or more fully for the smatarses

from the Vietnamese term for Vietnamese Communist (Viet Nam Cong San)

funny that isn’t charley the term they use for guerrillas

Lots of interesting points raised here. Ironically I posted a similar message in another post yesterday. First and foremost a programme is a tool for the management of the project.

Fail to plan properly, plan to fail.

The programme should be as accurate as knowledge and time permits. I agree it is often the case that the time given to produce a programme or the information available falls far short of what is needed. But this is still no excuse for not producing the best you can at the time.

As for manipulating the critical path, if you do this the programme is not worth the paper it’s printed on so doesn’t fulfil its intended purpose. May as well throw it in the bin.

It’s also embarrassing and not good for your career when someone else gets to scrutinise it in a later dispute to be told and shown that you were wrong, your effort was obviously flawed and that you misrepresented the truth. I would suggest that such manipulation actually falls far short of the standard expected from a professional planner and at least amounts to wilful deceit, possibly negligence.

My advice to all planners is to do what you’re employed to do – plan the job. This way the project has the greatest chance of being successful and everybody is happy.

Gents - a very interesting debate, highly emotive, but has been somewhat hijacked by invective.

Notwithstanding the fact that each party has put forth valid points of argument, we must begin to use language that becomes more precise in terms of its defintion. Apologies if the next lecture is granny-sucking-egg.

First: we must not confuse the word EXACT or PRECISE with the word ACCURATE. Any numerical manipulation, using the input variables, as derived, will arrive at an EXACT or a PRECISE value. However, the variables that form part of the equation determine the potential ACCURACY of the result - as comparing the theoretical result with the actual result. Perhaps to help understand the word "accurate", here are some definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary.

ACCURATE : adjective.
Conforming exactly to fact; errorless.
Deviating only slightly or within acceptable limits from a standard.
Capable of providing a correct reading or measurement: an accurate scale.
Acting or performing with care and precision; meticulous: an accurate proofreader.


Now you can start fighting over the definitions!!

Charlie is right, in that sometimes you have an extremely limited time to prepare a large schedule. The reasons for time-limitations are irrelevant. The real-life fact is that it often happens. However, the method by which the critical-path is calculated will (should) still be the same, and will continue to derive a precise value, but the "accuracy" of the schedule will be compromised. Spending 5 months on compiling a schedule will also give you a precise value - but it may not necessarily be significantly more accurate. As usual, a balance has to be struck.

The planner’s job isn’t helped by the fact that the "result" can be manipulated via interpretation of the initial input variables, thus giving the client the result that he would like to see, as opposed to reality. We’ve all been there, and know full-well that, if we told the client the real cost of the job, we wouldn’t get the job. Moreover, we could all philosophise about the rights-and-wrongs of "data manipulation" via interpretational liberty.

James.

Hi Clive,

Strange that you should go back and look at one of Charlie’s earlier posts, I’ve just done the same, post #47 where he was going on about the second world war and using that to take another of his little digs at the English.

I did notice though that he rather got things wrong. The defences for Singapore were commissioned under the 1935 defence estimates and were in place by 1937. At the time they were a response to a percieved threat, but at the time of the Japanese invasion it was known that these defences would not be effective. I’ve no doubt Charlie would ask, "Well why didn’t they do something about them then?" Possibly because at the time Britain was rather busy in Europe, and the resources simply weren’t available.

Another interesting point is that Charlie points to MacArthur saying "For the second option, MacArthur organized guerillas to continually harass and slow down enemy advance." That is incorrect. Early in 1942 MacArthur asserted that guerilla operations were impossible in the Phillipines. The Guerilla operation in the Phillipines was initiated by a remarkable man, a Lt Colonel of engineers called Wendell Fertig. He promoted himself to Brigadier General and organised a resistance using Filipinos, escaped POWs and troops who had remained behind.

MacArthur at first tried to ignore Fertig and his efforts, but they were too successful, but it wasn’t until 1943 that MacArthur actually started to supply the guerillas with arms and equipment and to claim that the whole thing was his idea.

I don’t propose to say too much more other than to suggest to Charlie that if he is going to pontificate, he should at least get his facts right.

Chris Oggham

Charlie
I apologise that I have to go back a few posts and comment on what you said below

"Dieter,

Have you done a scheduling for 3 Billion USD project with 30,000 activities that start from Design (conceptual, schematics, detailed desing or Design Concept 1,2,3 and 4) procurement of major machineries and long lead items, construction (infrstructures, buildings, utilities, mep, etc) testing and commissioning????????????????????

The schedule as per contract shall be submitted within 30 days after signing of contract otherwise a certain amount from the billing will be witheld until an approved schedule will materialize. Have you been in this situation before wherein failure of the planning engineer will result in marching order and flight back home to country of origin.

Do you think those planners will still arrive at critical path as an exact science??????????? Be realistic

I agree to construct small dog house for english bull dog, maybe, the critical path might be an exact science. The critical path for family planning can be an exact science.

But no way for EPC MEGA project in the oil and gas, building construction, etc. in the range of 10 Billion USD above.

Cheers,

Joseph "

It would appear Charlie that it is acceptable to produce a programme and critical path that has its foundations in some dream world because the contract demands this from you. If you dont do it you get the sack.

It is my belief that planners do no more than prostitute themselves when faced by such onerous terms in a contract and all parties suffer the consequences of such stupidity.

Can you say with your vast experience that 30 days is a sufficient period to prepare a programme for a project of such magnitude. I would suggest that it is insufficient to even unroll the drawings, let alone digest their content and seek the advice of others as to how activities will be undertaken.

Indeed Charlie it is this very stupidity that is accepted by contractors that leads to project overuns, and financial disater.

However if you are saying that during the feasability stage of a project, when the basic paramaters are known but the details are sketchy 30 days has been allowed to produce a committed programme then this is achievable.

Unfortunately you appear not to be saying this and expect a 30,000 activity programme to be produced. What I would say at this point is all liklehood the 30,000 activities you produce, will bear as much resemblance to a programme as a scots pie.

As to the validity of a critical path that this type of programme shows, it will be based on the shaky foundations of experience, politics and stupidity, and will be a path that may as well be paved in yellow bricks.

However at the presentation of the programme I am sure that the audience will be made up of small children who believe that such a programme is not fantasy and that the presenters will have among them a tin man, lion, scarecrow and a pair of very red magic shoes.

If however reality is required, it is incumbent upon both sides of the team, to ensure that adequate time is allowed for the prepartaion of a detailed analysis of the time related aspects of the project, which can be logically linked and analysed to identify those activities which are required to be undertaken to achieve the shortest project period.

My anger, and indeed Charlie I am angry, is that planning is taken as something little more than a joke by most project staff. This is due I believe to a number of factors as follows

1. Everybody thinks they can do it
2. Planners are badly trained and lack experience
3. Planners are prepared to prostitute their skills in a way that Quantity surveyors would never do.
4. Planners rarely have the skill required to rise the corporate ladder and see planning as a safe option.
5. Planners see what they do as being mainly guesswork
6. Most people on a project listen to a planner only when they want a good laugh.

Our inability as planners to get our colleagues to understand that the two threads of project management are cost and time results in the current situtaion we have, where contracts are written saying you have 30 days to work out how long it will take. Could you for example tender all the works packages on such a major project in 30 days, no of course not.

It is this failure to recognise the value planning has to a project that leads to delays and subsequently arse covering litigations by both sides of the project team.

But worst of all Charlie, when you as a perrson who purports to carry the ensign of planning like a fearless warrior, proclaims to our junior colleagues that you have done it. You were the man who turned round the impossible programe of 30,000 actrivities on a 3billion job, I can but ponder when you were swept up in the Tornado in Kansas.
Or, whether your senior management were of the old school who believe planners are there because the contract demands it to be, so get the cheapest most subservient one you can find.

Sad, very very sad.

To my Peers in PP,

I will make an addendum. This refer to "exact estimates" compared to "Exact".

During the early days of World War II, the commanding general of the English army in Singapore instructed: gave me the exact estimates of the intent of the Japanese Army.

The reply: The exact estimate is that Japanese will make amphibious landing in Sentosa Island.

So to prepare for the exact estimates of amphibious landing by the Japanese all Guns in Sentosa pointed to the sea

The English army was dead wrong. The Japanese march through Malaysia and hit the English army backside. No guns where fired. Surrender without firing a shot.

Compare with General Douglas MacArthur.

During the early days of World War II, General MacArthur knows exactly where an enemy will attack to conquer Manila. There are two axis: the best option is to send naval vessel (with troops) toward Manila and the other options is to land troops in Lingayen gulf (Pangasinan) and fan out in the Central Plain of Luzon then march towards Manila.

To know exactly the enemy intentions, MacArthur fortified Correigidor, the small island at the entrance to Manila Bay, with Heavy Cannons. For the second option, MacArthur organized guerillas to continually harass and slow down enemy advance.

The Japanese first attempt was to go Manila through Corriegidor Island but the big guns of stop them. The Japanese land troops in Lingayen but the guerillas harass and slow down the advance to Manila. The impact is slow down the Japanese timetable of world dominance.

It is the same with Critical Path. We know that initially the Critical Path is not exact and it is only an estimated guess. As progress of the project moves, monthly update and critical path analysis shall be done to assess the movements of critical activities and critical path.

The point here is that what we are going to do after all this issue is blown out of proportion???? My preference is quite clear.

Cheers,

Joseph

No additional comment from me.

Dieter

Dieter / Olly,

Your opinion is your opnion. Good we have a democratic Planning Planet.

I exercise my right to say my opinion "CRITICAL PATH IS NOT AN EXACT SCIENCE". There is not need for you to agree with me in the same way that there is no need for me to agree with you.

This only show we are democracy.

Please take note that if you read Mirant vs Arup, the judge himself agree with me that CRITICAL PATH IS NOT AN EXACT SCIENCE"

I rest my case.

Judge, please the verdict.

Cheers,

Joseph

Charlie,

I mentioned nothing of language.

Critical Path ’methodology’ is an exact science.

Estimating is not an exact science.

Critical paths are formulated from forward and backwards passes to ’mathematically’ determine the critical path(s).
This relies on the estimating and logic being ’honest’, not ’manufactured’.

Maybe the heshe that taught you was wrong.(it would certainly explain a few things)

Kind Regards,

Oliver

P.S We didn’t lose the empire, we let people have it back.

A critical path is the result of planning based upon estimates and educated logic.

Lets not forget the arguement is are they any good?

The answer is yes, if the duration and logic are based on reality.

The answer is no, if you try to force activities on to the critical path by changing logic and estimated durations.

The size of the project doesn’t affect how you arrive at the critical path, it only means that during progress the path may change more often.

CPM is an exact science based upon your best estimate. The baseline is the only thing you can compare against.

Hi Joseph

I reflected some time to answer to such an agressive post. Why do you think that you’ll have to follow that style. Was it because as you said in a previous post’: "I learn to live in reality since my idealism (also my youth) has long gone."
Ok, I am a scheduler and although I covered my 30years of business experience January this year, I like my job. Therefore still I am enthusiastic to work as a scheduler.
"So your if and then, opinion is irrelevant." This is no way for discussion!
That’s for your attacks against me.
Critical Path is an exact science! As an engineer you "I grow up eating numbers" that’s not mathematics.
I absolutely agree that a plan’s quality depends on the persons by whom it was created - and what’s for narrative reports, you like so much? For both you have a human input with all possibilities for error. The result in one case is absolutely unstructured with all chances for manipulation and/or personal evaluation the other is a structured result were all assumptions can be traced.

I would like to ask you a favour: Keep normal human politeness even if someone doesn’t completely follow your ideas.

Regards
Dieter

p.s. Did you ever plan a wedding? It’s a horror.

Dieter,

I’m an engineer. I grow up eating numbers, from arithmetic, mathematics, deferential calculus, integral calculus, engineering mathimatics, structural design, etc.

You can name what branch of mathematics you involved with

So your if and then, opinion is irrelevant.

You have to understand that the foundation of duration estimates is governs by the law of probability. Do you understand the Law of Probability.

You have to understand that the critical path will always be arrive by the links of activities as understood by the planner. As you are aware, a lot of planners call themselves planners just because they know how to punch the computers keyboards. And this is the reality.

Do you think the planner is not human subject and limited to his understanding not govern by the natural law of nature including the natural law of mathematics.

In conclusion, critical path will never be an exact science due to inputs by planners (humans), some hafl bake planners/ some only good as wedding planners.

Cheers,

Joseph

Clive,

I your example regarding car assembly, this is operation. The culture of operation is different in project.

Project is unique.

I agree with your example with concerning our industry. Construction generally are projects. Even how much we learn from previous experienced, projects are still unique.

But what we really needs to focus is project management best practice. On planning side, the Mirant vs Arup case give us lesson learn on the way we treat Critical Path.

For example, what jusdge XXX notice is that while the argument focus on critical path, one sub con ZZZ did event bother to update schedule. So strange????

When I workd, I always insisted on a narrative of the critical path. How the critical path change, why, how come, etc. Then this scenario will be betted by senior management on how they feel

I did this now that I’m the project manager. But there are resistance because we planners are experieced in different background, educational attainment. nationality project culture, etc.

I learn to live in reality since my idealism (also my youth) has long gone.

But, you reference to Marant vs Arup, is an ammunition to me to convince my superior that we do need to monitor dritical path (including manipulation of critical path).


Cheers,

Charlie

Hi Clive,

Critical path is really not an exact science.

It is very easy to tweak an activity duration longer than what is necessary for critical path to pass the said activities. This will hide those suppose to be critical activities. This is one reason that Senior project team member must supervise the works of Junior team members considering that Senior citizens of the project team have wisdom on how project implementation will proceed.

What we have to note is that CRITICAL PATH analysis is very important in Calims for Delay.

I thank you for your referal of the post below with regards to Mirant VS Arup.

Since critical path is not an exact science, then it need to be monitored perdiodically, preferablly, monthly basis. We know that during monthly updates, some critical activities will no longer become critical. There is a shifting of critical path. And this need to be analysis on why this is so, how, what, etc, etc.

What I’m trying to say is: The importance of critical path analysis on delay claims.

and, I hope you agree with me.

Cheers,

Joseph

Andrew

I agree, and thats why I said that it is an important tool in the Arsenal infering it was not the only tool.

As a Totenham supporter I would consider there are numerous tools in Arsenal, sorry I could not resist.

The thread posting attempted to infer that when drawing up a programme, a critical path may develop in the most unexpected areas, such as resources, tower cranes, electricity,

I once had a job that limited floor cycles because of available generators to weld the shear studs.

I am all in favour of giving the guys that do the work the appropiate toolsd to successfully complete a project.

I have never seen a project suceed only because it had a good programme, it is a team effort and a pasty planner locked in his den is no better than a chocolate fireguard.

Dear Charlie

I really would like you to read the judgement that I posted below. It was brought to my attention by Andrew. While it is long winded, as legal writings often are, it reinforces the idea that the only way to find out where the critical paths are is to programme properly.

Your comment below appears to be part of the rationale why in this case, the project manager got it badly wrong and the project ran over time.

"For experienced planner or project managers, the critical path can be easily determined dependent on project location. "

While I fully apprecaite that to develop an accurate critical path requires experience, I would hesitate to say that this in itself is the only requirement. It also requires a mindset that does not decide the outcome prior to the planning being completed. Planning undertaken from first principles can identify areas that properly considered make experience seem flawed.

On the project sighted for example, the concrete supply was insufficient to meet the programmed outputs. Who for example would imagine initially that this would be an issue, but in remote locations the critical path may well run thru the provision of transportation facilities capable of delivering materials and manpower. Or other areas such as electricity, water or even accommodation and messing.

By predetermining the outcome, important issues may easily be overlooked, these issues may subsequently return to haunt the unwary planner.

So in conclusion, in my opinion, critical paths and rescheduled critical paths can be all they are cracked up to be. In the right hands they are a powerful tool in the project management arsenal.

Hi Clive
Just read those parts of this article related to critical path. For my opinion it is an excellent support for our work - especially against those
- Who are convinced to know critical path from the beginning
- Who ignore the importance to schedule a project regularly inclusive a given forecast on basis of the actuals and to keep regular baselines (the complete project!)
- Who ignore the importance to "stay on the ball" as a project manager, i.e. regular and frequent updates of progress.

Thank you for this link although it was hard to read on early Saturday morning.

Best regards

Dieter

Stephen
What I was refering to was the ability to maintain an accurate critical path on a high level programme.

You are indeed correct that in the majority of programmes the client demands you to imagine what a project will look like 2 years into construction , on numerous occassions without any reference to the fact you may have very sketchy info regarding these activities. He will also expect the critical path to look a certain way, which often is not the case.

The best you can normally do is leave them as global activities which you then define as information becomes available.

I rarely see a programme as part of the contract documentation although the specification may require all sorts of hoops to be jumped through at spercific points of the process.

My advice has always been, the programme is the contractors, if you want your own Mr Consultant go off and generate it, otherwise butt out of my charts.

I would rather go to an arbitration with a contractors programme that told it how it was than one that told it the way the consultant wanted to see it. After all it is the contractors construction/progress tool not the consultants.

Nine times out of ten the person reviewing it will not have a clue what it means and will throw up spurious comments as to why its wrong, however as he never approves it but only comments on it, I will generally ignore totally what they say.

As to ammendments I make them where neccessary and whether it is accepted or not by the dark side is almost irrelevant.

The rule is, its my programme and if you dont like it tough. Not many contractors will be considered in breach because the consultant didnt like the programme.

Stephen,

Change control process.

It isn’t a EOT process.

Its up to the PM and client to decide whether or not the programme changes, its just sometimes easier to save up your changes for a re-baseline/EOT.

Oliver

How can you do it Raviraj’s way?

He mentions to extend the client activities? If they want a project expedited quickly then they won’t allow you to control the length of time it takes them to fulfil ’their’ obligations.

Self defence comes in the form of contingency in cost and time, this may inadvertantly change the critical path, but these changes should not be a foundation for the programme.

Such practices are why it costs so much to do so little. The whole point of project management and programmes in particular is to give a CLEAR representation of the intended obligations of all parties to help acheive the common goal.

Hi all,

In my experience, you seldom find
a team of PM + Client + Subcontractors + ...
without a "bad egg" of sorts, or more.

To cope with him or them, you more or less have to play
the game according to the way Raviraj describes it.
I would call it self defense?

A GOOD planner plans the activities in a logical manner according the driving and succeeding matters associated with each individual activity.

Changing the durations of estimates and introducing false logic to doctor the critical path isn’t best practice.

Increasing durations makes projects longer and who is it that decides on the lengths of activities the client is responsible for?

Answer: The client.

There is a little thing called contingency which is used to help mitigate risks. If there is little risk, then their should be little contingency.

Mind games are for incompentant PM’s working in projects without trust.

Oliver

A good Planner before start of the program will definitely ask the CM/PM of teh project, what are teh activities / work packages, that need to be on the CRITICAL PATH, rather than following the CRITICAL PATH which is program generated.

That too is a sort of manipulation, but practically, it works!!

Ultimate need of the Client, is to have project on TIME.

Consultant / Contractor will just make sure not to be on the CRITICAL PATH, by increasing duration of the activities, for which opposite party is responsible.

Just a mind-playing game. But, it really works and who so ever is SMART wins the race!!

Cheers,

Raviraj

Hi Steve,

Just kidding. Wanted to have a fresh and relaxing mood after posting so many detailed & serious thoughts. Just tried to make everybody smile, with no intentions of hurting anybody. Sorry, if it hurts u.

Well, overall CRITICAL PATH doesn’t make any sense, as even delay in few activities in the start of the project, will change the CRITICAL PATH a lot. Thats y, d concept of AS-BUILT CRITICAL PATH (ABCP) is developing these days.

Being on the consultant side, i never keep activities, for which I am responsible, on the critical path.

e.g. Approval of technical specifications, Engg. submittals and drawings or weather award of Nominated Sub-contractor or Sanction of Provisional sum Items. Or even approval of samples, submitted by the contractor.

Never keep them on the critical path. I would give contractor some more duration keeping his activities on the critical path and having float for me.

But, if u r working on CONTRCATOR side, then its vis-a-vis. Try to put less gangs on a particular activity, say tiling works (for a Building project) and get d approval of Tiles much earlier. Say, if its a 60 floor building, then put two gangs instead of 6, and make approval of tiles much earlier. In this case, you got a chance to even put 6 gangs later gangs on site, if theres a delay from client and then ask for the acceleration cost.

Make more money is the basic intention of the BUSINESS keeping the stakeholders need as it is.

HOPE I m clear.

Cheers,

Raviraj

Blah Blah Blah.......

Stephen, have a KISS (Keep It Short & Simple)