Dilemma with consultant/project manager re updating

Its ok Alex, my apologies for the confusion...

Sorry Arman



Don’t understand your points. One moment you said its about the software, and the next something else. Anyway have a nice day



Alex

Alex,



I stand corrected with my comments and with regards to the standards, I have no intention of whatsover as it may seemed to be...Good day!





Arlene said...

------------------------

...I explained that if relationships are not revised to reflect the actual situation, then the programme can no longer be used as reference for construction since it does not reflect the actual or the new forecasted sequence of activities. It is also rare that the planned programme is completely followed/implemented in actual due to several affecting actual conditions.



Let me know if I am making a right point about this. I don’t know how else to make the consultant accept my explanation regarding the changes made to eliminate out-of-sequence activities, which consequently reduce delay. Perhaps someone can show me publications regarding this so I can show it to him. Or maybe you can enlighten me on how to explain it further.



P.S. I only make changes in Current schedule not in Baseline programme.

-------------------------------------



Arlene was actually asking if how she managed Primavera was correct or not. She did not made any change in the Baseline programme (It was not her concern). She was actually using the retain logic option and manually changed the relationships of progressed activities to suit actual site conditions. She did not use the progress override option.



Her dilemma with consultant was only the result of what Arlene was asking about which is changing the relationships producing a different critical path against that of a purely retained logic option.



Progress override shortens the path which may appear hiding delay.



I agree with what Arlene did because and she’s not changing any to the baseline. She may need to show to the consultant that Primavera is having such functionality and that it allows her to do so...Otherwise, a different agreed software might as well be used.





Regards,

Arman

Arman



Thanks for your effort for a detail reply, I will try to follow your standard.



"I believe that the thread was not about planning, it was about scheduling. Taking care of the dates in the programme especially after updating is an important role as an scheduler. It was not about court cases, how we deal with the clients, what kind of clients, etc., rather it was about getting more understanding & broaden our knowledge as to how Primavera really works with all its functionalities."



Did I confuse you, any scheduling require to have a plan (Baseline) to start with if you read the inital message, this is all about the update of the baseline plan. I suggest you read it form the beginning, and yes its about how to handle the client, that is what I suggested, to put the common sense in the table with the right forum, it is important who you speak to and how you approach and in front of what audiance.



"It was about the Progress Override & Retain Logic functionalities of Primavera. "



NO it was not just about the progress override / retain logic, you need to read between the line carefully.



"Progress Override functionality overrides the logic resulting in different dates of a specific activity. ex. Activity A has FS relationships with activity B. But activity A already has an actual start and Activity B is not finished yet. The FS logic is no longer satisfied. Primavera provided functinalities to deal with these cases like the Progress Override and Retain Logic options (default). In the example, using progress override Primavera will give a completion date of activity A equal to data date plus its remaining duration. While using retain logic option, Primavera will give a completion date of activity A equal to data date plus the sum of the remaining durations of activities A & B."



We are here to discuss the dilemma with the consultant (PEOPLE) not with the software functionality



"These functionalities produces its own different critical path. As an scheduler, the responsibility to exert effort to identify and produce the true critical path as far as these functionalities are concerned in relation to the science of PERT/CPM is by no reason at all in lined or synonymous to fortune telling but rather a symbol of responsible scheduling manner or pratice...



Your comments, corrections, suggestion or tricks regarding the understanding and usage of the functionalities will be highly appreciated... "



Appreciated with your effort, but your comments seem to be off tracked with the topic.



Alex

Hi Alex,





I believe that the thread was not about planning, it was about scheduling. Taking care of the dates in the programme especially after updating is an important role as an scheduler. It was not about court cases, how we deal with the clients, what kind of clients, etc., rather it was about getting more understanding & broaden our knowledge as to how Primavera really works with all its functionalities.



It was about the Progress Override & Retain Logic functionalities of Primavera.



Progress Override functionality overrides the logic resulting in different dates of a specific activity. ex. Activity A has FS relationships with activity B. But activity A already has an actual start and Activity B is not finished yet. The FS logic is no longer satisfied. Primavera provided functinalities to deal with these cases like the Progress Override and Retain Logic options (default). In the example, using progress override Primavera will give a completion date of activity A equal to data date plus its remaining duration. While using retain logic option, Primavera will give a completion date of activity A equal to data date plus the sum of the remaining durations of activities A & B.



These functionalities produces its own different critical path. As an scheduler, the responsibility to exert effort to identify and produce the true critical path as far as these functionalities are concerned in relation to the science of PERT/CPM is by no reason at all in lined or synonymous to fortune telling but rather a symbol of responsible scheduling manner or pratice...



Your comments, corrections, suggestion or tricks regarding the understanding and usage of the functionalities will be highly appreciated...



Let us seek to be a wide & not wild user of Primavera...and I agree with you...No fortune telling...





Regards,

Arman

ohoooo,



Nice Alex,



"We are planner, not fortune teller".



Good one

Dear All,



We are planner, not fortune teller. We can only plan work base on our knowledge and information at any particular point in time. As soon as you completed the plan, the plan might all be history and incorrect.



Sometime it’s just matter of sit down with the clients and carefully explain the situations and the plan, common sense do bring people together. Of course you do need to have the right forum to bring the matter to the table.



If the entire clients do not understand we live in a real world, you can only educate them to certain extend... Then you leave it to the court and judge to bring common sense in good order.



HTH



Alex

Safak,



Its ok, in fact your opinion is very useful & really make sense...On the other hand, what I am just trying to point out is that I am being careful in using the options as it create different critical paths which give rise to the question as to which is really the true critical path at the time of the update.



Once we publish our periodic report, the operations personnel will look at the dates. There are even managers who will focus on the critical path & would ask for critical path update. As scheduler, it is very important that we check properly the dates before we publish to make sure we are not providing mis-leading information...suggestion only...





Regards,

Arman

Dear Armando,



You are completely right. But you can retain completion dates with extra FF relations as creating or revising schedule if you are going to use progress override. It was a opinion and my schedule is working fine right now. On the other hand the critical path can change by the actual % and date update also.



Regards,

Sofak,



My problem with Progress Override is that it includes the changing of completion dates of those progressed activities which I want to retain the completion dates. While changing the relationships of progressed activities in a selective manual manner allows me retain the logic of other progressed activities which I want to retain its completion dates. Both method upon scheduling changes the critical path vs. purely retained logic option. Different Critical Paths means different network logics.



Regards,

Arman

Hi Mike,



Any comments to Safak’s post below? I am specific to "Piping Works - FS - Hydrotest (before and after update)".



Thank you in advance.



Best regards,

Anoon

Just a opinion from a refresh collegue,



I am facing the same problem for majority of the schedules I have programmed. There are 2 aspects of the situation as I see:



1- Project Control Team(!) should track the latest approved construction PROGRAMME. You should only update actuals no more. Reason: Whenever you want to form a basis for a delay claim, the CLIENT can reject the claim if the logic or durations of the dynamic programme is different from baseline. Abnormal delays will not be a problem. Whenever CLIENT concerns about delays you can ask for a PROGRAMME revision and make the neccessary changes you want.



2- If There are !!!commissioning!!! or a another jobs that are going to be planned according to your progress, these huge delays will be problem. It is possible to modify your dynamic schedule as per actual sequence and your progress figures will not be changed if you are manitoring by earned value analysis.



The main problem is the baseline PROGRAMME itself. Every one of us aware of the how the best PROGRAMME should be (Abominations!!). But the reality is not that obvious (ex: team size& experience vs work load in market).



I can suggest you a way that I used for the latest revision I made for one of my schedules:

-Schedule situation:

*2 years package that the commissioning plan created by CLIENT at the stage of end of the 1st year.

*There can be delay that will result in CLAIM s for CONTRACTOR

*Commisioning team request the forecasted end dates of the minor package completions for their plan.

-The solution for the latest revision to the PROGRAMME:

*Negotiated with CLIENT &PM about the situation and solution. Approval taken.

*PROGRAMME detailed in some parts (not at all) for the get realistic end dates.

*Retained Logic changed to Progress Override (I am using P3 by the way)

*The important think is that you need to add many FF relations in order to prevent the situations as:

-Before Update: Piping W. ---- FS ---- Hydrotest

-Update: Majority of the packs have been tested before waiting of finalizing all works by using removable spools and valves different from first plan

-After update: Hydrotest will finish before piping works(Progress Override effect)



With these I have more realistic end dates whatever the actuals are and I do not have to change the logic unless need of a revision occurs.



Sorry for the long thread. If anyone read it and have a benefit I would be glad,



Good day Pals,



Regards,



Safak

just another uncolicited opinion...



I agree with what Arlene is doing plus the keeping of records of what is being updated. For me, updating the relationship to reflect actual is not act of revising the programme but rather part of the updating process. Managing Primavera may not be limited to inputing of actual quantities and dates only but also inludes actual relaltionships which is important to derive the True Critical Path each time the programme is updated. If the activities in question do not belong to the critical path, revising the relationships to reflect actuals seemed really not a issue at all.



If Primavera is the approved and agreed software to be used in managing the project,then it may need to be respected when it says that the activities are already out of sequence or something needs to be done. Just need a regular print out of the log report as part of the records.





Regards,

Arman

Make use of the option "Progress Override" (i supposed it is where is intended to).

Hi Arlene



I know it was not your intention but it is very difficult to manipulate the the schedule to hide delays and still retain credibility.



Somehow you have to pretend that some activities could have started later and still achieve the end date.



Fine while you are using up float but not when you are approaching criticality.



I have often seen "catch up" programmes where the planner has reduced all durations and piled activities on top of each other - daft approach that many seem to get away with.



Best regards



Mike Testro

Good Morning Guys,



Further to the ongoing discussion on the subject matter (Dilemma with consultant/Project manager re updating), yes it is true that on site activities may not happen in the same manner as planned, i believe that it has to be amended time to time to reflect the actual situation (Coz retaining the clause 14 logic will result sometime showing delay on the project completion although it is not). In this regard i just want to share my real time experience here.



On one of my project the Project Manager/Engineer has accepted to receive the updates with the changes subject to that i provide them in writing that what chages have been done while updating the programme (that means when you schedule the programme there wont be any out of sequence activities), while keeping the approved clause 14 programme as a baseline to monitor the project Progress.



I know it is bit difficult task but its beneficail to track the changes and this system worked well to reflect the actual delays on the project from time to time.



Regards,



MAS

Don’t be confused Arlene.



On the claim by your PM consultant, if there’s nothing there, in FIDIC, then there’s nothing there. Don’t believe on something that comes from nothing.



Everything else are just opinion.



Cheers,

Dear All,



Am now quite uncertain if I will ever seek advise from PP.



Arlene hope your not confused yet. Ha-ha-ha-ha...



Honestly, I enjoy it and will post again when am not busy.





Cheers to all..

Arlene,



I hope you are not confused for now. Another unsolicited advices that I may suggest:



1. Continue doing what is required by PM or Consultant.

2. Also continue doing what you believe is right (and keeping back-ups).

3. Submit only reports that are required (or official).

4. Make efforts to suggest what you believe is better strategy.



You have lots of options, anyway it all comes down to good communication.



cheers!

Hi Arlene



It seems that you are not in a serious delay situation at present but when you are you will have a problem.



The Contract Programme does not represent the method of working and may not respond correctly to the impact of delay events - it may give a longer entitlement.



So you should run the analysis on both programmes and submit them both for the Engineer to award an EOT.



If he awards on the basis of your working programme then that should then become the contract programme by default.



Best regards



Mike Testro

All has been said, going back to my post # 37:



Arlene,

Would you be kind to share the comments of the PM’s planner, if any?



Mike,

Are you willing to share your expertise on the disputed EOT if it arises?



Cheers,

Dear All,



The dilemman will apply to both world, the engineer facing the same issue whether to accept such program reflect the true sequence and progress and update the rest of the master programme.



Because if the logic is being maintain and the contractor told you that it is not the true picture but the engineer still using it to update the master schedule. The proceeding contractor who bring all his equipment to site and found out that its completely different from what that master programme indicated ... who is to blame



My answer to this entire dilemma is "Common Sense"



And, in addition to the common sense is something call resource driven logic and non resource driven logic.



As long as the CPM is still maintain its non-resource driven logic, I believe the project still hold its origial critical path.



i.e. the methodology of building a high rise can be differ in different situation, when it is submitted as a master programme, it may have a very different sequency of event and it is purely driven by resource.



HTH



Alex

Se,



You don’t need a FIDIC expert to understand FIDIC clause 14. It is a very straighrfoward clause. You only need to know the English Language, the syntax, deductive reasoning and



the willpower to believe in what you understand after being train to understand the english language.



Cheers,

Happy Planning and Scheduling

This Dilemma will always face planning and scheduling engineers may it be the present generation or the future generation.



It is for this reason that we have to find a unified solution.



Hi Mike.



It is not right to stop this thread since a lot of planning and scheduling engineers are still struggling on what to do, not only Arlene but also me, at the present moment, and I believe in the future.



The more planning and scheduling engineers will share their experience, the more we will have option on who to follow, what to follow, what methodology to follow, etc., etc.,



Cheers,

Happy Planning and Scheduling

Hi Nestor



You are correct, one schedule is linked with another. So should the planner submit the schedule closest to reality or a schedule to please the engineer.



what will be the knock on effects for the interface parties.



Alex

Hi All - including Charleston



Arlene has been give all the advice she needs.



Let us leave her in peace and close this thread.



Best regards



Mike Testro

It should be "Arlene is not obliged to do what her PM consultant is telling her".



Sorry for that Arlene.

Well, It’s better for me to just wait for FIDIC experts to make their contributions on this issue. As far as I’m concerned, Arlene is not obliged to do what his PM consultant is telling him.

Se,



Refer to your post # 38,



For FIDIC, the fundamental of planning and scheduling is found in cluase 14



The only time that baseline program will be revise is upon the instruction by the client representative, after evaluating that the baseline program is delayed.



Not the word by word, but, somehow to that effect.



So the fundamentals in planning and scheduling exercise and deliverables must be base on what the contract says.



It is for this reason that in the event your contract department is very strong in presence within the project, then, it is better to follow what the contract says.



But some contract superseeded the FIDIC clause 14 by incorporating special conditions, particular conditions...



However, contract basically, invoke that whoever is higher in quality will be implemented.



So if the particular condition is rubbish or the special condition is rubbish, then, you have to follow FIDIC clause 14.



The dilemma continues before, in my case, why I will complicate issues. Whatever is convenient for me and the project team are happy is also ok with me.



But since I got the experience, I will cover my tracks because at the end of the day, a lot of fingerpointing will always happened especially if the project fail.



Cheers,

Happy Planning and Scheduling

FIDIC, I assume is the General Condition of the Contract. We also have Special Condition.



Se - What is IFC?



There is a clause in the contract that the PM/Engineer/Client can instruct the contractor to submit revised schedule when it deems the approved schedule is already obsolete. The contractor can request for the instruction to be issued.



Cheers..

Let us say, there’s no other interface schedule. The only interface is the schedule of the Engineer, meaning IFC schedule.



Can a PM consultant interfere in the means and methods of a contractor even if the project is not delayed and it does not affect the IFC schedule?



Is there really a clause in FIDIC that will tell the contractor not to change its logic, only actual % and dates?

The comment/advise of Dieter in his post No. 3 was very logical.



Cheers..

One reason I can think of, is your schedule is interfaced with another schedules. Revision in the logic of your schedule will create problem with the others.



Or they simply want you to submit status of the approved schedule. In some cases it is required in the contract. Are you also required to submit current schedule or sort of rolling schedule?



Cheers..

Going back to the original query.



Is there really a clause in FIDIC that says, you can not change logic, and the only changes you can make is on percentages and actual dates even though the project is not delayed? Can a PM consultant interfere in the means and methods of a contractor though the project is not delayed, he’s just changing his means and methods as per what the reality in the field is showing?



I think the issue is not as simple as following the whims of a PM consultant and convering your a..



If the project is delayed, then this question is not valid. As long as the changes made by the contractor will not affect the scheduling by the other party using the baseline schedule, I don’t think the contractor has an obligation to follow the PMs directive on this. Unless there’s a clear clause in FIDIC to the contrary.



IMHO

Arlene,

For 6 long months your PM did not comment on your updated schedule? ... and at the same time you also continued in submitting another update using the old/approved baseline scheduling parameters? You agree on both then.



If he/she has not replied maybe you can use FIDIC clauses related to submission of revised programme whenever the previous is inconsistent with actual progress.



Mike,

As a forensic planner/analyst, what would you expect at the end of the line if there’s a disputed EOT?

Hi Arlene



The point is that you do not have to submit both schedules to the PM.



Tell him that you are recording progress on two different programmes.



Give him what he wants on the original schedule and keep your own reports to yourself.



When he asks to see both reports you will have won.



If he doesn’t ask then you will have a correct record for the eventual delay claim.



Best regards



Mike Testro

Arlene,



Problem solved? It’s not clear whether you already had an agreement with the PM for those two schedules.



Kindly elaborate more with respect to PM’s answer/review of your two submittals.



Regards,

Hi Charleston



It is true that the US and UK approach to contractual problems diverge in some cirumstances - but not all.



I am ad idem with Ronald on this one.



Stick to his good advice Arlene.



Best regards



Mike Testro

Hi Andrew



Have a look at the thread - Ban these planning abominations.



An activity is where one trade can work in one location on its own.



If a task is more than 10 days it is too long.



If on a slab the work is broken down into grids then set up a cascade for each grid and link the grids then set it under a summary bar.



It is very quick when you use copy paste for each section then filter on each task and do a global FS link between grids and then between levels.



Best regards



Mike Testro.

Dear Arlene,



In your post #28, you did acknowledge that Mr. Ronald Wintir Post #9 helped you. I understand you because somehow I think we came from the same country. While Mr. Ronald approached is the most effective way, you have to consider also that Mr. Ronald comes from US of A.



It may not be the solution when you worked in UK influence country or commonwealth country.



Although they (US of A and UK) profess to be allies in the world arena, there are details that these two profess the opposite ways. Believe me for I have worked in lots of countries.



Please reconsider my previous post. You also have to check what the contract says.



cheers

Happy Planning and Scheduling

Hi Mike,

You obviously have a great deal of experience but perhaps you have lost track of reality? Or do you only use MSP?



If every planner were only to use FS links then how small do the activity durations have to be for that logic to be correct?



Example logic tests!



Do you have to complete a concrete slab befor you start kickers for the next level of columns?



Ok so we split the slab into individual pours



Do you have to complete all of the decking befor you start fixing rebar?



Ok so we split the pour down into 1 day work units, then perhaps the F-S will be correct!



Perhaps we should start a Poll on use of links, my pet hate being the F-S neg duration!



Happy Planning those of you with jobs!

Arlene

Thank you for clearing-up.

But two schedules?



Good luck!

Dieter

Arlene

in post #12 you wrote you know how to solve this dilemma. Can you share, how?



To give you another reason which led myself to my reply: Cooperation between planner/scheduler and pm - or consultant - needs som basis of confidence. Changes to plan in agreement with pm, site manager or other responsible person is normal and has to be reflected by the planner. Changes without such an agreement may reduce confidence or even be a "good" basis for later claims and advocates may be delighted. Activities planned to run in parallel will depend on the same predecessor and drive successors - new fs-links. Here I fully support Mike.

Changes to predecessors’ links after an activity was started are irrelevant, will even lead to confusion, and to reduced confidence into your work - for my opinion.

Again: It’s your plan and it’s up to you to reflect changes in planning in agreement with the responsible persons and under written notice for major changes.



But I’m really curious for your decision.



Regards

Dieter

But if your company is not sohpisticated or dumb and moron,



so what can you do. follow your instinct, follow advised in PP (it will make you more confuse),



Or if your planning manager cannot give direction, then, it is really a bad situation.



On the brighter side, I’m always around since I’m a project control manager and as such, I have developed project control procedures, forensic planning methodology and procedures.



It is always my habit to raise into higher standard the planning and scheduling profession, forensic planning analyze profession by documenting AACEI recommended practice or other professional body norms.



cheers

Happy Planning and Scheduling

Dear All,



Arlene’s dilemma is not unique in the planning world. I expereinced it and I will continue to experienced this kind of delimma.



Since we are just doing our work to earned money for our family to live, I think, the solution can be found in each company that we worked, the project we are in at the present moment, the location of our workplace or project workplace.



IMHO, the approach is to update the baseline periodically without changes to the approved baseline programme relative to relationship. Any changes must have the agreement in writing by the client representative. In most cases, this will make the updated programme, current programm irrelevant to what will be the realistic activities at site in the succeeding weeks or months.



Why are we doing this? Simple!!! The periodic update of the baseline program must show the actuals and how this actuals impact on the schedule as originally planned and accepted. It will be used in future forensice planning exercise for evaluation for entitlement of claims for extension of time.



It is for this reason that another realistic program will be prepare in Microsoft Excel or Microsoft Project that show the realistic activities at site in the next four weeks or sometimes called the four weeks rolling program.



Cheers,

Happy Planning and Scheduling

Good day to All,



My opinion..



In a scenario where partnering works, being proactive is a big plus.



If the works are delayed, contractor’s fault, you like to report you are under control, that is fine.



In a scenario where the client play hard with the contractor and the works are delayed, client’s fault, you want to protect your entitlement. This will dicate how you report.



That is how the contractor make business, plain and simple.



Cheers..