I am a relatively new planner with only 4 years experience. However this lack of experience did give me one advantage while starting out. No question i asked was a stupid one.
I started noticing that most of my questions were based around one thing, The Critical Path. It amused me how often obvious flaws were used as ammo in one situation and convieniently ignored in others. Due to this fact i have never really been truely satisfied with the whole critical path entitiy and indeed treat it with a complete lack of respect.
Feel free to correct any of the folowing by the way.
I fully understand the need for them, dont get me wrong, i just cant help think we are settling for something that doesnt really deliver what it promises and therefore i have always found it difficult to take it seriously.
I would consider project planning to be a relatively new science. This is not saying it hasnt been around for a while, but in theory terms, we are still (or should be) open to suggestions. In age terms, a good comparison would be Town & Regional Planning, still considered a new science even though the current applied ideas and theorys oringinated during the industrial revolutions, with the likes of Geddis and Bournville being pioneers, not scared to try out new things. When it all went tits up, they just tweaked their theories and tried again, constantly finding out that the hardest variable to calculate was human nature.
The difference between the two is they accepted they were a new science and moved on if something didnt work like it should. We seem to be stuck in a mentality of ’this is what weve got and its so deeply routed throughout our profession that we cant even consider another option’..
Critical Paths would appear to have been perfect for what they were designed for, clarifying and minimising project durations, highlighting problems before they arose etc. It is our reliance on them for contract issue, extensions of time and progressing that i have little faith in.
I will further develop my arguement if there is any sort of response to this post. just want get a feel for the backlash before i bore everyone with the finer details.
I believe the problems are also closely tied with ’set in stone’ or unflexible links but again, will develop this arguement depending on the responses recieved. Electronic Logic Gates have uses everywhere.
Am i being naive or does anyone else feel this way?
I started noticing that most of my questions were based around one thing, The Critical Path. It amused me how often obvious flaws were used as ammo in one situation and convieniently ignored in others. Due to this fact i have never really been truely satisfied with the whole critical path entitiy and indeed treat it with a complete lack of respect.
Feel free to correct any of the folowing by the way.
I fully understand the need for them, dont get me wrong, i just cant help think we are settling for something that doesnt really deliver what it promises and therefore i have always found it difficult to take it seriously.
I would consider project planning to be a relatively new science. This is not saying it hasnt been around for a while, but in theory terms, we are still (or should be) open to suggestions. In age terms, a good comparison would be Town & Regional Planning, still considered a new science even though the current applied ideas and theorys oringinated during the industrial revolutions, with the likes of Geddis and Bournville being pioneers, not scared to try out new things. When it all went tits up, they just tweaked their theories and tried again, constantly finding out that the hardest variable to calculate was human nature.
The difference between the two is they accepted they were a new science and moved on if something didnt work like it should. We seem to be stuck in a mentality of ’this is what weve got and its so deeply routed throughout our profession that we cant even consider another option’..
Critical Paths would appear to have been perfect for what they were designed for, clarifying and minimising project durations, highlighting problems before they arose etc. It is our reliance on them for contract issue, extensions of time and progressing that i have little faith in.
I will further develop my arguement if there is any sort of response to this post. just want get a feel for the backlash before i bore everyone with the finer details.
I believe the problems are also closely tied with ’set in stone’ or unflexible links but again, will develop this arguement depending on the responses recieved. Electronic Logic Gates have uses everywhere.
Am i being naive or does anyone else feel this way?