Hi Mike,

If my detailed programme is substantially different to my original summary, then the same thing would happen as if your detailed programme was substantially different to your original bottom-up programme. -Check for errors, understand what has changed & why, seek approval, and move on.

A bottom-up porgramme based on an unknown scope is no more likely to be accurate than a summary programme based on unknown scope. It just a) takes longer to build / correct once the scope is known and b) gives an illusion of accuracy that isn't there.

I disagree with Mike here. -I think you have to utilise rolling wave planning for this type of job. If I have understood the FEL stages correctly,they might go something like this:

FEL 1: If we could get oil from X to Y for less than £Z, we could make some money

FEL 2: We've looked at a pipeline and a terminal, and the pipeline us the better option

FEL 3: Pipeline will be Akm long, have B pumping stations, and terminate at a tank farm with C capacity

So I don't think you would be able to do a decent bottom-up plan for future stages until you are near the end of each stage.

rolling wave planning means a detailed bottom-up programme for the current stage, and progressively less detail in future stages. Part of the process for completed a stage and starting the next becomes developing & agreeing the next iteraton of the schedule.

You may also find that part of the decision making process for saying choosing between a pipeline and a terminal will be how long each would take to build, so you might find yourself building hypothetical bottom-up plans for a number of possible scenarios to inform that decision.

It seems that FELs 1 & 2 will only have 1-6 people worknig on them. that being the case, I'm not sure I'd bother with adding hours to the schedule unless you have lots of these programmes running simultaeneously and want to roll them all up to get a picture of overall resource utilisation

Bu the time you are in Excecution stage, you should have a bottom-up schedule as Mike suggests. Then it is just a matter or replacing your schedule with the subbies as & when they are appointed. -Hopefully you or someone within tyour organisation should understand their work quite well, and the key dates you forecast would form part of the negotioations with the subby before subcontract is awarded, so the programmes shouldn't differ wildly.

Yes you should definitely show the full scope wether awarded or not in the schedule. Just make sure for each package you have a milestone at the front end for Awarding it. You may find it useful to set up an activity code for Awarded / Not Awarded as well.

Put the whole contractor schedule in your programme, not just a summary. You will often find there needs to be logical links between elements of different subcontractor packages which you would not be able to model accurately using just a summary bar.

When updating the programme from a contractor's submission, there are a number of options and it will to some extend depend on the size of the programmes, what software they are using, and how your P6 setup works in your firm. You could send your subbies a copy of your master programme (or an excel dump), have them update their bit, and merge all the updates at your end, or you could set up your system so they can update your master programme online, or you could manually update based on their submitted programme. If time allows, I prefer the latter as it allows / forces me to ensure I understand every change to my schedule as it being made.

Cheers,

G