(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.
Hello, new guy here. I've seen several different schedules, by several different schedulers, that have their LOEs with the SS and FF relationships as predecessors only. Reading up on all the material I can find nearly everyone says, from P6 documentation to people on various boards, the activity that starts the LOE is the predecessor with a SS relationship and the activity the finishes the LOE is the successor with a FF relationship. There are just a few forum posts where users will say that LOEs have no successors but I cannot find where any reason, other than just that statement, is given.
So, now on to the question, which is correct? Is there a reason that the predecessor to a LOE should include both the start and finish activity? I'm wondering if it is just a bad habit that perpetuated itself through the scheduling ranks or maybe there actually is a good reason for it, perhaps a work-around of some kind.
Thank you all for your help.
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Hi Matthew
Welcome to PP!
LoE activities are a special kind of summary activities. They are depending on other activities and have absolutely no influence to your CPM calculations. You can easily check with a test project: An activity which has only one predecessor, which is LoE, will move to data date after calculation. LoE are only used for reporting but can have assignments of resources and/or costs.
Predecessors to be linked with "SS", successors with "FF".
Why you can find schedules where LoE only have predecessors linked with "SS" and "FF"? Many planners started with Primavera P3 and it's difficult to change old habits. An LoE linked as in P3 can have a wrong duration.
Regards
Dieter
hello all,
Well as far as my experience goes and in full agreement to Mr. Kannan, I would say that Yes either use SS with lags or use only FS but with no lags.
The Milestones/ Taking over certificates and Payment Milestones needs to be connected with FF to the related activities.
But might not agree with Mr. Mike, SS is not the need of the programme I agree but it is not pratically possible to FS every activity. Though if you believe that you like to have a programme of 20000 to 30000 or even more activities then you can avoid SS and work with FS.
Hoping more comments on this matter.
Best,
Sagar Gaur
Hi
LOE may be useful in schedule with an activity for eg" Project Duration General Activities" which includes the BOQ related items & values like maintaining Engineer's Offfices, maintaining Engineer's IT equipments, submission of monthly photographs, maintaining safety officer & the required PPE, obtaining the required permits through out the project etc. Predecessor will be commencement date with SS and Successor will be Taking Over Certificate with FF. Here the money will be equally divided through out the project, but all depends on the BOQ structure and the agreement with the Engineer.
LOE may also be used for "dewatering" during excavation, which is required through out the excavation process. Again depends on agreement with Engineer.
But in the real site construction works I prefer only FS link
Best Regards
Kannan
Thank you Mike, the FS in construction indeed does seem to be the big debate. Construction schedulers seem to be fond of the SS + lag relationship.
However, I've found these instances of LOE relationships on Engineering Schedules. Generally for things that make sense to be LOE. Home Office Support and Management etc.
Hi Matthew
This is not going to help you a lot but welcome to the big debate.
SS FF links have no place in construction programming.
Only FS links will do.
When you have got that principle well absorbed the the LOE problem will fall away.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Email: PPadmin@planningplanet.com
Replies