Guild of Project Controls: Compendium | Roles | Assessment | Certifications | Membership

Tips on using this forum..

(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.

Why? Or should we/they change logic that completed out of order?

1 reply [Last post]
John Reeves
User offline. Last seen 3 days 17 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 10 May 2013
Posts: 141
Groups: None

When a successor is complete 100% the program just skps to the next successor in the chain, so why should the logic be changed to the way it really happened?  Or should we just leave it to keep from complicating the schedule and comparisons?  I used to be able show how it created a false gap in time in chains when leaving in old logic with "retained" logic but I am not seeing that now.  I know it can "sometimes", do you recall when it does - i assume those should be fixed.

Replies

Zoltan Palffy
User offline. Last seen 1 hour 58 min ago. Offline
Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 2964
Groups: None

yes out of sequence logic and be viewed in the P6 log report.

you can have logic pushing through an activity ie.

Activity A B and C all sequential 

Activity A is in progress 

Activity B is completed 

Activity C has not started

Since activity A is not complete the earliest that activity C can begin is when activtiy A is done. Even though activity A is not tied to activity C it is still honoring the retained logic and passes thru activity B to activity C