Hi all,

You might like to know that we at the Planning Engineers Organisation have just published our Spring ’05 Newsletter. There is a lot in there that will be of interest to planners and schedulers.

To get a copy of this, go to Planning Engineers Organisation and click on the link on the homepage.


Best wishes

Gary France
Chairman
Planning Engineers Organisation

Thanks Jaco,

I will visit the site

Another thought, and a compliment to PP, why is PP heading for ten thousand members? I like to think it is because the members can all afford it, and there is some excellent discussions in the forums.

Hi Phil,

I agree with almost all that you say.

In my past, I ran a user group for some planning software. I too ensured, as far as I could, that the particular software company improved their product by including what we planners wanted and needed.

Regarding the membership panel not being able to meet applicants face to face, this is a simple matter of geography. At present, it simply wouldn’t be fair if planners in one country – perhaps half a world away – were denied membership because of the great distances involved in travelling to a personal interview. As the PEO gets larger, we will of course be considering setting up in as many different locations as we can, but that is for the future.

Believe me, it certainly is my intention to do it right, for the good of all. Us planners certainly do deserve that!

Best wishes.

Gary France
Chairman
Planning Engineers Organisation

Hi Ronald

I tend to agree with you untill I saw their PSP.
100 text book nothing practical. This means a "student" can recieve the right as a PSP without any practical knowledge

Cheers

Hi Gary,

I still agree. howevever, let me start from point 8.
We as planners/schedulers should be dictating our requirements to the writers of the software. Not them making it "so-Called" user friendly, as in the the case of some of the the older programs. Therefor we need an industry standard of note. Not everybody try to sell of their own bit of BBB.
As for point 2 I am an engineer that does planning, so as a result sometimes my planning was part time, but it was a full time business, that was in the old days.
Your spreadsheets and questions leave much to be desired.
Point no 4 the so called experts and whatever you call them do not have a clue of my capabilities so how can they assess me unless they have met me.
Regarding planning training I believe it is essential and it is our duty as senior planners/schedulers to do. This is why I like the Planning Planet forum, because I believe that it is my duty as an experienced planner to help everybody in need - whether they are qualified planners or not. This is to help projects convert into reality.
Gary, if you can handle this thing and form a Planning Engineers Organisation I will give you all my backing, but make sure that you do it right and not for your own purposes but for the good of all.
Regards
Philip

Hi Gary,

I have received an e-mail from you. I agree with what you are trying to achieve. Therefore, I would like to air my opinions in this open forum. The following are my problems and solutions:
1. Define whether you are international or just British
2. I have a problem in that I have been involved in construction and planning some times part time, some times full time. The total of my experience of planning is 35 years, where as full time planning my experience covers ome 16 years. How do people in project management that spend a lot of time planning qualify for particular membership if they are not full time planners / schedulers?
3. You present a excel spreadsheet on which you expect someone to draw something but you do not set a task.
4. How do you pick out the seniority amongst the people who are applying for membership and further how do you rate them? Is it not possible to ask them to present schedules that they have done in the past to rate them and make sure by knowing who they drew up these schedules for, ie references are in order?
5. I believe training is a vital factor in this environment that we live in - planning. Therefore I think that you should amalgamate yourself in a matter of speaking and practically with the Planning Planet site. The Planning Planet site grows at an unbelievable pace every day in terms of membership. I do not believe that the American Association of Costing Engineers is the answer. An independent body is probably a better idea, falling within the domain of the London Guilds, etc. Even if the London Guilds is rather old-fashioned, they are well recognised.
6. The constitution of the body should be well laid out and even, if formed on the internet, should be praticable and viable. Thus anybody who can pass the norms set by the organisation should be recognised practibly as having the abilities to do a planning job. This means that there should be grades such as progress taker, junior planner, planning engineer - whatever, etc.
7. Recognise other qualifications such as engineering degrees, diplomas, experience as part of the process. Your qualification and your experience being the most important.
8. Putting emphasize on training of new people to enter the market place and this should be the main purpose of the existing membership. A great place to do this is the existing Planning Planet forum. The point being that every existing member received the experience that they have at no cost to themselves personally, therefor they have to share whatever they have.
Kind regards
Philip Jonker

Dear Planners and Schedulers,

This month, one existing UK based construction institute ran an article in their monthly journal about the Planning Engineers Organisation, under the headline of “Not another professional body!”

This implied they believed the PEO was un-necessary and we should work within an existing general organisation or institute. This has prompted us to ask you, planners and schedulers, one question, which is.....

“As a planning engineer / scheduler, do you believe your interests would best be served by an independent professional body representing planners / schedulers (such as the PEO) or by a special interest group within an existing project management or cost organisation, such as APM, CIOB or AACEI?”

The PEO is running a poll on our website so that you can answer this question. To do this, visit www.planningengineers.org
and click on the Poll link in the Whats New section of the homepage.

This should take only a very short amount of time. A number of people have already voted and I will post the full results here on Planning Planet in about two weeks.

Thanks for taking the time to vote to answer this question.

Best wishes.



Gary France
Chairman
Planning Engineers Organisation

Hai Mr.David
The site u have mentioned was really good 7 useful.Thank u for the same.
Planners If u have some websites like this just share the same with other planners
Thank u
Balaji

Dear Planners

I considered long and hard whether Jimmy’s posting was worthy of a reply. I decided it did.

Jimmy has got himself into a bit of a state, but of course he is entitled to his view. Planners can make their own mind up as to whether they join the PEO or not, but I cannot let some of his comments go unanswered. Basically, Jimmy is criticising the fact that the PEO wants to make sure that people who apply to join the organisation are suitably qualified to do so. I say that if a professional body recognises the skills and experience of its members by granting what essentially is a professional qualification, then it is only right that the applicant demonstrates his or her ability to be worthy of that qualification. I am sure that most planners will agree with me – I would rather be part of an organisation that truly means something and you can feel proud of, rather than an organisation that amounts to no more than a list of planners.

Jimmy’s use of language is sometimes a little difficult to understand. He mentions a “secret confirmation from employer”. I can only assume that he is referring to the fact that the PEO asks for 2 professional references. If Jimmy is really worried about this, then one has to wonder why. This is really not that unusual.

Jimmy also takes exception to planners sharing knowledge between ourselves. Is this really a fair position for him to hold? Just what is wrong with sharing a project case study, or an as-built programme with like minded people? Perhaps Jimmy thinks that the valuable information (he calls it frivolous) that planners include on their applications will just go with a black hole and never be seen again. Well he couldn’t be more wrong. The whole point of the PEO is to share information and learn from the experiences of others. This is an essential part of what we do!

The last parts of his posting are not worthy of comment, other than to say that despite his demands, the PEO will not be changing its membership application criteria. The objectives of the Organisation are far too important for that.

Jimmy, that only leaves me to wish you luck in your career, whatever direction it takes you in.

Gary France
Chairman
The Planning Engineers Organisation

I have for many years thought that Planners have not been recognised for the important role we play in successful Project Mgt. That is one of the reasons I stood for the APM Council, however I feel that the APM has many issues to resolve and proper recognition of Planning is just one of them. The APM Practioner qualification is incidently a suitable qualification for specialist Planners.

Does anybody know about the PMI College of Scheduling?I have been unable to get any real details, or is it another PMI charged for option?
The PEO does sound a way forward. My question and I don’t have an answer is, are we best on our own, or as an important player in the Project Mgt professional bodies?
I will however continue to "do battle" from within the APM.
Good Luck to the PEO. Guy

I completely disagree with all below members who appreciate this Complicated and STUDY Type Organization.

Such organizations never developed and dead shortly which make their system / criteria so complicated that a few may fulfill its requirements.

I recommend my all planning members that please do not join this Organization and voluntarily help in this planning planet forum to come on TOP in the world for the following reasons :

a) ) Secret confirmation from Employer: Why : Mr Gary why : you do not believe on a Planner words and CV ? Why do you seek confirmation his Employer? Is there any hitch to accept a Planner’s abilities. Think about it?

b) What do you consider important when planning projects

c) Project Study Case

d) as-built programme for the project case study.

e) How you planned?

f) Attach dissertation paper


Mr. Gary we don’t have to write a thesis on Planning nor we are sitting in front of Interview Panel nor you give us a Job so then why did we waste our time to fill this frivolous FORM and pass on our confiedetial and Company’s related information to you. In future you may forward these information to our Employer and may cause our repute damages in this respect.


Please change your criteria otherwise do not write praising about your organization to impress the Planners in this Forum

On one side you said that you have limited membership and on other hand you send your Company’s e-mail to each e-mail address issued from that SERVER? Why?

Why do you make fool the people?
Think about It


Review your application form and make the life easier of others.Otherwise close the Chapter.

Hi all,

I see there has been a lot of interest in the new Planning Engineers Organisation. I am the Chairman of the PEO.

I would like to respond to the questions posed in the postings on this subject so far. Shahzad asked if the organisation will be open to non EU planners and both David and Bernard got it exactly correct – the PEO is open to all planning engineers, world-wide, from whatever industry. Planners have much experience and consequently, so much to learn from each other, where ever it is they do their planning. I therefore agree with David, that a broad membership would be one of the things that will make the organisation successful.

Tony makes a very valid point in relation to the APE. “My concern would be having two organisations representing the same body of people, which could in theory weaken one or both organisations ability to effectively represent planning engineers.” I agree with Tony’s concerns and therefore one of the first things I did when considering setting up the Planning Engineers Organisation was to try to enquire as to the status of the APE. What I found out was very revealing. I looked at their website, but it seemed that nothing had been added for a considerable time. I did find a number of complaints on there from members of the APE however. I tried to contact Paul Spice, who is listed as the President of APE, but I did not receive a reply. On checking with Companies House (the UK Government body which regulates all organisations / businesses), they show the APE last posted accounts in 2001 and they list the APE as a Dissolved organisation, meaning they are no longer in business. It seems that the APE is therefore truly dead. I therefore have no concerns about two organisations representing the same body of people, because there are not two.

Tony asked another valid question. “With the greatest of respect to those who are behind the PEO, can anyone explain why they feel as if they will be able to succeed where the APE appears to have been unable to?” Whilst I am not able to answer why the APE failed, I am able to set out why I feel the PEO will succeed. I have been a planning engineer for 31 years and I have dedicated my career to planning. I am passionate about planning. I am constantly want to improve how planning is done and I want to set new standards and I am constantly striving to achieve best practice. For me, planning is a vital part of the delivering projects, of any type or form. I have personally seen my own career change from being a re-active detail orientated planning engineer (drawing barcharts by hand!) to now being employed by clients to give strategic advice about how long projects should take, and to help shape how those projects will be delivered. I am very fortunate to have worked on some truly remarkable and landmark projects.

As to my business capabilities, I am a Group Board Director and one of the owners of Mace and I have been there for 14 years, helping to grow that firm from 5 to 1450 staff. I lead and manage all planning engineering, being responsible for 50 planners. I also head up best practice in the firm. I therefore believe that I know how to run a successful venture.

Within the PEO, we have assembled, and continue to assemble, some of the best and most experienced minds from planning engineering. We will use the Internet to assemble and then communicate exactly the sort of information that we planning engineers want and need. The PEO website (www.planningengineers.org) sets out these aspirations and gives details of the types of information that we are collecting, ready for early 2005, when we anticipate the next major phase of the PEO’s plans will be put in place. We are on target to achieve this planned date (well, we should be, shouldn’t we – after all we are planners!)

As Dick very correctly said, there is massive potential for a professional body to represent planning engineers – I totally agree, for it is very regretful that such a body does not already exist. It was for this very reason that I set up the PEO. We planners do a fantastic job setting out how to deliver projects – it is about time we had the recognition we deserve.

I have to close by saying that since we launched the PEO we have received a tremendous amount of support and encouragement. It seems that the PEO has really struck a cord with those who have so far discovered what we are all about.

Best wishes to all planning engineers – keep up the good work.



Gary France
Chairman
The Planning Engineers Organisation
www.planningengineers.org

Will this organization accept non EU Planners as its members or its only for EU Panners?

Sought clarification!

Tony, I don’t know anything about APE, so I took a quick look at their web site. I did not see any info about the organization itself except for this blurb on the contact page:

The Association of Planning Engineers is owned and operated by the International Association of Planning Engineers Pte Ltd, a company registered in Singapore.

Is it a member driven, non-profit organization?

I see PEO as following the PMI structure. At least, that was my impression from the PEO web site.

Bernard Ertl
InterPlan Systems - eTaskMaker Project Planning Software

I have also visited the Planning Enginners Organisation website and I can see a massive potential for such a Professional body. I cannot wait for the day that the BBC interviews the President of the Institute of Planning Engineers and asks if the Crossrail Underground Railway Project in London can actually be built in 7 years and the reply is a 3 hour documentary.....yes we do enjoy what we do !!
Anyway...certainly I will be joining this new organisation and I encourage others to spend a bit of time exploring the Site (www.planningengineers.org)

Happy Planning

Dick Trimmer
Matrix Project Management