A Programme Can Look Solid and Still Be Fundamentally Weak

A programme can look solid and still be fundamentally weak. The bars sit at the right dates. The trades are named. The end date matches the contract. None of that proves the programme will hold under construction reality.

These are the failures I have seen repeatedly across fit-out delivery:

1. 1.

   No logic links. Bars floating independently. The programme cannot show you the impact of a delay on the rest of the project.

2. 2.

   Unrealistic trade durations at tender. Compressed to win the bid, impossible to achieve on site.

3. 3.

   No baseline set before construction. Without one, you cannot demonstrate delay or support a compensation event claim.

4. 4.

   Programme not updated after week three. It stops being a planning tool and becomes a liability.

5. 5.

   Lead-in times and design approvals not reflected as activities. Invisible delays.

6. 6.

   M&E first fix starting after drylining framing. The most common Cat B trade sequence error.

7. 7.

   Commissioning time underestimated. The phase most commonly compressed.

8. 8.

   Slippage not addressed until too late to recover. Three days behind in week three is manageable. Three weeks behind in week twelve is a crisis.

9. 9.

   Client decision delays not reflected in the programme. Late decisions that are not tracked cannot support an EOT claim.

10. 10.

    Tender programme used as contract programme without review. A bid document is not a management tool.

None of these are inevitable. All of them are avoidable with a programme built correctly and updated honestly.

The deep version of how to prevent each one sits inside the Asta Powerproject Fit-Out Playbook.