This has been discussed many time s before as Mike says, and the thread he suggests you look at was probably the most in-depth discussion on it
Briefly, I think you should use FS(0) relationships wherever possible, but feel there are times when other relationship types are more appropriate -not becuase the plan gets too overcrowded when you split tasks down into smaller elements requried for FS, but because it can sometimes be difficult / impossible to define / measure precisely where the split should be.
I have never found a good reason to use negative lag.
Your second point "if We only use FS relationship the it means that all activities will be critical?? " Is quite wrong.
-All activities would only be critical if you had a project whereby every activity only had 1 sucessor and 1 predecessor. This is never the case.
Your comments suggests to me you have never tried to build a schedule using only FS links -I think you would get a much stronger insight as to which approach is better by giving it a go yourself, than merely posting on the forum. I'd certainly suggest trying it out at least once before deciding it was not the best way.
Member for
14 years 4 monthsGary,Thank you I just Found
Gary,
Thank you I just Found the Thread that Mike Mentioned.I think it has all answers that i wanted.
Regards,
Member for
16 years 7 monthsAB, This has been discussed
AB,
This has been discussed many time s before as Mike says, and the thread he suggests you look at was probably the most in-depth discussion on it
Briefly, I think you should use FS(0) relationships wherever possible, but feel there are times when other relationship types are more appropriate -not becuase the plan gets too overcrowded when you split tasks down into smaller elements requried for FS, but because it can sometimes be difficult / impossible to define / measure precisely where the split should be.
I have never found a good reason to use negative lag.
Your second point "if We only use FS relationship the it means that all activities will be critical?? " Is quite wrong.
-All activities would only be critical if you had a project whereby every activity only had 1 sucessor and 1 predecessor. This is never the case.
Your comments suggests to me you have never tried to build a schedule using only FS links -I think you would get a much stronger insight as to which approach is better by giving it a go yourself, than merely posting on the forum. I'd certainly suggest trying it out at least once before deciding it was not the best way.
Cheers,
G
Member for
19 years 10 monthsHi AB My maxim is that every
Hi AB
My maxim is that every task should have at least 1 predecessor and at least one successor.
Every link should be FS and the only time to use a lead lag is to allow for curing / drying out periods (set to calendar days)
You will find this expressed in many forum in PP - check out the thread on "Ban these planning abominations".
I have no intention in taking part in another similar debate.
Best regards
Mike Testro