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.

Sub-Project Sceduleing

10 replies [Last post]
Thu, 2006-07-27 10:12
Peter Protopapa
User offline. Last seen 17 years 4 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Posts: 7
Groups: None
To set up the scenario, my project is a sub to the main project contractor. For reasons known only to them, all I am allowed to have is the backed up sub-project to do my updates. It had never logically occured to me until recently that any external predessessor tie date disappears as soon as I do an F9 even with the "Recognize external relationships" checked. In other words, it is as if the tie does not exist and the internal tie becomes controling.

Does anyone know of any work arounds that don’t require plugging the dates each time I have to do an update which I am sure introduces a host of new problems
Top

Replies

Wed, 2006-08-16 14:24
#1
Philip Jonker
User offline. Last seen 15 years 20 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 7 Nov 2004
Posts: 852
Groups: None
Hi Peter,

The difference between P3 and V5 is that in P3 they call it sub-projects, and V5 it is a project. But this is just semantics.

I have had this problem before, of main contractors locking contractors out of the system,and trying to impose their rules. My system is very simple, in that you set up a seperate project, or in the case of P3 a sub project, for interfaces, where everybody has access to. You create the milestone for handovers within your own project, and copy them to this project, and link them directly. Create an activity ID lets say you are Mechanical, something like MIF10045, and the E&I create an activity id EIF10045, and you linke these. In principle you first agree dates when handovers will take place, and then you constrain the milestone with not later then constraints, the preceding activities like handovers from civils, structural, whatever are handled in the same fashion. By going into this interface project and observing the total float, on either predecessor or successor actities will will be able to see to problems, without having to see their programs. Filters make this even more obvious when you look at float.

It is all a question of negotiating and managing problems, and if the "main contractor" is not handling it in this way, ie without transparency, he is either in somebodies pocket, or just does not realise reality. Transparency is the key to the problem, if you cannot achieve something, talk to the other parties, and come to some realistic solution, this is what planners are for.
Top
Wed, 2006-08-16 13:29
#2
Peter Protopapa
User offline. Last seen 17 years 4 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Posts: 7
Groups: None
Hello Philip,

On this paricular project it’s P3 3.1. As far as I can tell using 5.0, they have done away with the sub-project concept.

My company is not a sub in the traditional sense because our contract is with the client not the main. Things are further complicated by the fact that we are both providing equipment and doing the installation of most of it but depend on the prime for foundation for instance and they need us to finish to do their piping and steel and so on in and out.

As far as I can tell so far, and from what they have told me, they are using first early constaint option. The point is that they shouldn’t be messing with my activities in the first place(and I might just go ahead and remove them if I don’t agree) and there is no reason i shouldn’t just get the whole file unless they are trying to hide things. In general it doesn’t help me to do a good job scheduling my part of the work or give the client a true picture of what’s going on.

There will always be problems with updating since the main’s portion will be behind by 2 weeks in this case when I move my data date.

I hope this clarifies things for you and isn’t more information than you were expecting.


Peter
Top
Wed, 2006-08-16 12:59
#3
Philip Jonker
User offline. Last seen 15 years 20 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 7 Nov 2004
Posts: 852
Groups: None
Hi Peter,

Can you clarify which version of Primavera you are working in, ie. P3, P3e, or Primavera project manager version 5?

The approach to your problem is different dependent on the software you are using. Can you also explain how the interfaces are handled, ie. is your handover dates within your sub-project, and who is setting the constraints, as well as the type of constaints, ie. mandatory, not later than, or whatever. This will allow me to give you some advice, but not knowing all the facts, only allows me to do guesswork. Interfaces is always a difficult problem to resolve and ground rules have to be set. If the main contractor wants to bulldoze over everybody, he at least has to tell you what he is going to do, such as applying constraints,etc. These are common law issues. If you want to dictate, at least let the affected parties know.

Regards

Philip
Top
Wed, 2006-08-16 07:57
#4
Peter Protopapa
User offline. Last seen 17 years 4 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Posts: 7
Groups: None
Thanks for your input but things have gotten "loonier" in the interim! They are now constraining my activities (without telling me about it first) with early start/finish on predecessors/successors and the using the Log to show the Activity ID its start/finish date and its’ description. Funny, isn’t that what would be achieved if they just gave me the whole thing in the first place!

I personally think this could cause more problems than it solves since the person at the other end has to make sure everything stays current after each update or even change of one activity and make all the changes in constraints and Logs and if they are anything like me they will miss a few each time!

There will be a site meeting today which will include a discussion of this method (which I will teleparticipate in)and hopefully sanity will return.
Top
Wed, 2006-08-16 00:11
#5
Bill Fitzgerald
User offline. Last seen 2 years 44 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 13 Aug 2003
Posts: 3
Groups: None
Peter
the loss of the master project links indicates that they are using "checkout/checkin" subprojects rather than "backup a subproject" in the utilities.
This cico system is a waste of time for that reason, see if they’ll use subproject backup which, although it will not show you the master project link, your subproject will still adhere to the restraints.
Ask them to insert milestones into your subproject which clarify there is a logic link to their master, then at least you can see it.


Bill
Top
Fri, 2006-07-28 13:53
#6
Philip Jonker
User offline. Last seen 15 years 20 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 7 Nov 2004
Posts: 852
Groups: None
Hi Peter,

I believe we are talking P3 here, so citrix and the rest has nothing to do with it.
The principle is simple, every contractor runs his own program, with an agreed baseline. Interface milestones are added for each handover and receipt, and the are linked. Once this is done, a base date is set. The managing contractor controls this program, and can view all the varies contractors’ activities. Each contractor imputs his updates on an agreed cutoff date, and the managing contractor then runs a time analysis (schedule), and reports on variances. You must watch the float on the interface dates to see where problem are occuring, and at the same time the variences between your dates and the baseline, if these are not the same, notify the managing contractor, as this means the contractor you are handing over to has made changes to his program, not consistent with his baseline program.
Top
Fri, 2006-07-28 12:40
#7
Peter Protopapa
User offline. Last seen 17 years 4 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Posts: 7
Groups: None
While I do like your thinking there are some flaws in it.

You are assuming that the management here would be able to exploit such a situation but unfortunately they tend to get themselves into such a hole that it wouldn’t help.

Believe me that I do know how to take advantage of the situation and make the prime pay, and I do!

The real problem is that, as far as construction goes, there are occasions where I rely on their pred to start an activity and they rely on that activity for their next and so on backwards and forwards and my trying to do a good job keeps getting in the way!

I might just plug the incoming dates, do my thing to getting durations and ties to where I want them and then unplug to send back.
Top
Fri, 2006-07-28 09:27
#8
Ronald Winter
User offline. Last seen 3 years 6 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 4 Jan 2003
Posts: 928
Groups: None
Peter,

As far as a claims situation goes, not knowing the other schedule constraints frees you from having to consider them. Do you want to have to agree to leaving the site for three weeks and then returning due to someone else’s conflicts? Do you want to have to integrate delays by others into your planned schedule? No, you do not.

Being denied information on coordination issues with other subs means that the General is assuming all responsibility for this. Give them your ‘unfettered’ schedule that shows them how you plan to do your work. Tell them that you expect them to stick to it. Any delays to your schedule from outside sources (including other subs) is cause for a delay and/or disruption claim on your part. Your ‘unfettered’ schedule will be there to document your case.

Take your good luck and just stick to your plan. That is what you bid and that is the best way to keep your profit margin. Good luck!
Top
Fri, 2006-07-28 08:16
#9
Peter Protopapa
User offline. Last seen 17 years 4 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Posts: 7
Groups: None
Thanks for the info. Unfortunately the holder of the master level doesn’t want me to have the whole thing because I might get too much insite as to how they are doing things. Very short sighted and will ultimately cause them more problems than it solves, but there you have it.

I’ll look into the citrix thing more closely.


Regards,


Peter
Top
Thu, 2006-07-27 18:35
#10
Rashid Iqbal
User offline. Last seen 17 years 3 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 3 May 2005
Posts: 94
Groups: None
This is the way people run the integrated schedule without being on a multiple user enviroment. If the client shares the program via citrix then all the ’links’ will be live and you can easily schedule your work with repsect to the completion dates of predecessors (which could be activities of other contratcors).

The other way is to ask the the master schduler to send you a copy of program after he has integrated your schedule. Make his copy a target project for your update and sort out the variances.

Regards
Rashid
Top