(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.
Hi Planners..
What we should do after updating the program. P6 log will show of sequence activities ?
A) Change or apply the actual link ? Consultant will not allow to change anything !
B) Remain as is it. ? P6 will culculate unrealistic or not real information.
Anybody can expalain or justified which is the rite method to deal with issues.
Thanks in advance.
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Mark,
If activities go out of sequence, you should correct the logic before advancing the data date. That way the critical path will be clean and obvious.
I agree.
If you have a delay claim that is not on the critical path, and if you have advanced the data date before correcting logic, dates, durations and lags, you probably will not get your claim approved.
I agree.
You can always go back in time to find out where the critical path was ...
I do not agree, you cannot go back in time and change logic after the fact in the hope it will be accepted, the logic must have been corrected on due time, otherwise it will be considered self-serving.
but you will need to use the Longest Path Approximator to do that.
I agree that it can be of some help, especially when analyzing intermediate contract milestones. The problem is that it is not necessary valid for resource leveled schedules, it can miss the resource dependencies and therefore get lost. As an initial check up try finding longest path for a four activities schedule, no activity linked with logic links to any other, all using a single resource for which only one is available and then find longest path to last activity without any manual intervention.
Makunda,
At home, usually they never understand these technical things unless you can go to a lower technical level which is not always possible, that is why at times (too many) it ends up in court, using forensic methodology for after the facts that exponentially complicate things.
Keep trying to solve issues early, do not wait for too late in the hope it will be better, it will not, no matter on which side you are. At least keep valid and on record your assumptions at the different stages of the job.
Best regards,
Rafael
If activities go out of sequence, you should correct the logic before advancing the data date. That way the critical path will be clean and obvious. If you have a delay claim that is not on the critical path, and if you have advanced the data date before correcting logic, dates, durations and lags, you probably will not get your claim approved. You can always go back in time to find out where the critical path was, but you will need to use the Longest Path Approximator to do that. http://scheduling.spacetechnology.net It is capable of moving the data date back to the beginning of the month, and then you can see the critical path. Hint: Ask for a free sample!
Kamrul,
Convince the consultant or engineer, make them understand what is baseline, what is expected start & finish dates etc. I came through similar situations, sometimes they dont understand this technical things,. Be +ve, sure they will inderstand
Regards
Mukunda
c) Also submit your revised schedule with appropriate corrections to reflect true plans, for the record, so if in the future a claim arises you have on record your true plans at that time.
That he will reject it, maybe, but it is on record in this way, and if he wants to latter-on to question it it is possible he will be called to be too late.
Hi Gary..
Totaly Agreed with you. this my 2nd time to attend this problematic issues. Planners dont understand which is which, can or can't change. Now i need to convince the client/consultant again and again the purpose of using p6 is to monitor and control with the corrected logic from the actual activities.
Thank
Daniel is right, you should correct the links in your current programme, but leave the baseline as is.
If the consultant will not allow it, ask him why and post his response here. We will collectively shoot it down in flames for you.
If the consultant still refuses to budge, I would do two things:
a) Write to the client explaining you take no responsibility for the forecast acuracy of the submitted programme
b) Keep 2 copies of the programme -1 without any changes to logic for submission, and one with corrected logic for you to use to actually control the project. Make sure the client knows what you are doing and why, so he can't accuse you of submitting false information.
I worked on a project a few years ago where precisely this situation happened. I was client planning representative but the client had included a contract clause banning any changes to logic, and wouldn't let me waive it.
It took 4 months of the contractor telling us during progress updates "I know the submitted programme says we will be late, but we won't. I'm not allowed to show you why so you'll just have to trust me" before I managed to convince the client this was not an effective way to run the project.
Kamarul,
Ok an approved baseline should not be changed nor revised unless the Engineer or PM gives conscent, now the actual as built programme needs to reflect the actuals and nothing more and if you need to correct the sequence and change the link then so be it.
Best regards,
Daniel
Email: PPadmin@planningplanet.com
Replies