(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.
Wouldn't it be better if Engineering &/or Program Managers JUST GAVE THEIR P6 Schedule to the contractors? It is a huge waste of time to make the contractor "re-invent" the wheel. There is usually only 1 way to build these jobs and the contractor is welcome to change it - but wouldn't the project be better off if the same time was spent fine-tuning and what-ifing etc that barely making it over the same finish line a 2nd time. You can require a certain amount of changes etc and make the sign a waiver that it is their means and methods etc. What is the downside? Much of the time, the engineer's schedule is better than the contractors. But even if it isn't - it is a valuable head-start. Schedules for the same project usually look about the same.
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
John as one of those Program - Project Managers. I believe that as Zoltan noted - there are no two identicle schedules - schedulers out there so we can expect differences. Santos also brings up good points in the client - contractor have different views. My concern is validating both Schedules and having the Contractor concur afterwards. A lot of contractors don't understand the submittal review process and would think they could be placing foundations within 6 weeks when the submittal process alone would eat that time up with rebar shop drawings, rebar fabrication, engineering review etc. We also know that the schedule will be exhibit "A" in the claim so I'm more concerned with validation and the more the merrier.
I read all of the comments, they tend to support my theory more than contradict it. 85% of schedule is gruntwork putting it together, and the 15% is using it to implement alternatives. Lets get the gruntwork out of the way - 20% gruntwork and 80% thinking creatively about the work. - more time time to adjust in pre-fabs, crew what-ifs. I have seen a broad spectrum of AEC and common theme is limited time for deliverables, if the strawman schedule ends up giving the contractor more time to fine tune than limp over the finish line all the better. A contract is awarded, and then you have 45 Days from NTP and you are working on four projects. Companies are producing C level deliverables that minimally hit the specs because that is more efficient. There is no right or wrong answer to these question - depends on the work. I have done quite a few road schedules - they have been more or less built the same way since the Roman times & not a ton of room for creativity. Over the last 35 years in AEC I have seen computers mainly help produce more deliverables faster, not necessarily better quality. I appretiate the input from everyone, I love having peers and mentors and enthusiasts to bounce ideas off of - in a bit more private space than Linkedin. I would say the biggest reason it is not done is due to legal reasons and sharing is not always a popular concept, along with the idea that it might provide the contractor more time to set up claim traps.
You can be certain that EVERY schedule will be different.
As an example I teach a scheduling class and one of the excercises is a very simple projetc of how to build a bike.
You can be certain that no 2 schedules are the same.
Everyone does things differently such as Santosh mentions using prefab is getting bigger and biigger these days the engineer can't scheduel a project using prefab because especially if it is a competitive bid he has no idea if the winning contract has prefab or wants to us epref capability.
The engineers schedule can certaily be used as a reference or as a strawman but as the official baseline schedule I dont see it.
Simple answer is also a question...why spending a lot of money hiring an expert if you want to dictate how to do it?
Building something is not one way of doing it. Now a day the traditional method of construction has been improved. Depending on the resource availability (labour, material, tools & equipment), environment, location, access, safety…etc. There are different approach or methods such as building from top to bottom vs bottom to top, stick built vs modularisation, fabricate on site or off site, cast-in-situ or pre-cast and many others. The Engineering/ client can influence the contractor the methodology they proposed, or the contractor can suggest the best way of doing it. The engineering/ client hire a contractor for their expertise to minimise the client risk. It is more costly to hired a contractor than doing self-manage but the risk exposure is more and may resulted to more expensive outcome.
Few things to consider, and I say its more about the schedules being used to meet different purposes. Clients are often more interested in WHEN their deliverables will be achieved, moreso than how.
Email: PPadmin@planningplanet.com
Replies