Scheduling And Progress Monitoring Analysis Construction Essay

Scheduling And Progress Monitoring Analysis Construction Essay Effective project management is important in order to ensure that projects are delivered within budget, time and to the agreed quality. It demands a comprehensive understanding of the key stages, which are critical to success, in the life cycle of a construction project. In aid of achieving good planning takes time, but it ensures that the project will be on budget, on time and also risks are minimised. It makes sure that organisational values and client requirements are clear and understood. Good planning has as a result to reduce waste deliver better design. Furthermore, it helps the project team to manage better with risks as they happen, which otherwise possibly will cause greater delay and increased costs (Office of Government Commerce, 2003). This section describes the scheduling and progress monitoring activities for managing the project with supporting processes like as change control. The schedule is also known as the time plan. The project sponsor, through the project manager, is responsible for scheduling and monitoring progress. A programme, in the context of construction projects, is a schedule that identifies the work to be carried out as a series of activities and plots the time periods required to execute and complete each activity and the interdependencies between each activity (Office of Government Commerce, 2003). Schedule is a diagrammatic representation of activities and their time relationship. Also, schedule is known as project programme. (Construction Industry Council, 1996). A programme also controls resources needed and their availability. It is essential to know possible risks or problems. The project manager must check the schedule and progress monitoring against progress already achieved in aid of understanding where difficulties and risks are possibly to arise and to establish different course of action in order to reduce their impact. (Office of Government Commerce, 2003). Risk management is a core process within any business or organization regardless of size, activity or sector. Individuals and organizations can lose substantial sums of money as a result of not paying sufficient attention to the identification and management of threats to their goals and to the projects they commission. Similarly, full advantage cannot be taken of potentially beneficial opportunities arising in the course of their activities if these are not recognized in good time. The project sponsor must be capable to identify those tasks that lie on the critical path. Critical path is the shortest possible time based on hypothesis about the tasks to be carried out and the resources available. Time for the processes should be integrated as specific activities in the schedule of the project. The schedule is an estimate that is based on considered assumptions on issues such as likely risk (Office of Government Commerce, 2003). Some estimation might prove to be wrong. Some deviations might be expected but these will accepted if they do not affect the critical path and the project is finished on time. Techniques include bar and Gantt charts and network planning help with progress monitoring. Bar and Gantt charts define an uncomplicated view of activities aligned with timetables. Network planning is especially useful for complex projects because it links dependent activities in a logical order (Office of Government Commerce, 2003). The project sponsor must make an effort in order that final schedule to be simple and straightforward. The networks of activities of the final schedules, and the interrelationships between them should be sophisticated and comprehensive. They must be rapidly understood of the project sponsor that is why color-coded bar charts are used as management control documents (Office of Government Commerce, 2003). Schedule planning tasks The project manager must report on schedule planning to the project sponsor on behalf of the project team. The project manager must produce a work breakdown structure (WBS). WBS defines the work content of the project in terms of basic elements, work packages, generic tasks and detailed tasks (Office of Government Commerce, 2003). The main schedule planning must show how elements affect each other. It defines activities and also establishes the logical relationships of the activities. It determines the work content, the duration and the required resources of each activity. Furthermore, it also defines the critical path, which determines the duration of the project. Finally, it can optimize the time plan by resource leveling. Resource leveling compares the calculated requirements with those actually available and recalculates the network to spread resources more evenly (Office of Government Commerce, 2003). Progress monitoring Progress monitoring includes reviewing monthly progress reports produced by the project manager with others in the integrated project team (Office of Government Commerce, 2003). Progress monitoring must focus on critical activities and warn the SPOs attention in the proper time in order to appropriate actions to be taken as soon as possible. The project sponsor must understand the total rate of the whole progress in order to judge the forecast completion date. In order to measure the progress, the percentage completion of an activity can be measure in terms of cost and time. The planned progress must be compared with the actual progress. Also progress can be measure the work in progress by taking account of milestones of the project. Any impact on critical must be checked in order to finish the project on time. Furthermore progress can be monitored by the payment progress and from resources still required. (Office of Government Commerce, 2003). An essential element of process monitoring is the process of tome control. A time control system can cover time budget, time plan and time checking. Time budget represents the overall project duration as developed by specific constrains of the project in the contract strategy. It is the period which fixed one time and from that moment becomes one of the most important parameters for management of the project. Time plan is a division of total time into interlinked time allowances for identifiable activities, which can be defined start and finish points. Time checking is monitoring the time actually spent on each activity and compared it with the allowance in the time plan. If any divergence is identified, it must be reported as soon as possible. (Office of Government Commerce, 2003). In the case that an activity on the critical path exceeds its time allowance later activities must re-sequenced, or try to shorten the planned time for future critical activities by increasing the resources (extra cost) for the specific activities. If neither is possible to be done, the project will finish late. The project sponsor must understand that time control is as essential during the planning stages as the construction stages of the project. (Office of Government Commerce, 2003). Progress reports Progress reports are essential reports in the whole process of the project, because they keep the project sponsor informed about the project progress. They discover problems and choices for their resolution. Additionally, they provide the necessary information to enable the project sponsor to make decisions on time. Progress reports demonstrate that the integrated project team executes their responsibilities properly and that the management processes procedures and controls are operating successfully. They provide an authority, and a communication tool in a simple and comprehensive format, for the whole project team. Furthermore they provide a time reference for meetings and plans. In addition the gathering of statistics by the department permits external monitoring and identify best practice and support of improvement in performance. (Office of Government Commerce, 2003). Change control Change can be handled most successfully through project planning and control. Change for any reason must be treated as a project risk. Changes to design, especially after contract award, are one of the major causes of time and cost overruns and poor value for money. Changes arise mainly as a result of unclear or ambiguous project definition, poor communication, inadequate time spent in project planning and risk management, or changing circumstances (Office of Government Commerce, 2003). Changes can be reduced by making sure that the project brief is comprehensive and has the stakeholders agreement. They can be minimized by taking account of present and proposed legislation. Furthermore, early discussions with stakeholders must be done in the early stages in order to anticipate their requirements. Site investigations and conditions surveys must be undertaken early in the stages. The designs must adequately develop early in the project and definably before constructions plans are committed. Finally, a proactive project management in order to identify and managing risks will have as a result to minimize changes (Office of Government Commerce, 2003). A change control procedure must consider the factors, which will mention below, before approval is given for the change. It must taking account of the reasons for the change, and for its source, which is responsible for wanting the change. The consequences of the change in terms of quality, cost and time. It must consider the risks and their impacts associated with the change. In addition, alternatives to the proposed change must be evaluated properly. It must checked proposals for avoiding time overrun and source of funding of any cost overrun. Finally, it must consider client approval for the change. After a detailed evaluation of the change confirms that it offers value of money and that the client accepts any impacts the approval of the change is given by SRO. Furthermore, the investment decision maker will approve any additional funding which exceeds the amount allowed in the risk allowance.

Is Liberal Autocracy the Optimum Form of Governance for Lesser Developed Countries?

Is Liberal Autocracy the optimum form of governance for Lesser Developed Countries? Andre Lim, Joshua Tjahjadi August 2011 1743 Words Hypothesis: Liberal autocracy is the optimal system of governance for lesser-developed countries (LDCs) Democracy at home, and abroad: In this essay, the authors aim to compare the systems of governance in Indonesia and Singapore, as well as how their differences have led to varied repercussions in both countries; those (repercussions) that will be closely examined here are the growth/development of stable governmental institutions, as well as the just rule of law.These are relatively newly-decolonized states existing side by side, in recent years taking different paths of governance. This resulted in wildly different outcomes. What was it about their different political paths that caused the difference? Is the fault with the democratic process, or with their implementation? Is there a certain developmental threshold within which democracy is just doom ed to failure? Many of these questions traverse along peripheries of political doctrine and liberal ethics. Certainly, democracy is an unpredictable, and often messy process.Only by answering hard questions like these can it be better understood, and refined. This is what the authors hope to achieve. To start off, however several key terms first have to be defined. Liberal autocracy refers to a non-democratically elected government founded on the principles of liberalism, that is a fundamental belief in the importance of liberty and basic fundamental rights. Notably successful examples include Singapore, and in the past Hong Kong, Taiwan as well as Japan. Lesser developed countries are nations exhibiting low levels of socio-economic development.Criterion include- low economic development (GNP of less than 905 USD, per capita) as well as human resource weakness (indicators include Adult literacy, nutrition and education). Liberty vs. Democracy- Rise of illiberal democracies? As Faree d Zakaria once brilliantly put it, ‘there today exists two strands of liberal democracy, both inextricably interwoven into Western political fabric- liberty and democracy. ’ The former is floundering even though the latter is flourishing. What is the significance of this co-relation?Democracy at its purest essentially means the rule of the people, whatever it may entail. Liberty recognizes that every man is born with certain unalienable rights- rights to religion, to life, to own property and be free from unfair prosecution. These are rights that cannot be infringed upon. Thus the crux behind constitutional liberty is the construction of institutions such as an independent Judiciary and Treasury to safeguard these rights. Only with a firmly-established Constitutional Liberty can democracy become a force for good.People frequently understand these concepts in reverse. Without the restrictive tenets of a strong Constitutional Liberty, the democratic process will end up ma nipulated and reinforcing corrupted/tyrannical/incompetent governance, elevating mediocrity and triggering stagnation. This is made apparent with Indonesia’s example. Without the checks and balances provided by libertarian governance, elections more often than not grant victory to illiberal forces. Contrast with Singapore’s single-party rule that gave rise to political stability and little corruption.A lack of liberty turn erodes the egalitarian and majoritarian principles casted by founders of modern constitutional-democracy doctrine- Madison, Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu. After all, the democratic system obviously has many admirable qualities. It allows a peaceful transfer of power, and renders tyrannical rule impossible. In both Singapore and Indonesia, this conundrum has been made apparent, time and again. 1960s to 2000: Emerging from the upheavals of 1960s, both the LKY and Suharto regime placed utmost emphasis on stability and order.Thus a common tactic was to st ifle political opposition; co-opting whoever they could, and proscecuting the rest. For instance, in the 1980s a group of Indonesian intelligentsia composed of former military men, public intellectuals and officials signed the Petition of 50(Petisi 50), criticizing the regime’s authoritarian tactics and following a 1984 accusation that Suharto was building a one-party state, the group was cracked down upon and many of its leaders were jailed. In Singapore, many prominent opposition leaders such as Chee Soon Juan and Joshua Jeyaretnam were proscecuted and jailed for their political activities.In both nations, the government also played a major role in different sectors of society; be it religion, social or economic. The results were astounding. Between 1960 and 1990, GDP/capita increased four-fold. After the debacle made by the Sukarno regime of economic affairs, Indonesia slowly regained trust of investors, and foreign markets. Hyper inflation was brought under control, and a s slew of measures were implemented to make Indonesia competitive again. By early 1980s Indonesia had achieved self-sufficiency of rice production, as well as basic education for all and successful family planning measures.The Golden Age of Autocrats? In the 1960s-1980s, in midst of the Cold War, amidst the geopolitical turmoil engulfing South Asia then, strong leaders were required maintain unity, as well as stability. In a sense, the turbulence of those years gave legitimacy for autocratic rule. In developing countries where the populace was mostly uneducated and politically illiterate/susceptible to radicalism, the strong hand of an Autocrat was required to provide the stability vital to building the economy, creating strong instutions, pushing forth important reforms. These would in the future be key to building a working Democracy.If there was one thing men like Mahatir, Marcos, Chiang, Lee and Suharto agreed on, it was that in an LDC, the strong, unwavering hand of autocratic rule was necessary to temper populism and keep check radicalism. 2000 onwards: Since the fall of Suharto in 1998, Indonesia evolved into a full-fledged democracy. However, democracy has brought about a whole slew of problems. For instance, the judiciary’s impartiality and reliability have often been questioned. In June 2011, a judge was caught receiving bribes from a lawyer that amounted to Rp250 million in various currencies.In addition to this, the country also faces problems such as crumbling infrastructure, falling tax revenues, environmental degradation, corruption as well as religious tensions. Singapore on the other hand has been powering forward, be it in terms of education levels, or the economy. Its political elite, un-encumbered by electoral demands is able to make long-term decisions that otherwise would have been rendered impossible in a full-fledged democracy. For example, Singapore fiscally is exceptionally disciplined.Its population exists on little subsidies, and through measures like the CPF, whereby people pay for their own compulsory healthcare insurance, it has large surpluses and little deficit. This allows the MAS and GIC to invest in new technologies and facilities vital to Singapore’s long-term growth, such as the Petrochemical facilities on Jurong- Island, or Biopolis biomedical facilities. Contrast this to Indonesia, whereby the electorate is unwilling to give up on fuel and food subsidies they once enjoyed during the boom years, but are nowadays unsustainable and detrimental to Indonesia’s economic growth.What constitutes good Libertarian Governance? Having looked at the preceding case studies, several correlations can be made between democracy, governance and progress. Firstly, it is that democracy can only become a force for progress and stability were it to come hand in hand with strong governance. When left to itself, democracy by no means lead to consensus and effective decision making. Instead, it will end up getting manipulated and corrupted by infighting, vested interests and corruption. Take the Indonesian Parliament. It is an archetypal example of the democratic process getting hijacked by corruption and ideology.Given that Indonesia lacks strong governmental institutions and mature civil society, the democratic process frequently ends up as a medium for parties in power to battle out their vested interests and for racial, ethnic groups to push forward their own agendas. Some may ask, what is the value of strong institutions? The crux behind Constitutional Democracy lies in checks and balances. No single party should have all the power, instead; power and the decision making process should be diffused among the different branches of government.This way, it would render cronyism, patronage politics and in general bad governance less likely. Were this accomplished, decision making rests not so much on who is in power; but rather the institutions that formulate and implement them. T hus the underlying problem with immature democracies like Indonesia. Without a civil society and strong institutions to balance out the powers of the executive, there is nothing preventing irresponsible governance on the part of those who seek to use democratic institutions to push forward their undemocratic agendas.For instance, with the presence of a strong judiciary and treasury to formulate and implement a just tax code, it would be impossible for Indonesian conglomerates and their cronies in Parliament to push for tax breaks and other concessions. This is inherently undemocratic. What Democracy thenceforth would end up doing is aggravating conflicts and instability, as can be seen in places like Lebanon and Iraq, whereby the advent of democratic elections have given rise to an ethnically, politically polarized electorate. Secondly, a certain amount of economic growth has to be achieved before a stable democracy can be established.There exist several reasons for this. On one han d, a government capable of producing sustained economic growth is more likely to be stable and effective, possessing the strong institutions required for this. Their presence increases the chances of a Liberal Democratic regime surviving. Economic prosperity also means that a society is more stable, with an educated, empowered population likely to hold government account to their actions. Paradoxically, as inherently undemocratic the PAP regime may seem today, Singapore 45 years after independence is closer to becoming a successful Liberal democracy than ever before.Having a motivated, uncorrupt elite in more or less total control of public policy means that Singapore had been able to enjoy decades of sustained economic, political and social growth. This has created stability, as well as strong institutions and a flourishing civil society. With its vast ruling majority, the PAP regime has also been able to build legislative and judicial institutions that counterweigh the power of th e ruling body, since it has no need to cope with frequently detrimental populist sentiments or political infighting.The legislative body can then focus solely on advancing national interests. Therein lies the crux behind effective governance. Conclusion: In conclusion, it can be surmised that establishing the pre-requisites required for a strong Democracy is a complicated process. Developing countries lack these pre-requisites, and trying to develop Liberal institutions in these countries under democratic circumstances is arduously tough. When this process fails, as it often does, the Democratic process loses its value as a force for stability.Herein lies the value of a Liberal Autocracy; to build the foundations for a working democracy. Certainly, liberal autocratic rule has its disadvantages. With such a high concentration of power within the ruling government, things only work out if the government is able, uncorrupt and works to build the institutions required for future transit ion to democratic rule. This was the case in Singapore. In Indonesia, the establishment of growth, stability and Liberty came hand in hand with cronyism and patronage politics. This is undemocratic; a possible offshoot of autocratic rule.Like America’s founding fathers, Lee and Suharto were both elitists with a democratic cause; to improve the lot of as many people as possible. They had one consensus- Democracy has to be meticulously built, rigorously defended. Developing countries require autocracy first, were a strong democracy to be conceived. However, with the advent of internet and a new generation of young people eager for rights and freedoms, this formulae may not work in other developing countries today. After all, any system needs to be revised from time to time. No system last forever.This thus, is the dilemma developing countries face today. They face the problem of consolidation, of making a democratic regime successful, because self-government is never easy. Afte r all, democracy can be entrusted to any society, but not everyone can make it work. (1743 words) Bibliography Hard copy sources: 1. â€Å"Future of Freedom- Illiberal Democracy, At home and Abroad† by Fareed Zakaria, W. W. & Norton Company Inc. 2003, ISBN0393047644 2. â€Å"Conversations with Lee Kuan Yew: Citizen Singapore-how to build a nation† by Tom Plate.December 1 2010, Marshall Cavendish Corporation, ISBN-10 9812616764, ISBN-13 978-9812616760 3. â€Å"Lee Kuan Yew-Hard truths to keep Singapore going† by Ignatius Low, Chua Mui Hoong, Han Fook Kwang, Zuraidah Ibrahim, Lydia Lim, Rachel Lin and Robin Chan. February 2011, The Straits Times Press, ISBN 978-981-4266-72-7 Soft copy sources: 1. Is Media Helping or Hurting Push for Democracy Ismira Lutfia, May 9 2011 http://www. thejakartaglobe. com/arts/is-media-helping-or-hurting-push-for-democracy/440043 2. LeeKuanYew-istan Forever Parag Khanna, May 24 2011 3.Indonesian Democracy at Standtill John Macbeth, Str aits Times Indonesia May 10 2011 4. A Replacement for Suharto’s Iron Fist Mohamed Iqbal Ahnaf April 08, 2011 5. Liberalism and Democracy: Cant Have One Without The Other Marc Plattner, 1998 http://www. foreignaffairs. com/articles/53815/marc-f-plattner/liberalism-and-democracy-cant-have-one-without-the-other? page=show 6. The Thinker: Indonesia Unplugged? Mahpud Sujai, May 27 2011 http://www. thejakartaglobe. com/opinion/the-thinker-indonesia-unplugged/443379 ——————————————– 1 ]. Future of Freedom- Illiberal Democracy, At home and Abroad† by Fareed Zakaria, W. W. & Norton Company Inc. 2003, ISBN0393047644 [ 2 ]. http://www. indonesia-digest. net/3300suharto. htm [ 3 ]. ibid [ 4 ]. Jakarta Post, November 5 2009 [ 5 ]. Future of Freedom- Illiberal Democracy, At home and Abroad† by Fareed Zakaria, W. W. & Norton Company Inc. 2003, ISBN0393047644 [ 7 ]. 6 ibid [ 8 ]. 7 ibid [ 10 ]. Conversations With Lee Kuan Yew February 2011, The Straits Times Press, ISBN 978-981-4266-72-7 [ 11 ]. ibid [ 12 ]. ibid [ 13 ]. Foreign Policy, May 2007

The Effects of a Black Market on Supply and Demand