Mike,

When you select make open ends critical perhaps the software set open end late finish equal to early finish during forward pass just before backward pass. Creating a dummy activity can have the same effect but at the expense of extra calculations.

I do not see the need to do it manually using the dummy activities if your software can do it automatically. I always believed in any case both values for float should be computed and displayed under different names, perhaps “total float” when constraints and/or open ends are not considered and “constrained total float” when considering date constraints and/or open ends as critical. Similarly for Late Dates, “Late Start/Finish” for the first while “Constrained Late Start/Finish” for the second option. In this way the software could satisfy the urge of owners to see negative float and the need of the contractor and claim analyst for an un-obstructed view.

Another way would be for the software to provide as an option for the calculation of float and late dates considering constraints or without considering constraints on the backward computations. If this saves computing time then it might even be prefreable to my previous statement that create additional fields.

Best Regards,
Rafael

Dear Ronn,

Can you please let us know what Form of Contract you are using in order to determine the extent to which the Engineer can comment on the Program of Work of the Contractor.

With kind regards,

Samer

Hi Mai

The method that you suggest would work on the original plan but when progess is slow on one of the sections it would drive out the overall completion date and thus create more float on the others.

The critical path would then be lost unless you carefully adjust all your lead lags accordingly which will be a cumbersome and artificial weekly task.

In PowerProject you can show the critical path for each programme branch or subchart.

I don’t know what software Ronn is using but it may have a similar facility.

Best regards

Mike Testro

I always liked to see the bad guys (1) get their comeuppance.

(1) Bad guys: Those who pretend you do your own thing only their way.

They want to see a critical path along the longest path that ends on each of the milestones whenever projected to finish before some milestone dates. In this way they can see float to each milestone, this is backfiring as use of finish constraints can create negative float which is being interpreted in our courts as that it must be considered in the evaluation of delays if required to be displayed.

The following is a sample case where negative float has been considered in the courts determination;

http://www.arcadis-us-pmcm.com/assets/files/PinnacleOne_Criticality_What...

Seems like some courts interpret that the owner by requiring the contractor to display negative float this action by itself makes negative float to define criticality. Requiring the contractor to display negative float but to exclude this from delay evaluation is being rejected by some courts.

Show them negative float, it will be to your advantage, never against you. In order to see logic you can temporarily switch off the constraints whenever you want to do so.

Dear :

U have to check the logic of each portion itself and with overall the project ,now to deliver some portion in certain date u have to pick up the below method;
• First to have to break each potion under separate WBS and all WBS shall be under project big title.
• At end of each portion insert activity , name this activity handing over potion x….
• Link this activity with finish mile stone activity (ff) and locate the finish mile stone activity in project key dates in (WBS) .
By this way no need to use any constraint even the constraint not recommended.

Regards
mai

The consultant by requiring you to show the early finish paths as critical is requiring you to use mandatory constraints because he is so dumb he will not be able to see when milestones are projected to be late. They want to see float available for stealing. Dumb Owners are so common that because of this for years procedures have been suggested, some schedulers in order to see logic temporarily eliminate the finish date constraints to see a single critical path. Remember that if you leave open ends it might even be worse because even if to be finished on time those milestones ended path will be shown always as critical, like having the finish constraints applied even before milestone finish is projected late.

I suggest you do what contractually are required, use the date constraints and when in need to understand the logic save your job under a different name and eliminate the constraints that are fooling true CPM computations.

We have our own extended version of the above, we keep a contractual schedule, we do whatever crazy idea is on the owner’s head and keep another version, our own, this one we use for management, in this one we include activities that represent change orders not yet formalized, needed for planning but not allowed until a change order is issued, in this one we eliminate rain days allowance as this artificially delays some activities if required to use calendars instead of a single allowance at the end of job to be reduced monthly. We even show early finish if possible and call the network optimistic schedule, while the contractual we call it most probable. In this way we can manage our job while at the same time satisfy the needs of the owner and reduce some float as to make it to our advantage; anyway it is what the owner is forcing you to do, then give him back a bit (or a lot) of his own medicine.

Ronn,
I agree with Samer, You need to check if logical or not. If your logic is correct then why need to change? If not then change the logic to the correct sequence of work.