[quote] - I think there is a major flaw in todays planning activities in that the majority generally regard the application as the tool. This is wrong! the plan is the tool and we, the planners, are the toolmakers.
The plan is the organizations tool. The application is the planners tool. They are both tools.
Now, if the planners tool is flawed, can s/he produce an effective tool for the organization? I believe that was the gist of the article.
[quote] - The resounding ‘winner’ for the detailed plan was the one in Arrow format.
The feedback was generally due to the logic flow being explicit with no interpretation required.
Thanks for sharing. This is exactly what I have been harping on with regards to transparancy. It is possible to have an explicit logic flow detailed on a bar chart, but not with current PDM systems where multiple calendars can be at work on the same activitytime is scaled instead of showing a full 24 hours (including non-working time) to highlight differentials from the separate calendars ruling different tasks
Our <a href="http://www.interplansystems.com/html-docs/atc.html">project management software for oil refinery and petrochemical plant maintenance turnarounds</a> uses a PDM user interface with an ADM scheduling engine "under the hood". Our Gantt charts are completely transparant and explicit.
[quote] - ... simply due to the fact of their lack of understanding of the principals of CPM.
It infuriates me that today the main criteria for employment seems to be the ability to drive a particular planning tool.
So you agree with the article then? I believe the authors were making this exact point. CPM methodology is being replaced by software toolsets in practice (for better or worse).
RE: Best plan format?
Rob,
[quote] - I think there is a major flaw in todays planning activities in that the majority generally regard the application as the tool. This is wrong! the plan is the tool and we, the planners, are the toolmakers.
The plan is the organizations tool. The application is the planners tool. They are both tools.
Now, if the planners tool is flawed, can s/he produce an effective tool for the organization? I believe that was the gist of the article.
[quote] - The resounding ‘winner’ for the detailed plan was the one in Arrow format.
The feedback was generally due to the logic flow being explicit with no interpretation required.
Thanks for sharing. This is exactly what I have been harping on with regards to transparancy. It is possible to have an explicit logic flow detailed on a bar chart, but not with current PDM systems where multiple calendars can be at work on the same activitytime is scaled instead of showing a full 24 hours (including non-working time) to highlight differentials from the separate calendars ruling different tasks
Our <a href="http://www.interplansystems.com/html-docs/atc.html">project management software for oil refinery and petrochemical plant maintenance turnarounds</a> uses a PDM user interface with an ADM scheduling engine "under the hood". Our Gantt charts are completely transparant and explicit.
[quote] - ... simply due to the fact of their lack of understanding of the principals of CPM.
It infuriates me that today the main criteria for employment seems to be the ability to drive a particular planning tool.
So you agree with the article then? I believe the authors were making this exact point. CPM methodology is being replaced by software toolsets in practice (for better or worse).
Bernard Ertl
<a href="http://www.interplansystems.com/">InterPlan Systems Inc. - Project Management Software, Project Planning Software</a>