(1) Explain your problem, don't simply post "This isn't working". What were you doing when you faced the problem? What have you tried to resolve - did you look for a solution using "Search" ? Has it happened just once or several times?
(2) It's also good to get feedback when a solution is found, return to the original post to explain how it was resolved so that more people can also use the results.
Hi guys,
I am working on a large mining project in RSA with the end date towards the end of 2022. The project is not that complex and is driven by mining as these projects typically are. The problem lies in that the master schedule carries 7500 activities and if you add the EPCM and shaft sinker activities you end with +30 000 actvities. This becomes an unmanageable beast that only sucks up planning resources and add very little value to the project.
I am all for detailing the project to the necessary level but the project director and myself agree that we need to find a simpler method to do this. We are running Primavera 6.8.3 with Risk analyser on an online platform where contractors can access their schedules.
Currently these schedules are not linked but are used to manually update the master and this acts as the central point of data capturing and reporting.
I have read all the papers on project levels etc and we have a very good project management system but I need some advice in this regard. At 1st peak the project employed 8 planners with 4 more shared between the contractors. The numnber has come down to 5, this excludes mine planners.
Project is in the region of $2b.
Any ideas and suggestions of what worked on other projects of a large scale and long duration would be highly appreciated.
Morne
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
A more sophisticated approach to rolling wave is at http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/WhitePapers/WP1016_Schedule_Density.pdf
Ignore the advice about trying to plan in detail work you don't have access to information about - a detailed schedule needs input from the people doing the work - all you end up with is esoteric rubbish.
Schedule levels are outlined at: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/PDF/Schedule_Levels.pdf
Mike, using rolling wave we plan the whole project in less details than nearest 3 months. Of course we plan finish date and total cost and apply risk simulation.
Like level 3 schedule for the whole project and level 4 or 5 schedule for nearest three months. I don't approve using several schedules (Level 2, Level 3, Level 4, etc.) for the same project, but one schedule may have different level of details at different parts.
Hi Vladimir
Using a rolling wave you have no clear idea what the end date is likely to be.
Best regards
Mike T.
Hi Morne,
we use Rolling Wave planning at the projects of that duration.
30000 activities is not a problem but it does not make sense to describe in details activities of the future years. Changes are inevitable and we manage the schedule with different levels of detail at different parts.
Usually the schedule is most detailed in the coming three months with much less detailed in the future periods.
At least once in a month the schedule is developed further to keep the same 3 months detailed period ahead.
But if the detailed schedule is already developed I do not see much problem in its maintainence. Actual information that shall be entered is the same. Only changes in future periods may take a lot of time and effort if need creating of detailed model. If these changes are frequent use Rolling Wave.
Hi Morne - Welcome to planning planet.
I agree with you that the large number of tasks would be un wieldy.
Also you do need to link up all the sections so that problems on one section will reflect on others that are affected.
My advice is to start again with a clean sheet. Keep it simple.
From my very limited experience of mining you start with a vertical shaft and then the horizontal tunnels - what could be simpler?
Of course there are complexities particularly with health and safety but unless they are driving factors they can be covered by hammocks.
It is unlikely that there will be a critical path unless it is resource driven.
I hope that helps a bit.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Email: PPadmin@planningplanet.com
Replies