Hi Bill,

I think it is a question of the same basic questions coming up time after time. People should take the time to check previous threads sometimes, as the questions have been answered in depth before. When things are a bit slack, I normally browse through some of the older threads.

I do not have a problem with helping out, and will always answer a question if I have an answer.

Regards,

Philip

Are U trying to suggest that PP should have hierarchy of forum so that undue embracement is avoided?

Just on lighter vein!

Hi guys,

Again it is PLANNING vs SOFTWARE.

As a planner he/she must have a good knowledge on productivity rates for all the trades. This only can be achievable if the planner spend his time and observe how any particular works are carried on at site. Also the planner must know how many teams/workers required to complete the job and what is the timeframe. To master this the planner at least need to complete 1 or 2 projects from start to finish.

As for software, believe the planner can gain the knowledge after attending few courses, fully operate and utilise it in a project.

So to become a good planner, site experience always overrule the software experience.

Regards.

loved your response Philipb

Hi Puneet,

Which planet are you from? :-)

Bill,

I greatly appreciate your feedback and share your opinion regarding P3Win. Both the owner’s rep and the local Primavera rep have strongly encouraged me to transition from P3Win to P3 e/c. However, after polling all users I know who have 20+ years scheduling experience, all say the same thing - stick with P3Win. Two of the users polled had taken the 3 day course for P3e/c and those two were the two strongest opponents against P3e/c. Even the Primavera rep keeps telling me that p3Win is being phased out and I am going to have no choice but to switch to P3e/c. If that truly is the case, then Primavera better make drastic improvements to P3e/c so those of us in construction who are avid P3Win users don’t start a revolt.
Take care,
Scott

Hi Bill,

I agree with you completely, if the tool can do the job why re-invent the wheel. I think a big problem is so-called user friendliness, ie "cater for the folks who can’t think for themselves". I evalued P3e a couple of years ago, and in my opinion, P3 was still the better tool, even though the P3e price a that stage was almost $900-00 less than P3.

As a matter of interest, have you ever used Open Plan V4 (dos)? We were still using it on projects as late 1996, long after the advent of windows. I still believe it was the most flexible planning tools I have used. The trick was that you had to be able to use dbase, which is fairly simple. Even simpler now with the advent of excel and similar spreadsheet programs. The problem was that Welcom software went the same route as Primevera, and started a new product ie Open Plan Professional, which was totally rigid, and which could not do anything near as well as OP v4, and as a result OP virtually disappeared for a few years.

We probably sound like dinosaurs, but at the end of the day we understand our discipline, and do not need these new-fangled gimmicks to improve our planning. Who cares about 16 bit and 32 bit, if you get the right answers?

Regards


Philip

Thanks Syed

note your statement p3e is being developed, thus a statement that its still under developement.
The number one thing I feel that primavera did wrong was not building on to p3win, instead they completely went to a new product that only carried the neme p3. In doing so they excluded all the valued years planners have spent to master p3, and everyone had to start over again from scrach.

Therefore from a construction prospective, why toss a proven tool that has creditibility for a unstable new system that is under development. does not make good sense.

And chatting with the people with Primavera, P3win is there bread and butter and is here to stay.
Regards bill

Hi,

I have sent the same to couple of you through e-mail. It will be great to have your feedback as this will help the users of this thread to know the value and remove misconceptions of migrating from the classical P3 3.1 to Primavera Eng & Constrn or M&T or NPD or IT (Enterprise solution). Current version of the same is 4.1 and 5.0 (which will be released officially shortly) has really some more good features like resource planning and to top it all the UNDO function. I am working with 5.0 Beta version.

Best wishes,

Syed

Hi syed,

could you please forward that info on my mail mohdwaseemsaber@yahoo.com.


Cheers!!!!!

waseem saber

Bill,

You have confirmed what others have told me. Would you mind expanding on your background and current experience with this subject so I may expand on our side of this debate. Thanks so much for your comments.

Hi,

I have a similaar problem. I am using P3 and have 8 projects within 1 master schedule due to the many complex inter-relationships between them. An owner’s rep I have to report to is wanting me to separate my master schedule into 8 different project files so that when he downloads into P3e/c he can load one project at a time. My projects have codes that clearly identify them individually within my master project. So, what I did to solve the problem is set up a filter for each project within the master schedule and copied each project filter to a separate file. I then made backups of all 8 files for the projects for the owner’s rep so he can download each one as he needs to into p3e/c. My question is this, isn’t there a simpler way that P3 e/c can read this information? I’m just not a beliver in setting my master schedule up into the master project - sub-project format that the owner p3 e/c user says is required for him to properly download information.

Hi All,

There is a P3 to P3e migration guide available from Primavera System, Inc. If anyone needs the same kindly send me a e-mail at syed.hasan@cmcs.ae and I would be glad to provide you the same. It is an excellent PDF document which explains all aspects which needs to be taken care of prior to migration of data from P3 to P3e.

Best wishes,

Syed Hasan

There are quite a few issues in P3ec where there are multiple possible settings where in P3 there is only one (built-in) setting.

The first that comes to mind is the calendar that relationship lags use. You must set the schedule in P3ec to use the ‘Predecessor’s Calendar’ if you want to be compatible with P3.

I assume that when you say that you have checked “everything” that you first compared the dozen or so CPM calculation settings. If not, then you haven’t begun to check for compatibility. Good luck!

Frank,
if your resources are restricted then the leveled schedules may be different due to the difference in the scheduling heuristics even when the initial data are the same.
Vladimir

Interesting question. Instead of you looking at your schedule to determine what actually did cause the differences, you ask us to list all of the possible issues that you could be experiencing.

For one thing, P3ec does not support the Interruptible Activity setting of P3. If this setting is set to ‘Interruptible’ and you have activities that are constrained by relationships to both their starts and finish, then P3ec would display a difference.