Guild of Project Controls: Compendium | Roles | Assessment | Certifications | Membership

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.

GPCCaR M09-3 - Capturing Progress & Updating the Schedule - Data Collection?

6 replies [Last post]
Rafael Davila
User offline. Last seen 12 hours 16 min ago. Offline
Joined: 1 Mar 2004
Posts: 5069
09.3.3.1.1.1 Units Completed or Units in Place Method This is the most common and the preferred method whenever possible. Example 1 - There are 10,000 linear meters of 12” pipe to be installed. The contractor has installed 4,000 meters, had the welds x-rayed and the pipe has been tested per the contract requirements. Therefore we can say that 4,000 LM / 10,000 LM = 40% physically completed.
  • But the proposed data collection sheet does not include the production quantities, do not even include a rudimentary calculation of % complete. You cannot manage the schedule if you do not know your production rate, elapse of time  does not tells you how much was produced. 
  • DC01 photo Data Collection Sheet 01_zpsqplysj4r.jpg
  • A better and more transparent approach would be to include team production quantities per reporting period within the schedule/unit-costing database. The with this data you shall be able to report on production rates essential to give meaning to the cost amount. 
  • DC02 photo Data Collection Sheet 02_zpscfius0gr.jpg
  • As I said before our hands down approach is to track costs using the unit-costing available within the financial software because of the amount of data items and use the CPM model to make future projections even when theoretically more functional CPM software such as Spider Project can do it. 

[This post moved here by GPC Admin so this point can be given specific attention and actioned]

Replies

GPC Admin
User offline. Last seen 5 years 18 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 13 Jun 2014
Posts: 22
Groups: GPCCAR Editors

Dear Rafael (and other contributors on this thread),

Thanks for your comments and thoughts on this topic.  

Consistent with the concept of the GPCCAR as a "living document" and following our peer review updating process, the Guild Members and Fellows have reviewed you suggestions and questions (from this specific thread) which have been taken on board and introduced into the revised and updated "Module 09.3 - Capturing Progress & Updating the Schedule" module.  

Guild Members will be alerted to this change and provided with a detailed explanation of the same.  Non-Guild Members won't (yet) enjoy that benefit.

The module has been reorganised and now better addresses its previous shortcomings identified from the forum discussions in that it now better describes the need for time based progress data as well as materials, manpower an machinery based records to be collated and utilised toward the Schedule Update in order to determine the physical percent complete as well as supporting "resource" details.

This forum topic will now be closed because the update has been made.  

If you, or indeed anyone else, have any continued comments, concerns or suggestions (or alternative or better graphics) in regard to this particular module then please do provide specific and actionable comments so that changes can be investigated and implemented.  

Such comments can be done via the the usual GPCCaR Change Form which is available at the bottom of every module viewing page.  However, if anyone wishes to make comment via this public forum they are also encouraged to do so, the only caveat is that if anyone wishes to add value and effect change then specific and actionable comments need to be provided; anything less will simply remain as non-actionable discussion.

Thanks for taking the time to offer constructive and actionable comment, it really was valuable and appreciated.  Other posts on here are also under review but can only be actioned if they are specific and actionable as opposed to general discussion.

A committee of passionate Guild Members is being formalised to receive, debate and transparently manage the process of accommodating specific suggestions for change going forward, and as a frequent contributor to the forum, your involvement as a peer reviewer would be welcomed. 

Regards GPC Admin (@Jason)

Rafael Davila
User offline. Last seen 12 hours 16 min ago. Offline
Joined: 1 Mar 2004
Posts: 5069

GPC Admin  (Jason),

What is wrong with my approach under this specific thread? 

He who asserts must prove. In order to establish an assertion, he must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. Facts must be accurate. 

Sorry if you do not like the confrontational nature of any debate but I see absolute lack of supporting evidence and logic on the GUILD assertions I am contesting as mistaken or wrong.

Best Regards,

Rafael

GPC Admin
User offline. Last seen 5 years 18 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 13 Jun 2014
Posts: 22
Groups: GPCCAR Editors

Hi Rafael,

In my earlier notfication I stated a number of interested people are looking at your comments and sugggestions and these are being considered and I am advised that a response to you (and to us all) WILL be forthcoming in due course and just like the other comments which are being submitted.  Such comments will be adopted - either 

(i) in full, or

(ii) in part, or

(iii) rejected along with a reason which can be further discussed.

Since making my earlier post I thought I should put more effort in and I asked 5 people to participate on here with their thoughts and 3 (so far) have responded that they would welcome debate but they found the manner in which you document your thoughts bordering on rude and offensive so they decline as they would prefer polite dialogiue and not an argument... and that my friend is a shame; but something you can fix if you truly do want to add value.  After all, as practitioners we should be able to document a reasoned point of view and a solution without having to be unpleasant.

As I said above we will be given some feedback once it has been formulated as that is the model.

I trust this assists.  

To answer your question about the need to respond multiple times in multiple threads; no that is not necessary as it simply makes more work for everyone.  You are free to duplicate post replies to this but only one is neccessary / adds value.

Thanks... GPC Admin (Jason)

Rafael Davila
User offline. Last seen 12 hours 16 min ago. Offline
Joined: 1 Mar 2004
Posts: 5069

GPC Admin,

I cannot see why the authors do not take the challenge and respond to my claims the source of the GUILD postulates I am challenging is poor, nonexistent and wrong. 

  • If the GUILD makes some postulates and there is sustaining evidence why not present it?
  • If the GUILD makes some postulates and are questioned with some reasoning behind why not the courtesy to answer with some good reasoning?
  • What is being said at the GUILD can be adopted by some contract authors that do not understand how wrong some statements are and therefore dangerous. 

I tried long ago to get some real answers on my initial postings and all I got were poor answers or none. I find in such abominable error some of what is being said at the GUILD that I find it dangerous and therefore my strong response. 

Because you have split original thread into many, following your approach I have no other option than to ask what is wrong with my approach under this specific thread? 

Best Regards,

Rafael

GPC Admin
User offline. Last seen 5 years 18 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 13 Jun 2014
Posts: 22
Groups: GPCCAR Editors

Hello Rafael,

I have been copied into some email discusion by a couple of people from these two listings: Certified and non Certified Members on one or more of these posts so people are discussing how your observations can be used to enhance the collective works that we call the Compendium & Reference.

If you want to induce some useful debate then I humbly recommend you try a more friendly writing style which will encourage a debate rather than an argument.  It is totally up to you; your thoughts (when offered in distinct and actionale posts that cross reference to a specific part of a module) are very useful and encouraged but if you want some debate then I do suggest that you try to come across as offering helpful information and alternative viewpoints rather than as they are currently being posed.

I trust this keeps you informed and keep up the good work :)

GPC Admin (Jason)

Rafael Davila
User offline. Last seen 12 hours 16 min ago. Offline
Joined: 1 Mar 2004
Posts: 5069

It looks like the authors of the GUILD have no interest on debating when questioned or challenged.