Specifying Programming Software - is it right?

if what the client have specified is considered "sub-standard", then I think it will be the role of the contractor to at least advise them. e.g., if the client specify the MSP as the schedulling software and based on the contractor’s experience it is not the right or an effective choice, then as the contractor we should advise them.



whether they want to listen or not, it’s their choice BUT if in the future there will be some problem with that choice then the consequence will not be born by the contractor.

My opinion..."client’s always right", that should be the principle. If they specify MSP then it should be MSP. As what Bill mentioned, client is the one who buy and pay for the product.



The keyword here is..."specify". Off course if the client doesn’t specify then it’s up to the contractor to use whichever software they like.

Perhaps it’s just a quirk of my industry or experience, but it is very rare for a contractor to deliver a robust schedule to an owner - one that was broken down to the same level of detail as the owner planned and resource loaded for context. Contractor supplied schedules are rarely adequate for merging with owner schedule files in my experience.



Bernard Ertl

InterPlan Systems

You will get the schedule as your program file. What else can you require? Internal PM technology is contractor’s choice. If the client prefer to work with MS Project for tracking large project it does not mean that contractor will not be able to manage its internal resources using more sophisticated programs like P3e or Spider Project. If the resulting schedule is delivered as MS Project file then it is fine, You cannot ask for more.

Regards,

Vladimir

There are several issues here.



Exporting from one schedule software to another. This process is a data conversion process and not schedule conversion, and on recalculating one usually get a different result and unless the schedule is very simple then the schedules will calculate differently. Most scheduling packages use as default a different ways of organizing and rolling up the schedule. For example Microsoft Project uses Outlining which is not supported by P3. A common format is a start to solving the problem but also a common method of calculating and summarizing will also be needed before we get any way towards seamless conversion from one software to another.



Contractors expertise. If an contractor is using a competent package and has experienced in-house expertise, unless there is a real project need, such as rolling in the contractors package into a master schedule, then this is probably not the best suggestion by the client.



In my experience, the argument is normally between P3/SureTrak and MSP and conversion between these software packages is not simple as there are so many places where they calculate differently. I usually find Government Departments ask contractors who use P3/SureTral to produce complex schedules in Microsoft Project and find difficulty in understand why.



Paul E Harris

Eastwood Harris Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia

Planning and Scheduling Book Publishers, Training & Consulting

www.eh.com.au

Vlad



Vald wrote "Contractor can use one PM softwate package exporting project schedules into the formats (MS Project, P3e, etc.) required by clients."



The only problem with that is you lose information in the conversion, or it calculates things differently. For example MS Project allows for activities which haven’t started yet to the left of Status Date (interesting concept I know LOL)...if you import that into OPP for example, OPP pushes those activities to the right of Status Date (and rightly so). The result being that you have a MS Project schedule saying you will finish on day X and an OPP conversion of that schedule saying you will finish on day Y. Other issues of conversion include how duration and resources are calculated, how calendars are applied, the list goes on. It would be nice to be able to convert from one software package to another - but it doesn’t work effortlessly, you always end up doing a multitude of work to make sure it has transferred correctly, which means you have to buy the software the client wants anyway LOL.



J

We have successful experience of converting Spider Project schedules into P3e and MS Project databases and presenting these schedules to customers in these formats. The trick is to export the schedule without its recalculating. Recalculating will produce different results if resources, financing and supplies have restrictions. It does not create problems if the recalculated schedule is longer than original. The clients usually accept optimization.

Joanne is right about funny approaches of MSP to status date. But you will export to MS Project, not vice versa. If to export from MS Project then there shall be strict requirement about an existence of project status date.

The differences in approaches to project simulation shall be taken into account in the program.

I agree, it is impossible because different software uses different information sets.

In particular in Spider Project there are such fields as Activity Volume, Assighed Resource Productivity, Assignment Cost, Cost Components and many others that do not exist in other software.

But if you want just to present the schedule with some standard data fields you can do it loosing some information that was used for schedule development.

Isn’t PMI is working on a standard file format for project data to be used by different scheduling programs? Even so, I don’t see how any standard format is going to accommodate all the special/unique features of every software platform on the market.



Stacy

Project Management Knowledge Base

Contractor can use one PM softwate package exporting project schedules into the formats (MS Project, P3e, etc.) required by clients.

Of course the contractor could potentially lose out, and as has been intimated further up the thread, it is up to the contractor to assess whether or not it is worth the extra hassle. More often than not, providing it’s not some bizarre, bespoke proprietory system, it won’t really be that much of an issue.



As a contractor, my company deals in a variety of formats with our Clients (although mainly P3+P3e), and as the contract values tend to be relatively substantial (generally 7fig. minimum), any incurred cost and inconvenience would have to be really severe to put us off.



As a Client however, we are in a position to make things a little easier for ourselves, and we’d be mental not to.



As the saying goes... "you pays your money, you takes your choice"

I’ve got to be honest, from a Client’s point of view, it has to be common sense to specify the Planning Package (providing you’re not using something arcane and left-field). You include the software requirement within the ITT, so it’s catered for within the returned bids, there’s then no scope for your subbie of choice nailing you for any costs.



Providing you’re relatively mainstream in your choice of software, it’s highly unlikely that this stipulation will preclude any of your desired tenderers from applying, or price any of them out of the market.



What it WILL do is save you time and money, week after week incorporating and understanding their returns and reporting onwards.



If you do this with all of your contract lets, this allows you to develop a suite of reports that are standardised across the company that you can ’plug’ your updates into, getting an immediatedly recognisable result out of the other end.



The prime Caveat being, "providing your choice of software is relatively mainstream for your sector"

And the worst case scenario in my experience must be to evaluate the software, give your client or Engineering Manager the "fors" and "againsts". Client/person then looks at cost. IT Fast Tracker says IT can do it in house as its cheaper. They recreate the wheel albeit square and ineefectual, get rid of the Planner (me but I could have kissed them at the time) then get their in house IT hobbits or hobbists to rustle something up which their Project Managers can handle, completely forgetting to factor in the cost of the Project Managers time for learning new software, reluctance for data entry and data management. Company lose control, clients, not to say tee off most of thier Project Managers - and all to save a few quid.

I am still laughing!

Right? Wrong? Is that the issue?

Client can specify anything he likes, can’t he?

After all, he’s doing the shopping.

Contractors who can’t or don’t want to meet the spec don’t have to tender, do they?

Contractors often get awarded contracts and then ignore many of the requirements that they regard as unnecessary overhead admin burden, so that route is available.

The contract can prescribe the software but it can’t make anyone use it properly.

How is specifying the software any different from specifying the other programme/schedule requirments?

Gary France;



An e.g.



I’m the Client and my company did not specify the software of planning and control. We use P3e.



Now we have 5 contractors for a single project. 1 using P3e, 2 using P3 and 2 using MS Project.



We are having big problems monthly to convert all files to P3e and do the to make our analyze and to emit accompaniment reports.



Kind regards,



Marcio Eduardo

In my specific experience, as a PMC we had to prepare, monitor & report all schedules & updates in P3e whereas the FEED Contractor & others were allowed to use either P3 or P3 e or MSP. The fact of the matter remains in comprehensive understanding of P3 e by the Client top brass, hich in most of the cases are not exactly updated & informed about the potential problems.

But Client is a Client & you have no choice but to go along with it & implement his wish/will threby increasing efforts from our side.

Is there any industry-wise standardisation of Codes with respect to phase, discipline etc with standard lengths.

I am only slightly aware of such standards used by Construction industry in US, may be some planner from US may throw additional light on the subject.

Regards

Dattatreya