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.

Diferences between 2 versions of the same schedule.

7 replies [Last post]
Carlos Arana
User offline. Last seen 2 years 20 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 6 Jun 2009
Posts: 178

Hi,

I am adding logic and removing restrictions to a schedule originally made in MSP. I got only a PDF with predecessors and activity dates and it is obvious that most dates are based on activity restrictions. However, it is also obvious that many of these restrictions can be replaced by links. I startet replacing restrictions with links, however, I lost track of how many restrictions I have removed and how many links I have added. I must list the differences between the MSP schedule and the Spider Schedule, as the schedule I am preparing will be used as baseline for an EOT claim.

 

Is it possible to get a report of the changes in logic between 2 versions of the same schedule?

Saludos,

Carlos.

Replies

Carlos Arana
User offline. Last seen 2 years 20 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 6 Jun 2009
Posts: 178

Actually there are some things that can be done in Spider without the need of Claim digger. In this example, I am rebuilding a baseline from a hard copy. Logically, all activity constraints are new and the idea of marking new links as "NEW" is giving fruits, though it is slow to mark each new link as "NEW" and change the calendar from standard 5 day week to 7 day week.

Rafael Davila
User offline. Last seen 3 hours 27 min ago. Offline
Joined: 1 Mar 2004
Posts: 4977

Carlos,

I would never change Spider because as it allows me to model our plans the way it is done at the jobsite like no other software I have ever used. I will always insist the few little things like teams, multi-resources and partial assignments make a whole difference.

I am glad to hear you solve it using Excel and know you will improve it further than my example.

About Risk Management here it is very rarely used, as a matter of fact when required to use Monte Carlo the same persons who require you to use it do not allow you to take advantage of the output as they require you to use all contract time in your plan not allowing you to increase the probabilities of success, unbelievable.

I am not a LinkedIn user and the link seems to be for users only. Can you take a screen capture of the comments and post it?

Best regards,

Rafael

Carlos Arana
User offline. Last seen 2 years 20 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 6 Jun 2009
Posts: 178

Thanks Vladimir and Rafael.

Rafael you read my mind, I was thinking in the old Claim Digger. I made a similar solution to yours in excel and it works. It is good that Spider can work seamsly with excel and the clipboard, it has helped me a lot. I suppose that Spider does not have a similar tool because the focus of Spider is managing risks, not managing claims. I think that it is better to have "Risk Management" than "Claim Digger", but what can one do when there is a market based on recovering additional costs rather than preventing them?

I also hate how most software generates reports waiting that some person will sit down during hours to read them, when big databases are better reviewed as spreadsheets. I remember the Claim Digger from P6 and did not understand until recently why P6 and all related to it are cumbersome when compared with P3 (you can read why here http://linkd.in/r9rq87, read the first comment by Paul McCool).

Saludos.

Rafael Davila
User offline. Last seen 3 hours 27 min ago. Offline
Joined: 1 Mar 2004
Posts: 4977

Carlos,

No new software is providing the functionality of old Digger for P3, the Digger report for P6 looks different, as different P3 is to P6. Most software are using similar file comparison interface, in my opinion all pale in simplicity by a factor of 1,000+ to old Digger for P3.

The following is a sample report might tempt you to cut your veins....

Photobucket

Meanwhile we will have to follow cumbersome comparison procedures to get a fraction of what this old version of Digger  was able to provide at a few clicks of the mouse. The right file comparison on an obsolete software.

Of course I want them all:

  1. the new way that allows me to compare specific field values, to get the difference value and to use these on formulas.
  2. the new way that allows me to transfer to Excel the values at a single click of the mouse.
  3. the old Digger file comparison that would filter an report only on changed values for selected sets.

The last one with selection to display only changed links was enough with P3 and SureTrak, available at a couple of clicks, no matter if 500 activities or 60,000 activities with over a couple of links per activity, just do the math. But do the math considering Spider Project is more advanced software and links have substantially more parameters to compare.

Rafael Davila
User offline. Last seen 3 hours 27 min ago. Offline
Joined: 1 Mar 2004
Posts: 4977

Another way can be by creating the missing index with a user field with values defined as codes as to avoid duplicates and another user field to identify version, and then transferring the data to Excel where you can highlight changes. For 2 or 3 links might be too much but for hundreds of links makes sense.

Preferably define user fields on the original and then on the revised add the values for new ones, beware with duplicates form deleted links, use some sequential numbering to avoid this.

Photobucket

In the above example disregard "Kind" as if is not needed to identify changes and some values might be wrong as I changed the approach on the sample job, this procedure once understood will tend to be error free.

Note there is some room for improvement such as instead of index label using a more intuitive label like Code and like modifying the formula row as to avoid the need of creating dummy or empty rows for new links. Just a matter of sorting,  relative and absolute references, a simple IF formula and conditional formatting. Once you have done the first worksheet the rest will follow by inserting the formula row after sorting by code and version.

Carlos,

you can compare all fields of two schedules that are presentaed in the Gantt Chart table.

You can compare dates, costs, durations, volumes, etc. Just select (tick) show current and compared data and their difference for selected fields. This way you will see which activity is scheduled for another time that may mean lost link or restriction.

Best Regards,

Vladimir

Rafael Davila
User offline. Last seen 3 hours 27 min ago. Offline
Joined: 1 Mar 2004
Posts: 4977

Carlos

Instead of deleting existing links try changing the "use in scheduling" attribute to do not use in scheduling and label them as "not in use" under type, for new links label them under type as "new".

When finished run a filter on the links table to display only "not in use" and "new" link types. Of course you can use for this purpose a user defined field if you want to be able to use the other pre-defined types for these links.

If you do not want to display links marked as not to be used links on the Gantt change the color of the link to white in order to hide them as they will still be displayed but white on a white background. You can use another color, say green, to highlight those who are new and leaving black to mean unchanged.

Unfortunately links do not have an ID as I always wanted, therefore the links table have dimmed the comparison option that would provide for easier and error free comparison as well as a way to audit changes on links. This comparison can become complicated when for example between two activities you have several similar but different links, like 3 SS links each with different calendar and lag types and values, what if on different versions they do differ?

I also tried using User Fields table but this table is not available for comparison, perhaps because all user fields must belong to a table with a code field to be used as the common index for comparison.

With regard to restrictions you can compare values between original and revised at the Activity Table and Activity Gantt Table, this is the easy part.

Regards,

Rafael

Don't forget the "comma".