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.

Dilemma with consultant/project manager re updating

72 replies [Last post]
Rlin C.
User offline. Last seen 1 year 12 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 8 Feb 2008
Posts: 11
I do weekly progress update in our programme. At times, after update inputs, running the schedule results to out-of-sequence activities. In which case, I revise relationships to eliminate these out of sequence activities and to reflect the changes in sequence of works as they were implemented on site (e.g. two activities are initially planned as FS but in actual they started simultaneously, hence relationship is revised to correct the sequence). This revision to relationships often results to lesser delays compared to keeping “retain logic” when scheduling.

The consultant/project manager insists that during update, I am only entitled to make changes to percentages and actual dates. Apart from these, nothing should be revised as per FIDIC clause 14. He expects me to run the schedule and not amend anything afterwards. He insists that whatever resulting delay appears after scheduling is accepted as true and final. Somehow he thinks I am manipulating the programme to hide delays.

I explained that if relationships are not revised to reflect the actual situation, then the programme can no longer be used as reference for construction since it does not reflect the actual or the new forecasted sequence of activities. It is also rare that the planned programme is completely followed/implemented in actual due to several affecting actual conditions.

Let me know if I am making a right point about this. I don’t know how else to make the consultant accept my explanation regarding the changes made to eliminate out-of-sequence activities, which consequently reduce delay. Perhaps someone can show me publications regarding this so I can show it to him. Or maybe you can enlighten me on how to explain it further.

P.S. I only make changes in Current schedule not in Baseline programme.

Thanks,
Arlene

Replies

armando moriles
User offline. Last seen 10 years 39 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2 Feb 2003
Posts: 66
Groups: None
Its ok Alex, my apologies for the confusion...
Alex Wong
User offline. Last seen 8 years 36 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 12 Feb 2003
Posts: 874
Groups: TILOS
Sorry Arman

Don’t understand your points. One moment you said its about the software, and the next something else. Anyway have a nice day

Alex
armando moriles
User offline. Last seen 10 years 39 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2 Feb 2003
Posts: 66
Groups: None
Alex,

I stand corrected with my comments and with regards to the standards, I have no intention of whatsover as it may seemed to be...Good day!


Arlene said...
------------------------
...I explained that if relationships are not revised to reflect the actual situation, then the programme can no longer be used as reference for construction since it does not reflect the actual or the new forecasted sequence of activities. It is also rare that the planned programme is completely followed/implemented in actual due to several affecting actual conditions.

Let me know if I am making a right point about this. I don’t know how else to make the consultant accept my explanation regarding the changes made to eliminate out-of-sequence activities, which consequently reduce delay. Perhaps someone can show me publications regarding this so I can show it to him. Or maybe you can enlighten me on how to explain it further.

P.S. I only make changes in Current schedule not in Baseline programme.
-------------------------------------

Arlene was actually asking if how she managed Primavera was correct or not. She did not made any change in the Baseline programme (It was not her concern). She was actually using the retain logic option and manually changed the relationships of progressed activities to suit actual site conditions. She did not use the progress override option.

Her dilemma with consultant was only the result of what Arlene was asking about which is changing the relationships producing a different critical path against that of a purely retained logic option.

Progress override shortens the path which may appear hiding delay.

I agree with what Arlene did because and she’s not changing any to the baseline. She may need to show to the consultant that Primavera is having such functionality and that it allows her to do so...Otherwise, a different agreed software might as well be used.


Regards,
Arman

Alex Wong
User offline. Last seen 8 years 36 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 12 Feb 2003
Posts: 874
Groups: TILOS
Arman

Thanks for your effort for a detail reply, I will try to follow your standard.

"I believe that the thread was not about planning, it was about scheduling. Taking care of the dates in the programme especially after updating is an important role as an scheduler. It was not about court cases, how we deal with the clients, what kind of clients, etc., rather it was about getting more understanding & broaden our knowledge as to how Primavera really works with all its functionalities."

Did I confuse you, any scheduling require to have a plan (Baseline) to start with if you read the inital message, this is all about the update of the baseline plan. I suggest you read it form the beginning, and yes its about how to handle the client, that is what I suggested, to put the common sense in the table with the right forum, it is important who you speak to and how you approach and in front of what audiance.

"It was about the Progress Override & Retain Logic functionalities of Primavera. "

NO it was not just about the progress override / retain logic, you need to read between the line carefully.

"Progress Override functionality overrides the logic resulting in different dates of a specific activity. ex. Activity A has FS relationships with activity B. But activity A already has an actual start and Activity B is not finished yet. The FS logic is no longer satisfied. Primavera provided functinalities to deal with these cases like the Progress Override and Retain Logic options (default). In the example, using progress override Primavera will give a completion date of activity A equal to data date plus its remaining duration. While using retain logic option, Primavera will give a completion date of activity A equal to data date plus the sum of the remaining durations of activities A & B."

We are here to discuss the dilemma with the consultant (PEOPLE) not with the software functionality

"These functionalities produces its own different critical path. As an scheduler, the responsibility to exert effort to identify and produce the true critical path as far as these functionalities are concerned in relation to the science of PERT/CPM is by no reason at all in lined or synonymous to fortune telling but rather a symbol of responsible scheduling manner or pratice...

Your comments, corrections, suggestion or tricks regarding the understanding and usage of the functionalities will be highly appreciated... "

Appreciated with your effort, but your comments seem to be off tracked with the topic.

Alex
armando moriles
User offline. Last seen 10 years 39 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2 Feb 2003
Posts: 66
Groups: None
Hi Alex,


I believe that the thread was not about planning, it was about scheduling. Taking care of the dates in the programme especially after updating is an important role as an scheduler. It was not about court cases, how we deal with the clients, what kind of clients, etc., rather it was about getting more understanding & broaden our knowledge as to how Primavera really works with all its functionalities.

It was about the Progress Override & Retain Logic functionalities of Primavera.

Progress Override functionality overrides the logic resulting in different dates of a specific activity. ex. Activity A has FS relationships with activity B. But activity A already has an actual start and Activity B is not finished yet. The FS logic is no longer satisfied. Primavera provided functinalities to deal with these cases like the Progress Override and Retain Logic options (default). In the example, using progress override Primavera will give a completion date of activity A equal to data date plus its remaining duration. While using retain logic option, Primavera will give a completion date of activity A equal to data date plus the sum of the remaining durations of activities A & B.

These functionalities produces its own different critical path. As an scheduler, the responsibility to exert effort to identify and produce the true critical path as far as these functionalities are concerned in relation to the science of PERT/CPM is by no reason at all in lined or synonymous to fortune telling but rather a symbol of responsible scheduling manner or pratice...

Your comments, corrections, suggestion or tricks regarding the understanding and usage of the functionalities will be highly appreciated...

Let us seek to be a wide & not wild user of Primavera...and I agree with you...No fortune telling...


Regards,
Arman
A D
User offline. Last seen 1 year 3 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 20 May 2007
Posts: 1027
ohoooo,

Nice Alex,

"We are planner, not fortune teller".

Good one
Alex Wong
User offline. Last seen 8 years 36 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 12 Feb 2003
Posts: 874
Groups: TILOS
Dear All,

We are planner, not fortune teller. We can only plan work base on our knowledge and information at any particular point in time. As soon as you completed the plan, the plan might all be history and incorrect.

Sometime it’s just matter of sit down with the clients and carefully explain the situations and the plan, common sense do bring people together. Of course you do need to have the right forum to bring the matter to the table.

If the entire clients do not understand we live in a real world, you can only educate them to certain extend... Then you leave it to the court and judge to bring common sense in good order.

HTH

Alex
armando moriles
User offline. Last seen 10 years 39 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2 Feb 2003
Posts: 66
Groups: None
Safak,

Its ok, in fact your opinion is very useful & really make sense...On the other hand, what I am just trying to point out is that I am being careful in using the options as it create different critical paths which give rise to the question as to which is really the true critical path at the time of the update.

Once we publish our periodic report, the operations personnel will look at the dates. There are even managers who will focus on the critical path & would ask for critical path update. As scheduler, it is very important that we check properly the dates before we publish to make sure we are not providing mis-leading information...suggestion only...


Regards,
Arman
Safak Vural
User offline. Last seen 1 year 24 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 12 May 2008
Posts: 117
Dear Armando,

You are completely right. But you can retain completion dates with extra FF relations as creating or revising schedule if you are going to use progress override. It was a opinion and my schedule is working fine right now. On the other hand the critical path can change by the actual % and date update also.

Regards,
armando moriles
User offline. Last seen 10 years 39 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2 Feb 2003
Posts: 66
Groups: None
Sofak,

My problem with Progress Override is that it includes the changing of completion dates of those progressed activities which I want to retain the completion dates. While changing the relationships of progressed activities in a selective manual manner allows me retain the logic of other progressed activities which I want to retain its completion dates. Both method upon scheduling changes the critical path vs. purely retained logic option. Different Critical Paths means different network logics.

Regards,
Arman
Anoon Iimos
User offline. Last seen 30 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 1421
Hi Mike,

Any comments to Safak’s post below? I am specific to "Piping Works - FS - Hydrotest (before and after update)".

Thank you in advance.

Best regards,
Anoon
Safak Vural
User offline. Last seen 1 year 24 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 12 May 2008
Posts: 117
Just a opinion from a refresh collegue,

I am facing the same problem for majority of the schedules I have programmed. There are 2 aspects of the situation as I see:

1- Project Control Team(!) should track the latest approved construction PROGRAMME. You should only update actuals no more. Reason: Whenever you want to form a basis for a delay claim, the CLIENT can reject the claim if the logic or durations of the dynamic programme is different from baseline. Abnormal delays will not be a problem. Whenever CLIENT concerns about delays you can ask for a PROGRAMME revision and make the neccessary changes you want.

2- If There are !!!commissioning!!! or a another jobs that are going to be planned according to your progress, these huge delays will be problem. It is possible to modify your dynamic schedule as per actual sequence and your progress figures will not be changed if you are manitoring by earned value analysis.

The main problem is the baseline PROGRAMME itself. Every one of us aware of the how the best PROGRAMME should be (Abominations!!). But the reality is not that obvious (ex: team size& experience vs work load in market).

I can suggest you a way that I used for the latest revision I made for one of my schedules:
-Schedule situation:
*2 years package that the commissioning plan created by CLIENT at the stage of end of the 1st year.
*There can be delay that will result in CLAIM s for CONTRACTOR
*Commisioning team request the forecasted end dates of the minor package completions for their plan.
-The solution for the latest revision to the PROGRAMME:
*Negotiated with CLIENT &PM about the situation and solution. Approval taken.
*PROGRAMME detailed in some parts (not at all) for the get realistic end dates.
*Retained Logic changed to Progress Override (I am using P3 by the way)
*The important think is that you need to add many FF relations in order to prevent the situations as:
-Before Update: Piping W. ---- FS ---- Hydrotest
-Update: Majority of the packs have been tested before waiting of finalizing all works by using removable spools and valves different from first plan
-After update: Hydrotest will finish before piping works(Progress Override effect)

With these I have more realistic end dates whatever the actuals are and I do not have to change the logic unless need of a revision occurs.

Sorry for the long thread. If anyone read it and have a benefit I would be glad,

Good day Pals,

Regards,

Safak
armando moriles
User offline. Last seen 10 years 39 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2 Feb 2003
Posts: 66
Groups: None
just another uncolicited opinion...

I agree with what Arlene is doing plus the keeping of records of what is being updated. For me, updating the relationship to reflect actual is not act of revising the programme but rather part of the updating process. Managing Primavera may not be limited to inputing of actual quantities and dates only but also inludes actual relaltionships which is important to derive the True Critical Path each time the programme is updated. If the activities in question do not belong to the critical path, revising the relationships to reflect actuals seemed really not a issue at all.

If Primavera is the approved and agreed software to be used in managing the project,then it may need to be respected when it says that the activities are already out of sequence or something needs to be done. Just need a regular print out of the log report as part of the records.


Regards,
Arman
Anoon Iimos
User offline. Last seen 30 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 1421
Make use of the option "Progress Override" (i supposed it is where is intended to).
Mike Testro
User offline. Last seen 14 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 4409
Hi Arlene

I know it was not your intention but it is very difficult to manipulate the the schedule to hide delays and still retain credibility.

Somehow you have to pretend that some activities could have started later and still achieve the end date.

Fine while you are using up float but not when you are approaching criticality.

I have often seen "catch up" programmes where the planner has reduced all durations and piled activities on top of each other - daft approach that many seem to get away with.

Best regards

Mike Testro
Rlin C.
User offline. Last seen 1 year 12 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 8 Feb 2008
Posts: 11
(In reference with Samad’s post)

That’s a good approach – to provide in writing the changes made every time doing the update. I should have kept a record for myself in case alleged of “manipulating the schedule to hide delays,” when I only intend to rectify the out-of-sequence activities.

I’ll put this into practice.
Samad Mohd Abdul
User offline. Last seen 10 years 41 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 14
Groups: None
Good Morning Guys,

Further to the ongoing discussion on the subject matter (Dilemma with consultant/Project manager re updating), yes it is true that on site activities may not happen in the same manner as planned, i believe that it has to be amended time to time to reflect the actual situation (Coz retaining the clause 14 logic will result sometime showing delay on the project completion although it is not). In this regard i just want to share my real time experience here.

On one of my project the Project Manager/Engineer has accepted to receive the updates with the changes subject to that i provide them in writing that what chages have been done while updating the programme (that means when you schedule the programme there wont be any out of sequence activities), while keeping the approved clause 14 programme as a baseline to monitor the project Progress.

I know it is bit difficult task but its beneficail to track the changes and this system worked well to reflect the actual delays on the project from time to time.

Regards,

MAS
Se de Leon
User offline. Last seen 16 weeks 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 321
Groups: None
Don’t be confused Arlene.

On the claim by your PM consultant, if there’s nothing there, in FIDIC, then there’s nothing there. Don’t believe on something that comes from nothing.

Everything else are just opinion.

Cheers,
Nestor Principe
User offline. Last seen 10 years 25 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 23 Oct 2008
Posts: 151
Dear All,

Am now quite uncertain if I will ever seek advise from PP.

Arlene hope your not confused yet. Ha-ha-ha-ha...

Honestly, I enjoy it and will post again when am not busy.


Cheers to all..
Anoon Iimos
User offline. Last seen 30 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 1421
Arlene,

I hope you are not confused for now. Another unsolicited advices that I may suggest:

1. Continue doing what is required by PM or Consultant.
2. Also continue doing what you believe is right (and keeping back-ups).
3. Submit only reports that are required (or official).
4. Make efforts to suggest what you believe is better strategy.

You have lots of options, anyway it all comes down to good communication.

cheers!
Mike Testro
User offline. Last seen 14 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 4409
Hi Arlene

It seems that you are not in a serious delay situation at present but when you are you will have a problem.

The Contract Programme does not represent the method of working and may not respond correctly to the impact of delay events - it may give a longer entitlement.

So you should run the analysis on both programmes and submit them both for the Engineer to award an EOT.

If he awards on the basis of your working programme then that should then become the contract programme by default.

Best regards

Mike Testro
Rlin C.
User offline. Last seen 1 year 12 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 8 Feb 2008
Posts: 11
R. Catalan,
Referring to post #37, we were submitting reports to a different Planning Engr then (the past 6 months). He was replaced. No official correspondence from the incumbent Planner regarding implementation of his directive yet. Upon receipt, we will comply and will also keep on submitting the previous updating scheme.
R. Catalan
User offline. Last seen 9 years 40 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 314
Groups: None
All has been said, going back to my post # 37:

Arlene,
Would you be kind to share the comments of the PM’s planner, if any?

Mike,
Are you willing to share your expertise on the disputed EOT if it arises?

Cheers,
Alex Wong
User offline. Last seen 8 years 36 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 12 Feb 2003
Posts: 874
Groups: TILOS
Dear All,

The dilemman will apply to both world, the engineer facing the same issue whether to accept such program reflect the true sequence and progress and update the rest of the master programme.

Because if the logic is being maintain and the contractor told you that it is not the true picture but the engineer still using it to update the master schedule. The proceeding contractor who bring all his equipment to site and found out that its completely different from what that master programme indicated ... who is to blame

My answer to this entire dilemma is "Common Sense"

And, in addition to the common sense is something call resource driven logic and non resource driven logic.

As long as the CPM is still maintain its non-resource driven logic, I believe the project still hold its origial critical path.

i.e. the methodology of building a high rise can be differ in different situation, when it is submitted as a master programme, it may have a very different sequency of event and it is purely driven by resource.

HTH

Alex

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

You don’t need a FIDIC expert to understand FIDIC clause 14. It is a very straighrfoward clause. You only need to know the English Language, the syntax, deductive reasoning and

the willpower to believe in what you understand after being train to understand the english language.

Cheers,
Happy Planning and Scheduling
Charleston-Joseph...
User offline. Last seen 18 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 1347
Groups: None
This Dilemma will always face planning and scheduling engineers may it be the present generation or the future generation.

It is for this reason that we have to find a unified solution.

Hi Mike.

It is not right to stop this thread since a lot of planning and scheduling engineers are still struggling on what to do, not only Arlene but also me, at the present moment, and I believe in the future.

The more planning and scheduling engineers will share their experience, the more we will have option on who to follow, what to follow, what methodology to follow, etc., etc.,

Cheers,
Happy Planning and Scheduling
Alex Wong
User offline. Last seen 8 years 36 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 12 Feb 2003
Posts: 874
Groups: TILOS
Hi Nestor

You are correct, one schedule is linked with another. So should the planner submit the schedule closest to reality or a schedule to please the engineer.

what will be the knock on effects for the interface parties.

Alex
Mike Testro
User offline. Last seen 14 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 4409
Hi All - including Charleston

Arlene has been give all the advice she needs.

Let us leave her in peace and close this thread.

Best regards

Mike Testro
Se de Leon
User offline. Last seen 16 weeks 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 321
Groups: None
It should be "Arlene is not obliged to do what her PM consultant is telling her".

Sorry for that Arlene.
Se de Leon
User offline. Last seen 16 weeks 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 321
Groups: None
Well, It’s better for me to just wait for FIDIC experts to make their contributions on this issue. As far as I’m concerned, Arlene is not obliged to do what his PM consultant is telling him.
Charleston-Joseph...
User offline. Last seen 18 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 1347
Groups: None
Se,

Refer to your post # 38,

For FIDIC, the fundamental of planning and scheduling is found in cluase 14

The only time that baseline program will be revise is upon the instruction by the client representative, after evaluating that the baseline program is delayed.

Not the word by word, but, somehow to that effect.

So the fundamentals in planning and scheduling exercise and deliverables must be base on what the contract says.

It is for this reason that in the event your contract department is very strong in presence within the project, then, it is better to follow what the contract says.

But some contract superseeded the FIDIC clause 14 by incorporating special conditions, particular conditions...

However, contract basically, invoke that whoever is higher in quality will be implemented.

So if the particular condition is rubbish or the special condition is rubbish, then, you have to follow FIDIC clause 14.

The dilemma continues before, in my case, why I will complicate issues. Whatever is convenient for me and the project team are happy is also ok with me.

But since I got the experience, I will cover my tracks because at the end of the day, a lot of fingerpointing will always happened especially if the project fail.

Cheers,
Happy Planning and Scheduling
Nestor Principe
User offline. Last seen 10 years 25 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 23 Oct 2008
Posts: 151
FIDIC, I assume is the General Condition of the Contract. We also have Special Condition.

Se - What is IFC?

There is a clause in the contract that the PM/Engineer/Client can instruct the contractor to submit revised schedule when it deems the approved schedule is already obsolete. The contractor can request for the instruction to be issued.

Cheers..
Se de Leon
User offline. Last seen 16 weeks 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 321
Groups: None
Let us say, there’s no other interface schedule. The only interface is the schedule of the Engineer, meaning IFC schedule.

Can a PM consultant interfere in the means and methods of a contractor even if the project is not delayed and it does not affect the IFC schedule?

Is there really a clause in FIDIC that will tell the contractor not to change its logic, only actual % and dates?
Nestor Principe
User offline. Last seen 10 years 25 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 23 Oct 2008
Posts: 151
The comment/advise of Dieter in his post No. 3 was very logical.

Cheers..
Nestor Principe
User offline. Last seen 10 years 25 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 23 Oct 2008
Posts: 151
One reason I can think of, is your schedule is interfaced with another schedules. Revision in the logic of your schedule will create problem with the others.

Or they simply want you to submit status of the approved schedule. In some cases it is required in the contract. Are you also required to submit current schedule or sort of rolling schedule?

Cheers..
Se de Leon
User offline. Last seen 16 weeks 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 321
Groups: None
Going back to the original query.

Is there really a clause in FIDIC that says, you can not change logic, and the only changes you can make is on percentages and actual dates even though the project is not delayed? Can a PM consultant interfere in the means and methods of a contractor though the project is not delayed, he’s just changing his means and methods as per what the reality in the field is showing?

I think the issue is not as simple as following the whims of a PM consultant and convering your a..

If the project is delayed, then this question is not valid. As long as the changes made by the contractor will not affect the scheduling by the other party using the baseline schedule, I don’t think the contractor has an obligation to follow the PMs directive on this. Unless there’s a clear clause in FIDIC to the contrary.

IMHO
R. Catalan
User offline. Last seen 9 years 40 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 314
Groups: None
Arlene,
For 6 long months your PM did not comment on your updated schedule? ... and at the same time you also continued in submitting another update using the old/approved baseline scheduling parameters? You agree on both then.

If he/she has not replied maybe you can use FIDIC clauses related to submission of revised programme whenever the previous is inconsistent with actual progress.

Mike,
As a forensic planner/analyst, what would you expect at the end of the line if there’s a disputed EOT?

Rlin C.
User offline. Last seen 1 year 12 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 8 Feb 2008
Posts: 11
Mike,
Well, I have been submitting the updated schedule for the past 6 months and we decided to stick by our updating system. And to satisfy the incumbent Planning Engr’s requirement, we will submit another update according to his specification. With this, I am anticipating that he will eventually realize which report truly reflects the status of the project.

R. Catalan / Charleston,
As I’ve said, everyone made a valuable point, but with regards to applicability of solutions to the current situation I’m in, I chose to adopt post#9. I see it as most suitable.

There is more to the story than what I’ve told/consulted in this website. As much as I want to elaborate the entirety of my story, it will only be boring [and it might be read by the involved parties ;-)]. So I guess not everyone will approve of my decision but thank you so much for taking time sharing your views. I considered your advice and will consider them in the future as well.
Mike Testro
User offline. Last seen 14 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 4409
Hi Arlene

The point is that you do not have to submit both schedules to the PM.

Tell him that you are recording progress on two different programmes.

Give him what he wants on the original schedule and keep your own reports to yourself.

When he asks to see both reports you will have won.

If he doesn’t ask then you will have a correct record for the eventual delay claim.

Best regards

Mike Testro
R. Catalan
User offline. Last seen 9 years 40 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 314
Groups: None
Arlene,

Problem solved? It’s not clear whether you already had an agreement with the PM for those two schedules.

Kindly elaborate more with respect to PM’s answer/review of your two submittals.

Regards,
Mike Testro
User offline. Last seen 14 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 4409
Hi Charleston

It is true that the US and UK approach to contractual problems diverge in some cirumstances - but not all.

I am ad idem with Ronald on this one.

Stick to his good advice Arlene.

Best regards

Mike Testro
Mike Testro
User offline. Last seen 14 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 4409
Hi Andrew

Have a look at the thread - Ban these planning abominations.

An activity is where one trade can work in one location on its own.

If a task is more than 10 days it is too long.

If on a slab the work is broken down into grids then set up a cascade for each grid and link the grids then set it under a summary bar.

It is very quick when you use copy paste for each section then filter on each task and do a global FS link between grids and then between levels.

Best regards

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

In your post #28, you did acknowledge that Mr. Ronald Wintir Post #9 helped you. I understand you because somehow I think we came from the same country. While Mr. Ronald approached is the most effective way, you have to consider also that Mr. Ronald comes from US of A.

It may not be the solution when you worked in UK influence country or commonwealth country.

Although they (US of A and UK) profess to be allies in the world arena, there are details that these two profess the opposite ways. Believe me for I have worked in lots of countries.

Please reconsider my previous post. You also have to check what the contract says.

cheers
Happy Planning and Scheduling
Andrew Pearce
User offline. Last seen 34 weeks 1 day ago. Offline
Joined: 11 Jun 2001
Posts: 175
Hi Mike,
You obviously have a great deal of experience but perhaps you have lost track of reality? Or do you only use MSP?

If every planner were only to use FS links then how small do the activity durations have to be for that logic to be correct?

Example logic tests!

Do you have to complete a concrete slab befor you start kickers for the next level of columns?

Ok so we split the slab into individual pours

Do you have to complete all of the decking befor you start fixing rebar?

Ok so we split the pour down into 1 day work units, then perhaps the F-S will be correct!

Perhaps we should start a Poll on use of links, my pet hate being the F-S neg duration!

Happy Planning those of you with jobs!
Dieter Wambach
User offline. Last seen 4 years 32 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 15 Jan 2007
Posts: 1350
Arlene
Thank you for clearing-up.
But two schedules?

Good luck!
Dieter
Rlin C.
User offline. Last seen 1 year 12 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 8 Feb 2008
Posts: 11
Mr. Dieter,

It was actually post #9 (by Ronald Winter) which assisted me the most. Though all opinions/advice are enlightening, I see Ronald’s advice as most suitable. I’ll be submitting two updated schedules, one satisfying the submittal, the other reflecting the current site situation. Problem solved. =)
Dieter Wambach
User offline. Last seen 4 years 32 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 15 Jan 2007
Posts: 1350
Arlene
in post #12 you wrote you know how to solve this dilemma. Can you share, how?

To give you another reason which led myself to my reply: Cooperation between planner/scheduler and pm - or consultant - needs som basis of confidence. Changes to plan in agreement with pm, site manager or other responsible person is normal and has to be reflected by the planner. Changes without such an agreement may reduce confidence or even be a "good" basis for later claims and advocates may be delighted. Activities planned to run in parallel will depend on the same predecessor and drive successors - new fs-links. Here I fully support Mike.
Changes to predecessors’ links after an activity was started are irrelevant, will even lead to confusion, and to reduced confidence into your work - for my opinion.
Again: It’s your plan and it’s up to you to reflect changes in planning in agreement with the responsible persons and under written notice for major changes.

But I’m really curious for your decision.

Regards
Dieter
Charleston-Joseph...
User offline. Last seen 18 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 1347
Groups: None
But if your company is not sohpisticated or dumb and moron,

so what can you do. follow your instinct, follow advised in PP (it will make you more confuse),

Or if your planning manager cannot give direction, then, it is really a bad situation.

On the brighter side, I’m always around since I’m a project control manager and as such, I have developed project control procedures, forensic planning methodology and procedures.

It is always my habit to raise into higher standard the planning and scheduling profession, forensic planning analyze profession by documenting AACEI recommended practice or other professional body norms.

cheers
Happy Planning and Scheduling
Charleston-Joseph...
User offline. Last seen 18 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 1347
Groups: None
Dear All,

Arlene’s dilemma is not unique in the planning world. I expereinced it and I will continue to experienced this kind of delimma.

Since we are just doing our work to earned money for our family to live, I think, the solution can be found in each company that we worked, the project we are in at the present moment, the location of our workplace or project workplace.

IMHO, the approach is to update the baseline periodically without changes to the approved baseline programme relative to relationship. Any changes must have the agreement in writing by the client representative. In most cases, this will make the updated programme, current programm irrelevant to what will be the realistic activities at site in the succeeding weeks or months.

Why are we doing this? Simple!!! The periodic update of the baseline program must show the actuals and how this actuals impact on the schedule as originally planned and accepted. It will be used in future forensice planning exercise for evaluation for entitlement of claims for extension of time.

It is for this reason that another realistic program will be prepare in Microsoft Excel or Microsoft Project that show the realistic activities at site in the next four weeks or sometimes called the four weeks rolling program.

Cheers,
Happy Planning and Scheduling

Nestor Principe
User offline. Last seen 10 years 25 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 23 Oct 2008
Posts: 151
Good day to All,

My opinion..

In a scenario where partnering works, being proactive is a big plus.

If the works are delayed, contractor’s fault, you like to report you are under control, that is fine.

In a scenario where the client play hard with the contractor and the works are delayed, client’s fault, you want to protect your entitlement. This will dicate how you report.

That is how the contractor make business, plain and simple.

Cheers..
Mike Testro
User offline. Last seen 14 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 4409
Hi All

The problem I always face when starting a delay analysis is creating an as built programme.

The usual and most direct source is the weekly progress reports.

When the contract programme changes and is being reported on it is almost impossible to establish an as built programme with any sort of continuity.

So please change your programmes as you wish but maintain the contract programme and continue your weekly progess % on that as well as your current programme.

Best regards

Mike Testro
Samer Zawaydeh
User offline. Last seen 2 years 39 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 3 Aug 2008
Posts: 1664
Dear friends,

The Program of Works should reflect what is going at site and who the Contractor is planning to complete the works per Contract.

If the Program of work is obselete, then it sould be modified to reflect the correct activites at site.

Best,

Samer
Se de Leon
User offline. Last seen 16 weeks 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 321
Groups: None
Hi Pearce,

I agree 100%. I don’t see the logic of reporting on a schedule that is obsolete and useless specially if it’s useless for site people. Schedules are not used only by PM consultants but more so should be a useful tool to those who are doing the actual work, i.e. site people. What the PM is requiring Arlene to do is to report on something that doesn’t make sense and publish an utterly ridiculous report. My other problem with issuing such report, this will undermine the credibility of the scheduler/planner.

IMO
Trevor Rabey
User offline. Last seen 2 years 19 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 528
Groups: None
Still swimming against the current, mike?
Andrew, he’s right.
Mike Testro
User offline. Last seen 14 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 4409
Hi Andrew

Please go and have a look at the "Ban These Planning Abominations" thread.

Hopefully you will change your mind on FF SS lead lag links.

Best regards

Mike Testro
Nestor Principe
User offline. Last seen 10 years 25 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 23 Oct 2008
Posts: 151
Arlene,

Assuming the activities are in the critical path. Try to see what will happen if you did not change the relationship. Doing some analysis, which of the 2 scenarios will help you contractually.

Changing to SS relationship will show less delay or ahead programme. Keeping the FS relationship, using retained logic, will preserve your original planning and may be helpful in a claim situation.

Cheers..

Andrew Pearce
User offline. Last seen 34 weeks 1 day ago. Offline
Joined: 11 Jun 2001
Posts: 175
My opinion is that as PLANNERS we should be reviewing the programme as we work through the project. I believe that the CURRENT version of the plan (not the baseline) should be revised to reflect what is know has happened and what will happen in the future.
What is the point issuing a programme update that will show an activity starting (or finishing) in say 5 days when we know that it will be delayed by 2 weeks.

Remember the original Plan (baseline) contract programme is now only a piece of paper that records the original intent.

On a point of constructing the original plan I would think very carefully about the use of F-S links as there are very few situations were this is true. (unless your plan is at a very high level of detail, after erecting 2 columns F-S erect the beam spanning between them) I try to use a combination of S-S & F-F.
Samer Zawaydeh
User offline. Last seen 2 years 39 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 3 Aug 2008
Posts: 1664
Dear Arlene,

If you support your schedule with actual inspection records showing that the activities were actually SS, then you are doing the correct thing.

Good records showing actual time and duration of activities supported with the approval of the Engineer is the best thing a planner can do to support her schedule.

Best Regards,

Samer
Se de Leon
User offline. Last seen 16 weeks 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 321
Groups: None
Right is a very strong word. I don’t think the PM is right in the strictest definition of the word right. He could be contractually compliant but not right. But as I said, contractually speaking, there could be a counterbalance argument to his argument.

IMO

P.S. On the issue of SS, I think there’s still no right or wrong argument at this moment.
Anoon Iimos
User offline. Last seen 30 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 1421
Mike,

I believe the example that was given by Arlene is practical. Though I’m not inclined to agree that she has to necessarily change the relationships (as established in her baseline) in her Current or Updated schedule. As Trevor said, once there are actual dates, the rest are irrelevant.

The example given was I supposed intended for labor resource (i.e. steelfixers). When doing high rise buildings, reinforcing bars are continuous (for columns or core walls) until you reach the roof deck (or a certain point). Now lets deviate a little, why you need to ban SS relationship when you can practically use it to allocate your steelfixers to work on columns and core walls at the same time or in the same floor? Supposing the segragation of the structural elements in your Plan is separating Columns from Core Walls?

Arlene,

As Dieter said, your Consultant is right, but you are also right in a way and very articulate as well.

cheers!
Mike Testro
User offline. Last seen 14 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 4409
Hi Arlene

Just one small comment regarding SS relationships.

You originally had two tasks on a FS link.

They both started simultaneously so you changed it to a SS link.

If the same task that linked the start of the 1st activity is the same one that links 2nd then you should use a FS link to both tasks - not just drop a SS link between the two.

This represents the true logic in the programme such that if the 1st task is delayed the 2nd will not be affected.

Best regards

Mike Testro
Rlin C.
User offline. Last seen 1 year 12 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 8 Feb 2008
Posts: 11
Thank you all for your help.
Now I know how to resolve this predicament.
PINAN T.
User offline. Last seen 3 years 24 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Posts: 102
in the UAE, this normally happens:

Updated Baseline or Current Update from Baseline cannot be modified in relationships and durations.

A modified Programme reflecting the actual work can be submitted later on for Catch Up or recovery programme or Extension. But for now keep it as your record.

Trevor Rabey
User offline. Last seen 2 years 19 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 528
Groups: None
2c worth.
The trouble with the baseline is that it is carved in stone even though it is obsolete and irrelevant almost immediately.
The baseline is not a promise to perform the project in strict accordance with every detail in the baseline.
Measuring performance against it, except for perhaps a few dates, is meaningless.
Looking forward rather than pining for the baseline is how projects get done.
An unchangeable plan is inconsistent with any notion of the critical path method and sensible construction management, which demands updating and re-planning frequently if not continuously.
Everything not yet done is subject to re-planning.
Once a Task has an Actual Start Date, any other Start Date (baseline or planned) as determined by predecessors etc, is irrelevant. A fact is a fact. You could drop all of the links.
A critical Path can only exist (be defined for) the future.
Ronald Winter
User offline. Last seen 38 weeks 1 day ago. Offline
Joined: 4 Jan 2003
Posts: 928
Groups: None
The first thing you need to do is to protect your rights to a proper claim. Be sure to clearly and dispassionately state your objections to this “directive.” State that the schedule you are forced to submit does not reflect your current workplan, nor can the CPM calculations derived from it be definitive of the actual float and criticality of the activities.

It is only YOUR schedule if you believe that it displays your intended work plan, otherwise it is only a required submittal dictated by the client and you are not bound by its findings. Formally submit this document to your client and tell them that you may be required to follow their directions, but you are not required to use inaccurate information when considering compensation for delays. Good luck!
Se de Leon
User offline. Last seen 16 weeks 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 321
Groups: None
Hi Arelene,

What you are doing in the point of view of actually managing the project is right. You are reflecting what is really happening in field. I don’t believe that a baseline schedule should be something that is cast in stone except for the keydates and milestone dates in your contract. Schedules are supposed to be dynamic and responsive to the needs of the project.

I think your consultant is the typical consultant who likes to be seen as protecting the interest of the client even though most of the time they don’t make sense by trying to be academic in their approach about scheduling. You are just making sense of the baseline schedule by reflecting the reality. That’s how I view your situation.

My suggestion, if I may, if it’s clear in your contract that you can’t do what you’re doing, check the clause in your contract about "the duty of the contractor to mitigate delay". This could counterbalance his argument, perhaps.
António Faria
User offline. Last seen 6 years 31 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 5 Jan 2009
Posts: 40
Groups: None
Typically, if the PM/Client doesn’t want the Time Schedule revision, you can only use the Contract Time Schedule as a report tool. In the future, probably, the Client will use it as a document for Claim, if you have problems in your project (delay, additional costs, etc).

For controlling on-site activities make a new one. I’m sure that your PM wants to have a real idea what is going on your project and will let you make the changes needed to achieve it.

BR,
AF
Rlin C.
User offline. Last seen 1 year 12 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 8 Feb 2008
Posts: 11
Revising the baseline is not actually the issue. It is approved and is being implemented. We don’t intend to initiate changes in baseline without PM/Client approval.

The concern is: Changing the logic of out-of-sequence activities (in the updated/current schedule) is not acceptable for the PM/client.

For example (for illustration purpose only):
Planned sequence
1. Steel fixing of core wall
2. Steel fixing of columns (Finish to Start with 1.)

Actual sequence implemented on site
1. Steel fixing of core wall
2. Steel fixing of columns (Start to start with 1.)

Action
Since both activities has progressed and appeared to be out of sequence with respect to baseline, FS was changed to SS (in the current schedule).

As the main contractor, these changes in logic of out-of-sequence activities are made to reflect the current/actual sequence of activities on site. Though the baseline was carefully planned (gone through deliberations, computations, revisions, resubmissions prior to final approval), somehow there are still minor changes in sequence of works when the construction has started, thus the need to change the logic of progressed activities.

In the case of the project I am involved with, changes in very few activities’ sequence do not call for revision of the entire baseline schedule (yet) or creation of a recovery/catch-up schedule.

Again, what is the best way to handle the situation? How do I explain this concept further? PM won’t accept, I on the other hand do not want to follow what he wants to implement – to keep the out-of-sequence activities out of sequence.
R. Catalan
User offline. Last seen 9 years 40 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 314
Groups: None
Arlene,

Whether the approved baseline is reliable or not it should be followed as per contract conditions. That’s why we should be very careful that we have a schedule that has followed proper scheduling parameters prior submission for approval.

You’re right to affirm the current status of the project but not modify durations, relationships, etc. that might affect the scheduling parameters of the approved baseline, unless you have approval of the PM/Client to revise it.

Still you have a chance, you can start thru letters "schedule alerts" informing the PM that at that particular stage revision of the baseline is imminent to show current status of the project and request for baseline revisions. Some Client doesn’t mind in revising baseline schedule as long as it will not extend the contract finish date.

Regards,

Rlin C.
User offline. Last seen 1 year 12 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 8 Feb 2008
Posts: 11
Anoon,
Thanks for the affirmation & advice.

Dieter,
Your opinion is highly considered.

To other experts,
I’m awaiting more responses/opinions.
Kindly note that I use retained logic in running the schedule, amendments in relationships are only made to progressed out-of-sequence activities.
Dieter Wambach
User offline. Last seen 4 years 32 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 15 Jan 2007
Posts: 1350
Arlene

With intention out-of-sequence activities are shown in a log file for scheduling. A different sequence than planned might violate aspects of security. It has to be watched and decided by pm or another responsible person and so you are obliged to show.
Different start than planned will lead to a different finish date of that specific task by expected finish date, remaining duration or remaining units, depending on parameter settings. Following activities will be influenced by this "wrong" start and its influence on Project’s finish will be shown. The plan/schedule remains dynamic.
Sorry, for my opinion your consultant is right.

Regards
Dieter
Anoon Iimos
User offline. Last seen 30 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 1421
Arlene,

For me, what you are doing is right. The Current Schedule is supposed to be dynamic which should reflect the actual conditions and the strategies being applied. However, to satisfy your Consultant, I suggest you create multiple Targets or Baselines (keeping back-ups) tailored to what he/she wants. Further, as a Planner, you should always consider the words ignorance and interests (of others). A lesson me-myself never learned by the way.

cheers!