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.

Specifying Programming Software - is it right?

23 replies [Last post]
Gary France
User offline. Last seen 15 years 49 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 137
Groups: None
Occasionally, a client will specify in an invitation to tender that the successful contractor / designer / supplier will be required to use a particular programming software package.

What experience do PPer’s have of this approach and what do you think of it?


Gary France
Chairman
Planning Engineers Organisation

Replies

Norzul Ibrahim
User offline. Last seen 16 years 23 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Posts: 165
if what the client have specified is considered "sub-standard", then I think it will be the role of the contractor to at least advise them. e.g., if the client specify the MSP as the schedulling software and based on the contractor’s experience it is not the right or an effective choice, then as the contractor we should advise them.

whether they want to listen or not, it’s their choice BUT if in the future there will be some problem with that choice then the consequence will not be born by the contractor.

Clive Randall
User offline. Last seen 16 years 15 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 744
Groups: None
I am not sure I agree with the client always being right
Yes he pays etc etc
I have on ocassion introduced new software to clients that more effectively presents what they want to see and they have adopted the alternative software.
It is horses for courses but clients are often lead by advisors who in turn may not be the most up to date when it comes to planning software. Obviously petrochem has different needs to construction and often the client is more hands on and project aware.
If you dont think the client really needs what he has specified or it isnt the best tool see what he feels about a change.
You may get the Ostrich or you may get a welcome suprise.
As an example I was asked by a client to provide a programme in MS project back in 1992 for a major hospital. I suggested this may not be the appropiate tool and either Artemis or P3 would provide what he needed. The Client was adamant and the programme was drafted. The client then asked for a sub network of the programme for various elements. Even though it said you could do this on the box and in the handbook, and even after 2 days pestering the helpline it was found you couldnt get a sub network. The client was unhappy but not with us because we had advised him of the limitations. He went back to P3.
Clive
Norzul Ibrahim
User offline. Last seen 16 years 23 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Posts: 165
My opinion..."client’s always right", that should be the principle. If they specify MSP then it should be MSP. As what Bill mentioned, client is the one who buy and pay for the product.

The keyword here is..."specify". Off course if the client doesn’t specify then it’s up to the contractor to use whichever software they like.
Bernard Ertl
User offline. Last seen 9 years 15 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 20 Nov 2002
Posts: 757
Perhaps it’s just a quirk of my industry or experience, but it is very rare for a contractor to deliver a robust schedule to an owner - one that was broken down to the same level of detail as the owner planned and resource loaded for context. Contractor supplied schedules are rarely adequate for merging with owner schedule files in my experience.

Bernard Ertl
InterPlan Systems
Clive Randall
User offline. Last seen 16 years 15 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 744
Groups: None
Bill
Here what you say about multi contracts on single projects. Not sure the client ever really merges his 29 programmes and monitors them of course it is possible if he establishes codes and all contractors follow the protocol. Can happen.
However for single contracts which often are the norm I have found many clients specify what somebody else specified cos they are too dam lazy to rewrite the requirements.
I have seen P3 used together with latest version or even the generic primavera planning software. Ditto MS project whatever instead for example 2000.
Often the contractor will be up to speed with systems where clients particuarly one off clients are not.
Many companies standardise on systems, train their staff on those systems and are proficient in those systems. They monitor across their projects using a standard package present at meetings project review data and cash flows all drawn from their own systems. If the client wants his own system the contractor faces the problem of potential loss of corporate reporting control, under or non qualified staff availability etc etc. So who benefits???
As to programme interfacing thats a massive nightmare and a recipe for errors.
Having said all that Im on the fence on this one, have worked under both scenarios and many of the talked about benefits have never been fully developed.
Clive
You will get the schedule as your program file. What else can you require? Internal PM technology is contractor’s choice. If the client prefer to work with MS Project for tracking large project it does not mean that contractor will not be able to manage its internal resources using more sophisticated programs like P3e or Spider Project. If the resulting schedule is delivered as MS Project file then it is fine, You cannot ask for more.
Regards,
Vladimir
Bill Guthrie
User offline. Last seen 7 years 46 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
Posts: 262
Vladimir Liberzon

Of course its right, as a Client, we are the one who is buying a product from contractors, and are paying for what we want. If we want all schedules to be pink colour, the contractors should say ok. you pay for it.

And all joking aside, many projects I have worked on have multiple contractors, and to control large complex projects with say 29 contractors, you MUST dictate what program you want. Otherwise you would be getting all sorts of wacky programs and schedules that would not merge well.

cheers bill
Paul Harris
User offline. Last seen 1 year 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 11 Apr 2001
Posts: 618
There are several issues here.

Exporting from one schedule software to another. This process is a data conversion process and not schedule conversion, and on recalculating one usually get a different result and unless the schedule is very simple then the schedules will calculate differently. Most scheduling packages use as default a different ways of organizing and rolling up the schedule. For example Microsoft Project uses Outlining which is not supported by P3. A common format is a start to solving the problem but also a common method of calculating and summarizing will also be needed before we get any way towards seamless conversion from one software to another.

Contractors expertise. If an contractor is using a competent package and has experienced in-house expertise, unless there is a real project need, such as rolling in the contractors package into a master schedule, then this is probably not the best suggestion by the client.

In my experience, the argument is normally between P3/SureTrak and MSP and conversion between these software packages is not simple as there are so many places where they calculate differently. I usually find Government Departments ask contractors who use P3/SureTral to produce complex schedules in Microsoft Project and find difficulty in understand why.

Paul E Harris
Eastwood Harris Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia
Planning and Scheduling Book Publishers, Training & Consulting
www.eh.com.au
Joanne Foster
User offline. Last seen 16 years 25 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 17 Jan 2004
Posts: 50
Groups: None
Vlad

Vald wrote "Contractor can use one PM softwate package exporting project schedules into the formats (MS Project, P3e, etc.) required by clients."

The only problem with that is you lose information in the conversion, or it calculates things differently. For example MS Project allows for activities which haven’t started yet to the left of Status Date (interesting concept I know LOL)...if you import that into OPP for example, OPP pushes those activities to the right of Status Date (and rightly so). The result being that you have a MS Project schedule saying you will finish on day X and an OPP conversion of that schedule saying you will finish on day Y. Other issues of conversion include how duration and resources are calculated, how calendars are applied, the list goes on. It would be nice to be able to convert from one software package to another - but it doesn’t work effortlessly, you always end up doing a multitude of work to make sure it has transferred correctly, which means you have to buy the software the client wants anyway LOL.

J
We have successful experience of converting Spider Project schedules into P3e and MS Project databases and presenting these schedules to customers in these formats. The trick is to export the schedule without its recalculating. Recalculating will produce different results if resources, financing and supplies have restrictions. It does not create problems if the recalculated schedule is longer than original. The clients usually accept optimization.
Joanne is right about funny approaches of MSP to status date. But you will export to MS Project, not vice versa. If to export from MS Project then there shall be strict requirement about an existence of project status date.
The differences in approaches to project simulation shall be taken into account in the program.
Gary Whitehead
User offline. Last seen 13 years 10 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 1 Sep 2005
Posts: 69
Groups: None
Indeed. I imagine in most cases the common fields will be more than enough –will enable firms to roll up & track resource forecasting, spend profiles, planned outputs ect across programmes, and also allow for interface milestones to be transferred easily between subbies using different software. Would also make migrating existing projects across to a new package much easier, which should remove one of the more onerous obstacles to a company changing its standard planning software. Very useful.
–Any idea when this is anticipated to be available?
I agree, it is impossible because different software uses different information sets.
In particular in Spider Project there are such fields as Activity Volume, Assighed Resource Productivity, Assignment Cost, Cost Components and many others that do not exist in other software.
But if you want just to present the schedule with some standard data fields you can do it loosing some information that was used for schedule development.
pmkb .
User offline. Last seen 12 years 43 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 79
Groups: None
Isn’t PMI is working on a standard file format for project data to be used by different scheduling programs? Even so, I don’t see how any standard format is going to accommodate all the special/unique features of every software platform on the market.

Stacy
Project Management Knowledge Base
Contractor can use one PM softwate package exporting project schedules into the formats (MS Project, P3e, etc.) required by clients.
Gordon Blair
User offline. Last seen 6 years 8 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 29 Jul 2005
Posts: 166
Groups: None
Of course the contractor could potentially lose out, and as has been intimated further up the thread, it is up to the contractor to assess whether or not it is worth the extra hassle. More often than not, providing it’s not some bizarre, bespoke proprietory system, it won’t really be that much of an issue.

As a contractor, my company deals in a variety of formats with our Clients (although mainly P3+P3e), and as the contract values tend to be relatively substantial (generally 7fig. minimum), any incurred cost and inconvenience would have to be really severe to put us off.

As a Client however, we are in a position to make things a little easier for ourselves, and we’d be mental not to.

As the saying goes... "you pays your money, you takes your choice"
Gary Whitehead
User offline. Last seen 13 years 10 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 1 Sep 2005
Posts: 69
Groups: None
The trouble is that for every benefit the client gets from having all contractors using 1 standard piece of planning software, the contractor loses from having to use different packages for different clients.

It’s swings and roundabouts. Either way you go, someone’s going to benefit and someone’s going to lose out.
Gordon Blair
User offline. Last seen 6 years 8 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 29 Jul 2005
Posts: 166
Groups: None
I’ve got to be honest, from a Client’s point of view, it has to be common sense to specify the Planning Package (providing you’re not using something arcane and left-field). You include the software requirement within the ITT, so it’s catered for within the returned bids, there’s then no scope for your subbie of choice nailing you for any costs.

Providing you’re relatively mainstream in your choice of software, it’s highly unlikely that this stipulation will preclude any of your desired tenderers from applying, or price any of them out of the market.

What it WILL do is save you time and money, week after week incorporating and understanding their returns and reporting onwards.

If you do this with all of your contract lets, this allows you to develop a suite of reports that are standardised across the company that you can ’plug’ your updates into, getting an immediatedly recognisable result out of the other end.

The prime Caveat being, "providing your choice of software is relatively mainstream for your sector"
Clive Randall
User offline. Last seen 16 years 15 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 744
Groups: None
I am a client and I want a rolls royce
I cant drive
I dont know anybody who can drive
I dont know a mechanic
I live on an Island with no roads
But my next door neighbour has a rolls royce so I want a rolls royce.
If none of the above apply to you specify the software and hope the contractor can drive the vehicle.
Clive
Gwen Blair
User offline. Last seen 10 years 24 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Posts: 182
And the worst case scenario in my experience must be to evaluate the software, give your client or Engineering Manager the "fors" and "againsts". Client/person then looks at cost. IT Fast Tracker says IT can do it in house as its cheaper. They recreate the wheel albeit square and ineefectual, get rid of the Planner (me but I could have kissed them at the time) then get their in house IT hobbits or hobbists to rustle something up which their Project Managers can handle, completely forgetting to factor in the cost of the Project Managers time for learning new software, reluctance for data entry and data management. Company lose control, clients, not to say tee off most of thier Project Managers - and all to save a few quid.
I am still laughing!
Gary Whitehead
User offline. Last seen 13 years 10 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 1 Sep 2005
Posts: 69
Groups: None
Client X have/are developing a PM/R system, which requires their contractors to be using P3/e by end of 2006.
It was the main driver for my old firm to begin to upgrade from P3, so you could say X’s decision cost us a significant amount of time and cash.

X were a bit cheeky about it all: They knew if they contractually mandated use of P3/e, then we could stick them for at least some of the costs to change. Instead, they specified the format of project reports in such a manner so that P3/e was the only commercially available package that could satisfy their requirements ’of the shelf’.

Understand the very sensible wish of clients to have their contractors using a standardised package. Obviously, contractors would prefer all their clients to use a standardised package too. Bottom line is someone has to pay for it, though. X may have dodged a bullet in this example, but I can guarantee my old firm will find a way to claw the costs (and more) back over the next couple of years.

Bottom line: I think it’s inevitable that large firms with multiple projects & contractors will want to standardise their Project Control procedures across the business, but they can’t expect their contractors to take on the cost of changing / adding programming software when all the benefits are being seen by the client.

I can see a definite need for a standard piece of software that can convert a project from one package to another quickly & robustly.
Trevor Rabey
User offline. Last seen 1 year 18 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 530
Groups: None
Right? Wrong? Is that the issue?
Client can specify anything he likes, can’t he?
After all, he’s doing the shopping.
Contractors who can’t or don’t want to meet the spec don’t have to tender, do they?
Contractors often get awarded contracts and then ignore many of the requirements that they regard as unnecessary overhead admin burden, so that route is available.
The contract can prescribe the software but it can’t make anyone use it properly.
How is specifying the software any different from specifying the other programme/schedule requirments?
Marcio Sampaio
User offline. Last seen 11 years 30 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 7 Nov 2005
Posts: 658
Gary France;

An e.g.

I’m the Client and my company did not specify the software of planning and control. We use P3e.

Now we have 5 contractors for a single project. 1 using P3e, 2 using P3 and 2 using MS Project.

We are having big problems monthly to convert all files to P3e and do the to make our analyze and to emit accompaniment reports.

Kind regards,

Marcio Eduardo
DATTATREYA PADHARTHI
User offline. Last seen 5 years 17 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 90
In my specific experience, as a PMC we had to prepare, monitor & report all schedules & updates in P3e whereas the FEED Contractor & others were allowed to use either P3 or P3 e or MSP. The fact of the matter remains in comprehensive understanding of P3 e by the Client top brass, hich in most of the cases are not exactly updated & informed about the potential problems.
But Client is a Client & you have no choice but to go along with it & implement his wish/will threby increasing efforts from our side.
Is there any industry-wise standardisation of Codes with respect to phase, discipline etc with standard lengths.
I am only slightly aware of such standards used by Construction industry in US, may be some planner from US may throw additional light on the subject.
Regards
Dattatreya