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.

Percent Complete

4 replies [Last post]
Tue, 2007-04-03 11:52
Philip Richards
User offline. Last seen 14 years 47 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 7 Jan 2004
Posts: 29
Groups: None
Can anyone explain why in P5 (and P3), duration percent complete is calculated using ’Original Duration’ (OD-RD)/OD.

Should it not be based on ’At Complete Duration’.

As it is, where an activity has started, (and so has an ’Actual Duration’) but the ’Remaining Duration’ is greater than the ’Original Duration’, the % complete = 0. Surely this cannot be correct.

Is there an option anywhere to re define the calculation, or ideally to re-set the Original Duration to equal Actual + Remaining?
Top

Replies

Thu, 2007-04-05 04:51
#1
Niek Zonneveld
User offline. Last seen 2 years 2 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 188
Groups: None
The % complete in P5 is much more elaborate in fact.

First there is the % complete type per activity (Physical, Duration and Units)

Secondly it keeps 16 % complete fields at the activity level.

Thirdly you can play around with the way % performance complete (one of the 16 fields) is calculated within each specific WBS element. This includes: WBS milestones, resource curves, 0-100, and steps, allowing you to tailor it to any desired situation.

Duration % complete is typically used for Level of Effort activities (like project management) by the way.
Top
Thu, 2007-04-05 01:45
#2
Eugene K
User offline. Last seen 12 years 41 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 18 Oct 2006
Posts: 47
Groups: GPC Malaysia
i suppose 3 is better, bcoz we make ref to ONE and only one INITIAL Estimate of duration (OD).

i think 1 is more accurate because the RD is our latest Estimate of remaining work. by mathematical deviation the accuracy increases as the RD gets smaller (as activity progress), bcoz margin of error also gets smaller. but this would mean making ref to MANY Estimates bcoz RD would be the new estimates at every progress update.

Top
Wed, 2007-04-04 12:06
#3
Murray Allen
User offline. Last seen 7 years 12 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 12
Groups: None
why is 3 better than 1? Surely 1 is more likely to be accurate due to the limitation of 3 that you point out!

Murray
Top
Tue, 2007-04-03 12:41
#4
Mark Chapman
User offline. Last seen 8 years 9 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 18 May 2006
Posts: 183
Groups: None
Hi Phil,

It seems P3 has only one way of calculating PC. Other software allows you to choose. As far as I can see there are 3 ways:

1. PC = AD/(AD+RDU)
2. PC = AD/OD
3. PC = (OD-RDU)/OD

1. Doesnt use the original duration although could give you an accurate PC of where you are now from what you know now.
2. Is fine if RDU=OD-AD whoch is very rare.
3. The obvious whole is that you can be 0% even though you have started but this is based on your original duration.

So that leaves really 1 & 3 as the only viable options. I believe 3 is best but its limitation is when the original date is so wrong. In this case just overwrite it!

Mark
Top