(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 there,
For people who have a very little knowledge of P6 Schedules: How do you argue that in order to assess schedule claims you need more than PDFs of the schedule.
I need a very simple and preferably a visual illustration to demonstrate:
Schedules in PDF format cannot be the true representative of the program and not good enough for claims assessments.
Apologies in advance if this sounds too basic to you.
Thanks
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
glad that I could help
Perhaps a software such as ScheduleReader can find its use in this scenario. This software sollution offers a visuall way to interact with the schedule and all of its data that resides in an .xer file. It is originally designed to replace the old way to look at project schedules as PDF in different practices and industries.
Many thanks Zoltan
Many thanks Rafael for your response
For your convenience you can download a PDF version of the presentation by clicking on the following linK. You can also move to the links within the presentation and PDF version by clicking them.
http://www.mediafire.com/file/rw99olplwm1on9y/Resource+Driven+Schedule.pdf/file
http://www.mediafire.com/file/94yjmuu91o78e0x/What+is+Driving+my+Schedule.pdf/file
1. If you are assessing a schedule claim then there should be a schedule specifications that says that you need a schedule in cpm format in its native form if P6 then an xer file.
2. The owness is ALWAYS on the party to prove the delay this can not be done using a pdf because you can not see the logic.
3. You can always take a pdf and convert it to an excel file there is no logic so you will have to use start on constraints for each activity some logic can be implied by looking at the activity and the dates. Ie install conduit successor pull wire.
4. There should be an accompanying narrative that expalins the process used and what was done to the schedule to prove the delay.
5. As a very simplistic example in the original schedule you have activiy A with 10 day duration and its successor is activity B with a 10 day duration with a start to start relation with a 5 day lag. Let's assume that this both of these activities were on the critical path with ) days of float.
____A_____
____B_____
now the claim or delayed schedule changed this from a Start to Start relationship with a log to a Finish to Start relationship and now BOTH activites are - 5 days behind schedule or delayed by 5 days.
____A____
____B_____
without having the native schedule data to see this change in logic its almost impossible to assess what has been done to the schedule. Therefore I cannot grant a time extension or validate the claim.
WHAT ARE YOU HIDING ? why are you hestitant to give the reviewer the necessary information in the proper format to perform this function.
Email: PPadmin@planningplanet.com
Replies