(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.
the client wrote there are many activities thathave only ss succesors(s).this is not good scheduling practice and should preferably be avoided.
Is there any criteria that we want to use FS,FF,SS or SF in these we have to use fs more?
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Thanks all of you
not only does the GSA use a 90% threshold but the DCMA 14 point schedule asessemtn also states that 90% of the activity relationship types should be of the FS type. That means that there can be 10% of the SS or FF relationship.
Techanically using only a ss will flag the activity has not having a successor. What you can do is create a compound or combination relationship. On the activities where you know only have a SS successor and add successor of the same activity id but with a FF relationship. The SS successor will tie down the start of the activity while the FF successor will tie donw the end of the activity.
not only does the GSA use a 90% threshold but the DCMA 14 point schedule asessemtn also states that 90% of the activity relationship types should be of the FS type. That means that there can be 10% of the SS or FF relationship.
Techanically using only a ss will flag the activity has not having a successor. What you can do is create a compound or combination relationship. On the activities where you know only have a SS successor and add successor of the same activity id but with a FF relationship. The SS successor will tie down the start of the activity while the FF successor will tie donw the end of the activity.
As per GAO most of the relationships in a detailed schedule should be Finsh to Start. Generally more than 90% activites with FS relationship without any lag is preferable. Other relationships SS and FF also can be used for paralel works without any dangling logic ( Open ends ).
The problem with using too many SS linkes as successors is that any delay to the firsty activity, will not lead to a delay in the second activity, and so on throughout the whole network.
FS links are the ideal relationships as they will have a consequential affect upon subsequent activities due to delays, or duration elongations earlier in the network. However, SS & FF links are equally valid if there is a degree of parallelism between activities.
As SS successors are effectively open-ends, it's good practice to also include a corresponding FF successor for every SS successor.
Email: PPadmin@planningplanet.com
Replies