As typically understood, weighting points are loaded onto a schedule as a surrogate for the "Budgeted Cost of Work Scheduled" (i.e. Planned Value) for subsequent earned value analysis, S-curve generation, and progress reporting. This has absolutely nothing to do with activity durations or the critical path, and it would be wrong to increase the weight of an activity merely because it takes a long time or you currently perceive it to be on the critical path. Fully-loaded budgeted cost/price/value - or a reasonable surrogate for it - is the only valid basis for weighting. "Fairness" one way or another doesn't come into play.
In many pure construction projects in developed countries, the total value of most activities is roughly proportional to the labor (manhours). Then manhours can be used as a basis for weighting points as Zoltan suggests.
EPC projects typically involve site installation (using relatively few manhours) of high-value equipment that is purchased and/or fabricated off-site. (Your power transformer seems to present a good example.) In that case, site manhours may be a starting point (with suitable adjustments for rates that can vary by orders of magnitude in some countries) for weighting the site installation activities only. In my experience with large EPC projects, the weighting value of the off-site fabrications and purchases are typically loaded to associated activities in the schedule - not the installation activities. Consequently (and unlike typical construction projects), the value of the equipment is not solely concentrated on the site activities.
Member for
16 years 3 months
Member for16 years3 months
Submitted by Zoltan Palffy on Wed, 2017-08-30 13:45
how about using manhours per activity (direct labor) as your measuring stick ? you can use a blended rate for cost per manhour ant it will multiply the manhours times the rate to give your your direct labor costs.
Member for
18 years 11 monthsEslam,As typically
Eslam,
As typically understood, weighting points are loaded onto a schedule as a surrogate for the "Budgeted Cost of Work Scheduled" (i.e. Planned Value) for subsequent earned value analysis, S-curve generation, and progress reporting. This has absolutely nothing to do with activity durations or the critical path, and it would be wrong to increase the weight of an activity merely because it takes a long time or you currently perceive it to be on the critical path. Fully-loaded budgeted cost/price/value - or a reasonable surrogate for it - is the only valid basis for weighting. "Fairness" one way or another doesn't come into play.
In many pure construction projects in developed countries, the total value of most activities is roughly proportional to the labor (manhours). Then manhours can be used as a basis for weighting points as Zoltan suggests.
EPC projects typically involve site installation (using relatively few manhours) of high-value equipment that is purchased and/or fabricated off-site. (Your power transformer seems to present a good example.) In that case, site manhours may be a starting point (with suitable adjustments for rates that can vary by orders of magnitude in some countries) for weighting the site installation activities only. In my experience with large EPC projects, the weighting value of the off-site fabrications and purchases are typically loaded to associated activities in the schedule - not the installation activities. Consequently (and unlike typical construction projects), the value of the equipment is not solely concentrated on the site activities.
Member for
16 years 3 monthshow about using manhours per
how about using manhours per activity (direct labor) as your measuring stick ? you can use a blended rate for cost per manhour ant it will multiply the manhours times the rate to give your your direct labor costs.