Hi there,

I am relatively new to planning (compared to some of you long time campaigners) I came from a University background and thrown into a trainee ship based on sites looking after sub contractors, design coordination, variation management, not to mention on site firefighting (figuratively) from base build, interior commercial fitout, refurbishment, building services coordination and everything in between. I had an opportunity to get into planning and really enjoy it. I do not have a trade background but I have a few clues.

Anyway, I think my site experience has enabled me to make realistic decisions about how to plan a project. Working under senior planners who have never worked on site actually putting up beams and columns it became clear that they had a good understanding of the theory behind the planning, but I simply offered a different way of looking at it and it makes for a more 'practical' project plan.

Essentially I don't believe that site experience is essential, but it does make for a greater clarity when you have to stand up and convince the guys on site why 60 hours a week, working nights through winter is required to get the job done.

For your bridge example, I would take it on, but ask the right questions to the experienced people and trust your ability.

Sink or swim - its the best way to learn

Hi Nanding D.

My answer to your question is yes

"'One cannot detail /assess /develop/forecast a plan if he/she doesnt experiance about it""

Cheers

Shahul

I would say yes it helps allot. I was very lucky in that regard because I only started studying to become a engineer in my late 20's, I worked on the production side for 8 years where I obtained invaluable hands on experience, I worked on many projects and seen many schedules during my time on site and could see on some that the planner had no clue what he was doing

On a drawing or on a pc somethings always looks easy, go do it on site and its a totally different story.

Nanding,

It partly depends what you describe as site experience, I spent one and a half years on site doing the role of an assistant engineer (dogs body!) when i was first employed as a trainee planner. Coming straight out of college with no real experience of how a site works that was an invaluable lesson, however by no means is one and a half years enough time to fully understand every situation that may be encountered on a construction site.

However, now-days i rarely find the time and as my main role is tender planning and as such all the projects i work on are hypothetical, so as said by Gary, asking the right questions of the right people (subcontractors, colleagues in more hands-on roles etc.) a lot can be learnt, although i do supplement this with regular visits to the live sites to see my thoughts and ideas at a tender stage put into practice, although i would really describe these visits as site experience as they are only a snapshot in time.

You can be a good scheduler without site experience but not a good planner. By the same token you can be a good political correspondant without ever being a politician but never a good politician.

A good politician does not exists.

Hi Mike,

I doubt we'll ever change each other's minds on this one, but for me trying to be a good construction engineer without site experience would be like training to be a chef without going into a kitchen.

Trying to be a good planner without site experience is more like trying to be a good political correspondant without ever being a politican. -You don't need to have done the work yourself to be able to accurately describe it.

Cheers,

G

Very useful but not essential.

If you spend enough time scheduling other peoples plans and asking the right questions, you can get the experience you need that way.