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.

How detailed should a programme be....?

42 replies [Last post]
S Deb
User offline. Last seen 5 years 40 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Posts: 4
Groups: None
To all experienced planners out there.....

i am always intrigued by a question as to how detailed should a programme be ? And to what level is a planning engineer required to prepare a programme...

For one of my recent projects i have prepared a rather detailed programme, however my project manager feels otherwise and wants me to break it further to the extent of working out the dates of each and every pile and each and every pile cap. Isnt this what a site engineer is supposed to be doing ?

On the contrary for another project of mine, my consultant wants me to prepare a programme which should be "not more than 3 pages". He is also against my dividing plastering activities floorwise..no a summarised (lower level) programme is not acceptable to him.

Hope someone of you will have a few tips of me...

Thanks

S.Deb

Replies

Mike Testro
User offline. Last seen 14 weeks 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 4409

Hi Jaffer

This thread is 7 years old - its not good practice to add to long dead threads.

Best regards

Mike Testro

A.Jaffer Sadiq
User offline. Last seen 3 years 4 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 16 Oct 2008
Posts: 33
Groups: GPC Qatar

Hi Dear,

Sprit your programme level to 4 part

Part-1

Single line grant chart with WBS

Part-2

single line with more wbs details

Part-3

More wbs with / anyone typical details activates / whole activities

Note : all activates blow 7-14 days (Except Procurement Details section)

Part-4

Resources load /cost load /material

This final programme [Baseline]

Jaffer

Charleston-Joseph...
User offline. Last seen 18 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 1347
Groups: None
Hi Philip,

Thanks for the best idea.

I recommend this reply to be the best idea of the week.

Regards,

Charlie
Philip Jonker
User offline. Last seen 13 years 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 7 Nov 2004
Posts: 852
Groups: None
Hi Guys,

Have been burning the midnight oil lately, hence my lack of participation in the forums. The word mindset keeps on popping up as one of my favourites. What I mean by this is that every person can plan, and they do so on a daily basis, and even for long periods ahead, however this does not make them planners in the sense we are talking about. The mindset I mean is translating these plans from mental ideas on to paper in a format understandable to all. This ability is what makes good planners. You must realise that not not everybody can understand a barchart or s-curve etc, so it is up to the planner to find a way of presenting the program in such a way that the person who need to use it understands it. If the individual prefers a list of dates, give him such a list. Other issues involved is pragmatism, understanding people, hands-on experience etc.
When I employ somebody as a planner, the first thing I tend to look at is practical experience, then their planning skills, and then their literacy in the particular software. It is easier to to teach a good potential planner the software than to teach a good computor operator planning, however, this is not a strict rule. Dependant on the size of the project, the rules change. If you have a project where a single planner can do the job, or even two planners, I would prefer the practical planner could be an engineer or experienced artisan/foreman etc, however as the project size increases, and the complexity of reporting becomes more difficult, the need arises for a balanced team, where tecnical planning skills and computor skills becomes critical, as you do not want your planners to become bogged down in trying to produce information that somebody with the right computor skills can do in no time. This interaction has major benefits for all, as everybody learns from each other,ie the computor person picks up planning skills and technical experience, and the planners pick up computor skills.
I believe that sharing knowledge is what makes us tick. On sites I will will normally spend an hour or so with every superintendent/supervisor on a monday morning, looking at their activities for the week, either individualy or in a group, and they will break these activities down in furthe detail on a macro barchart, and agree to what they will achieve, according to which they will be monitored, this means they buy in to their own programmes and teaches them the importance of planning. It also works on their pride, and they will always try to beat their own programs. Hence, working on the mindset of the people who effect the work, helps the schedule.

The burning of the midnight oil I referred to earlier is that I am currently involved in a major turnkey project, which spans all kind of issues hence long hours and little time to talk.

The subject of this thread, is something I am learning more about on a daily basis, even though I have had extensive experience in the past. The practical issue is planning something where the conceptual design is in place, but the detail design is in progress, how much detail can you plan into the schedule. The solution is to try and plan for the information that is available, probably somewhere between level 2 and 3. The main thing is trying to get the next six months right, in very good detail, and covering all the activities for this period in as much detail as possible, this includes items, like land aquisition, environmental issues, permits, procurement, tenders, utility diversions, method studies, detail design etc, and planning the construction phase in as much detail as the available information allows. The next phase of planning will be to plan the next six month as detailed as possible and then the next six months.
The conundrum is that there is no yardstick for the detail in a program. I like using examples, why break a few activities into thousands of activities when it is one. You have ten thousand boiler pipes to be welded by one pool of welders, if you split this into ten thousand activities, multiply this by because, you have measure cut and prep, fit up & tack, weld, NDE, Clear Weld. This means 50 000 activities, whereas you only need five. It then becomes simple, if 5000 welds are completed, the progress is 50%. Keep in mind that for every activity there is atleast two logical links required, and at lest one resource. However there is areas where more detail is required, especially in the instance of interfaces.

Regards

Philip

The answer is be practical, and don’t let factors such as duration and the rest overide or cloud the issues.
Chris Oggham
User offline. Last seen 6 years 49 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 605
Groups: None
Hi Se,

You’re quite right! Thanks for cutting through the fog and bringing us back to what we should be discussing.

Chris Oggham
Se de Leon
User offline. Last seen 16 weeks 5 days ago. Offline
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 321
Groups: None
Hi guys,

I’ll try my best to bring back the discussion to the real issue at hand.

How detailed a programme should be?

IMHO, detailed or not detailed is secondary to me. Maybe tertiary. I believe a programme should be "responsive" to the needs of all project stakeholders, management people, PM, contracts people, construction managers, site engineers, foreman, tradesmen, procurement people, qs, Human resource people etc.

Responsive meaning, useful and believable from commencement of the project, to tracking and up to close out of contract. If the programme is not reponsive, then what clive said will be true that is, the plan will find itself hanging around the wall of the planning engineer’s room and no one will read it.


Just my 50 cents.

Se
Chris Oggham
User offline. Last seen 6 years 49 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 605
Groups: None
Hi Clive,

Agree with you totally. I must admit I`ve wondered whether Charlie is really like this, or whether he is working to some strange agenda of his own. I am surprised that he can’t see that software is not the whole of planning or even a major part of it. In fact it makes me wonder just how much planning he`s done, but figjam, yes, definitely figjam.

Regards

Chris Oggham
Charleston-Joseph...
User offline. Last seen 18 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 1347
Groups: None
Hi there Chris,

Planning mindset is with everyone since pre-historic times. The ability to communicate the plan is as old as man’s history. All you have to do is read a lot of books including novels (love story, harry potter, lord of the rings, etc.). Reading these books make you aware that planning mindset is with everyone, the hero, the vallians, the sidekick characters.

The wedding planner got a planning mindset, a family got a planning mindset (husaband and wife planning how many baies to procreate and of course, they have to communicate in achieving there goals). Also the normal household that is the majority dont use Primavera, Microsoft Project Excel Chart to plan the day to day activities to achieve there planning goals.

A lot of example can be generated that planning mindset is with everyone and the ability to communicate is inherent in a person.


if you have a time to look at the about notes: PLANNING PLANET Networking Planning, Programming & Control’s Professional Around the World, then you will know that this professional got this planning mindset and the ability to communicate the plans.

This are the real planners that PP trying to network around the world. But then everyone is welcome including "planers with planing mindset".

Cheers

Charleston-Joseph...
User offline. Last seen 18 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 1347
Groups: None
Hello Clive,

Gong Chi Fat Chai.

The gragorian calendar start a new year, the chinese calendar start a new year and a lot of calendar start a new year. New year usher new approach in life. But before the start of New Year inclusive of all calendars will make some punching-punching. This is good for PP.

OK let start the ball rolling:

First I was shock your deliverate exclusion of software. Planning without using software is out of my league. I consider it primitive planning. And you are right, labourer cum planer can always talk to labourer, tradesman about planning because that is where the labourer come. Actually, nobody is hindering anyone to talk to anybody. This is a free world. Labourere cum planer dont need educational attainment, no need to know Primavera software, excel chart or Microsoft Project.

If you will look at the top note it says "PLANNING PLANET, Networking Planning , Programming & Control’s Professionals Around the World". Theses people that PP trying hard to network use software to do planning and control. But then our universe is free, Aliens are welcom. No fingerrpinting, No iris scan, No profiling. The aliens can terorist PP with their brands of Planning technique. Again these is a free world, Only the moderator can police PP.

Next is ..... There is really no point in furthering this conversation. We know were we stand, PP knows.

Cheers and enjoy your holiday


Charlie
Se de Leon
User offline. Last seen 16 weeks 5 days ago. Offline
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 321
Groups: None
Hey guys,

Am I lost somewhere? Am I disoriented?

Is this the "Becoming a planner" thread?

Tell me, please tell me that I’m not really lost.

Hello, anybody home?

Se
Clive Randall
User offline. Last seen 13 years 50 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 744
Groups: None
Charlie
Are you suggesting you are the best planner in the world or you know the best planner in the world???
On what basis are you determining the best planner
Qualifications?
Experience?
Wow factor?
Communications?
Best software jockey?
I find the concept intriguing
Maybe this is a new thread what makes the best planner actually I think there already is one for this.

For me a conundrum exists and it relates to the use of production rates. I will give you a scenario.

I have a floor to cast in concrete and I want to know how long it will take

Where do I start
For me probably by colouring up the falsework layouts.
Do I get the 700 props fixed at the same time.
This is unlikely I will start at one side with one prop and open up the installation face. So one prop then the next, tie them together then the next two etc etc. Next question can I get all the props on the floor when I start probably not so a constraint exists potentially of material in this case prop delivery. As I complete the propiing the work face gets smaller so the production rate diminishes until I place the last prop.
At some point I will commence the formwork and we have the same scenario a predecessor of props to get the first sheet of ply in place. From that the other sheets follow. I must have space to place the ply supply on top of the falsework which relates to the predeccessor activity. Next step rebar I need a full beam complete to start the activity the predeccessor is the formwork. So again we start with the first beam and work away from that. Finally concrete, I cannot start at 5 if the plant closes at 7 so we have an external constraint. Maybe I cant get a pump and the quantity is too much for the crane. Maybe I need two or more pumps as the area is too large and if I cant supply I will get cold joints. Maybe I dont have room for 3 pumps only one so more pour size is limited by equipment. Maybe the spec says what the maximum pour size is. Maybe the plant capacity cant meet my supply requirements.
So from this very simple task of casting a floor we see there are dependencies some of which we can control some of which are beyond our control. We havent even started to look at labour resources and before we do we have already had to constrain our activity due to physical and material constraints. The above scenario identifies the quickest time to cast the slab with unlimited labour resources. Now if we go to the next step and put resources in the duration we have gets fleshed out. However if a carpenter is laying a 4 by 8 sheet of plywood on the deck his rate will be very fast, if he is forming up a beam the rate will be lower as there is more work per ft2 to do. Understanding how he will work will aid the process of determining the cycle. In my mind this is real planning.

The mindset however is slightly different this is where a planner has an inbuilt appreciation of the project factors. Labour plant and commercial realities entwined in the process of where the activity starts and finishes what predecessors it has and what successors it has. IE do you run from the high point or the low point of a drainage run. Do you start in the middle or the end. Manhole to manhole etc. If the subject was curtain wall do you set up the monorail on each floor or every 5 or every 10 how do you load out the panels can you get them all on site what from the gut is the driver and can you affect it. These determinants dont come from books but experience and for every major activity the production rates are not the start or the end of the programme. managing these factors into a cohesive programme is the mindset as is reacting to the problems and providing the solutions, the "what if scenarios". That to me is the mindset.

Charlie you may notice that not once have I mentioned software and thats intentional. It is but a small part in a planners skill base it is merely a tool to get the physical number crunching done quicker.

So on that basis Charlie who is the best planner you know and do you agree with my analogies??
I would really apprecite your thoughts, rather than a diatribe that does not considfer the content of the thread. Further from the above a tradesman approach to planning can be seen to have real value, and this is why some PPers advocate the input into programmes from the workforce as what we do and how we do it is driven by practicalities not techniques or software.

Kindest and warmest felicitations
Kung Hei Fat Choi

Clive
Chris Oggham
User offline. Last seen 6 years 49 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 605
Groups: None
Hi Mark,

I agree with you, some of the best planners I have met come from a trades background. As for Charlie`s "bestest", they`re as likely to come from a trades background as anywhere else, it`s the mindset that matters, not the origins.

Having said that I have met some of the "worstest" as well, and in the main they were overqualified, academically inclined underachievers who were about as much use to the project as a chocolate fireguard.

Regards

Chris Oggham
Charleston-Joseph...
User offline. Last seen 18 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 1347
Groups: None
Hi Mark,

You have not yet meet the "BESTEST" of them all.

And when you meet the bestest, your vey best will only be kids playing around construction site.

IMHO,

Charlie
Charleston-Joseph...
User offline. Last seen 18 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 1347
Groups: None
Hi Mark,

You have not yet meet the "BESTEST" of them all.

And when you meet the bestest, your vey best will only be kids playing around construction site.

IMHO,

Charlie
Charleston-Joseph...
User offline. Last seen 18 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 1347
Groups: None
Hi Mark,

You have not yet meet the "BESTEST" of them all.

IMHO,

Charlie
Charleston-Joseph...
User offline. Last seen 18 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 1347
Groups: None
What the difference between a planer mindset and a real planner (the activities of planning, programming and control professional)

Do you know?

Have you been there?

What are the norms of activities that real planner are doing in there everyday activities?

What are the planer mindset in there day to day activities
Chris Oggham
User offline. Last seen 6 years 49 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 605
Groups: None
Why Charlie,

Are you thinking of offering me a job? Sorry, no can do. Prior committments and all that.

Chris Oggham
Charleston-Joseph...
User offline. Last seen 18 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 1347
Groups: None
Hello Chris,

As for you, neither the bestest nor the worstest.

Have you done real planning?

Cheers,

Charlie
Zazi Kumba
User offline. Last seen 15 years 44 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 3
Groups: None
Hi Charlie,

It is nice to know you are active in this forum.

What is the big deal Charlie? We completed the project without planning software. Every one got a mindset on how to plan, even our labourer did plans.

I told you dont piss off the white man, they have their own thinking different from us. All you have to do is just enjoy your life.

I also wanted to know if you can find me a job in any place you work.

Reards,

Zazi

Elchie Tan
User offline. Last seen 15 years 44 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 3
Groups: None
Agree to all
Mark Twomey
User offline. Last seen 7 years 19 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 7 Apr 2004
Posts: 6
Groups: None
Chris/Clive,

I could not agree more, for example some of the best construction planners I have met come from trades backgounds.

Best Regards,
Mark
Chris Oggham
User offline. Last seen 6 years 49 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 605
Groups: None
Hi Clive,

I read what you said and I totally agree. The programme must have the level of detail required by the team. Too little detail and time is wasted in clarifying anomalies, too much detail and the team can get lost in it.

As for who produces the programme, as Philip has often pointed out, planning is a mindset. You’ve either got it or you haven’t, and if you haven’t, all the qualifications in the world won’t give it to you. So as you said, it doesn’t really matter if you’re a PhD or a chimpanzee as long as the programme you produce is what the team needs.

I wonder if, sometimes, some planners get a little bit too impressed with what they see as their own cleverness, and lose sight of the fact that the programme is not an end in itself, but a means to help get the job done. As you pointed out, this means it has to have relevance and meaning to the people who do the work and presented in a form that they can easily understand and use.

Chris Oggham


Clive Randall
User offline. Last seen 13 years 50 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 744
Groups: None
Dear Charlie
Once again I bow to your ability to remove phrases from a thread and twist them into a different context.

The point I was trying to make was that the programme must present the detail required by the team. If it does not it becomes a worthless piece of paper.

My statement that the " only person looking at the programme was a planning engineer" was followed by a statement that "the reason is often nobody else has a wall big enough to be able to hang it up"

Whether this programme was developed by a labourer, educated chimpanzee or doctor of philosophy is irrelevant. The purpose of the programme is to "deliver a message"

You may be aware that the mordern art of speech writing revolves around the sound bite a 10 second segment of a speech that can be aired on the media facilities. WHY, because the vast amount of people listening only have time to listen for a limited period. In my opinion we as planners are often faced with a similar scenario, to get our message across to an often uneducated and sometimes illiterate workforce. We must use all of the tools available to us to ensure the message is delivered and understood. Whether the project manager with his doctorate understands the programme or not is rather irrelevant if the man doing the work and delegated the tasks cannot. Perhaps however Charlie you are suggesting we should prepare our programmes for the highest educated person and forget the end user. This seems to me a recipe for us to identify that the king is wearing no clothes.

As to the moral of what you say I disagree. Proffessional attainment and educational expertise are not a benchmark of a good programme. A good programme is one that is used and undertsood by those who use it. If a foreman cant get the bit he wants to look at he will in the best case programme himself or in the worst just do the job with no regard to time or dependencies. Perhaps you advocate the control and dictate approach. The programme says this Mr Foreman (doctorate PM) ok I will do that Mr PM (Foreman)
This method appears to use valuable management resources which are not required if the foreman can grasp what is required from a well developed programme.

As a highly educated proffessional engineer I am never insulted when somebody with lesser qualifications tells me or suggests to me another way of doing something. I am not as arrogant or self opiniated to believe that lesser mortals (ie the unqualified in your terminology) have nothing to offer the process. Indeed as I have said before give me experience any time, qualifications prove you can sick up what you have been taught, it rarely requires you to think, and is generally a measure of a person with no practical experience, taught by somebody with no practical experience.

So to return, a programme should be as detailed as the end user requires it to be, in sufficient detail to get the message across, and prepared on a platform that can be easily read and understood by others.

I await you response in due course Charlie as I am sure you will disagree with all or something of what I have said.

The the very kindest regards
Clive
Charleston-Joseph...
User offline. Last seen 18 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 1347
Groups: None
Hi Clive,

As you phrase:

"I have been on a considerable number of projects where the only person looking at the programme is the planning engineer"

Was the programme done by "Veteran Labourer cum Planner".

Well it is not surprising.

As least a planning engineer was looking at the said programme.

Project Manager don’t look at programme done by labourer specially if the Project Manager got Ph D in construction management or PMP certificate. It is an insult to his educational attainment "a mere labourer giving a vision on how to plan the project".

The moral here is that programme should be credible and to be prepared by person with credibility and suffcient educational attainment to have impact to the whole construction management team.

Regards
Charlie
Clive Randall
User offline. Last seen 13 years 50 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 744
Groups: None
Charlie here what u say but
The programme is a deliverer of a messgae
If the message is lost in the detail there is nobody who can see what is required.
I have been on a considerable number of projects where the only person looking at the programme is the planning engineer.
The reason is often nobody else has a wall big enough to be able to hang it up.
Another problem is with software like p3 only a very limited number of people can interogate the programme nad get what they want out of it.
How detailed should the programme be, as detailed as those that use it want it to be. If they tell you what they want, you produce it they will read it
Just a thought from a vetran labourer.
PS pass another planner this ones full.
Clive
Charleston-Joseph...
User offline. Last seen 18 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 1347
Groups: None
Hi Mark,

Experienced and season or veteran Planning Engineers know what to do, including evaluation of the resources available to do planning job or scope or work.

The fundamental is to know your deliverables to the client and to your company. This is practically the Planning Scope of Work for a particular project. Then you evaluate the resources including the ability, efficiency and effectiveness of that resources to do planning job.

If you hire labourer to do planning then you may end up working 10 labourers to do the planning job of one expert planning engineer. Or if your planner is swindler to the point of faking his credential, then you may end up doing the work load of that planner.

In conclusion veteran planning engineer will know what to do to deliver the planning scope of work.

Cheers,

Charlie
Charleston-Joseph...
User offline. Last seen 18 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 1347
Groups: None
Hello to all planners out there,

Smart project management teams have different needs at each level of details.

The first level of details are usually for the project executive management team. These groups are not interested in the nuts and bolts of the projects activities. Also they are very busy person that they only need to know the summarize details.

As the level of project management goes to lower levels, the details also broader.

At the supervisor level, the programme should be as much detail as possible that the plan has meaning as to what they are doing form supervisors to rank and file personnel.

Regards,

Charlie
Philip Jonker
User offline. Last seen 13 years 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 7 Nov 2004
Posts: 852
Groups: None
Hi Gary,

The first problem is defining the problem, i.e. the critical areas, and then detailing these ares in what-if situations, and working out the best routes to follow. This is common practice, and as you go along check the less critical areas in the same fashion.

Regards
Gary Whitehead
User offline. Last seen 10 years 45 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 1 Sep 2005
Posts: 69
Groups: None
Lot’s of very good answers here, so I’ll try not to repeat them.
Another point worth adding though, is that I find it to be good practise to plan to an additional level of detail for those activitites which require more management focus, typically (near) critical path or high schedule risk. This can be very useful when conducting whatif analyses and developing recovery plans later on in the project.

Regards,

G
Oscar Wilde
User offline. Last seen 13 years 42 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 7 Oct 2005
Posts: 166
Groups: None
This thread seems to be pretty much like the number of activities

I like the explanations here much better

Oscar
Frank Borcherdt
User offline. Last seen 4 years 50 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 3 May 2001
Posts: 88
Groups: None
The plan should be a model that initially allows you to validate the proposed delivery method from a time, resource and/or cost perspective. As the project is executed it needs to respond to changes in scope, delays, etc, so you need to break it down to the level of detail that allows the model to forecast the impact of these changes. If you plan at too high a level it is difficult to: -
accurately reflect the dependencies between activities
update the progress as the activity is in progress for such a long time
alter the scope as we have not broken down and quantified the elements allowed for in the original scope

You will normally improve control and detect slippages earlier by having multiple short activities. The analogy I use is a student writing their thesis, they have six months and usually have a supervisor who regularly asks for an update. If you ask the student after completion when they did the bulk of the work they usually say in the last 4-6 weeks, ask them what they told the supervisor during the process and they usually admit the they overstated their progress. This is human nature and usually has a bearing on the quality of what is produced.

By breaking the task down into measurable elements, you are able to record the elements that:-
have been completed
are in progress
have not started.

Summarizing the elements to the higher level more accurately reflects the true progress. These summaries may allow you to meet your contractual reporting requirements and provide the supporting detail if the reported progress is queried.

My rule of thumb – no activity longer than three update/reporting cycles – therefore can only be in progress for two cycles otherwise it has slipped.

HTH
Andrew Flowerdew
User offline. Last seen 3 weeks 1 day ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 960
Groups: None
As detailed as it has to be to convey the information you want it too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Daniel Limson
User offline. Last seen 2 years 19 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 13 Oct 2001
Posts: 318
Groups: None
Very Good Subject! Some contracts are very un-reasonable in that they require you to breakdown your activities to not more than one week duration. However, you can worked around with this type of contracts (afterall we are Planners), for example. for repetitious works, you can create one detailed program and submit this separately as an attachment to your program. And for major commodities, as long as you can define your production rates and resources required to achieved those rates, I believeed a reasonable manager would accept a resonable level of detail. The formula i always apply is KISS. (Keep it simple S?????)

Cheers,
Daniel
Philip Jonker
User offline. Last seen 13 years 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 7 Nov 2004
Posts: 852
Groups: None
Hi Guys,

I think most of the answers so far has all had good merit.
So just to go back to S Deb’s subject of piles, I hope I can explain this simply, the activity that normally follows on piles would be cutting back piles and then the pile cap. A Structure may be supported by any number of piles, but normally only one pile cap, why the split down to single piles, if they can be grouped per structure or pilecap. Even if there is a hundred piles it is easy to track and manage.
Lets take another example, where 20 pumps have to be installed in a pumpstation, the pumps will have split into single units even though the same resource is doing the job, because every pump’s follow on activitis will be different pipelines.
Hope this helps.

Regards

Philip
Dayanidhi Dhandapany
User offline. Last seen 35 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 18 Mar 2003
Posts: 472
Groups: None
Yes Vishwas,

I also did come across similar things when i was working in malaysia due to fast-track projects. The reason is client wants to have more control on contractor to avoid slipping of works. Yes you are correct, It would be a headache to maintain internal and external versions of schedule for a planner/scheduler but you are telling happy planning at the end.

Regards

Daya
Vishwas Bindigana...
User offline. Last seen 6 years 45 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
Posts: 95
Groups: None
Deb,

In addition to all the replies for your post, let me highlight examples for ease of your reference.

Any or all programmes shall confirm to the particular condition of the contract requiring the contractor to propose his logistics and methodology of working. one project that I’m handling had the following instructions stated explicitly in the Conditions of Contract-General Instructions -
1. No activity shall have a duration longer than 20 days except for procurement, delivery of equipment, etc.
2. The baseline schedule to show preparation and submittals of materials, shop drawings and as-built drawings, O&M manuals. Commissioning for each system shall be shown seperately.
3. Constraints shall be given only to the contract’s milestones.
4. Permanent connections to be included (viz. water, drainage, telephone, power, etc.)
5. Sub-Frames, Sanitary wares, Iron Mongery to be shown seperately and not to be included with any other activity.
6. Services works shall be listed seperately for sub-structure ans superstructure stages.
7. Responsibility of each activity shall be identified with a single performing organisation including interface with the work of other contractors, sub-contractors or the client.

Another, project required me to prepare a programme showing one-line activity for all the wet trades (irrespective of the no. of floors) and a single one-line activity for the entire services works.

The message I’m trying to convey here is that, planning engineers/schedulers should adhere to the contractual conditions and try to make good the conditions during the course of the project.

Also, the advent of the ERP systems in the construction industry has made it imperative for planners to break-down bulk activities into micro-activities. Hence, the requirement of the contract will be very different from the requirement of the internal procedures.

Happy Planning
Jaco Stadler
User offline. Last seen 15 years 6 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 8 Sep 2004
Posts: 300
Groups: None
I tend to use Three major rules.

1) The schedule must show me you understand the work.
2) The schedule must be broken into manageable sections.
4) Dont mix Trades.

With other Words (WOW) If you have an activity that is has a duration of 1 year and you tell me you are 50 % complete I would like to be able to see it. If I am unable to see that you are 50 % complete I will ask you to break this up to something smaller.

Cheers

Dayanidhi Dhandapany
User offline. Last seen 35 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 18 Mar 2003
Posts: 472
Groups: None
Tomas Rivera has given a very good explanation on how detail a programme should be. I appreciate him very much..............

Cheers!!!

Daya
Guy Hindley
User offline. Last seen 2 years 37 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 28 Sep 2001
Posts: 91
Groups: None
One of the rules I use as to how detailed a schedule ought to be is on of understanding and agreeing the "Integration" elements between all the various players on a Project. I am often involved in producing "Integrated programmes", as distinct from single discipline programmes.

For example on a new aircraft progamme the key integration between the Airframe and the Systems in the aircraft. What are the interface points between the two as the systems and airframe design mature at different rates? The interface points need clearly defining and agreement as to what the interface delivers by both the sending and receiving party needs documenting and agreeing. If we take data which is not mature, then we are introducing risk. The risk is not necessairily a bad thing so long as people are aware and the risk is managed.

Within an airframe or the systems programme the detail is what is felt appropriate within the team.

I hope this helps answers your question, or at least gives food for thought.
Tomas Rivera
User offline. Last seen 2 years 36 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2 May 2001
Posts: 139
Groups: None
S Deb:

Based on my own experience, the level of detail used on a certain project depends on several factors:

1.- Culture of the organization managing the project. The level of detail of the schedule you would be required to make will be that which the organization or team is used to using or comfortable to use. Not necessarily what the project needs.

2.- Project management maturity. The lower the maturity the more they tend to ask for more general or less detailed schedules. The higher the maturity they tend to ask or be open for more detailed o sophisticated models which are more in tune with the project needs. Maturity is very closed related to the capacity of the team. Whether they have the tools, the knowledge, the expertise, in house or external.

3.- Project needs. Project needs are diferent for the diferent phases of the project life. The conceptual, the bidding or budgeting, and the construction phase have all different needs. Also the size and complexity of the project determines the level of detailed of the schedules. And one more important factor is the time frame for the construction of the project. If the project needs to be executed in a very short period of time or can be executed in a very relaxed period of time, the needs will be different.

4.- Team members requirements. At diferent levels of the hierarchy and at diferent functions of the organization, the level of detailed for the information (including the schedule) will be different. Not only because of their individual responsabilities, but also because of their individual preferences.

With the above perspective you can understand how the level of detail for the schedule is determined. There might be other factors to consider, but these are the ones I can think of.

Tomas Rivera
Altek System
Detailed scheduling of high performance
construction projects
Clive Randall
User offline. Last seen 13 years 50 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 744
Groups: None
Mark
Totally agree with you
Would add dont detail the programme if the information you are working from has no detail ie dont guess what the detail might be
Clive
Mark Twomey
User offline. Last seen 7 years 19 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 7 Apr 2004
Posts: 6
Groups: None
Hello All,

Just one additional practical consideration.

Before embarking, it is important to realise that the greater the level of detail one goes into when preparing a schedule the greater the workload will be when maintaining the schedule there after.
If you do have have the resources or time to maintain a schedule properly once it has been created it will fall flat on its face.
It is best to have a schedule with a level of detail than can be maintained by the individual or team that is available.