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.

Programme Level Types

18 replies [Last post]
John Reid
User offline. Last seen 4 years 20 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 9 Aug 2001
Posts: 6
Groups: None

Hi All

From time to time I come across phrases like Level 5 Type programme, Level 3 Type Programme etc. I am assuming this refers to the level of detail contained within each programme type. Can anyone please advise me as to what level of detail is required for each programme level type? I have heard a few conflicting explanations, does anyone have a definitive answer.

Thanks for your help

John

Replies

Patrick,

Your reply beat me to it, I was just responding because we had a similar question by email that I was answering.

The explanation can also be found in Section "07.1.1.3 - LEVELS OF SCHEDULES" in here in the Guild's Introduction to Planning & Scheduling http://www.planningplanet.com/guild/gpccar/introduction-to-managing-planning-and-scheduling where the guys have given an opinion from a CONTRACTOR perspective and also an EMPLOYER perspective.

I think that Pat Weavers paper was referenced heavily in that too :)

Jason - PP Admin Team

Patrick Weaver
User offline. Last seen 2 weeks 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 18 Jan 2001
Posts: 267
Groups: None
Frijo Tharakan
User offline. Last seen 5 years 25 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 20 Feb 2004
Posts: 5

How do we develop a schedule from Level 1 to Level 2 to Level 3, what are the criterias/parameters/datas that has to be assumed, we have FEED dats and its a EPC project, so we have to start from engineering.

 

 Your different methods will help.

 

Regards

Frijo

Rory Hoban
User offline. Last seen 1 year 49 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 10

My understanding from reading a delay and disruption book that there are mainly 5 levels of programmes.

Level 1 - Master Programme in general Summary programme

Level 3 - Construction Programme is what I start at for building programmes.

Level 4  more detailed than L.3

Possibly L.5 a daily programme

If there is a L.6 this could be a hourly prog

Rory Hoban
User offline. Last seen 1 year 49 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 10

Hi Mike

I know I am a bit late but PEO has gone BANG

Paid my membership fee last year, not updated on their web site members page

Phoned / emailed - no replys no refund

then read the article by Gary France

Robin Clare-Talbot
User offline. Last seen 4 weeks 22 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 17 Aug 2010
Posts: 27

In my experience, it seems that many people have a misconstrude idea as to program levels.

Generally, you need to comply to your contractual obligations. Generally, an NEC based contract will require a level 4 schedule, which will be a system and sub-system based program, and FIDIC requires normally a level 3 reporting schedule, highlighting mainly your systems.

 

The setup I have used over the years which has sufficed every client I have worked with on a contract for both external and internal reporting purposes is as follows.

Based on a WBS level that can correlate back to either your BOQ and or DOW, whichever your company utilises.

WBS Level 0 - Project

WBS Level 1 - Project Phases

WBS Level 2 - Discipline

WBS Level 3 - System or Area

WBS Level 4 - Sub-System

WBS Level 5 - Scope (Origional, additional[to indicate delay])

If anyone wants more detail on this, as its a great method, please mail me...

Rafael Davila
User offline. Last seen 3 hours 33 min ago. Offline
Joined: 1 Mar 2004
Posts: 4780

John,

You shall decide based on your own needs what each level means, the same goes for your clients. Different job types might require more or less levels, creating an all inclusive generic level definition might be too much, and this applies for your different Portfolios.

It is pretentious and technically wrong for others to force you to exclusively use their definition because theirs is better than yours as if the exclusive owners of all truth.

The solution is simple, maintain your jobs as per your own company standards and create a WBS for this purposes, then create additional WBS for the needs of your clients. If your software do not provide for multiple WBS I suggest you dump the “trompo toy” and get serious software.

I keep a WBS based on Area at a higher level and Function at a lower level, a WBS based on Function at a higher level and Area at a lower level, at rare times I keep an additional based on responsibility and of course, another for whatever the Client asks.

trompito

What if your Portfolio which include other jobs by other clients/owners is based on several WBS none of which is compatible with the caprices of a particular client/owner.  Calling for a single WBS functionality got to be called by its name “is stupid”.

Regards,

Rafael

Patrick Weaver
User offline. Last seen 2 weeks 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 18 Jan 2001
Posts: 267
Groups: None

Contrary to some of the comments below, there is a remarkable degree of consistency among professional planners and organisations in the meaning allocated to different levels. A detailed analysis of the 5 levels can be downloaded from http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/Planning.html#Roles

Mike Testro
User offline. Last seen 1 day 15 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 4392
Hi Anoon

We have had this disussion before.

I do not promote FS links with bottom up planning because I am adelay analyst but because it is the simplest and best manner of putting together a programme.

I have also said that if you can’t build it you cannot plan it.

Top down FF SS on global bars has - at some time - to be developed into a level 4 from 1 2 & 3.

When that happens the results will be different and then the temptation is there to squeeze or stretch the L4 tasks to fit.

It all makes work for me.

Best regards

Mike Testro.
Anoon Iimos
User offline. Last seen 19 weeks 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 1416
Mike / John,

Programme level type for me is vital. Mike I supposed is talking about bottom-up scheduling in order to strictly implement the use of FS relationship. Meaning, he has to know the matters (beforehand) as detailed as he can in order to develop a Level 4 schedule. Well, that’s because he is a Delay Analyst, which I supposed will more likely to come in during the middle stage (with substantial details), or where uncontrollable problems arises with the project because of the developed details and its integration.

Mike, how about Top-down Scheduling? How can you strictly implement FS relationships? Considering every situation (including access rights - when working on a multi-user environment).

cheers!
John Reid
User offline. Last seen 4 years 20 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 9 Aug 2001
Posts: 6
Groups: None
Hi All
Thanks for all your replies, very helpful and very much appreciated!

Keep up the good work

John
Mike Testro
User offline. Last seen 1 day 15 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 4392
Hi Anoon

Level 4.

This is where I start on any programme.

When the first set of level 4 tasks are in place for for summarising they are converted to level 3.

If there is a lot of repetition at level then they are copy / paste until level 2 is reached.

leve 1 is when all level 2 sections are complete.

Leve 5 is a sub section of level 4.

For instance an 8 storey insitu column - flatslab superstructure takes 20 minutes from level 4 to level 2 using about 90 tasks.

Best regards

Mike Testro
Anoon Iimos
User offline. Last seen 19 weeks 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 1416
Hi Mike,

I believe this is where your FS (finish-to-start) relationship will really work-out. At what level it can be used accordingly and effectively? I don’t believe it will work out in level one schedule.

cheers!
Mike Testro
User offline. Last seen 1 day 15 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 4392
Hi All

Gary France of the PEO has written a definitive standard on programme levels.

Go to

http://www.planningengineers.org/publications/papers.aspx#cat2

And scroll down the list of paperes to "Standards of Levels etc ..." and download the PDF.

Best regards

Mike Testro
Peter Nicol
User offline. Last seen 9 years 15 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 23
Groups: None
Correct - each planner refers to levels differently. Essentially it’s a level of detail as most seem to point to here.

Level 1 - I treat as milestones + major activities only

Level 2 - Summary level schedule - usually enough to identify the critical path & long lead items

Level 3 - Project master schedule - identifies all activities - level 2 shows a summary of this level is a good way to look at - if you are really clever you can color things at this level so you can kind of get clues how things fit together in a level 2 schedule.

Level 4 - detailed schedule - usually down to shifts etc... if your doing project planning this is normally a contractor level schedule - it details all the work to be done - is to a certain extent summarised by levels above it.

Level 5 - i find rarely use in project planning but would be particularly useful for shutdown planning + maintenance planning. never had to use this level to date. usually down to

While this isn’t an exact science - you will find most planners (in particular project planners) work very similarily to the above levels. some changes here and there.. but generally the same.

- Peter.
R. Catalan
User offline. Last seen 7 years 25 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 314
Groups: None
John,

Normally planners has developed their own level system and get familiar with it. You brought this to every project you joined.

Also, Mike is right to state that sometimes level names brings confusion on the program.

From the Client side, better to include this on your PM Plan or project specifications requirement so you would be able to impose your way to the Contractors.

Cheers,
R. catalan

Omar Grant
User offline. Last seen 10 years 23 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 25 Sep 2005
Posts: 71
Hi John - I have always defined schedule ’Levels’ by their function: Level 1 = summary schedule (often a 1-pager) used for communiaction with the public, project investors etc. Level 2 = Master schedule, sufficient to demonstrate CP, critical interfaces and to load resources/quantities onto; usually developed during Feasibility Study stage. The Master schedule is used for what-if and risk analysis. It is of sufficient detail to be accurate and not too big to be swallowed! The Level 3 schedule = Management or Working Schedule where there is more detail than Level 2 and the schedule can be used for work control on a weekly/monthly basis. Level 4 = detail schedules, often external to the Maanagement Schedule and might be manufactures detail schedules, contractors low level schedule etc. There is no hard and fast rules about how many activities should be in any particular level and, frankly, if the whole notion ’gets in the way’, why not ignore it! A ’good’ schedule is a ’good’ schedule at whatever level!!,
Cheers,

Omar Grant
Mike Testro
User offline. Last seen 1 day 15 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 4392
Hi John

Go to Planning Engineers Organisation

Google PEO

They have had a good try at setting out what Levels mean.

I started to use the definitions in my programmes but contractors and clients got confused when they thought level 4 was the storey height.

I have now developed my own system

1. Project
2. Section / Zone
3. Task Summary
4. Task

Task being 1 trade working in 1 area on its own - any duration more than 10 days is too long.

Task Summary being all the tasks needed to complete a section of work.

Section - Zone being all the task summaries that are in the Section / Zone

Project - All sections / zones summarised.

This is called "bottom up Planning" qand I reccomend this way of setting up a programme.

Best Regards

Mike Testro