Hi James,
Figure it out for yourself

Regards

Philip

Now lets get back to how long planning should take, as soon a posible, as a plan is needed.

Peter,

WAGR isn’t yet at the greenfield stage.

You’re quite correct in that all this decommissioning stuff is being well-documented, and you are entitled to your views as to what is or isn’t special in terms of a project. However, there are certain fundamental issues that need to be resolved; issues that I would not be at liberty to reveal. These issues, in my mind, will have quite an impact upon the end-result.

James.

Peter,

I’m happy for you to enlighten me with regard to any NPS’ that have been fully decommissioned, dismantled and returned to a greenfield site, in accordance with current government requirements and safety standards.

James. :-)
PS. There are some things that are still secret. Problem is; if we knew what they were, they wouldn’t be secret. Am I paranoid?

Philip,

Thank you for your background. There is nothing “unfortunate” about it, and it’s nice to read of other people’s experience. It helps the other readers understand from where you are coming.

Personally, I will disagree with most of what you say. Firstly, all projects begin in the mind and, if lucky, conclude in the physical entity of the original vision. How else do you think a project is conceptualised and then realised? It is the people, from start-to-finish.

How Project Management authors come to think of weddings as the most interesting and varied projects, is beyond me. Relatively speaking, they are so simple. Book the church/place of ceremony, then arrive on the day. In terms of project achievement, everything else is peripheral. You get up to a year’s notice, and if you can’t organise a dinner-party and a few friends within that time, then one has a serious organisational defect. Philip, I think that you have been watching too many comedy films and are overtly influenced by others’ thinking process.

With regard to my site experience etc; when I discuss situations with the engineer, I actually get a very good response and I have had absolutely no problems. This applies to both young and more senior persons. I have only had difficulty with “the management”, mainly, in my opinion, because they always want to look good and dislike it when we present the facts to them or ask them direct questions. None of this is deliberately designed to embarrass them. It is done to get the most accurate answers possible in order to assess the situation and determine the alternative solutions. However, some people just don’t want to be helped…and perhaps I’ve just had the misfortune to have worked with a number of people whom have suffered these delusions of megalomania. Therefore, why should I get stressed-out? Just leave them to it! As it turns-out, though, the most abusive SM’s were allegedly ripping-off the company. I wonder if that had anything to do with their attitude? There are, however, a number of PMs with whom I would happily go on-site and work for. Now these are the guys with whom I have been through the “design-phase” of the project, and are aware of the potential of the planning function, owing to the fact that, perhaps much to their chagrin, they realise that my programme analyses have proved correct. Ultimately, though, the site-work is probably best left to the more specialist personnel….and I’m happy for that to happen, because my specialism lies in the design elements and not the installation.

Philip, I also enjoy what I do so, if the opportunity allows me to do that which I enjoy, in conjunction with a good work-life balance, then you have no grounds on which to denigrate. Moreover, I am just happy that I have the ability to know when to kick-ass and when to shut-up.

Cheers.

James :-)

Peter,

The big secret is what’s in them. Nobody really knows. It’s not just the reactor, young bean, it’s everything surrounding it as well. Almost every one is unique...with 50 years of people just dumping stuff, moving kit around, leaving it there for no reason etc.

Can’t say anymore. Official Secrets Act and all that, you know ;-)

James.

Quote - "it’s the bloody client that makes it complicated."

Oh sooooo true!

For those of a neervous disposition the above "b" word is NOT swearing, it is actually blasphemy! See, the trivial info you get on this site!

Nige ;-)

Nah, the job’s easy......it’s the bloody client that makes it complicated. Probably the same as all projects. If it wasn’t for the customers we could all do our jobs so well.

Peter,

How about ripping-apart a secret Nuclear Power Station....safely!

Peter,

Essentially, it’s never been done before...and certainly not on the scale that we’re currently doing it.

Of course, the basic principles of Project Management apply, but when you get the client changing safety categories and definitions, materials that are ultra-specialised and drawings that are 50 years old...and don’t contain all the subsequent changes of the structure, then you can understand our situation. This is but to name a few.

In comparison, the "conventional work" should be soooo simple.

James :-)

Hi Philip,

Thank you for your words-of-wisdom. I agree with almost everything you said in post 27, with regard to the Designers, Draughtsmen etc. However, I think you ought to choose some of your words more carefully and be more forgiving. Firstly though, you keep harking-back to this word “allowed”. I hadn’t even used that word, yet your whole post seems to be geared around it.

It is not my “mistake” by not going to site. I have been on site, I have seen how it is done, I have had the hassle, the rantings and ravings of the client, the PM, the SM, the massive overload of incorrect and missing detail that has been conveniently forgotten. I have had them completely ignore the fundamentals, thus pay the penalty, despite everything I have told them. As I am not a martyr, I have, therefore, chosen to avoid going to site. They just don’t pay me enough to undergo such purgatory and drag me away from my family for months-on-end.

Obviously I cannot speak for your experience, but before you go espousing and criticising, you must bear in mind that you do not know exactly what we do. To help clarify; almost every project we undertake is unique; a one-off. Almost nothing like it has ever been done before. We are helping to rectify the legacy of 50 years of nonchalance and indifference. We are not just “building new”; we are simultaneously “dismantling the old”. There is no historical experience upon which anyone can call. There is no-one who can say “this is the way that we did it before” because it has NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE. Is this not a very good excuse to take longer than anticipated. Add this to the fact of Money & Politics and you have a situation where you are running-around in a barrel of molasses. However, people have been building towers, railways, bridges, pipelines for hundreds, if not thousands of years. It’s all been done hundreds of times before…..so what’s their excuse? If “conventional” work still costs more and takes longer, there must be some reason for it.

Philip: Before you go slagging-off the various resources involved in a project (although we all do it) try to put yourself in their position. You should have done their jobs, literally. Have you yourself ever actually designed something completely unique, from scratch; manufactured it yourself (or commissioned a company to do it for you), installed it, commissioned it and written the Ops/Maintenance manuals for a readership that has never even heard of the equipment. I mean, literally, yourself…..not watched someone else do it, or “planned” for someone else to do it. Moreover, if you have done ALL OF IT, did you have a plan for it, and did you compare your plan to that of actual? Then and only then, will you be able to speak from authority as opposed to sciolism. I HAVE DONE IT ALL, literally. Only when you have done it yourself, including comparing your plan to actual, can you begin to wonder where all the time and effort went….and I bet you’ll never be able to account for it all. The REAL knowledge of planning, therefore, is knowing WHY things take so long.…….and you’ll probably discover that this is activity and miniscule detail that can never be incorporated into a programme. If you did, no-one would ever believe you.

In conclusion: You will rarely get the opportunity to lead the same horse to the same water on more than one or two occasions and be in a position to make them drink. However, when you get some egotistical, contract PM or SM that wants to make his mark, you have little choice but to defer to them. Kicking the horse will rarely get him to drink and, if you make too much fuss, all you will serve to do is bug it. Remember; the horse is a damned-site bigger than you, and if it feels so inclined, it’ll teach you a lesson that you’ll never forget. It will soon learn, though, that not drinking is fatal. Then, and only then, will it understand and appreciate what you do, and maybe they will take that lesson with them on their next mission. But why should you worry…..you’ll be gone by then! Either that or you will get the opportunity to remind them of what happened last time…...and what better reward than watching someone having learned…finally!

Cheers.

James :-)

Hi James,

Your first mistake is not going on site, the second, is I work in all phases, from conceptual design, through to commissioning. If designers, and draughtsmen were allowed 2 years, I would readily go back to design.

The point is that the designers, normally exceed their allocated design duration by 100%, the draughtsmen exceed their durations by 50%, mainly as a result of designers changing their minds. Then comes procurement, who procrastinate, and when the action starts, is when the drawings hit the fabricators shop floor. Between them and the erection tem, they have already lost 50% of their time to the designers and the draughtsman, then comes the revisions. The amazing field of document controls then kicks into gear, trying to keep up with the revisions. Then comes the material controllers who have to hope the document controllers are doing their job properly. And then the poor erection guys, who make the best of it, and fix the errors, with no hotwork permits, and only a cutting torch at hand. I would suggest, get up of your pony, and go and see life from the other perspective, maybe then you would train your pony to kick some ass, and the designers might wake up.
I spent my last four weeks mainly ondesign programs, and the designers cannot remember what they said yesterday.
Been there, have got the T-shirt

Regards,

Philip

Hi james,
I am referring to your first posting, where you allow designers two years, Pleases explain this process, as I have a problem with this issue.

Hi! Ronald,

I certainly drink to that...agree.

Cheers!

Jerry

Possibly,

half / half

Anyway, the working time will also be:

Half/ Half

so the salary will also be

half / half

cheers,

Charlie

H1! Guys,

It seems that every body is worried about the existence of the Planners, can any project that worth Millions will have a Planner for a couple of months only, the answer is "no" planning and Project Control are one of the most important Department of a Management Team in every project.

They are the unique, a multi discipline Engineers who knows most of the Functions and activities in every project, and Managers are relying on them.

I agree for somebody saying that planners can be a project Manager, sure! this happens to me, before I reach to this level i was once a planner too. And it makes a difference for those Managers that doesn’t have experienced in Planning. I think there are more planners now a Managers.

Cheers!

Jerry

Hi guys (no gals involve with this post),

The time for planning is the working time you spent for that project. It will be for as long as you are assigned in the project, until completion.

In P5, you can assign one planner to a particular scope and his time allocated will be to ensure he carry on with the job. In the event that some team member are doing relax because he happen to got high IQ, efficient very senior, etc., then give him more work to ensure the time spen (generally, 8hrs per day) will be useful.

regards,

Charlie

Hi James,

So, what can you advise to Planners to stay longer in the project? Apply as Project Manager or Site Manager instead? The Client can save more..

cheers..

Hi All,

I believe that planning should go throughout the lifespan of a project if you consider planning as the soul of a project. But for a certain responsibility, is there a stage in a project wherein you can reasonably say that planning or a planner is not anymore necessary?

For example:

A single project was originally planned for 10 years (total duration) with an X budget for planning.

1. If a planner works for a Client..
2. If a planner works for an Engineer..
3. If a planner works for a Contractor..

What are the vital considerations & the limits to which Planning can be undertaken by each party? How far Planners should stay in the project?

cheers..

Dear Fellow Planner,

I would suggest to apply also what we called a Time Planning (Time Management actually). No matter how big our project is or large number of activities in it. We need to have a separate programme in our planning and control (set our tracking and monitoring tools, freeze the format and frequency of submission of raw data from the field and or from different diciplines to be used in up-dating or planning, etc)activities, set our priorities, determine the level of reporting required by the client, the project and the team.

Then you will see and will find out that you still have much time to do some other things aside from planning and control.

Ronald Quilao

Hi Marcio,

In all our projects we have a section called "Project Management". This will comprise tasks such as Planning, Project Manager, Technical Consulting, Engineering Co-ordination, Financial Control, Legal Consulting etc. These tasks will not normally contain any more detail, owing to the fact that it would be impossible to break them down any further nor would you gain any real advantage by doing so (unless you really, really, really want to be that detailed). They would have a duration that stretches from day 1 right to the end of the project. You would then apply an estimated average quantity of hours per week or cost against each one. You can then monitor your Actual Cost in order to determine your rate of spend per month. You can informally monitor the type of work that they are doing ie. producing reports, discussing progress with the engineers, inputting data, chasing people for other information, checking the integrity of data etc. If what you are doing is costing more than the average cost per week, and seems "normal" and is likely to continue throughout the project duration, then you know that you have under-budgeted.

Although I do all the planning and programme administration, we have another person who does the Financial Control...and they spend about 6 hours per week. In addition, our Project Manager probably spends about 1 day per week just on senior-level financial data management and client reporting.

From what you describe, your project would need one full-time planner...and that planner would be working quite hard just to administer the basic project data, excluding any major changes. Would your tasks be generally short-duration (up to 1-2 weeks), medium duration (up to 1 month) or long duration. This will determine how many "live" tasks are running at the same time.....more live tasks usually means more time spent on collecting progress data and more time just inputting data. Moreover, if your reporting cycle is short, ie. every week, then you will probably be spending most of your time just inputting data...unless you have an automated system. Ultimately you have to be careful as to the amount of information that you generate, otherwise you could be spending all your time just chasing your tail.

If I’ve completely mis-interpreted your question, and given you a load of nonsensical waffle, please beat me with a tree :-)

Cheers.

James.

Marcio,

Please give more details about your project, as it is a little unclear as to your question. Are you asking about how long it should take to construct the plan or administer the plan during the project?

Initially, the length of time taken to construct the plan is dependent upon how big the project is and how much detail you wish to put into it. The more detail you have, the more time you will spend on updating the data. You must also consider what the reporting requirements are going to be, because a plan can only be analysed according to the level of detail that has been input. Moreover, you must also account for the likelihood of "change" (lots of change, on a programme with lots of detail means a real pain-in-the-bum). Essentially, a whole series of questions need to be answered first. The answer to those questions will determine the amount of time required, thus resulting in the total number of people required to execute the work.

I work mainly with "Design" programmes that are generally about two years in duration (already having done the basic concept design). My current programme took about 8-10 weeks of intensive work, by myself, to input the programme structure, logic linking and resourcing - for a total of about 4000 lines, spread across 12 different work-packages, using 5 engineers. However, I had an extremely good understanding of what I wanted to achieve, having already worked on the previous phase of the project. Moreover, we are using Project Central/Server to have the engineers book their time directly onto programme activities (saves enormous amounts of time...thus leaving me to do the analysis). Ultimately there was quite a lot of "change", but that is more do to with changing the sequence of the work-packages, as opposed to any of the detail that lies under each of the packages. All this, on average takes about 28 hours per week (I’ve literally just looked at my timesheet bookings for the project). We now have 17 engineers (we crashed the project) and, although the team is significantly bigger, the amount of administration time is actually less. This is due to the fact that the resources are now allocated exclusively to one package....thus incurring less "change".

In summary: There will be a massive effort, up-front, to construct the initial programme....and it is this bit that you really need to get right, so don’t be afraid to spend the time on it....and it really will pay dividends later-on. Once the project reaches a steady-state operation, the amount of time spent will be determined by how much "change" there is, by the amount of analysis you are obliged to perform, how many "what-if" scenarios you undertake and how much arguing and faffing-around you have to indulge.

All of the above is based only in my environment. I’m sure that other people who work in an environment more like yours are likely to have more realistic figures.

Anyway, I hope this helps.

Cheers.

James.