Admirable decision Chris.

Hi Chris

Deiter is right - if you wrestle with a pig the muck will stick.

Leave the rebarbative little snot nosed dink to his own devices.

(that was one of Michael Bywaters published put downs but very apposite)

Best regards

Mike Testro

Charlie,

You talk a lot, most of which is rubbish. Mike asked you a straight question which you could not or would not answer, to my mind that makes you no more than a colossal waste of space.

In your post #33 you say you’re going to answer Mike’s question but you don’t. Instead after previously insulting him, you start crawling round him for a job in the UK! Incredible, especially since in the past you have had nothing good to say about the UK and its "native English speakers".

I’ll tell you straight, Charlie, I doubt if there is an employer in the UK who would touch you with a bargepole. As for your assertion that I have no planning brains, you don’t even believe that yourself, you’re just being stupid and lashing out because you know you’ve been rumbled.

You started this thread telling us how you did a very simple ALV - activity level variance and that you found it simplistic. So come on Charlie, tell us what you did. But no, it’s much easier to insult people and spout nonsense isn’t it.

Dieter,

While I can appreciate your sentiments, I have had over three years of Charlie’s insults and rubbish to endure. Enough is enough and he has now had sufficient rope to hang himself. The Private Message facility is due to be restored shortly and once that happens, this whole situation will be referred to PP Admin for action. I suspect most people can guess what that action will be.

Chris Oggham

Dear All,

It is clear that ALV is a variance analysis at activity level. PLV (project level)is the result of the aggregation of ALVs.

There’s nothing new with it since Planners has been doing this exercise since the beginning of their career.

This is like bottom-up estimating principle if your doing your cost estimating.

You can use Earn Value analysis to get your ALVs and P3/P6 has the default EVA or use GC to calculate variances.


Thanks,
R. Catalan

Hi Charleston

So now you support acts of plagiarism - passing off someone elses work as your own with no acknowledgement as to the true source.

I am not surprised.

You may be surprised that I have already skimmed the ALV section in the AACEI guide to delay analysis and there are a number of things in there that are definitely not good practice - but of course you will have figured these out for yourself.

Now will you please tell me how you carried out your ALV and what was the effect on the PLV so that we can finish this thread.

Also please tell me what is a kababayan.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Hi Charleston

You started this thread - "How to perform ALV - Activity level Variance" and you have not yet told me how you do it.

You never told me what ALV means and when a simple definition comes along from someone else it is so blindingly obvious. (Not Solo’s copy paste excercise)

So how excatly did you perform this ALV on your project?

I would like to learn something new - as I said earlier "If you don’t know then ask someone who does".

You know and I am asking.

Best regards

Mike Testro

first of all, let’s define ALV

a. Activity-Level Variance (ALV)
Delays that are the initial focus of forensic delay analysis are schedule variances for each individual schedule activity, called activity-level variances (ALV). Variances consist of either waiting (absence of work) or the performance of additional of work. For example a delayed
start of an activity awaiting a response to an RFI is absence of work. Whereas a delayed start due to the performance of a scope of work that was missed at bid time is the performance of addition of work. Given these variations there are two main manners in which ALVs are
expressed in a CPM schedule:

i. Delayed Relative Start. This is the variance between the planned point of start relative to
the planned controlling predecessor to the actual point of start. Because this is a relative
measure, it cannot be determined by the simple comparison of planned date (either early or late) to the actual, which would yield a cumulative delay figure. This means that all of the necessary predecessor activities must have been at a level of completion where the
delayed activity could have commenced.

ii. Extended Duration. An extended duration delay occurs when the activity duration exceeds the planned or reasonable duration required to perform the described activity.
The extension may be due to performance of extra work, intermittent work disruptions caused by recurring problems. Unless the delay is a discretely identifiable period of
exclusive extra work performance, quantification of this type of delay requires some estimating on the part of the analyst, as opposed to documentary analysis.
• Due to Continuous Impact
• Due to Intermittent Impact / Stop-and-Go
• Due to Discrete Period of Added Work or Suspension

b. Distinguished from Project-Level Variance (PLV)
The ALV should be distinguished from the project-level variance (PLV) which is also a variance but at the overall project level. Thus while the ALVs occur close in time to the causes, the PLV may be months apart form the cause(s). PLV is the result of the aggregation of ALV’s after taking into account network float. Within the context of this RP, ALVs are considered ‘delays’ regardless of the amount of float they carry.

c. Distinguished Delay-Cause from Delay-Effect
It is important to be able to distinguish the cause of delay from the resulting effect. For example, a fully updated schedule may show extended activities and delayed start of
activities relative to its controlling predecessor. Those are delay-effects or ALVs. There is a misconception that unless delay activities are inserted, a fully updated schedule cannot show delays. While the cause may not be apparent, a competent statusing of the schedule will
show the delay-effects. What caused the ALVs often does not appear on the schedule but must be investigated and researched using project documents, data and witness interviews.

The identification of delay-causes is a focus in the latter phases of delay analysis, during
causation analysis.
d. Characterization as Delay is Independent of Responsibility

Also, ALV’s are considered “delays” independent of the responsibility for those variances. Thus an ALV can be contractor-caused or owner-caused, but it is still a delay. Similarly, the characterization of delays as ‘excusable’, ‘compensable’, ‘concurrent’ and ‘paced’ are attributes that are assigned well after the initial delay analysis starts by examining ALVs.

Hi Se

Thank you - at last some common sense.

So - a lot of small delays at task level ALV - contribute to an overall delay at the top summary level PLV.

No wonder Charleston did not want to explain himself in any detail - it is straight from the university of the bleeding obviuos.

I can make a guess at BS - is it anything to do with Bovine Scatology?

Best regards

Mike Testro

Hi Chris

Actually it wasn’t my Granny - I nicked the quote from Pam Ayres - a sort of universal granny.

Hi Barry

If you think about it if we didn’t have Charleston we would have to invent him just to have a lowest common demoninator (I just looked at that spelling and decided not to change it) for us all to rise well above.

Best regards

Mike T.

Sorry Guys

Charlie has still not responded as to what or how ALV works???? he keeps telling people to refer to other Documents, this is an easy approach , tell some one to go to the library, this is easy , but to explain it might mean you have to show you understand the methodology

Regards

Hi Mike,

With regard to claims of expertise, I don’t doubt that if the question was put to PP members, an awful lot of them, myself included, would say exactly the same as you. Where the difference lies is when someone calls your bluff, did you deliver or did you rely on bullsh1t?

The answer is obvious in your case, if you hadn’t delivered, you wouldn’t still be doing it ten years on. With Charlie, however, he seems to believe that the only person he has to impress is himself and that everything else follows automatically. I’m not worried for Charlie’s sake, reality will make itself felt in due course, but for the sake of the newcomers to Planning Planet who could end up taking Charlie’s advice and coming a cropper because of it.

Chris Oggham

Mike,

I think obfuscation is too polite a term, bullsh1t is rather more accurate. ALM is a non-starter, that’s down to Charlie having finger trouble. ALV is Activity Level Variance - The differences between the master budget and flexible budget amounts. I’d always understood it to be an accountancy term, so like most of the guff Charlie comes up with, I can’t really see the relevance.

Charlie is now convinced he is a gifted forensic planning analyst (post #2) without having any qualifications or experience. It does rather make his assertions of experience as a planner and project manager questionable since it appears that all that is required for Charlie to become an expert is for Charlie to say he is.

Chris Oggham

Charles,

Nobody replied maybe they’re doing it already, sort of old stuffs.

What do you think?

Regards,