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.

Personality=Job=Personality

31 replies [Last post]
Wed, 2006-06-07 11:22
Nigel Winkley
User offline. Last seen 1 week 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 11 May 2006
Posts: 187
Groups: The GrapeVine
Does anyone find that certain "types" of people are planners? And that some occupations are filled by other "types"?

Most planners I have met are into computers, most CAD guys seem to be crazy (in a nice way), cost engineers are usually too neat and tidy for their own good, architects are off the wall. I know some of these sound like cartoon versions but can they be true as well? Generalisations I know, but what do you think?

Do people become planners because that’s the way they think or does being a planner make you the type of person you are?

Nature versus nurture?

Any comments?

(Nothing racist, ageist, sexist, heightist, weightist or anything-ist implied in this just good old fashioned curiosity - oh alright nosiness)
Top

Replies

Wed, 2006-06-28 20:39
#1
Clive Randall
User offline. Last seen 16 years 19 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 744
Groups: None
Dearest Gwen
Never one to shirk a request for a detailed explanation will attempt to define operator.

Operator
Comes in a number of subsets
Cool operator
Plant operator
Telephone operator
Shady operator

Cool operator
Has a hairy chest and often back
Arms come down to well below the hips
Drinks things with umberallas in them
Often found hanging around women and learing
Waits till the pub closes to pull as provides a greater chance of success
Has an opinion on everything but little knowledge of any subject
Often found on the books of a subbie with the title bussiness development manager
Cant do it himself but knows a man who can
Many found on the new Wembley stadium project in the planning office.

Plant operator
Vividly remembered buttocks
Has a mind capable of higher mathmatics when it comes to a bonus
Looks at the pictures in the Sunday sport
Drinks guiness and is often found in a pub with a rather dirty vest

Enjoys initiating chainmen into construction with axle grease
Think he is a good sort and often says he has forgotten more than the PM knows
Takes Monday off but is always available for double time on Sunday
Has numerous brothers and sisters but dosent know all their names
Thinks computers are for wooses and i pods are something like a supository

Telephone operator
Has an encyclopeadic knowledge of soaps
Wears fake tan and often cleavage
Can be recognised by at least one inch of black hair close to the scalp
Has no idea what the company does but has an intimate knowledge of the marketing managers roof lining on his GTI
Does not see herself as the face of the Company but the face of cosmopolitan
Has a boyfreind called Brett and enjoys going to Portugal and eating chips.
Has no idea where portugal actually is.
Has a GCSE in liberal studies

Shady operator
AKA Subbie

Hope this helps and would be pleased to define other subsets

To moderator this is a joke pleaseeeeee do not delete

Clive (AKA Mr Randall)
Top
Wed, 2006-06-28 11:03
#2
Gordon Blair
User offline. Last seen 6 years 12 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 29 Jul 2005
Posts: 166
Groups: None
I think we’ve missed the 3rd type of Planner, somewhere in the mix, neither Engineer or software monkey, you’ve got the lateral thinkers.

Don’t necessarily have to have an Engineering Background (as long as they get up off their backsides, to ask the pertinent questions, and can pick up the principles of the job that they work on), and they don’t neccessarily have to spend all of their time hiding behind copies of PC Weekly or Reader’s Motherboards (as long as they can run the software to a reasonably competent level).

What the lateral thinker’s do is problem solve, they ask questions, and they offer (layman’s) solutions. These solutions are occasionally wide of the make, but often the most pragmatic, if a little prosaic, way around the problems.

The Lateral thinker is a product of Nature and Early Years (youth) nurture. Numerate and literate, if a little prone to disappearing off on a tangent at first sight of an interesting problem ;o) .

Note: It is possible for either subset of Engineer or Software Jockey to be a Lateral thinker.

As for the definition of an Operator:

A person who, while claiming that a solution is neither their job nor problem, will quite happily tell you why something won’t work, couldn’t possibly be manned safely, and that they know a great way to solve the problem, but how nobody listens. All this is said through a Big Mac behind a copy of the Sun. (They’re also quite probably scratching their @rse at the same time)
Top
Wed, 2006-06-28 09:57
#3
Gwen Blair
User offline. Last seen 10 years 28 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Posts: 182
Groups: Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas
Mr Randall,

Thanks for the big laugh.

I look forward to your definition of an Operator.

Top
Sat, 2006-06-24 10:03
#4
Oscar Wilde
User offline. Last seen 16 years 10 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 7 Oct 2005
Posts: 166
Groups: None
seeems to have summed it up bad day or not
Top
Sat, 2006-06-24 02:49
#5
James Griffiths
User offline. Last seen 15 years 15 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 19 May 2006
Posts: 435
Groups: None
Clive,

Are you having a: "I-hate-the-world" moment?
Top
Sat, 2006-06-24 00:02
#6
Clive Randall
User offline. Last seen 16 years 19 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 744
Groups: None
Just read this from the begining so thought I would add my jaundiced view.
Planners are a pretty varied bunch but as post 1 says seem to be a bit computer oriented. Good ones are excellent communicators, broad shouldered and with a deal of hands on site experience.
Bad ones are those who cant communicate and believe if you cant understand what they have done you are a failure.
Dont think they are as easy to fit in a box as estimators who always appear like a rabbit in the headlights, generally scared and never sun tanned often have no dress sense and prefer to keep themselves to themselves
QS dreary accountant types always the last to laugh, lack flair and tell others that they have f****ed up when everybody knows it already. Often found last in the office in the morning and first in the pub with the subbie at night. Difficult to find them at all at Christmas as there office is blocked by off licence deliveries. Hopefully a disaperaing bread
Architects, imaginative chancers who leave everything to the last minute so as not to stifle their creativity, considerable peer pressure applied to dress and think like a total plonker. Often gay, muddled and lack discipline. Constantly doubt their ability as do others around them.
Design Engineers, often found drawing things they no little about lack hands on experience and rely on others to dig them out of their hole. Drive old MGs with flat caps and often where Harris tweed, little understanding of time or cost.
E&M design engineers, believe they can survive by leaving it all to somebody else after they have produced a line diagram. Rarely seen on site, often found on the more glamorous factory inspection.
Clients project manager, sees the function as revolving around being totally obnoxious to everybody, little understanding of the process. Can usually be found at the golf club with the bankers or in lap dancing establishments with the subbies.
The subbie, shady geezer, who complains about everything. Can usually be found only at night and never on his mobile. Has a bolt hole in Spain and a wife with plastic breasts and blond hair.
Software Jockey should never be found on site but is often found in the room with the name planners office, talks about gigabytes and wysiwyg and scaners, reads computer weekly and is always crashing his computer. Finds it difficult to provide an answer to simple questions without reference to his computer.
Please advise if any of you require further profiles on anybody I have missed.
For the PCs amongst you
THIS IS MEANT TO BE A JOKE
For the software jockeys amongst us
THIS IS MEANT TO BE A JOKE
Clive
Top
Tue, 2006-06-20 06:05
#7
James Griffiths
User offline. Last seen 15 years 15 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 19 May 2006
Posts: 435
Groups: None
Dave, my Dearest Little Peanut (For calling you that, will I get a roasting, or will I be as-salted [groan])?

I’d have resigned by now, having to wait that long to download the stuff. Mind you, it gives you plenty of time to continue your on-line gambling career. Won any rubber-ducks lately?

Smooches galore.

Jamie.
Top
Tue, 2006-06-20 05:46
#8
Dave Ellis
User offline. Last seen 17 years 9 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6
Groups: None
James

By the way I’m only here because I’ve been waiting 2 hrs (no exageration) for P3e to download through Citrix to MSP.

More luv & kisses

Dave

ps its just crashed.
Top
Tue, 2006-06-20 05:43
#9
Dave Ellis
User offline. Last seen 17 years 9 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6
Groups: None
Hi James

We are nuts, as you know. I became a planner because nothing else would have me and I have to pay the mortgage.

Luv & kisses

Dave
Top
Mon, 2006-06-19 03:10
#10
James Griffiths
User offline. Last seen 15 years 15 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 19 May 2006
Posts: 435
Groups: None
Vishwas,

Beautiful words, most poetically scribed. Thank you for such inspiration. I now have new meaning to my life and work. I always thought that "the other side" were just envious of our profession. I shall now drive forward the Vision, the Mission: "WE’RE A BUNCH of KNOW-ALLs, nah, nah, nah-nah, nah!!"

Sleep well my Dear Planners, for we are custodians of "The Plan For All Eternity & Infinite Wisdom.
Top
Sun, 2006-06-18 21:17
#11
Zhang Haixiang
User offline. Last seen 3 years 28 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Apr 2005
Posts: 250
Groups: None
Hi James,

Sorry James and all guys (not gays),It’s my mistake.

I was a civil engineer before I became a planner.
At that time I am working on a power plant project.
when we start MEP installation, we found that we need more planner to monitor/control the project.
So my boss asked me if I can try to be a planner.
That’s why i became a planner, and I like this job
Top
Sat, 2006-06-17 03:43
#12
Vishwas Bindigana...
User offline. Last seen 6 weeks 5 days ago. Offline
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
Posts: 97
Groups: None
Hi Nigel,

This is in response to your original post (I have overlooked the in-between posts for "All of Planning’s sake"!)

Yes, we as Planners are UNIQUE!! The question now is - As PLANNERS do we become UNIQUE (or) do we become PLANNERS because we are UNIQUE??

Well, the answer is BOTH!

The Planning Profession is a class on its own. We stand apart from the rest of the CROWD, irrespective of our back-grounds - Engineering or Software-types. This is very similar to Doctors who stand apart in the professional society. (It is high time we start prefixing our names with "Pl." just like doctors prefix "Dr." against their names!!)

So, what makes us Planners, and, what makes us Unique?? Each one of us has an element of eccentricity that differentiates us from the rest. We have the Answers for any kind of Question; we have the Solutions for any kind of Problem. We understand the entire project even before it starts. We have the unique sense to imagine the entire course of the project (both time-wise and cost-wise) at the very beginning. We initiate, plan, execute, control things in an organization. We frame the back-bone of any organization or project. And, we are always in the lime-light – good or bad. Even though we DON’T do anything, we GET THINGS DONE, and, in our own, sweet way!

No doubt, ours is a coveted profession. Most of the others (who are not planners) are jealous of this role. They yearn to become “US” unsuccessfully most of the time. And, it is human tendency to conclude that “the grapes on the other side are sour”. :)

Definitely, it is eccentricity, our tolerant nature (the ability accept flak from all sides) and good political skills which makes us UNIQUE and PLANNERS (technical prowess and software skills makes us better planners, that’s all). In the language of the hoi polloi, we are PLANNERS because we have BALLS (that could be either Nature or Nurture)!!

Happy Planning!

Vishwas
Top
Fri, 2006-06-16 05:26
#13
James Griffiths
User offline. Last seen 15 years 15 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 19 May 2006
Posts: 435
Groups: None
Hi Zhang,

Good one! But why did you become a planner?

James.

PS. In your posting, you called us all "gays". This is men-who-like-men. I presume that that you meant "guys" (we forgive you, dearie, kiss, kiss!) :-)
Top
Fri, 2006-06-16 04:49
#14
Zhang Haixiang
User offline. Last seen 3 years 28 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Apr 2005
Posts: 250
Groups: None
hello gays,

nowadays project become more and more complex. The work for planner is also changing from technical based to management based.

I’ve been work on a project with 400 MEP systems,also a lot of different kind of civil work (under water structure, rock blast/exvavation, piling,concrete/steel structur ...). these ’s no such kink of planner knows all these things. Do we need hundred of planners for the project?

So what can planner do?

A planner need to establish a system to organize all engineers to be involved in preparing / tracking of schedule.

A planner need to prepare work procedures, standard form, method of updating, coding structure... for the project

A planner need to even write code/programe to analize schedule/generate reports/update schedule...

A planner should have clear understanding of schedule method (CPM)and the process of time control(scheduling) , also good at using those softwares. (there are lots of ’planners’ do not know how to calculate LS,LF,TF,FF...)

Now a planner do not need to know a lot of technical knowledge if there is a good system. Now a planner is becoming a software jockey.

Top
Thu, 2006-06-15 07:54
#15
Ronaldo Quilao
User offline. Last seen 9 years 8 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 11 Aug 2003
Posts: 34
Groups: GPC Qatar
Well, It’s just that, I mean we are exceptional! We are not just a termed "planner"...huh

Top
Thu, 2006-06-15 07:00
#16
Nigel Winkley
User offline. Last seen 1 week 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 11 May 2006
Posts: 187
Groups: The GrapeVine
James

Short answer is Yes, we are nuts!

I believe it takes a certain type of person to become a planner - which is why I post the topic in the first place.

From the comments so far, a large can of large worms has been opened.

Let’s face it, there is a role for the software-jockey type of planner and the engineering background type of planner - and probably everything in between.

I reckon that the ’older’ planners probably have more of an engineering background and the ’younger’ planners more of a software background. BIG generalisations maybe.

Next time I will ask a less controversial question! (not!!!)

Cheers

Nige
Top
Thu, 2006-06-15 06:24
#17
James Griffiths
User offline. Last seen 15 years 15 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 19 May 2006
Posts: 435
Groups: None
Ronald,

I think you have opened a can of worms.

Why have we become planners? If you think we should have so much engineering experience, why then would we become a planner? Engineers tend to like engineering. Moreover, most "engineers", that I know, absolutely loathe any mention of the word "planning". What is it that resides in our character and draws us to such a bang-head-against-brick-wall occupation?

Are we all completely nuts?

James.
Top
Wed, 2006-06-14 05:39
#18
Ronaldo Quilao
User offline. Last seen 9 years 8 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 11 Aug 2003
Posts: 34
Groups: GPC Qatar
Dear Fellow:

Perhaps we need to distinguish this two terms. In my point of view:

Software jockey-probably is a guy who only has a software training, we called it a software user. He knows the software very well and can do the encoding, incorporating, editing wherein the data comes from his supervisor or whoever he report to.

Sometimes in the technical side a junior engineer with knowledge on how to use or operate the said software. He is still gathering or beginning to gather experiences in the actual world of engineering and construction. Surely he is well verse with the software application but still he depended on what’s his boss instruction and input.

Now for the Planner...what do you think huh? A planner is not just a title or position per se....to become a planner you will undergo tedious training and must possess lots of experiences in different field of engineering. You need to have experiences in actual constructions, you need to have an experienced of being a field engineer, the project engineer, became a project superintendent and so on so forth. You need to experienced also of being a design engineer and lastly worked under the client representatives as member of his project or construction management team. Then you must have a technical knowledge in using the software.....a tool to minimize time so that you can still do some of your professional chores...

Meaning a planner is a seasoned professional engineer a diversified engineer, can work, can recommend solution, can plan, can forsee what lies ahead, can estimate, can evaluate, can analize, what else....it just a planner ...I am a planner...I reached this stage by time...by experiences and not by accident....I think you know what I mean....

Ronald Quilao
Top
Mon, 2006-06-12 09:29
#19
James Griffiths
User offline. Last seen 15 years 15 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 19 May 2006
Posts: 435
Groups: None
You lucky git. I just kept getting sacked for telling them what they don’t want to know, then they blame me for not telling them!

Anyway, all said & done. I must take my medication: calm, calm.

James. :-)
Top
Mon, 2006-06-12 07:42
#20
Nigel Winkley
User offline. Last seen 1 week 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 11 May 2006
Posts: 187
Groups: The GrapeVine
James

Don’t get me wrong, I agree with a lot of what you said. Especially the ideal mix of knowledge. There is, however, a fundamental difference between the software jockey and the engineer - and feel free to correct me.

The software jockey, generally, is au fait with the software but not necessarily, with the engineering (by that I mean the whole process, CDM/EPC etc). True, not all SJs are like that but the majority are, in my experience.

The engineer, on the other-hand, usually has a command of the process and the steps needed to implement that process. True, he knows doodly-squat about software and that is where the jockey comes in.

BIG generalisations I know. Who is "better"? Neither. Just different. In any event most companies now require a ’proper’ programme that has to be established between all parties - the "good old days", which I well remember, are long gone, where the engineer thought the programme was a few pretty coloured bars and to be done once and once only.

Apart from a very few older engineers/managers/etc, most people recognise the rationale behind a working, linked programme. Especially when one can demonstrate the savings that can be made, in time and or cost.

My first ever job was as a mechanical engineer at a steelworks in Sheffield - long gone and all but forgotten. I entered the planning world due to (good?) luck. I noticed that the guys in the rolling mills were changing the dies as per the production sheet, with no thought about the next but one size required. (4" then to 6" then back to 4" all taking time)

Having pointed this out, it was met with dis-interest. Until I mentioned that it would be quicker, therefore more productive and therfore a better bonus. That was it. Soon the director got involved and asked that I do a plan for the whole site. Then other directors (26 companies in the group) noticed our productivity and off I went.

That was back in the ’good old days’ - Elephant sized drawing board (Elephant used to be an imperial paper size, similar to A0), pencil and BIG rubber (eraser). No computers - think wages might have had an adding machine but that was it.

So some of us never were software jockeys, but knew the process. Yes, I now use software - as a tool. If my computer packs up - or there is no power available in a little Indian village, out in the wilds of no-where - then I can still do it the old fashioned way - forward pass, backward pass, float calcs, process maps, etc.

May be we should all throw away the computers and do it the "real" way. Would we be better planners/progammers/schedulers? ’Spect so. Would it be a better way of doing thing? Maybe not. But remember some of us Old G*ts never had a computer originally and still managed so where would the software jockeys be then? Probably not even born yet.

What does the industry now need? A mix of engineers with software knowledge, a willingness to learn, enthusiasm and the ability to ask questions, not feel foolish and to stick their hands up and say "I don’t know..."

Rant and rave over.

Top
Mon, 2006-06-12 05:46
#21
James Griffiths
User offline. Last seen 15 years 15 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 19 May 2006
Posts: 435
Groups: None
Nigel,

Sorry to have to disagree with you but, in today’s world, the "fag-packet" planning man will seriously stuff-up your project. I’ve had many a situation where the fag-packet man has drawn it up by hand, and it looked appalling, had illogical logic etc. Being as nice as I could (which really is very nice)explained all the advantages blah blah, I input the data and asked him in which format he would like to see the programme. He just wasn’t interested. He, but not only he, seems to think that a programme is a one-off, one-shot, never-to-be-seen-again single sheet of A4. There seems to be an abject failure, on the part of some PMs/Directors, to understand that "work", on a programme, is representative of physical objectives, and that they’d better take note of the fact that, if they want this work is to be accomplished, it is not matter of wishful thinking, but a hard reality that they need X number of people.

Mentioning Brunel, Edison etc. is a red herring, owing to the fact that all we see is the end-result, not the process or the data that comprised the project as a whole. I understand, however, that Brunel had a reputation for going seriously over-budget. He might have been a very good engineer and an extremely persuasive businessman, but was he ever able to forecast how long and how much with any level of accuracy? It’d be extremely interesting, though, to see whether he actually had any real planning process.

Ultimately, you’re all correct in that there is an optimum combination of planning theory, software competence and practical experience that will make-up the ideal candidate. How often you get that in a person will be down to each individual’s experience.

Feel free to discuss.

Cheers.

James.
Top
Mon, 2006-06-12 04:24
#22
James Griffiths
User offline. Last seen 15 years 15 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 19 May 2006
Posts: 435
Groups: None
Chris,

Please forgive me, I don’t mean to deliberately set traps or cause anyone to feel offended. In my No.6 post, it was a back-door process to elicit your thoughts by which you would choose one candidate over another, when each candidate possesses only half of the ideal knowledge or experience.

Speaking from experience when attending interviews, as an interviewee, I’ve had too many interviewers saying that they "don’t want a software jockey". This really infuriates me, not because I’m a software jockey, but because it takes equally as long, if not longer to become very competent with the software than it does to learn the principles of planning. This has manifest itself when PMs take on the role of planner, just to cut costs, yet they have absolutely minimal experience of driving the software. This results in a programme in which they rapidly lose confidence because it doesn’t align with their expectations, or cannot discover why it doesn’t; thus resulting in further erosion of planning as a role that is perceived as adding-value.

In addition to the above, I have to forecast the consequences of a PM who employs a Designer who actually cannot drive the CAD system, albeit the fact that he may be an engineer with many years’ experience. It’s a fundamental fact that you will then need two people to achieve the same objective, thus probably incurring nigh-on twice the cost; yet they fail to see this until it’s too late.

I’m sorry Chris, I’m just having a right-ole whinge! Too many times I’ve used the programme to raise some really serious issues....and they just don’t believe me, even though I’ve always been able to substantiate it via the programme data. Unfortunately PMs just don’t want to listen....and when it all falls-down around their ears, who do they blame......the programmer. It doesn’t exactly help when we have a Director whom expounds the virtues of using paper, yet always insists on knowing what the real situation is, yet doesn’t want to spend any money on "planners".

Perhaps I’m either in the wrong job or I’m in the wrong company, but sometimes I think that I’m all alone in the world. Is my situation common-place, or is almost everyone in this situation for most of the time etc?

Please inspire me.

James.
Top
Mon, 2006-06-12 03:23
#23
Nigel Winkley
User offline. Last seen 1 week 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 11 May 2006
Posts: 187
Groups: The GrapeVine
Blimey - what have I started?!

Software Jockeys - yes, met a few of those. Great at the software, cannot plan. Have also met, though, the guys that can plan a project, start to finish, on a fag packet but know nothing of the software used. Which would I rather have? Hmmm, tricky question?

Not at all. If someone has the knowledge to formulate a programme, even if on a few sheets of paper, by hand, then surely he is the ’better planner’. After all he can sit with the software jockey and get things into the programme.
Remember, Brunel, Stevenson, Preece, Edison and others, did not have the use of computers and look what they did!

Most software jockeys I have come across - quite a few in all - would not know falsework from a tunnel boring machine but they will quite happily explain the ins and outs of the software, they rarely leave the computer screen and cannot reconcile a drawing with site come Hell, Hull or High Water.

What does this really mean? The man to do the job I suppose. Surely it is better to have a competent engineer that knows ’the job’ than someone that works a computer who has not got the faintest idea of what can be slipped/over-lapped or whatever but has to stick ridgedly to the ’rules’.

Ideally get one candidate that can do both, but if not give me a "back of the fag packet" man any day.
Top
Mon, 2006-06-12 02:47
#24
Chris Oggham
User offline. Last seen 9 years 17 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 605
Groups: None
James,

I wasn’t aware that you were setting a trap, seems a bit pointless to me. However, the situation you originally outlined, which I did my best to address, seemed to be a choice between two individuals of relative inexperience. The type of people who might be considered for a junior planning position.

Suddenly you expect them to be senior planners capable of using the plan as a reference source for "costing, resourcing, EV analysis etc.". Yes of course it takes considerable time to gain the necessary expertise to fully exploit the potential of the software, but this is part of the development process of individuals within the organisation. You could not reasonably expect a junior planner to do this the instant he or she had been hired.

Perhaps you should have made a little clearer what it was you wanted in your original question. You don’t have to play games or set traps on this forum, simply ask your questions, and people will, quite literally, queue up to supply you with the information you need.

Regards

Chris Oggham
Top
Fri, 2006-06-09 07:28
#25
James Griffiths
User offline. Last seen 15 years 15 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 19 May 2006
Posts: 435
Groups: None
Chris,

All in the best possible taste, but you fell into my trap!

Taking a course in operating the software provides the smallest of benefit. With projects often running into many thousands of lines, having complex interrelationships, combined with unique software "operating characteristics", it is absolutely essential that the "planner" be able to use the tools to a competent level, otherwise it can be impossible to determine whether the end-results are representative of the truth. Of course, a conventional bar-chart is comparatively straight-forward to compile and administer in most software packages. However, when you really want to use the project as a single reference source for costing, resourcing, EV analysis etc. then you really have be very comfortable with every facet....and that can take years.

Ultimately, it’s the same-old-story: We want the perfect candidate.....and unable to find one, they get so desperate that they end-up employing someone like me! Lethal!

James.

Top
Fri, 2006-06-09 06:20
#26
Chris Oggham
User offline. Last seen 9 years 17 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 605
Groups: None
James,

That`s really quite tricky to answer, as it depends on a number of factors.

Take the person who has got a lot of experience with the work, knows how to plan, but can`t use the software. Usually a training course and a bit of time to build experience and confidence in using it is all that is required.

Then again take the person who knows how to use the software, very familiar with its functions, but little or no experience with the work or planning. If they are not afraid to ask questions and get out from behind the computer screen, again it`s just a question of time to build confidence and experience.

As you probably guessed the people I have had difficulty with are the ones who are interested only in driving the software. Whose knowledge of planning consists of looking to see what we did last time and who think that their work begins and ends at their computer screen.

Chris Oggham
Top
Fri, 2006-06-09 05:57
#27
James Griffiths
User offline. Last seen 15 years 15 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 19 May 2006
Posts: 435
Groups: None
Chris,

Evidently you’ve encountered people who call themselves planners but don’t live up to your expectations. What criteria would you apply to enable someone to be called a planner? Moreover, how would you reconcile the situation whereby a person had an in-depth knowledge of the details but couldn’t drive the software versus a person who had a basic understanding of the principles but was well-versed in the software. Which one would you employ?

James.
Top
Fri, 2006-06-09 05:40
#28
Chris Oggham
User offline. Last seen 9 years 17 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 605
Groups: None
How about people who call themselves planners who think that all there is to it is to be a software jockey? Most of them couldn’t plan a p*ss-up in a distillery, and the damage they do to the credibility of the rest of us mind-blowing!
Top
Thu, 2006-06-08 10:49
#29
James Griffiths
User offline. Last seen 15 years 15 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 19 May 2006
Posts: 435
Groups: None
How about Design Engineers??

Most of those I work with are like bunch of 5 year-old children: Incapable of doing anything on-time without extreme levels of supervision...except perhaps filling-in their timesheets. Give them a week’s notice to formulate their monthly milestones and they will do absolutely nothing about it until you sit there with them. They start to whinge about "...spending more time reporting than doing the job...." even though they spend less than 1% of their time doing it. I’ve spent two years educating these people about how to describe a milestone...and they still can’t do it. They can’t seem to make the connection between time-spent, cost and the fact that there are people waiting for them to finish their pretty-little drawing so that they can build the bl**dy thing....and yet they’re totally paranoid about letting anyone know how things are progressing. Their estimates are so wildly optimistic (un-thought through) that it’s no-wonder projects are always overspent....and it’s mainly because they conveniently forget half of the processes involved.

What sort of personality do you have to have in order to be Design Engineer? Ambivalence, nonchalance, paranoia, zero-commercial skills, disconnect with the space-time continuum, illiteracy?

Experiences please??

James.
Top
Thu, 2006-06-08 04:01
#30
Chris Oggham
User offline. Last seen 9 years 17 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 605
Groups: None
Hi Nigel,

Nature vs Nurture? A little of both maybe. After all you wouldn’t make a graduate fresh from university into the Managing Director. No matter how good their degree or how intelligent they are, but you might in twenty years time once they’ve gained experience, and "grown" into the company.

Would this be the same person as the fresh-faced university graduate? Damned if I know!

Chris Oggham
Top
Wed, 2006-06-07 11:24
#31
Svein Myklebust
User offline. Last seen 15 years 26 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 27 May 2006
Posts: 25
Groups: Petro-Chem / Oil & Gas
Planner = Virgo ;-)
Top