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

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

ohoooo,

Nice Alex,

"We are planner, not fortune teller".

Good one

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

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

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

Make use of the option "Progress Override" (i supposed it is where is intended to).

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,

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!

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

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

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

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.

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..

The comment/advise of Dieter in his post No. 3 was very logical.

Cheers..

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

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,

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.

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!

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

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..

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

Still swimming against the current, mike?
Andrew, he’s right.

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..

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

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!

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.

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.

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!