Executive Summary
The aim of this article is to delineate the basics of Disruption Analysis. This article might be the first of its kind to define in-depth the discipline of disruption. The article starts with the recap of the first article and then in the section ‘Mind your Mindset’ a general background is discussed in evaluating ourselves and tries to establish the underlying philosophy of claim management and generally any other works on the basis of ethics. This section shall also be considered as a psychological reach to claim management – it is emphasized here that an in-depth psychological framework is the greatest need of disruption analysis. This section also tries to establish the fundamentals of the ‘CAS (Complex Adaptive System) Scientific Methodology’ on a discussion-philosophical and psychological basis as it may relate to Law, Scientific Methodology, human intelligence, economics and overall project management. Overall, this section starts the build-up of the integrated web of requirements that a Disruption Analyst would need to accomplish its very task of producing a sound causal nexus. The article then explains Disruption Analysis and its limitations (shortcomings in the sight of the ‘CAS Scientific Methodology’) as in the Measured Mile. It then explains how and when ‘CAS Scientific Methodology’ is implemented – it deals with the impossibilities of a disruption claim analysis and overcomes them. Furthermore, the article goes further in explaining the basic steps of a ‘CAS Scientific Methodology’ oriented (Intrinsic/Forensic) Disruption Analysis. Over here we briefly discuss the steps needed to carry out the Disruption Analysis and the qualitative, quantitative and unique framework of a causal exposure, interest and discourse. As usual with the way of writing these articles the article ends up with an intelligent philosophical venture of scientific endeavour concluding that human intelligence can achieve a lot if it only comes to its true nature of being. It is to be noted that this article just lays down the basics of disruption analysis and discusses briefly upon the fundamentals of disruption and disruption analysis and it is not in its scope to discuss all the steps of Disruption Analysis in-depth but briefly and conclusively.
Recap from Article – ‘Disruption Elevated: The Endeavour of the Third Kind’:
In our first article ‘Disruption Elevated: The Endeavour of the Third Kind’ we discussed that how projects are complex adaptive systems (CAS) and the greatest evidence of it was the existence of disruption in projects. We carried out a cross industry analysis comparing the nature of Investment Industry to the nature of Project Management and Construction Industry. The article was based upon a broad-mindset based to show that one of the greatest potentials of a true scientific methodology is to predict and forecast change and also that disruption as a phenomenon has the capability to redefine how we see the prevalent scientific methodology.
Mind Your Mindset – The Broader the Mindset the Greater the Benefits:
Time is of the essence but it is still an intangible; signifying that it could inherit a philosophy of claim. When we can feel that we are ascending in the paradigm of foreseeable conflict management; it would be a recommendation to enjoy it with transparency. Pure works of transparent nature will always become a part of your lifestyle because they are the nearest to your inner-most-self. Following a similar line of actions, claim management would also become a part of your project management. If economics defines value, then harmony must inevitably define the conflicting ties between the parties. Afterall, in the first instance, it was the economic benefits that brought the two parties together. The legal framework should become enough resourceful with the inherent intelligence of law so as to define and satisfy harmony beyond a judgement. Justice is best served when it is well understood by all parties. What we are actually seeking in Disruption Analysis is the ‘cumulative intrinsic naturalism’ of justice that is, the inherent and intrinsic morality of law is to be put in satisfactory framework and action. More on the concept of ‘cumulative intrinsic naturalism’ will come later for the time being let us say that what satisfies oneself shall satisfy the other that is we try to see Law with the utility concept of Economics.
It is a strange fate of works that a Project which initially was born out of Economics soon becomes limited to rule of law and not to the Rule of Law. So much for ascending in the paradigm of conflict management. But then we have inherent intelligence of law at test as either the rule of law and or the Rule of Law. This is where the scientific methodology or the philosophical reach to things become the central piece of justifying reasonability of judgements.
Introduction to Disruption Analysis:
Heraclitus, a Greek philosopher said: “Nothing endures but change”. This is indeed very much true that there is no constant in the universe but change. No matter what we do, change just cannot be stopped as if, if there was another constant it would stop time. We can forecast change but can never completely dictate or control it, especially when each project is categorized as a unique set of works. However, we can manage it. Profoundly this constant change gives the scientific methodology its most unique quality that is its autonomous nature of governing the phenomenon of cause and effect. In other words, the relationship between cause and effect due to the autonomous nature of the scientific methodology – out of dictating change – will always remain (or would be kept) dynamic and would start to lie at undiscovered and unknown areas of subtle relevance in human cognition. The human mind unable to comprehend it will take this autonomous change as some subtle reality. Hence not able to uncover the true potential which reality truly holds for human development. We have learned to make aeroplanes out of the inspiration of the birds but we do really lack in getting inspired to think like the universe out of the inspiration of existence itself. Let met quote here Gibson (2015):
“Claims for disruption and additional costs are routinely made during the course of a project yet they remain notoriously difficult to prove.
….
Nevertheless, however difficult disruption claims maybe they are of the utmost importance.
The losses caused by even minor disruptions can be considerable. Academic studies have shown that disruptions lasting longer than half an hour cause productivity loss of between 20% and 40% over a day depending on the trade.”
Limitation and Shortcomings of the Measured Mile:
It would be a challenging task to make measured mile work when the project is in disruption especially if, since the beginning there are not sufficient undisrupted areas, time-periods or similar activities to compare to. Moreover, an activity can be in disruption even when felt subtly especially when the costs per unit of work completed is higher than planned or expected but there are no clues as to what is causing the inefficiency. These sorts of disruptions cannot be measured and proven through the method of Measured Mile. This is because Measured Mile remains a significant method of comparison and not a method of building an in-depth causal nexus.
Basic Concept of the Disruption Analysis:
At the heart of Disruption Analysis lies the soundness of the overall methodology used. It is challenging to carve out the required scientific methodology. First an understanding of the unique underlying philosophy of a project works need to developed. It is then the philosophical art or the genuine intelligence of the Disruption Analyst which shall create the unique set of scientific methodology needed to demonstrate credible substantiation. Demonstrating substantiation to establish the causation to overcome the burden of proof is not an easy task especially when we have to prove the captivating and complex workouts of Disruption. It is to be noted here that disruption and disruption analysis are two different things – these are discussed later under section ‘Beyond the Measured Mile’.
The Specific CAS Scientific Methodology:
It is to be noted that whatever we discuss as the ‘CAS Scientific Methodology’ below as ‘Beyond the Measure Mile’ is especially developed to overcome the shortcoming of the Measured Mile and improve Disruption Analysis overall.
Disruption Analysis – Beyond the Measured Mile:
Disruption Analysis is not based upon the mere comparisons of impacted time period or area of works with non-impacted time period or area of works i.e., the measured mile. Forensic Disruption Analysis would not just reside upon finding evidence of disruption as per a ‘measured mile proof’ but also discovering it in unrecognized and hidden circumstances and patterns as a philosophical reach within itself. Once the underlying causal nexus of project works is revealed and established then the analyst can form the undeniable, self-proving, self-reinforcing, self-driven and self-evident scientific methodology proving the quantum calculations. In other words, a Disruption Analyst needs to be equipped with the qualifying art of scientific discovery. This makes Disruption Analysis a simultaneous process of discovery and confirmation of law (contractual clauses or the breach of contract) under the light of newly found and established causal nexus. However, it is to be noted that the discovery of the causal nexus itself is a complex work of art which is discussed later under ‘The Steps of Disruption Analysis’ and it is also established that the making of a quantum and the causal nexus will also work together. Therefore, Disruption Analysis is a complex simultaneous process as it tries to manifest the complexity of disruption as a causal nexus in connection with Law (Contract clauses and or breach of contract) and ultimately the quantum. Please see the diagram below which shows the three main components of Disruption Analysis within the medium of CASSM (CAS Scientific Methodology):
The Steps of Disruption Analysis:
The scope of the article is to discuss briefly the fundamentals of Disruption Analysis. Hence each step would be briefly and fundamentally discussed. Please see below one of the possible process and diagram of the steps of Disruption Analysis:
Please note that the steps can vary from project to project for example a project of construction of waste water lines will be dealt differently then the construction of a unique chemical plant in the world.
Step A, F and G are relatively ‘static’ as compared to the steps B, C, D and E. Under the ‘CAS Scientific Methodology’ the whole project is seen as a dynamic state of works. Step B is preferred before Step C so that the objectivity is enhanced in the medium of multi-level and multi-dimensional approach to Disruption Analysis. It is to be critically noted over here that even though we try to bring a categorical or step-wise approach to the process of Disruption Analysis – it essentially is not exactly a ‘static’ step wise process – as described earlier it a complex simultaneous process or complex work of art. Anything which can bring substance to the subtlety of the causal nexus is the self-criticality of its philosophical reach and scientific methodology. We have to appreciate the fact that intelligence itself is a self-critical phenomenon. Steps would become clearer as we try to establish Disruption Analysis on an early disrupted set of works (waste water lines) later in the end as a short example. Before we move forward it would be good to go with the definition of Complexity science here which is another name for the CAS (Complex adaptive Systems):
“As an emerging approach to research, complexity science is a study of a system. It is not a single theory, but a collection of theories and conceptual tools from an array of disciplines”. (Benhan-Hutchins & Clancy, 2010; Paley & Gail, 2011)
Step A – Information and Knowledge upon a Project:
Assumption: You started to make a measured mile analysis but because the project was in high disruptions and from the beginning no meaningful comparisons could be made.
Information and records are the static part of the analysis upon a project but whatever can be further developed is considered as dynamic. In step A our constant development of the understanding of the project works is considered as dynamic, that is, it is prone to changeability. ‘Knowledge’ over here is considered as a dynamic part of the overall ‘CAS Scientific Methodology’. It is at this step that a subtle idea of possible disruption causes starts to become evident. This subtility of ideas is then further checked, developed and substantiated in step B. To understand ‘Knowledge’ over here a particular cognition has to be developed and practiced. Please see below the creative critical cognitive idea and pattern as means of basic analysis:
Creative Critical Analysis:
It is to be noted that there can be four main different types (strings) of cognitions as follows:
1. Objective-Objective Analysis (OO)
2. Objective-Subjective Analysis (OS)
3. Subjective-Subjective Analysis (SS)
4. Subjective-Objective Analysis (SO)
The human thought can be divided into the strings of four categories as stated above. It is to be noted that in Creative Critical Analysis a chain (strings) of analysis can occur on the basis of different cognitions. An example can be as follows:
Objective-Objective,-Subjective-Objective,-Objective-Subjective,-Subjective-Objective,-Objective-Subjective Analysis ….
OO SO – OS SO – OS ….
As can be noted that analysis is a continuum of the spectrum of intellectual thoughts. However, it is to be noted that the whole spectrum of intelligence tends to end at a single point of conclusion. Hence, we will end up with a following string of cognitive ideas and thoughts:
OOSOOSSOOS ….
The whole idea is to see things or data as a ‘soft’ piece of work upon which creativity can be applied to extract discrete patterns. We discuss the ‘softness’ of analysis more in the example in the end. This way of thinking will help us in developing all steps especially step three – Hierarchical Analysis.
Step B – Application of the Philosophy of Discrete Mathematics:
This step is primarily situated here to act as an objective funnel for the ‘Creative Critical Analysis’ to pass on substantial and evidential ideas to Step C. Ideas become substantial and evidential because they are objectively scrutinised and developed as measurables in discrete mathematics. This step requires that cognitive patterns discovered in Step A out of Creative Critical Analysis shall be subjected to the philosophy of discrete mathematics. Let us first define Discrete Mathematics:
Discrete Mathematics is the study of discrete data and focuses on the systematic study of Mathematical structures that are essentially discrete in nature and does not demand the belief of continuity. Discrete mathematics covers set theory, graph theory, mathematical induction, combination, determinants, permutations, logic, series, sequence, etc.
However, we want to apply the Philosophy of Discrete Mathematics and not exactly Discrete mathematics itself. We will not deal in-depth but it simply means to see data, maps, information and knowledge as discrete components of a larger system – the project. The ability to break a project into mini-systems of discrete nature which are quantifiable in themselves. The example in the end would emphasizes this point clearly. Just like we isolate events we can also isolate causes of effects or at least that is what we are interested in achieving.
This step is also all about developing a sustainable framework where the subtle evidences are cross checked under the scrutiny of philosophy of Discrete Mathematics. This framework should and must increase our overall capabilities to enhance subtleties as concrete ideas of believable theories. This step also means to continuously discover and maintain the stability of the overall model in Step G.
Psychological need, Neutrality, Negative and Positive Disruption:
If it is believed that a solution can be achieved then neutrality itself can be a great intelligence. However, without this idealistic mindset one would loose hope easily. When neutrality is the overlapping in-charge of the disposition of affairs within the overall Disruption Analysis then it becomes manifest that the analyst would not just encounter negative disruption (reduction of efficiency and productivity) but also positive disruption that is increase of efficiency and productivity. The analyst has to present the outcomes honestly and without taking any favourable positions either towards contractor or employer. It is to be well noted that no matter how much ‘Knowledge’ and concrete ideas are manipulated they will never give you causal nexus that suits your demands but the one which really exists. However, it is to be noted from universal laws that since the birth of the universe entropy has been increasing and not decreasing hence projects even initially showing positive disruption upon analysis would overall end up showing negative disruption.
Step C – Hierarchal Analysis:
Till this step whatever we have are substantial and evidential ideas but they are still existent in the sea of abstraction and subtility. Now at this step, we start to pose questions that would initiate the process of satisfying the needs of the causal nexus. This would lead to observing the phenomenon.
“Hierarchy theory is a theory of the observer’s role in any formal study of complex systems … Levels may be ordered according to the scale at which each operates, and scale of observation is fixed by the measurement protocol. Complexity therefore involves relating structures and processes that are observed at different scales. Reductionism deals with complexity by narrowing focus on system parts so closely that they are forced to appear simple, at least when disaggregated. By focusing on issues of scale, levels of organization, levels of observation, levels of explanation, and relationships between these levels, hierarchy theory offers an alternative to mechanical, reductionist approaches to complex systems.
….
Predictability in complex systems is achievable only if many levels are taken into account. Deep low levels that can be ignored in simple systems must be taken into account in complex systems. A problem is complex when an explanation of its associated behaviour requires several desperate levels to be addressed simultaneously.” (www.talent.wisc.edu)
The Underlying Cause-and-Effect Nexus:
Cause-and-effect describes a relationship between actions or events in which at least one action or event is a direct result of the others. A set of underlying cause and effect (or causes and effects) will substantially develop the underlying nexus of the changing dynamics of a project. Hence an in-depth cultivation of such nexus (not necessarily initially a causal one) would inevitably support or would start to fully define the unforeseeable, distant, remote and ‘invisible’ causes of effects and deep effects linking to more obvious causes that then will intelligibly confirm the causal nexus of disruption based upon an identified, well-constructed, forensically viable (intrinsic) scientific discovery. Please see below the Hierarchal Analysis diagram with varying degrees of the complexity of the Causal Nexus:
Outcome is the discovery of discrete factors, parameters and patterns which help us navigate in substantiating claims with singularity of opinion.
Steps D and E are to be thought of as subparts of Step C. However, in larger and complex projects there can be valid steps D and E. Steps D and E are to be considered ‘separate’ from Step C on the basis that after having an initial working framework in Step C – the results may be intentionally ‘disrupted more’ (managerial disruption) to possibly produce more discrete parameters and factors in substantiating through a more developed and stronger causal nexus.
Step F – Discovery of Scientific Philosophy, Causal Nexus and Confirmation of Quantum:
If the contract clauses and or the breach of contract is not integrated to the causal nexus – the quantum would remain without a foundation. But because Disruption Analysis is a simultaneous process it would ultimately result in an automatic confirmation of the quantum and the needs of law together. However, at times it would occur that a further analysis of the contract and law is required as its inherent intelligence of law needs to be elaborated, developed and established.
Now there would be three possible scenarios this can work out. The first is the most obvious one in terms of seeing the already existent clauses in the contract in the light of a discovered and quantified quantum. The second would be to enhance, further or extend the clauses of the contract to satisfy the causal nexus of the prevailing quantum. The third would be to establish circumstances as the breach of contract. The first one is discussed in the example at the end. To carry out the second and third scenario we will need to delve in the Fullerian philosophy of Law (essence of the Rule of Law).
If ‘CAS Scientific Methodology’ provides us with the means of evaluating, gauging and establishing the causal nexus then it at the same time provides us the means to evaluate means from the law side as the ‘cumulative intrinsic naturalism of law’. This ‘cumulative intrinsic naturalism’ can be thought of as the Efficacy of Law to deal with matters not readily or obviously dealt.
Murphy (2005) states:
“It is generally agreed that Lon Fuller’s eight principles of legality capture the essence of the rule of law. Some argue that Fuller’s criteria for the rule of law are incomplete, but few dispute the basic criteria Fuller identifies. Therefore, to develop a working understanding of the rule of law, Fuller’s account is a natural starting point. In The Morality of Law, Fuller identifies eight requirements of the rule of law. Laws must be general (#1), specifying rules prohibiting or permitting behavior of certain kinds. Laws must also be widely promulgated (#2), or publicly accessible. Publicity of laws ensures citizens know what the law requires. Laws should be prospective (#3), specifying how individuals ought to behave in the future rather than prohibiting behavior that occurred in the past. Laws must be clear (#4). Citizens should be able to identify what the laws prohibit, permit, or require. Laws must be non-contradictory (#5). One law cannot prohibit what another law permits. Laws must not ask the impossible (#6). Nor should laws change frequently; the demands laws make on citizens should remain relatively constant (#7). Finally, there should be congruence between what written statute declare and how officials enforce those statutes (#8)”
To elaborate let us see law number 6 from above. Law number 6 as above states that ‘Law must not ask the impossible’. Let say that the contract asks that all disruption must be notified to the Employer. However, when there is complex disruption – the contractor may not come to know till after the end of the project. Hence, such contract clauses shall be challenged on the basis of inherent intelligence of law. However, the example in the end does not deals with the breach of inherent intelligence of law or in other words breach of true nature of the contract.
Donelson and Hannikainen (2018) mentions:
“Much like lay respondents, experienced lawyers exhibited the core intuition that Fuller’s procedural principles are necessary for law, while at the same time believing that laws in practice fail to observe them.”
A full discussion of the Disruption Analysis within the light of Fullerian inner morality of Law cannot be discussed here and lies outside the scope of this article. However, Fullerian principles are mentioned to let the reader know that they can apply in Disruption Analysis.
Step G – Reconfirming through/from Overall Quantum Relevance of the Project:
This step is considered as the last step in the analysis of disruption. In this step the micro-models of Disruption Analysis which proves the disruption claim upon an activity, time period or area can be interrelated with other micro-models of Disruption Analysis elsewhere in the project. So that an overall integrated, interrelated, interdependent and greater in strength overall quantum can be confirmed. This step is all about checking micro-models in cross reference to check if they help in grasping disruption elsewhere on the project yet not discovered, understood or fully evaluated.
In the last step G, Cumulative Disruption Analysis may even join with Delay Analysis. Especially when we have Disruption Oriented Delay Analysis.
Disruption Oriented Delay Analysis and Vice Versa:
Please see below a simple chart of Delay classifications below:
We will not explain each of the delay types here instead deal with Delay and Disruption Analysis in combination. One of the reasons that a Critical Delay can occur is disruption and disruption can also occur due to critical delay(s). This means that Delay and Disruption are both integrated and interrelated but yet as entities distinct and different. They need to be distinct and different because we need to quantify them otherwise quantification will not be possible. Even when we do Delay Analysis just for Critical Delays there is no ‘perfect delay analysis methodology’.
The complexity of Delay Analysis is a deal within itself and would require deep investigation into the credibility of arguments. However, the complexity of Disruption Analysis could be greater than that of the Delay Analysis. The two if however joined together may increase the initial complexity of the analysis but overall it should decrease the subjectivities of both as both can complement each other. However, it is not advised to see them in synchro-nation until and unless needed. They both can vary in joined-complexity depending upon the nature of the project.
Now using the tree-chart above; in projects we can witness a Delay Analysis which has its causes in Disruption but without a proper causal nexus that delay can be held as Non-Excusable. Without a proper causal nexus, it would be considered that it was the contractor’s fault while it might not be. Moreover, Delay Analysis in itself is not enough to act as a causal nexus to prove prolongation claims. A Delay Analysis may reveal that the project was in critical delay but Employer Risk Event was never found or that it was Excusable but Non-Compensable.
Under Disruption-Oriented Delay Analysis the causal nexus to prove prolongation claims could highly likely be the events which are considered as least likely to increase the project completion date. There could yet be Disruption-Oriented delays that can lead to subsequent Delay-Oriented disruptions. Hence there can be a chain of causal nexuses. Carrying out an in-depth Disruption Analysis can help and support analysis upon Delay which originated due to disruption.
Moreover, each Delay Analysis Methodology has its own subjectivity whether it is the prospective or retrospective delay analysis. The higher and more complex the Disruption – the greater is the probability that events which will normally occupy the place as ‘likely delay to progress’ are the actual ‘likely delay to Project Completion’ events in Time Impact Analysis. This means a greater expertise in Disruption Analysis will substantiate the subjective means of seeing a Disruption-Oriented Delay Analysis.
Disruption Analysis Example:
The project considered over here is the construction of Project A: Sewer and Treated Effluent Pipelines. We will take a very simple example over here; let say that the contractor had to build almost a straight line of pipeline as below:
It was agreed that any additional lines would be paid for as per contracted USD40/m until and unless it is proved that they are a variation to the scope of works. As the work started and ended around 2500 m were added to the works. The project when ended looked like this:
Now The Employer upon noticing the project completion of 5000 m has already paid USD 200,000 to the Contractor but the contractor has shown that there has been a critical delay of half a year moreover for these 2.5 years it has accelerated with resources double than the contracted ones. The employer is not satisfied and says that the contractor underbid and then mismanaged the project. The contractor also feels unjustified.
It is assumed here that the Project A can not be compared to previous works of the Contractor due to site differences or that this is the Contractor’s first work. Also because that the works were in disruption since the beginning.
Upon Applying the steps, A to G of Disruption Analysis the Project was seen in a very different way:
Abbreviations:
DTE: Disruption through Emergence
FEB: Further Emergent Behaviour
FEBP: Further Emergent Behaviour on the Project
AED: Absorbable Emergent Disruption
….
Please remember that the ability to see and identify such discrete patterns, factors and parameters is highly dependent upon the softness of perception. Any rigidness, typicality and hard heartedness in cognition will fail the first step of creating ‘Knowledge’ through Creative Critical Analysis. Practice of Creative Critical Analysis is essential to succeed in Step A.
The following was discovered and established:
1. The Contractor planned to work in a straight direction in Project Works that is straight from Point A to B. (Step A – Information)
2. The work done was never done from Point A to B rather than in an ad hoc manner because lines were added randomly. (Step A – Information)
3. Upon investigation it was revealed that if the contractor only did the Project as Planned (from Point A to Point B) then works would have been completed under 1 year and within the same budget. Disruption Analysis confirms this fact as when the comparison was done of I1,I2,I3,L1,L2 and L3 cumulatively a factor was discovered which proves that if works were done as planned (in a straight uninterrupted line) then the contractor would have achieved the work requirement of 10m/day. This point is further elaborated at ‘The Underlying Philosophy of Works” below.
4. The Project was further seen as a system dependent upon discrete sub-units such as the in the shape of S, n, T and i (please see diagram). S being the most disruptive of all as in that area it was not just that the lines were smaller but also that the concentration of such lines in a area leads to higher disruption as well.
5. By records and analysis it was also proven that any straight line in between any of the discrete shapes stated in 4 absorbed Disruption through Emergence (DTE) and works were inefficiently performed.
6. Due to Cumulative Emergences as can be seen under FEBP that multiple labour personnel have been absent, sick and demotivated. The project was affected by ripple effects of DTEs and FEBs. Labour records with date of inceptions of DTE and FEB works have proven this. (Step G)
7. There were half an year of liquidated damages being claimed from the contractor. Upon realisation that this Disruption-Oriented Critical Delay was actually the responsibility of the Employer. Hence liquidated damages are not claimable.
…
Underlying Philosophy of Works:
The Claimant finds an important phenomenon when more lines are added. The Line below show the effect of adding lines to the scope of Works. As can be seen the Fig. 1 to 4 there is minimal effect to the pipe laying activity, and even in item Fig 2 show positive disruption through continuity of works. Please see below:
The only thing that we need to keep in mind is that, that an additional line which increases the continuum of an already existing line is Positive to Efficiency until and unless that enough lines are added (especially small ones) adjacent to the main line as in Figure 5 which (also especially when randomly added) leads to fragmentation and interruption of normal works. Hence leading to disruption and inefficiency. These findings are further extended and confirms the inherent intelligence of law of the contract clauses in ‘Law – Confirmation of Contract Clauses’.
Revealed Principles:
This section is a means of calculating the quantum.
Principle 1:
Whenever the Continuum on a line is lost it leads to disruption on the same line. Continuum of Project Works is directly proportional to Efficiency.
Principle 2:
Any line added which disrupts the continuum of main planned line should be dealt as a “Variation” as it effects and increases the complexity of the overall Project Works especially if the added line is short in size and does not add to the continuum of works. Therefore, such short-added lines without sustainable continuum are inversely proportional to the Efficiency of the Main Planned Line.
Principle 3:
Denser Areas are relatively lesser in Efficiency as compared to long linear lines especially without any turnings.
Principle 4
Fragmentation of Works may be the only choice when enough lines are added in a particular Area. Fragmentation can lead to remobilisation of a team leading to haphazard movements on a particular line leading to the demolition of Inherent Constructive Acceleration as Works need to be completed before leaving that particular section in a sub-zone.
Principle 5
The Greater the turnings within any line the slower would be the works done. Turnings are inversely proportional to the Continuum of Works and hence inversely proportional to Efficiency.
Principle 6
Greater Density of Works with Greater Directional Density will cumulatively be more disruptive in nature than just Greater Density of Works in an area.
Law – Confirmation of Contract Clauses:
Clause XX of the Conditions of Contract says:
Variations and adjustments – the Engineer may issue Variations, “at any time prior to the issue of the Taking-Over Certificate for the Works, either by an instruction or by request for the Contractor to submit a proposal…”. Each Variation may include:
a) Changes in quantities of any items (included in the Contract) (however such
changes do not necessarily constitute a Variation),
b) Changes to the quality and other characteristics of any item of work,
c) Changes to the level, position and/or dimensions of any part of the Works.
d) Omission of any work unless it is to be carried out by others,
e) Any additional work, Plant, Materials or services necessary for the Permanent Works, including any associated Tests on Completion, boreholes and other testing and exploratory work or,
f) Changes to the sequence or timing of the execution of the Works.
The Contractor shall not make any alteration and/ or modification of the Permanent Works, unless and until the Engineer instructs or approves a Variation.
Proven Facts:
1. As per point (a) above changes in quantities of lines was done.
2. As per point (b) it is also very obvious especially if we join it with the Underlying Philosophy of Works that the Whole Project went from a Less Complex Project to a level of Higher Complexity.
3. As per point (c) is inherently very important. We have to appreciate that points when cumulatively joined establish as what could actually could be a variation. Changes to the level, position and/or dimension did occurred.
4. As per point (d) plays a huge role in describing would could be a variation as addition of complex junctions and removing of linear lines means lesser efficiency.
5. As per point (f) ultimately reinforces of what has already been said that not just change in dimensions of works but also in their sequence can qualify them as a Variation. Change in sequence has been confirmed.
The effect of the XXX number added lines changed the sequence of works and the nature of works as well. All the facts above confirm a Variation to the Works has taken place. The effect of this Variation over and above the re-measured quantities that have already been measured and paid for at the Tendered rates is calculated in the Quantum Section.
Counter Argument against the Methodology Above:
Now it can be argued that this is nothing but several micro-measured miles but I believe that would not be true in many projects especially where the ability to see patterns remains an obscurity. Remember that the Measured Mile works to compare works and not understanding or seeing them as some discrete factors and parameters neither the Measured Mile takes into account the emergent behaviour of the patterns as for in our example we can see that min-subsystems or micro-patterns also ‘interact’ with each other upon a certain discrete factor. Producing DTEs, FEBs and FEBPs. Hence, it can be considered that ‘CAS Scientific Methodology’ is a complete and differentiated scientific methodology and philosophical reach in its own right.
Conclusion – an intelligent philosophical venture of scientific endeavour:
‘CAS Scientific Methodology’ can be used to describe and confirm the complex and simultaneous relationships of the Causal Nexus, Law and Quantum Evaluation to bring out a substantial Disruption Analysis.
Now Economics tell us to specialize and there are tangible benefits to it – no denying that. However, the Economics of ‘generalisation’ can carry answers to problems which we are unable to solve with the mindset of the Economics of specialisation. As per above and many other evolving disciplines we do recognize that things can be more complex and subjective than we want to realise. Hence, we can see systems as Complex Adaptive Systems. This approach however signifies the quality of ‘specialization in generalization’ which means we can solve things when we acquire the soft-inner skills needed to perform a certain work. In order to carry out Disruption Analysis the first step A requires an individual to have the soft skill of perception and imagination without which Creative Critical Analysis cannot be carried out. Methodologies as such does not works with rigidness and hard heartedness. Such methodologies are tied with the inherent soft-skills of a person’s character. In other words such Economics initiates that inner-character development is the key to tangible economic results. This type of education can revolutionize human thinking towards positivity, harmony and overall good. Inevitably this methodology is a mindset which sees personal value in professionalism. ‘Idealistic professionalism demands the greatest of personalism’. When the ‘inner-skills’ of the character are developed this character development acts as the greatest standard-of-living for the respective person and society as a whole. Individuals and societies will reach self-contentment.
THE END
THANKYOU FOR READING
Note: Please note that the views of this article are of the author alone and does not necessarily represent the views of any organisation.
Article No. 1Ab-1 in connection with Article No. 1A-1
Sources:
Donelson, R., Hannikainen, I.R., (2018) Fuller and the Folk: The Inner Morality of Law. Forthcoming in T. Lombrozo, J. Knobe, & S. Nichols (Eds.), Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy, Volume 3. Oxford: UK, Oxford University Press.
DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/qh6km
Gibson, R. (2015) A Practical Guide to Disruption and Productivity Loss on Construction and Engineering Projects. Wiley Blackwell.
Murphy, C. (2005) Lon Fuller and the Moral Value of the Rule of Law in Law and Philosophy, Springer 24: 239–262
www.talent.wisc.edu – University of Wisconsin Madison https://www.talent.wisc.edu/Home/Portals/0/LMD/Hierarchy%20Theory%20Ch.2-Levels%20of%20Analysis%20as%20a%20Challenge%20to%20Realism.pdf