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.

Planning Engineers - The need for an affiliation

15 replies [Last post]
Wed, 2005-11-09 07:55
Robert Burns
User offline. Last seen 5 years 5 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 8 Oct 2003
Posts: 24
Groups: None
Good day ,

What are your thoughts on the need for a registered, industry wide accepted assocaition which has the same protcols of induction as the RICS, CIOB, ICE, etc? I ask, as I am writing a study on the ineffectiveness of many ’Planners /Planning Engineers’ throughout all industry’s, which result in so much bad press , in my humble experience.

Paying for a membership does not constitue a good or professionally astute Planner / Enginner. It is indeed bad practice and causes confusion.

I look forward to any comments.
Top

Replies

Wed, 2005-11-23 05:54
#1
Robert Burns
User offline. Last seen 5 years 5 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 8 Oct 2003
Posts: 24
Groups: None
Don’t think you gather what the discussion thread was actually about, Jihad.

Top
Mon, 2005-11-14 10:48
#2
Jihad Daniel
User offline. Last seen 8 years 7 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 7 May 2005
Posts: 99
Groups: None
Please refer to this excellent human analysis website www.overbooked.org/affiliation.html which gives a detailed explanation of affiliation. We can assess the content and discuss.

Regards,
Top
Sat, 2005-11-12 04:01
#3
Gary France
User offline. Last seen 16 years 2 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 137
Groups: None
There are some very valid questions / points in this thread, which I have been contemplating for some time.

I write as the chairman of the Planning Engineers Organisation (PEO). The recognition of planners and the need for some sort of certification were exactly the reasons we set up the PEO just over a year ago.

I agree with what Robert said in his original posting “Paying for membership does not constitute a good or professionally astute Planning / Engineer”. However, in posting #10, Robert goes on to say of organisations including the PEO “But to all intents and purposes we sign a cheque, give our experience, a project brief and we are then given an affiliation”. I would agree if that was what happened, but this isn’t the case.

When we were devising how the PEO was to operate, we considered what was the best way to check the experience and skill of planners – if we were to validate how ‘good’ a planner was, we needed to be able to do this in a way that didn’t just require applicants to fill in a form, send a cheque and they were accepted. This is exactly what we didn’t want to do as this would result in being no more than a list of planners, which would be worthless.

We looked at a number of different “certification” options including an examination, an interview, some sort of a test etc. None of these have been ruled out, but each relies largely upon applicants traveling to a particular location for this and we decided this simply wasn’t viable at present as we were aiming for an organisation that represented planners from around the world. Indeed, we do have members from many different parts of the world, which couldn’t have been achieved with such large travel distances.

We therefore adopted the approach by which membership applications to the PEO are vetted by a membership panel. This is a group of very experienced planners who examine the comprehensive details provided by applicants – these include not just details of the applicants career and experience, but also they need to write about how they do their planning and they also need to provide a planning case study and a 2000 / 3000 word dissertation paper about planning. The membership panel validates each applicant’s information rigorously using this information and they reject applications that do not demonstrate the appropriate level of skill and expertise. The validation process certainly weeds out the software jockeys.

I am not saying though that this is the way that we will always work. Introducing some sort of examination, perhaps on-line, perhaps in person, is the way forward for the future. I would be interested in what PP’ers think of this.

Regarding what Robert said about planners being regarded as “nice wallpaper” in the progress meetings, I couldn’t agree more! To me, a planner should be capable of (and be regarded as) controlling the time aspects of a project. This is not simply being the person who uses software to draw programmes, but to devise design strategies, procurement strategies, construction methods, sequences, logistics, prefabrication strategies, plant locations, labour forecasts and the like. They should be very effective communicators and in so doing, command the respect and admiration of the other members of the team. Put simply, planners should determine and drive “how” the project will be undertaken. I therefore totally agree with Clive – planning is not anchored by a mere understanding of software – in fact, software is only one of a number of tools that a planner should use.

So, the basic question is, how does a professional body, like the PEO, test for all of this? At present, we achieve this by asking applicants to set out what I have described above – experience, a case study, how they do their planning, a dissertation paper etc, but is this enough? Should there be an examination as well? I can’t claim to know the answer to this, but what I do know is that the existing membership application methods do put off some planners from applying because they claim not to have the time to do what we currently ask for. I would be very interested to hear what you think about the PEO introducing an examination in some way.

Finally, Clive is spot on when he says “Too often here I see discussions on software and programmes but the heart of what we do I believe is not this and is not discussed. Change can only come from within, we as planners must recast ourselves in a proactive manner if we are to change”. When the planners (about 45 of them) who work for me in Mace produce a report setting out how a construction project will be delivered, that report might be a hundred or so pages, but in the main, no more than 5 of those pages are programmes. Being a ’good’ planner is much more than simply being able to produce programmes.

Change can only come from within, and that is exactly what the PEO is about.





Gary France
Chairman
Planning Engineers Organisation
Top
Fri, 2005-11-11 02:40
#4
Clive Randall
User offline. Last seen 16 years 19 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 744
Groups: None
Jackie
I agree to a point
However the market will drive the requirement.
If PMs accept the artists we have a problem that will not be solved by certification but a change of mindset on the part of PMs and companies.
Maybe we either become PMs or influence PMs and thats really why I struggle with planners who produce meaningless garbage with thousands of pretty bars but [Deleted by Moderator.]
Clive
Top
Fri, 2005-11-11 01:53
#5
Jackie Gilliland
User offline. Last seen 13 years 44 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 41
Groups: None
Just my view

I believe poor planners are developed by poor PM’s. I believe to many planners are appointed based on the contractual obligation to deliver a program to the client, rather than as using planning as a tool for PM’s to manage their projects.

This creates the need for appointing computer jockeys which eventually become "recognized star planners" purely through their ability to manipulate the software to produce pictures, sometimes to my amazement without a thread of logic.

This I believe is flooding the market with what I term "artistic planners". If an affiliation could curb this it would be great.

Jackie
Top
Thu, 2005-11-10 21:17
#6
Clive Randall
User offline. Last seen 16 years 19 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 744
Groups: None
Robert
This is written primarily for construction planners.
We can but strive for utopia
However, I see many posts from planners ?? who ask, what I would consider to be extremly basic questions that I would anticipate could be answered by a graduate engineer. When for example we look at the education in the industry we seldom see at degree level any input into the physical aspects of what we do or the construction process as a whole. Ask a graduate how long a steel bar is or how many bars of a certain diameter make up a tonne and the mystified response is indicative of the system. Ask about a structural piece of software and a response is likly to be forthcoming.
Planning is generally seen as a no career option, maybe this is because a considerable number of engineers want to be the PMs not driving what they perceive as a piece of software, if they want to do that they will join a structural engineering practice.
Affiliations and certificates will not generate change
Change must come from how others perceive our value and recognise our input. If we continully hide behind software and huge meaningless output we will be seen as the anoraks of the industry employed because Clients require somebody to fill that position in the organisation. It would appear that oil and gas recognise the value of a good planner construction has some way to go.
Too often here I see discussions on software and programmes but the heart of what we do I believe is not this and is not discussed.
Change can only come from within, we as planners must recast ourselves in a proactive manner if we are to change.
Till this happens utopia will be but a dream.
Clive
Top
Thu, 2005-11-10 05:56
#7
Robert Burns
User offline. Last seen 5 years 5 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 8 Oct 2003
Posts: 24
Groups: None
Hi Clive,

I agree with you wholeheartedly. There seems to be a malaise where the Planner is taken on to input the data given to them, instead of actually having the enginnering capacity to already know what process’s are involved. Could it be argued that further down the line we shall see Planning Enginners specifically aligned within the differing engineering disciplines? This would make sense, although from this you could see a pure , project management role , with the ’Project’ being replaced by the ’Programme’, all costs / forcasts coming from the programme, cash flow analysis and on longer term contracts we could evaluate corporate strategies. Maybe getting a wee bit utopian in my thoughts there.

With reference to the crane situation , or the testing of, it would be a tricky situation to test in particular engineering disciplines as ’Planners’ are usually facilitators of the Project Control process. I argue that we should have the simple beginnings of asking a Planner / Planning Enginner to display the theory’s behind float, forward pass, backward pass, resource allocation and the varying aspects held within (units, task, time,...), the understanding behind productivity & the differing weightings of. Fundamentally, there are far too many professional Planners in the industry who couldn’t simply clarify an out of sequence analysis, but could amply tell us their proficiency with P3 e/c , or version 5, or Asta or...(and on and on).

May be that this is a can of worms (which is refreshing) as I have a thought that, as the role of Planning Engineers has become more apparrent (to those who thought it was a waste of time anyway / expense) it could be that the role become more specific toward the individual engineering factons. I know certain employers do ask for ’experience’ in certain sectors, but for the role to be as effective as it should be it may be that it will be an industry given (in years to come) that we define ourselves as a specific Engineering Planner / Programme Manager.

Again though, I know we have APE, PEO,..etc, but to all intents and purposes we sign a cheque, give our experience, a project brief and we are then given an affiliation. Would it not be better, although to some more hassle, if we were vetted through a 2 / 3 or 4 year process of site / office diary’s, exams and then felt that we had achieved a signicant and professional qualification, which would mean that all Planning Engineers were proficient? I know that sounds a lot , but is it really? We could allow for an extra £8 an hour. (he tries to crack a joke).


What are your thoughts?

cheers.
Top
Wed, 2005-11-09 21:05
#8
Clive Randall
User offline. Last seen 16 years 19 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 744
Groups: None
Dear Robert
There is a great deal of truth in what you say.
There are bodies in the industry who measure and certify what we do already, hairy bloke or not. However planning to me is still not anchored to an understanding of software but to much wider issues such as a fundamental understanding of the process. I have sugested before that understanding the input is more precious that achieving an output.
A simple example is how to decide on what type of crane to place on a project. This revolves around a multitude of factors but getting it wrong will not be proved by a programme but by the subsequent delay occassioned by the error. So how do you test for it.
I am interested in your thoughts
Clive
Top
Wed, 2005-11-09 12:50
#9
Larry Blankenship
User offline. Last seen 12 years 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Oct 2005
Posts: 61
Groups: Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas
Good one Gordon!

Larry
Top
Wed, 2005-11-09 12:04
#10
Gordon Blair
User offline. Last seen 6 years 12 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 29 Jul 2005
Posts: 166
Groups: None
I’m a big, hairy bloke... I’m not really sure I want APE after my name....
Top
Wed, 2005-11-09 11:33
#11
Chris Oggham
User offline. Last seen 9 years 18 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 605
Groups: None
Hi guys,

What about the Association of Planning Engineers? They offer a professional body for Planning Engineers as well as a certification programme. There was an article about them in Project Magazine June 2001. The link below will take you to it.

Association of Planning Engineers

Regards

Chris Oggham
Top
Wed, 2005-11-09 11:24
#12
Larry Blankenship
User offline. Last seen 12 years 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Oct 2005
Posts: 61
Groups: Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas
BS Standard. heh.

In the US we refer to BS as an abbreviation for bovine feces...

In the academic world...an MS is more of it...
and a Phd is Piled Higher and Deeper...

:)

I think the ideal of having a certification that means something is valid, but unachievable, as the minute something becomes important, the market dilutes it to the point that it becomes worthless.

It’s much like cafeteria food...proof that there isn’t anything so good that it can’t be ruined by being made in excessive quantities.

Larry
Top
Wed, 2005-11-09 11:14
#13
Charleston-Joseph...
User offline. Last seen 2 years 39 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 1347
Groups: None
Hi,

this is a good idea. The reference body as mentioned refers to BS Standard.

This is not effective.

The best approach is to go for universal standard, intergration of BS, American, Russian or worldwide standard.

This is the only way to get universal acceptance of planning engineers.

IMHO,

Cheers, Charlie
Top
Wed, 2005-11-09 09:08
#14
Larry Blankenship
User offline. Last seen 12 years 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Oct 2005
Posts: 61
Groups: Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas
Not knowing the particulars you are mentioning, I can’t say it’s a bad idea, but I believe you are referring to some kind of certification.

In my experience in the IT world, certifications aren’t of much use except to HR departments in culling the herd of potential job candidates. Unfortunately, there are people who can pass a test who still can’t code their way out of a wet paper bag.

Having certifications can sometimes be like wetting your pants in a dark suit, it gives you a warm feeling, but nobody else will really notice, especially if everyone and his brother has done it too.

Not sure about that analogy, but there ya go.

Larry
Top
Wed, 2005-11-09 10:47
#15
Robert Burns
User offline. Last seen 5 years 5 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 8 Oct 2003
Posts: 24
Groups: None
Thanks for your reply Larry.

My basis is such that through my experience I have encountered people who claim to be Planning Engineers / Planners, when in fact they know the basics of the software (key-board jocky’s) but are completely unaware of the mathematical models involved; the varying aspects of float; or even the simple process of the forward and backward pass. Another example is the aspect of out of sequencing on programmes, which is a fundamental , but which these ’professionals’ still make up report’s on.

Basically, looking for good practice which requires a regulated body to establish those who know what they are actually doing.

I have only been in the industry for approx 8 years, but I clearly see a problem with bad Planning Enginners getting away with terrible professionalism, making it clear to me that as with most other professions, we should have a clear, pragmatic and professional body which eradicates so-called Planning Enginners who swap from one engineering discipline, to a more prosperous Planning function.

I am not looking for a certificate or a slap on the back, but a means of accreditation which supplements those who are trained & intuitive Planning Engineers. This is , to me, becoming more and more necessary as the U.K. (particulary Construction in the past 2-3 years ) begins to take up the role of Programme Management as good practice and not something which they for too long regarded as ’nice wallpaper’ for the progress meetings.
Top