A fragnet: drawing one delay event as a handful of linked activities from the records
The delay file contains an unanswered request, a revised detail and daily reports of rework. A single bar labelled design delay covers the whole period. The scheduler needs to know which actions actually depended on one another before assessing the event.
A fragnet is a small linked network describing an event’s activities and connections to the programme. The UK Society of Construction Law’s protocol discusses such a subnetwork as an input to time-impact analysis. Build it from the records and let the qualified analyst check how it belongs in the relevant update. Drawing the event does not itself prove completion delay, responsibility or entitlement.
Draw the event without filling gaps with guesses
- Define the event boundary. Identify the discovery or instruction, affected area and outcome being examined. Keep separate events separate unless the records show a genuine connection, and state the purpose of the network.
- List the recorded actions. Include the request, response, review, release and resulting work where relevant. Use specific names that another reader can match to correspondence or daily reports rather than one broad delay label.
- Check dates and durations. Distinguish actual recorded events from forecast periods and mark gaps. Ask the analyst to confirm the applicable calendar and working-time treatment; elapsed calendar days and planned working duration are not automatically interchangeable.
- Connect genuine dependencies. Identify which action needed another to finish and which work could continue independently. Use the supporting records to explain each link rather than forcing every item into a serial chain to increase the apparent effect.
- Name the programme interfaces. Give the existing activity references before and after the event. Preserve the relevant schedule revision and status date for the analyst, including changes or disputed assumptions that could affect the connection.
- Review and hand over the evidence. Walk the draft with the people who know the work, then provide the network, source references and uncertainties to the qualified analyst. Keep its later analysis and the contract assessment separate from this factual event description.
Common mistakes
- Making every correspondence date a sequential activity without a real dependency.
- Using calendar-day gaps as working durations without checking the calendar.
- Presenting the fragnet drawing as a decision on the claim.
Checklist
A fragnet ready for review
- One event and affected scope are defined.
- Activities match dated source records.
- Durations and calendars are identified or marked uncertain.
- Links reflect actual dependencies and continuing work.
- Programme interfaces and review questions are supplied.
Check your understanding
Two recorded actions occurred during the same week, but neither depended on the other. Should they be drawn in sequence?
