Website Upgrade Incoming - we're working on a new look (and speed!) standby while we deliver the project

Tips on using this forum..

(1) Explain your problem, don't simply post "This isn't working". What were you doing when you faced the problem? What have you tried to resolve - did you look for a solution using "Search" ? Has it happened just once or several times?

(2) It's also good to get feedback when a solution is found, return to the original post to explain how it was resolved so that more people can also use the results.

Lead-In

6 replies [Last post]
Mon, 2004-01-26 05:33
David Bordoli
User offline. Last seen 9 years 20 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 8 Apr 2002
Posts: 416
Groups: Building Information Modelling
Hi

I have just posted a message in the Planning, Scheduling & Programming Discussion about lead-in programmes using Powerproject.

Have a look here: Lead-In

David
dbordoli@burofour.co.uk

Visit Buro Four on the web.
Top

Replies

Fri, 2005-10-07 09:08
#1
Oscar Wilde
User offline. Last seen 17 years 30 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 7 Oct 2005
Posts: 166
Groups: None
Unfortunatly the case law and lawyers do not agree but if you pay a lawyer to decide your entitlement he will secure his first
Top
Fri, 2005-10-07 02:38
#2
Simon Mawdsley
User offline. Last seen 11 years 23 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 22 Mar 2004
Posts: 11
Groups: None
Once upon a time float was generated by logic using CPA and a client should be able to evaluate if the contractor was playing games with it.

In my opinion nobody owns the float, who ever uses it first gets it whether it’s the contractor because the programme is slipping or the client because he’s made a change.

If a programme is constructed correctly there is a good way of predicting future problems with a float distribution report.
Top
Fri, 2005-10-07 01:54
#3
Clive Randall
User offline. Last seen 17 years 38 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 744
Groups: None
While perhaps the question of float is better in the claims side of the forum I believe the ownership going to he who usese it first is wrong

As we the caster of the programme can remove the float by buffer activities, constraints to milestones which are set earlier and then hidden (so many clients dont intereogate the soft copy)or just make everything critical it does not remove the fact that float exists only if the logic is 100% correct

As nobody except the caster of the programme has a vested interest in making sure it is, and as so many projects have incomplete information at the start it seems reasonable for the caster of the programme to own the float (or should i say contingency) just in case the logic is wrong.

On some contracts the Client expresees in the Contract that he owns the float

Answer the progarmme is 100% critical on day 1 there is no critical path and the whole purpose of planning is defeated.

I believe float has still got legs too.

I would like to see what others really feel float is for and who should own it.

Kind regards
Clive Randall
Top
Fri, 2005-06-10 08:50
#4
Daya Sugunasingha
User offline. Last seen 17 years 26 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 27 Feb 2002
Posts: 99
Groups: None
David
I do agree.
I beleave that the ownership of "float" should reflect the degree of risk each of the parties to the contract have accepted to take dependent on contract details.
Top
Fri, 2005-01-28 05:30
#5
David Bordoli
User offline. Last seen 9 years 20 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 8 Apr 2002
Posts: 416
Groups: Building Information Modelling
Jonathan
Thanks for your reply. I admire and appreciate your contributions over the last few days.

When I wrote that note the buffer task didn’t exist so your refinement is very welcome.

When v8 and the buffer task was introduced I forecast that it would become a really useful tool in the planners’ box and would sooner or later be copied by all other software producers. I think it has great scope and maybe we (sorry, I mean you!) should start a thread discussing what we can do with it. The obvious one is to reduce float in programmes without reducing their dynamic nature. Contractors especially might like to look at that to protect any, otherwise, apparent float.

As with concurrency, I think the question of ownership of float has still got some legs in it, despite what case law and the Protocol seem to say. There are a number of scenario that haven’t yet been properly discussed and the ‘who ever needs it first’ ruling is a bit too a simplistic fit all rule in my very humble opinion!

Regards

David
Top
Thu, 2005-01-27 17:35
#6
Jonathan Kirby
User offline. Last seen 1 year 27 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 16 Jan 2005
Posts: 41
Groups: None
David.
A futher refinement to lead in, or Design or Procurement programmes is the have the front end ASAP bars separated from the [say] Manufacture or JIT delivery with a buffer task. this is a good way to put some contingency in the whole process and you can have more realistic times for the actual activities [often the activities are given overly long durations to allow for this] and monitor the buffer tasks.
This helps to resoure level the front end activities without messing about with durations and keep an eye on the risk to construction at the same time.
the delivery JIT can be locked to move with its on site activity with the Max slope function in the link properties.
JK
Top