The visible late activity is often not the failed control
Installation is where the delay becomes visible: the crew waits, the crane stands, or the delivery is turned away. But the failure usually happened earlier. A road was described as “available” without a route survey. A platform date had no signed release criterion. Owner-supplied equipment had no named custody point. Temporary power existed somewhere on site, but not at the voltage, location or quality the test method required.
None of those is background information. Each is an enabling activity with an owner, a required-by date, acceptance evidence and a successor. If the programme carries only the successor, it can be logically tidy and physically impossible.
If the programme cannot name who makes access true—and what evidence proves it—access is not planned. It is hoped for.
The causal model
Two branches converge before installation
The platform branch and the FIM branch run in parallel. Installation cannot begin until both finish. That is why a delay can consume float without moving completion—and why another delay can suddenly become critical.
Civil workfront
FIM interface
Convergence
Civil workfront
FIM interface
Convergence
Installation start = max(platform release, FIM receipt)
max(Day 9, Day 5) = Day 9
Read the orange before the black
The black bar is productive work. The hatched orange segment is time spent waiting for a condition that the baseline assumed would already be true. Treating both as one longer activity hides responsibility and makes recovery discussions less useful.
- Critical path
- Mobilisation → Survey and set-out → Working platform release → Main installation → Testing and handover
- Total float
- Time an activity can move without delaying project completion in the current scenario.
- Gate evidence
- The signed record, survey, inspection or test that releases the next activity—not an optimistic date.
From assumption to control
The workfront-readiness register belongs beside the programme
A planner cannot own every access condition. The planner can make the interface visible, connect it to the work and force a dated evidence conversation before the crew arrives.
Road access
- Owner
- Site logistics / civil lead
- Acceptance evidence
- Approved route survey and logistics plan
- If it is not ready
- Resequence mobilisation or complete temporary access works
Platform
- Owner
- Temporary-works owner
- Acceptance evidence
- Signed platform release certificate
- If it is not ready
- Hold plant delivery and close temporary-works actions
FIM handover
- Owner
- Owner / supplier interface lead
- Acceptance evidence
- Inspection, custody and interface-data record
- If it is not ready
- Quarantine, conditionally accept or resequence installation
Temporary power
- Owner
- Electrical package lead
- Acceptance evidence
- Commissioning and power-quality record
- If it is not ready
- Provide temporary generation or move the test window
Five questions for the baseline review
- What physical condition releases this activity?
- Which party owns making that condition true?
- What document or inspection proves readiness?
- Is the gate linked with visible float and a real calendar?
- What dated record will support delay attribution later?
What this model cannot tell you
- It does not determine contractual entitlement, extension of time (EOT) or cost responsibility.
- It omits resources, weather, calendars, permits and productivity.
- The waiting periods are teaching inputs, not benchmark durations.
- A real baseline must be tested against the approved access, logistics, temporary-works and interface plans.
The procurement model changes who owns the gate
Under a single EPC package, equipment availability, logistics and installation may sit behind one contractual interface. Under a free-issue-material strategy, the owner may control supply while the contractor controls receipt, preservation and installation. The programme still needs both sides of the handover: the owner's delivery obligation and the contractor's acceptance evidence.
FIM versus EPC: the one-page decision sheet
Compare control, interface load, logistics, warranties and schedule ownership before choosing a procurement model.
Further reading: GAO Schedule Assessment Guide