Thanks guys, now we’re getting some rubber on the road.

As a note of interest, when it comes to using different calendars on activities, how many were aware how the tool calculates total float when this occurs?

Quote from Primavera Help Files;

"Float: You can base total float of the summarized data on the start dates, finish dates, or most critical dates. Set this option in the Compute Total Float As field on the General tab of the Schedule Options dialog box (choose Tools, Schedule, Options). If you base float on start dates, and all activities are assigned to the same calendar, total float is the difference between the earliest late start and the earliest early start dates in workperiods. For finish dates, the Project Management module uses the latest late finish and the latest early finish dates to calculate total float. The most critical float is the lowest total float encountered in the detailed activities from each summary group.

If all activities are not assigned to the same calendar, the Project Management module defines total float based on the default global calendar."

The last paragraph is very interesting indeed.

The theory behind my benchmark idea, is to use the tool to calculate the early dates (Time analysis) using a standard project benchmarked calendar and then use the resource availability driven by both calendar and max units time to provide scheduled dates (resource analysis).

Unfortunatley it appears that when using the resource leveller it is incapable of correctly executing a Deadline Critical Resource Analysis. It can do unconstrained resource analysis just fine but when you constrain the end date it starts to go a bit funny. I’ve got some slides on that too.

Andy

David,
Fair enough then,

I can live with that.

However I’m very interested to know what these enhancement requests are that you would like to see and also what you have done with them to date.

I would like to see Primavera also be able to do what it already claims, and if it takes more effort on my behalf to learn, or effort on my behalf to keep on about issues that I feel are important then I will do that.

If the people who use the system are not willing to improve the system then we may as well not use it, it defeats the purpose of doing a better job if you constantly have issues/workarounds to cope with.

Anyway, if you would like to send me a message to andrewtdick@hotmail.com, about those enhancement requests you say you would like, I’d appreciate knowing what they are.

P.S. What are the 2 key strokes???


Andy

Isn’t it interesting that they quote how the software is working as designed, but followup with a work around for the issue.


Intersetingly enough;

Workaround

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A workaround is a bypass of a recognized problem in a system. A workaround is typically a temporary fix that implies that a genuine solution to the problem is needed. Frequently workarounds are as creative as true solutions, involving outside the box thinking in their creation.


Typically they are considered brittle in that they will not respond well to further pressure from a system beyond the original design. In implementing a workaround it is important to flag the change so as to later implement a proper solution.


Placing pressure on a workaround may result in later failures in the system. For example, in computer programming workarounds are often used to address a problem in a library, such as an incorrect return value. When the library is changed, the workaround may break the overall program functionality, since it may expect the older, wrong behaviour from the library.



I have also received those Non-answers to problems I have raised in the past.


Also did you know that the POINT website seems to be partitioned so that the global user pool can’t see all the problems that have been logged.


Did you know that for an enhancement request to be processed it has to be requested on the POINT website enough times to warrant the thing being fixed.


Andy

Thanks for the feedback guys,

Imran,
I really don’t think that I should be classified as someone who is always right. I mean if you were to pose that theory to my wife I don’t think she could stop laughing. :-)

Sandy,
I too agree that the issue of setting the Units/Time Period at the admin level for the entire enterprise is a major problem. And as we can see so does Ronald.

However I would definitely prefer the method suggested by Ronald to overcome the issue. What Ronald suggests is the way that these systems should be set up, so far as to say, as a company what is our standard working day, I.E. what hours do we expect our workers to achieve on any given standard day (Note:- this should not be related to productivity, just physical man-hours).

Once we have established the ‘Standard’ we then have a benchmark to pivot off for any modification to the daily work cycle, as pointed out by Ronald.

The issue here as far as I can see is that it will upset the Enterprise function of the tool and basically require a separate database for each project or program.

Other issues come in when the administrators or users with the appropriate level of access decide to change the global default calendar which then interacts with the Units/Time Period to calculate the summary WBS durations, thus causing even more confusion.

David,
Nice to hear that even as a salesman for Primavera that you are not entirely happy with some of the functionality or the way in which the product works. But; your comments on the resource management functionality of the tool have left me somewhat confused. In my opinion Primavera version 5 or 6 wouldn’t know resource management if it was laid out in front of it.

The simple fact that there are over 50,000 different ways to resource schedule the one project dependant on the settings is just too much overkill. On top of this if the algorithm can’t generate an answer it simply puts the activity on its early date, and you have to go digging in the log report to find out which activities are affected (and then get no reason).

I have used tools in the past that will level far more accurately than Primavera, but again that’s my opinion and as stated in my first paragraph – I don’t profess to know everything.

All I want to do here is generate a discussion thread that can be used as evidence to Primavera to show them that they have ‘missed the boat’, to coin a phrase, when it comes to some of the settings and defaults with the tool.

As planners we are faced with the requirement to be able to provide accurate answers and reasons as to why a project end date is sitting where it is. As planners should not have to explain the complex nature of the system and the subsequent workarounds we have to put into place to overcome the deficiencies of the planning tool given to us based on a glossy sales pitch.

I firmly believe that the only way Primavera has such a market share at the moment is due to the predecessors such as Sure Track and P3, coupled with the reluctance of IT departments to trial and implement new software. This along with the glossy sales pitch provided to potential customers has seen the market share of Primavera grow.

The perceived ease of use of the tool has also proven to be a big selling point, As we all know the tool is easy to input data into, BUT, how do we, or how can we, trust the answers if we can’t even get the basics right?

Anyhow if any of you have more to add please do so, I really want to try and elevate this to a point where Primavera can help us to help them.

Andy