine several of these methods and hopes to return the delay to the initial planning. The method used was the same as the previous method, only combined between 2 methods to achieve results that are impossible to combine again. The results of the combination of the 2 methods can be seen in Table 4 and it is found that the combination of the Fast Track Crash Program method and the combination of the Fast Track What If method can both restore the initial duration of the project, which was 241 days. If the method was reversed into combination of the Crash Program Fast Track and What If Fast Track methods, the produced results were different, namely not being able to return the initial duration of the project. The costs incurred from
the combination of the Fast Track Crash Program Method and the What If Fast Track Method were different even though the duration was the same, namely 241 days and the Fast Track and What If Fast Track Crash Program methods are the same, which was 250 days. The combination of these methods was both less than the realization cost, but still greater than the planning cost.
4.5. Comparison of Before and After the Methods Use, Recommendations and Improvements.
From the calculation results of all methods shown in Table 5, it is found that the What If, Fast Track, and Crash Program methods can both reduce project delays, but cannot restore the initial duration of the project.
and the combination of the Fast Track Crash Program method and the combination of the Fast Track What If method can both restore the initial project duration of 241 days. The costs incurred by the Fast Track method and the What If method are less than the realization costs, while the Crash program method was Figure 3 MS. Project of Field Realization
greater than the realization costs, but the costs of all these methods were greater than the planning costs. If the method is reversed into a combination of the Crash Program Fast Track and What If Fast Track methods, the results that are generated are different, namely not being able to return the initial duration of the project. The smallest combination cost was
generated by calculating the combined cost of the Fast Track What If method, and the largest was the cost resulting from the combination of the Crash Program Fast Track method. The combination of these methods is both less than the realization cost, but still greater than the planning cost.
Table 2. Comparison of Project Costs in Fast Track analysis
No. Project Cost Project planning costs (241 days)
Project Costs in Realization (268 days)
Project Cost after Fast Track (250 days)
1. Project contract value IDR 6,559,990,000 IDR 6,559,990,000 IDR 6,559,990,000 2. Delay charge IDR - IDR 177,119,730 IDR 59,039,910 Total Project Cost IDR 6,559,990,000 IDR 6,737,109,730 IDR 6,619,029,910
Table 3. Comparison of Project Costs in Crash Program Analysis
No. Project Cost Project planning costs (241 days)
Project Cost after update (268 days)
Project Cost after Crash Program (251 days)
241 268 251
1. Project contract value IDR6,559,990,000 IDR 6,559,990,000 IDR 6,559,990,000 2. Additional overtime fee IDR - IDR - IDR 268,327,189 3. Delay charge IDR - IDR 177,119,730 IDR 65,599,900 Total Project Cost IDR6,559,990,000 IDR 6,737,109,730 IDR 6,893,917,089
Table 4. Comparison of the methods results in overcoming project delays
No. Description Duration (days) Cost
1. Project Planning 241 IDR 6,559,990,000
2. Project After Update (implemented) 268 IDR 6,737,109,730
3. Combination of Fast Track Crash Program Methods (Combination 1) 241 IDR 6,642,892,674 4. Combination of Fast Track What If Methods (Combination 2) 241 IDR 6,581,480,537 5. Combination of Crash Program Fast Track Methods (Combination 3) 250 IDR 6,887,357,099 6. Combination of What If Fast Track Methods (Combination 4) 250 IDR 6,663,123,757
Table 5. Comparison of the results before and after using the methods in overcoming project delays
No. Uraian Durasi (hari) Biaya
1. Project Planning 241 IDR 6,559,990,000
2. Project After Update (implemented) 268 IDR 6,737,109,730
3. Fast Track Method 250 IDR 6,619,029,910
4. Program Crash Method 251 IDR 6,893,917,089
5. What If Method 258 IDR 6,715,603,677
6. Combination of Fast Track Crash Program Methods (Combination 1) 241 IDR 6,642,892,674 7. Combination of Fast Track What If Methods (Combination 2) 241 IDR 6,581,480,537 8. Combination of Crash Program Fast Track Methods (Combination 3) 250 IDR 6,887,357,099 9. Combination of What If Fast Track Methods (Combination 4) 250 IDR 6,663,123,757
5. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 5.1. Conclusion
The conclusions in this study are:
a. The What If, Fast Track, and Crash Program methods work to accelerate delayed activities that are:
− The What If method works on delayed activities by adding workers and overtime hours that have maximum overtime limit on critical path work items that cause delays according to the calculations
obtained in the What If analysis by not exceeding the overtime time stipulated by the law.
− The Fast Track method works on delayed activities by advancing the execution date on critical path work items that cause project delays by not reducing the duration of the project work items being advanced, provided that these work items can be done simultaneously and do not interfere with other work items. To determine
a work item with Fast Track can be done by knowing the Predecessor activity and Successor activity.
− The Crash Program method works on the delayed activities by shortening the project execution time on critical path work items that cause delays, by adding more workers and overtime hours whose overtime is maximized based on the overtime set by the law.
b. Evaluation of project activities by controlling costs and time on these methods is:
− Fast Track, Crash Program, and What If methods can all reduce project delays.
− The costs incurred by the Fast Track, Crash Program, and What If methods are greater than the planning costs.
− The cost incurred by the Fast Track method and the What If method is less than the realization cost, while the Crash program method is greater than the realization cost.
− The combination of the Fast Track Crash Program method and the combination of the Fast Track What If method both can restore the initial duration of the project. If the method is reversed into a combination of the Crash Program Fast Track and What If Fast Track methods, the produced results are different, namely unable to restore the initial duration of the project.
− The costs incurred from the combination of Fast Track Crash Program methods, the Fast Track What If methods, the Fast Track Crash Program methods and the What If Fast Track methods are smaller than the realization costs, but still greater than the planning costs.
5.2. Suggestions
The researcher suggestion for further research is that the further research can use other methods in its calculations and expected to be able to multiply the combinations generated from the methods used, the aim is to enrich the project delay solution so that the effectiveness obtained
from the use of these methods can be compared to various construction project.
6. REFERENCES
[1] Alifen, R. S., Setiawan, R. S., & Sunarto, A.
Analisa "What If" Sebagai Metode Antisipasi Keterlambatan Durasi Proyek.
Dimensi Teknik Sipil , I (2). (1999).
[2] Tjaturno, & Mochtar, I. B. Pengembangan Metode Fast-Track Untuk Mereduksi Waktu Dan Biaya Pelaksanaan Proyek Studi Kasus Rumah Menengah Di Malang, Jawa timur.
Media Komunikasi Teknik Sipil , Tahun 17 (1). (2009).
[3] Kumalasari, V. Penerapan What-If Analysis Pada Sistem Penunjang Keputusan Dalam Menentukan Program Diet. Jakarta:
Fakultas Ilmu Komputer Universitas Indonesia. (2008).
[4] Husain, A. Manajemen Proyek. Yogyakarta:
Andi Offset. (2011).
[5] Soeharto, I. Manajemen Proyek (Dari Konseptual Sampai Operasional). Jakarta:
Erlangga. (1995).
