I did not think that the guys in the 60s messed up. They had 3000 projects running at the same time and they wanted to land on the moon. So I think that it is safe to say that if you want to build a project on earth for $5M or less, you do not need a progam. You need a calculator only. On the other hand, if you want to go outside the Earth, they you need computers for communication back and forth. I think that construction (like LEGO) is done manually up their as well.
On the other hand, if you have layers and layers of people all over the place, and you are paying them. Then chances are if you buy the black box, and create a model, some kind of calculations is better than nothing. A little order is good. And maybe, just maybe, if you hire the best guys to create the model and maintain the system, then you can get COST AND TIME savings.
With kind regards,
Samer
Member for
24 years 8 months
Member for24 years9 months
Submitted by Vladimir Liberzon on Tue, 2010-03-23 09:29
Dear Samer,
First of all, let me tell that I agree with you.
More than that I am strongly against project schedulers that draw the schedules.
When implementing PM System we suggest to create a set of databases (reference-books) including, Resource Dictionary, Material Dictionary, Cost Components Dictionary, Material Requirements per unit of volume for typical activities and assignments, unit costs for typical activities and assignments, Typical Resource Crews, Resource Productivities for typical assignments, etc.
The usage of these databases is mandatory.
Besides, PMO creates a set of typical fragments - small projects that model typical technologies (like construction of 1km of the pipeline, making 30m2 wall, etc.). These fragments are created with the use of above databases.
Creating new project model is very simple. It is enough to create WBS or use the template and then use Replace the phase by the new project function selecting requirent fragment and adjusting the volumes of work.
With the corporate reference-books and libraries it is easy to create new project models, these models are more reliable (are based on the corporate norms), everybody understands what data are in the foundation. This is the right way to create schedule models.
Member for
17 years 3 months
Member for17 years3 months
Submitted by Samer Zawaydeh on Tue, 2010-03-23 09:10
The paper is related to a complaint about the status quo of PDM software at that time, yes they were correct. At that time and for decades software developers did nothing practical to the resolution of this problem same as Primavera who limited to buy P3 from another developer, then SureTrak also from another developer, then P3e also from another developer that eventually came P6 because of the many bugs and finally to end up being acquired by Oracle. Other software developers are in the same boat, adding nothing relevant but cosmetic.
Yes PDM is more complex than the CPM of the 60’s because it expands the modeling possibilities, probably it was too much for these developers that never introduced much needed functionalities to understand it. Unbelievable, but initially CPM did not take into considerations for limited resources. Take for example resource float, without float you only got a Bar Chart, after resource constraining how can you understand your CPM without true resource float? How can your contract talk about float if the required software is incapable of providing you with the true value of this metric?
About the complaint on how some other functionalities such as constraints that mess with accepted CPM computations I agree, if the software developer insist on these being available then just avoid them in your modeling. Unfortunately these developers never provided for this metrics to be available for comparison purposes without an easy way to toggle them on and off forcing some of us as well as many analysts to either remove them temporarily or keep a second model without the constraints that fool the PDM backward computations. This is an issue when it is the Owner who requires you to include such implementation of constraints.
As far as I recall in this paper there was also the issue about the technical competence of those doing CPM scheduling, this is not for everyone, the scheduler must be knowledgeable of what is being modeled and must be capable to deal with the available software at the time. Don’t blame the tool for its irresponsible use, start requiring that the persons in charge of the creation of the model be capable and competent; this includes the scheduler as well as the project manager, if the project manager is incapable of dealing with CPM at least require for a capable assistant.
Spider Project team is making all attempts to make it possible for you to understand the logic, they provided us with true resource float and are moving forward with other functionalities with this purpose, issues other developers don’t dare to explore. The concepts are not difficult to understand, the programming is, we should encourage the developer to tame the software for us. Spider team is raising the bar and this will eventually make others to follow for the benefit of all, in a way PP is part of this, we represent the end user, wise developers are listening.
Best regards,
Rafael
Member for
17 years 3 months
Member for17 years3 months
Submitted by Samer Zawaydeh on Tue, 2010-03-23 08:20
First of all, let me tell you that I hope that I have the opportunity to work on your software in the future.
The primary issue that I have is that a tool must serve the Owner/ Construction Manager in taking the right decision on the project to save time and cost. I also believe that this is much needed at any point in history.
I can safely say that according to my experience a project of a budget of around ($5 Million, 2 years) can be completed with without anytools whatsoever. The only scheduling that is needed is an excel sheet and a calculator. The Construction Manager can draw the schedule with excel on ONE page and monitor it and reduce the cost on a daily basis. I have done this at least 50 times.
On larger projects, where the uncertainities are more, different people are working on different tasks, the issue becomes harder. The actual plan is difficult to FORM. Time is needed to create it, and many other factors come into play. For the sake of argument let us assume that the only issue here is to come up with a plan to save time and money. Speaking from my experience, I get 5000 activites (150 pages) projects frequently, and I review and return them within 4 hours for the simple reason that it is not representing the project. Most frequently, a planner prepares the Schedule, and the experienced people do not have the time to check the Method Statement, Constructabilities, Deliverables, relationships, and Contractural constraints.
I am confident that you program Spider is a magnificent tool. The issue in not with the black box. The issue is with creating the model. The Construction Manager/ Owner (who are the decision makers) must be able to communicate directly with the software to take the important decision. Nowadays, the tools are driven by Schedulers who know how to use the tool (to some extent/ depending on their experience) without the proper interaction from management. This tool is used to create Schedules to show contactual milestones, and unless the other party is experienced enough to debug the submitted program, it become a contractural document that is supposed to be monitored and tracked to achieve the project.
My suggestion is simple, Model Creation must be simple enough like punching the buttons on a calculator. I think that you need to communicate with Texas Instrument and create such a tool.
I also suggest that you send the 4 guys copies of Spider with all the supporting documents. Let them test it and use it and next they sit down and have coffee, they would be able to talk about something of value available on the market and ENR can publish the state of the available tools around the world. Of course, I understand that there are many other issues at play here, but it seems that they guys genuinely want to improve the status.
No body is talking about the Black Box, everyone is assuming it is working correctly. The issue here is that getting the right information, in the right order to create the right model is something left for specialist.
With kind regards,
Samer
Member for
17 years 3 months
Member for17 years3 months
Submitted by Samer Zawaydeh on Tue, 2010-03-23 08:17
First of all, let me tell you that I hope that I have the opportunity to work on your software in the future.
The primary issue that I have is that a tool must serve the Owner/ Construction Manager in taking the right decision on the project to save time and cost. I also believe that this is much needed at any point in history.
I can safely say that according to my experience a project of a budget of around ($5 Million, 2 years) can be completed with without anytools whatsoever. The only scheduling that is needed is an excel sheet and a calculator. The Construction Manager can draw the schedule with excel on ONE page and monitor it and reduce the cost on a daily basis. I have done this at least 50 times.
On larger projects, where the uncertainities are more, different people are working on different tasks, the issue becomes harder. The actual plan is difficult to FORM. Time is needed to create it, and many other factors come into play. For the sake of argument let us assume that the only issue here is to come up with a plan to save time and money. Speaking from my experience, I get 5000 activites (150 pages) projects frequently, and I review and return them within 4 hours for the simple reason that it is not representing the project. Most frequently, a planner prepares the Schedule, and the experienced people do not have the time to check the Method Statement, Constructabilities, Deliverables, relationships, and Contractural constraints.
I am confident that you program Spider is a magnificent tool. The issue in not with the black box. The issue is with creating the model. The Construction Manager/ Owner (who are the decision makers) must be able to communicate directly with the software to take the important decision. Nowadays, the tools are driven by Schedulers who know how to use the tool (to some extent/ depending on their experience) without the proper interaction from management. This tool is used to create Schedules to show contactual milestones, and unless the other party is experienced enough to debug the submitted program, it become a contractural document that is supposed to be monitored and tracked to achieve the project.
My suggestion is simple, Model Creation must be simple enough like punching the buttons on a calculator. I think that you need to communicate with Texas Instrument and create such a tool.
I also suggest that you send the 4 guys copies of Spider with all the supporting documents. Let them test it and use it and next they sit down and have coffee, they would be able to talk about something of value available on the market and ENR can publish the state of the available tools around the world. Of course, I understand that there are many other issues at play here, but it seems that they guys genuinely want to improve the status.
No body is talking about the Black Box, everyone is assuming it is working correctly. The issue here is that getting the right information, in the right order to create the right model is something left for specialist.
With kind regards,
Samer
Member for
24 years 8 months
Member for24 years9 months
Submitted by Vladimir Liberzon on Tue, 2010-03-23 05:03
Ask or suggest something that is required but is not supported.
Spider Project is a tool for finding proper management decisions based on the information that was entered. If you created reliable schedule model then the software shall provide you with the optimal or near optimal solutions for the project schedule, resource assignments and usage, that take into consideration all existing constraints.
What is missing?
The paper that you mentioned described the oppinions of some people. By the way none of them knew Spider Project. Do you agree with them?
Best Regards,
Vladimir
Member for
17 years 3 months
Member for17 years3 months
Submitted by Samer Zawaydeh on Tue, 2010-03-23 04:46
So, we can reasonable say that up to 2003, according to published sources, that the state of Scheduling is a mess.
The basic need of the Owner/Construction Manager to save time and money is not met "easily" by the available tools in the market. The user-tool interface is a mess. Users cant transform their ideas into CORRECT networks of logic easily, in order for the black box to calculate it correctly.
I still think that we need to get the guys in a brainstorming session and transform that "Lebombo bone" into a modern tool. Think of it like an ipod. On one side you input the data and on the other side you get the time and cost savings.
I think that I just came up with the next ORACLE market penetration idea :) load your software of choice on ur ipod for $9.99/mo :)
With kind regards,
Samer
Member for
17 years 3 months
Member for17 years3 months
Submitted by Samer Zawaydeh on Mon, 2010-03-22 10:55
A excellent piece of research but you missed out some English contributions:
1. Charles Babbage - Difference Engine - 1849 - a fully programmable calculating machine.
2. Bletchly Park WW11 code breaking computer constructed by Alan Turin circa 1941
3. Clive Sinclair first pocket calculator using LEDs early 1960s
And it was the Ancient Greeks who discovered electricity by rubbing an amber rod with silk to generate powerful static charges - the Greek word for amber is electron.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
17 years 3 months
Member for17 years3 months
Submitted by Samer Zawaydeh on Mon, 2010-03-22 06:09
With the help of google and few ideas looking at a schedule in front of me, I decided to find out the history of paper, mathematics, electricity, computing tools, CPM, and here are the findings:
Paper:
1. Early people discovered that they could make simple drawings on the walls of caves, which was a great place for recording thoughts, but wasnt portable.
2. About 5,000 years ago, Egyptians created "sheets" of papyrus by harvesting, peeling and slicing the plant into strips
3. 3,000 years. The person credited with inventing paper is a Chinese man named Tsai Lun.
4. 10th century, Arabians were substituting linen fibers for wood and bamboo, creating a finer sheet of paper
5. In 1448, Johannes Gutenberg, a German, was credited with inventing the printing press
Tools
1. The original compact calculator was the abacus, developed in China in the ninth century.
2. The young French mathematician Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) invented the first adding machine in 1642, a clever device driven by gears and capable of performing mechanical addition and subtraction.
3. The first commercially successful adding machine was developed in 1886 by William Seward Burroughs (1855-1898).
4. The "Millionaire," a machine invented by Otto Steiger in 1894, was the first adding machine also capable of direct multiplication.
5. The Atanasoff–Berry Computer (ABC) was the first electronic digital computing device.[1] Conceived in 1937, the machine was not programmable, being designed only to solve systems of linear equations.
6. The hand-held pocket calculator was invented at Texas Instruments, Incorporated (TI) in 1966 by a development team which included Jerry D. Merryman, James H. Van Tassel and Jack St. Clair Kilby
The numbers:
1. The Arabic numerals or Hindu numerals or Hindu-Arabic numerals are the ten digits (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). The decimal Hindu-Arabic numeral system was invented in India around 500 AD.
2. While the word algebra comes from the Arabic language (al-jabr, الجبر literally, restoration) and much of its methods from Arabic/Islamic mathematics, its roots can be traced to earlier traditions, most notably ancient Indian mathematics
2. Prehistoric mathematics: The origins of mathematical thought lie in the concepts of number, magnitude, and form.[8] Modern studies of animal cognition have shown that these concepts are not unique to humans. Such concepts would have been part of everyday life in hunter-gatherer societies. That the concept of number evolved gradually over time is evident in that some languages today preserve the distinction between "one", "two", and "many", but not of numbers larger than two.[8]
The oldest known mathematical object is the Lebombo bone, discovered in the Lebombo mountains of Swaziland and dated to approximately 35,000 BC.[9] It consists of 29 distinct notches deliberately cut into a baboons fibula.[10] There is evidence that women used counting to keep track of their menstrual cycles; 28 to 30 scratches on bone or stone, followed by a distinctive marker.[11] Also prehistoric artifacts discovered in Africa and France, dated between 35,000 and 20,000 years old,[12] suggest early attempts to quantify time.[13]
The Ishango bone, found near the headwaters of the Nile river (northeastern Congo), may be as much as 20,000 years old and consists of a series of tally marks carved in three columns running the length of the bone. Common interpretations are that the Ishango bone shows either the earliest known demonstration of sequences of prime numbers[10] or a six month lunar calendar.[14] Predynastic Egyptians of the 5th millennium BC pictorially represented geometric designs. It has been claimed that megalithic monuments in England and Scotland, dating from the 3rd millennium BC, incorporate geometric ideas such as circles, ellipses, and Pythagorean triples in their design.[15]
4. The most ancient mathematical texts available are Plimpton 322 (Babylonian mathematics c. 1900 BC),[1] the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus (Egyptian mathematics c. 2000-1800 BC)[2] and the Moscow Mathematical Papyrus (Egyptian mathematics c. 1890 BC). All of these texts concern the so-called Pythagorean theorem, which seems to be the most ancient and widespread mathematical development after basic arithmetic and geometry.
Electricity
1. Benjamin Franklin and Electricity In June of 1752, he performed his famous kite experiment, drawing down electricity from the clouds and charging a Leyden jar from the key at the end of the string.
2. Thomas Edisons greatest challenge was the development of a practical incandescent, electric light. Contrary to popular belief, he didnt "invent" the lightbulb, but rather he improved upon a 50-year-old idea. In 1879, using lower current electricity, a small carbonized filament, and an improved vacuum inside the globe, he was able to produce a reliable, long-lasting source of light.
CPM
CPM was the discovery of M.R.Walker of E.I.Du Pont de Nemours & Co. and J.E.Kelly of Remington Rand, circa 1957. The computation was designed for the UNIVAC-I computer. The first test was made in 1958, when CPM was applied to the construction of a new chemical plant. In March 1959, the method was applied to a maintenance shut-down at the Du Pont works in Louisville, Kentucky. Unproductive time was reduced from 125 to 93 hours
Now we are using all of the above to save time and money on our construction projects. Now I have to say that my favorite was discovering tha the oldest known mathematical object is the "Lebombo bone".
The standard abacus is a marvelous calculating machine - I never mastered it although I tried.
I once worked with a Japanese company in Baghdad and the Project manager did all his calculations on an abacus.
The European engineers were intrigued because thay used somewhat rudimentary calculators from Texas Instruments. (this was in the late 80’s pre computers)
I set up a challenge of abacus v calculator with a somewhat complex calculation - something like:
((197*42)/18)+(14.57*28.6)=??
The abacus won by a fair margin to 2 decimal places - 876.37.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
21 years 8 months
Member for21 years8 months
Submitted by Rafael Davila on Sun, 2010-03-21 14:46
Thank you for your kind reply. I think that the softwares that we have nowadays are doing a great job at solving problems. And I hope that their black boxes are programmed correctly.
I saw that you referred to the abacus earlier and that it is not designed to solve the decimal points. So I started a small google search and found the following the you might find interesting about the accuracy of "human" before the word computer came to existance:
Altogether, there are 13 rows with 7 beads in each one, which makes up 91 beads in each Nepohualtzintzin. This is a basic number to understand the close relation conceived between the exact accounts and the natural phenomena. This is so that one Nepohualtzintzin (91) represents the number of days that a season of the year lasts, two Nepohualtzitzin (182) is the number of days of the corns cycle, from its sowing to its harvest, three Nepohualtzintzin (273) is the number of days of a babys gestation, and four Nepohualtzintzin (364) complete a cycle and approximate a year (1 1/4 days short). It is worth to mention that in the Nepohualtzintzin, amounts in the rank from 10 to the 18 can be calculated, with floating point, which allows calculating stellar as well as infinitesimal amounts with absolute precision."
Now this is the first time that I read that article, but I found it interesting that they are using "floating" and "absolute precision" for a systm that was invented by humans 4000 years ago.
If you dig a little deeper and click on the Mayan culture and CONSTRUCTION, you will find the following:
"The Classic period (c. 250–900 AD) witnessed the peak of large-scale construction and urbanism, the recording of monumental inscriptions, and a period of significant intellectual and artistic development, particularly in the southern lowland regions.[9] They developed an agriculturally intensive, city-centered empire consisting of numerous independent city-states. This includes the well-known cities of Tikal, Palenque, Copán and Calakmul, but also the lesser known Dos Pilas, Uaxactun, Altun Ha, and Bonampak, among others. The Early Classic settlement distribution in the northern Maya lowlands is not as clearly known as the southern zone, but does include a number of population centers, such as Oxkintok, Chunchucmil, and the early occupation of Uxmal."
You will agree with me that these guys 4000 years ago, planned well and scheduled their Construction sites well. They had limited resources and were able to build structures with local materials that lasted until our present day.
With kind regards,
Samer
Member for
21 years 8 months
Member for21 years8 months
Submitted by Rafael Davila on Sun, 2010-03-21 07:22
I tried to illustrate the issue on how wrong and misleading many software are by not being able to get it right within a simple two activities schedule, I don’t believe a computer is necessary to understand the five activities schedule either. Is not a black box, is an easy to verify fact.
That different software can yield different results and maybe only one can provides you with true float after resource leveling is no reason to throw to the floor these tools, they can still be of some use.
Do not throw to the floor your CPM software as if no longer wanted toys, even if not high end, even if used as a low end calculator or an abacus.
Best regards,
Rafael
Member for
17 years 3 months
Member for17 years3 months
Submitted by Samer Zawaydeh on Sun, 2010-03-21 05:26
Many thanks for your kind support. I highly appreciate it.
I think that you should have entered this discussion a while back, but it is not too late.
Dear All,
For me a Scheduling Programs are a big calculator. Everyone can use the +, -, *, /, = and punch in the numbers and get the right answer. Unfortunately, not everyone can juggle few thousand activities using windows and then VERIFY the right answer.
The level of mathematics envolved in programming the box is high, and an engineer (Junior or Senior) does not have the time to understand it (even if can understand it, his company is not paying him to understand it), bearing in mind that, it has to be understoond and verified by the other party. So, it is better to assume that the black box is giving the right answers until it is critical enough project to veryify the results using another black box.
History speaks for itself. Civilizations were built without computer or programs. CPM came in the 1950s. Needless to say, that current civilizations underwent TWO world wars without computers or programs.
I can very much assure you ALL, that Engineers CAN build construction projects successfully without ANY computers or ANY Schedules. If the Romans, Egyptians, and Chinese succeeded in building Empires for hundreds and thousands of years, then my statement is valid. Can you tell me the name of the software that enabled the British Empire (largest Empire in history) to rule for hundreds of years! The answer is No. You agree with me that it required a lot of planning and scheduling. That is why, I am confident that todays Engineers can do the same thing if they are put under similar circumistances, for the simple reason that they have more education and more understanding of Engineering than the "Engineers without Degrees" hundreds of years ago.
Let me state very clearly that the CORE purpose of a CPM software is to SAVE TIME AND MONEY. If the softwares that engineers are using these days are not providing this, then the original purpose is lost. These tools are adding more confusion and are not being used properly. Gates was successful in creating a "friendly window environment" that other are using as "input" to the black box, and "output" to view the results. Scheduling Software are like tools in the hands of users. Can a T-square draw a perfect drawing! You are mistaken to think it can. Even if it has a buzzing name.
Ultimately, scheduling tools must evolve in order to enable the user with "reasonable" experience to use the tool to save him/her time and money, and for this result to be verifed (i.e, a checking mechanism).
With kind regards,
Samer
Member for
24 years 8 months
Member for24 years9 months
Submitted by Vladimir Liberzon on Sat, 2010-03-20 19:27
we live in a free world and everybody can do what he/she likes if it does not harm anybody.
I can imagine that in your projects resources are unlimited, Unfortunately in most projects where we are involved there are resource restrictions and creating project schedules we cannot ignore them. Our schedules consist of many thousands activities and manual levelling I consider as a joke.
Most people just draw their schedules and their schedules do not answer to what if questions. They are almost useless. When people manage projects they manage resources and if the model does not answer to the questions on resources it does not help much.
I agree that the Schedule is very important for the "what if" analysis, and it is used for many decision making actions pertaining to recourses. Actually, this can not be done in a timely manner without these tools.
I am very much against trusting the black box without understanding its formula. The problem is that people start applying the constraints and lead and lags, calenders and local and global options without understanding the black box formula. They you have an output that is support to predict the time and cost throughout the next couple of years.
Unless you have a systematic process to verify the input, and make sure that you Model is correct, there is no way to make certain that the output is correct unless you rely on experienced engineers with prior experience in a similar project.
Member for
17 years 3 monthsRE: A brief history of Scheduling
Dear Rafael,
I did not think that the guys in the 60s messed up. They had 3000 projects running at the same time and they wanted to land on the moon. So I think that it is safe to say that if you want to build a project on earth for $5M or less, you do not need a progam. You need a calculator only. On the other hand, if you want to go outside the Earth, they you need computers for communication back and forth. I think that construction (like LEGO) is done manually up their as well.
On the other hand, if you have layers and layers of people all over the place, and you are paying them. Then chances are if you buy the black box, and create a model, some kind of calculations is better than nothing. A little order is good. And maybe, just maybe, if you hire the best guys to create the model and maintain the system, then you can get COST AND TIME savings.
With kind regards,
Samer
Member for
24 years 8 monthsRE: A brief history of Scheduling
Dear Samer,
First of all, let me tell that I agree with you.
More than that I am strongly against project schedulers that draw the schedules.
When implementing PM System we suggest to create a set of databases (reference-books) including, Resource Dictionary, Material Dictionary, Cost Components Dictionary, Material Requirements per unit of volume for typical activities and assignments, unit costs for typical activities and assignments, Typical Resource Crews, Resource Productivities for typical assignments, etc.
The usage of these databases is mandatory.
Besides, PMO creates a set of typical fragments - small projects that model typical technologies (like construction of 1km of the pipeline, making 30m2 wall, etc.). These fragments are created with the use of above databases.
Creating new project model is very simple. It is enough to create WBS or use the template and then use Replace the phase by the new project function selecting requirent fragment and adjusting the volumes of work.
With the corporate reference-books and libraries it is easy to create new project models, these models are more reliable (are based on the corporate norms), everybody understands what data are in the foundation. This is the right way to create schedule models.
Member for
17 years 3 monthsRE: A brief history of Scheduling
Dear Vladimir,
Please read the opinions of other as well on the same issue. Amazingly it is the same:
pscinc.homestead.com/CPM.html
With kind regards,
Samer
Member for
21 years 8 monthsRE: A brief history of Scheduling
Samer,
The paper is related to a complaint about the status quo of PDM software at that time, yes they were correct. At that time and for decades software developers did nothing practical to the resolution of this problem same as Primavera who limited to buy P3 from another developer, then SureTrak also from another developer, then P3e also from another developer that eventually came P6 because of the many bugs and finally to end up being acquired by Oracle. Other software developers are in the same boat, adding nothing relevant but cosmetic.
Yes PDM is more complex than the CPM of the 60’s because it expands the modeling possibilities, probably it was too much for these developers that never introduced much needed functionalities to understand it. Unbelievable, but initially CPM did not take into considerations for limited resources. Take for example resource float, without float you only got a Bar Chart, after resource constraining how can you understand your CPM without true resource float? How can your contract talk about float if the required software is incapable of providing you with the true value of this metric?
About the complaint on how some other functionalities such as constraints that mess with accepted CPM computations I agree, if the software developer insist on these being available then just avoid them in your modeling. Unfortunately these developers never provided for this metrics to be available for comparison purposes without an easy way to toggle them on and off forcing some of us as well as many analysts to either remove them temporarily or keep a second model without the constraints that fool the PDM backward computations. This is an issue when it is the Owner who requires you to include such implementation of constraints.
As far as I recall in this paper there was also the issue about the technical competence of those doing CPM scheduling, this is not for everyone, the scheduler must be knowledgeable of what is being modeled and must be capable to deal with the available software at the time. Don’t blame the tool for its irresponsible use, start requiring that the persons in charge of the creation of the model be capable and competent; this includes the scheduler as well as the project manager, if the project manager is incapable of dealing with CPM at least require for a capable assistant.
Spider Project team is making all attempts to make it possible for you to understand the logic, they provided us with true resource float and are moving forward with other functionalities with this purpose, issues other developers don’t dare to explore. The concepts are not difficult to understand, the programming is, we should encourage the developer to tame the software for us. Spider team is raising the bar and this will eventually make others to follow for the benefit of all, in a way PP is part of this, we represent the end user, wise developers are listening.
Best regards,
Rafael
Member for
17 years 3 monthsRE: A brief history of Scheduling
Dear Vladimir,
First of all, let me tell you that I hope that I have the opportunity to work on your software in the future.
The primary issue that I have is that a tool must serve the Owner/ Construction Manager in taking the right decision on the project to save time and cost. I also believe that this is much needed at any point in history.
I can safely say that according to my experience a project of a budget of around ($5 Million, 2 years) can be completed with without anytools whatsoever. The only scheduling that is needed is an excel sheet and a calculator. The Construction Manager can draw the schedule with excel on ONE page and monitor it and reduce the cost on a daily basis. I have done this at least 50 times.
On larger projects, where the uncertainities are more, different people are working on different tasks, the issue becomes harder. The actual plan is difficult to FORM. Time is needed to create it, and many other factors come into play. For the sake of argument let us assume that the only issue here is to come up with a plan to save time and money. Speaking from my experience, I get 5000 activites (150 pages) projects frequently, and I review and return them within 4 hours for the simple reason that it is not representing the project. Most frequently, a planner prepares the Schedule, and the experienced people do not have the time to check the Method Statement, Constructabilities, Deliverables, relationships, and Contractural constraints.
I am confident that you program Spider is a magnificent tool. The issue in not with the black box. The issue is with creating the model. The Construction Manager/ Owner (who are the decision makers) must be able to communicate directly with the software to take the important decision. Nowadays, the tools are driven by Schedulers who know how to use the tool (to some extent/ depending on their experience) without the proper interaction from management. This tool is used to create Schedules to show contactual milestones, and unless the other party is experienced enough to debug the submitted program, it become a contractural document that is supposed to be monitored and tracked to achieve the project.
My suggestion is simple, Model Creation must be simple enough like punching the buttons on a calculator. I think that you need to communicate with Texas Instrument and create such a tool.
I also suggest that you send the 4 guys copies of Spider with all the supporting documents. Let them test it and use it and next they sit down and have coffee, they would be able to talk about something of value available on the market and ENR can publish the state of the available tools around the world. Of course, I understand that there are many other issues at play here, but it seems that they guys genuinely want to improve the status.
No body is talking about the Black Box, everyone is assuming it is working correctly. The issue here is that getting the right information, in the right order to create the right model is something left for specialist.
With kind regards,
Samer
Member for
17 years 3 monthsRE: A brief history of Scheduling
Dear Vladimir,
First of all, let me tell you that I hope that I have the opportunity to work on your software in the future.
The primary issue that I have is that a tool must serve the Owner/ Construction Manager in taking the right decision on the project to save time and cost. I also believe that this is much needed at any point in history.
I can safely say that according to my experience a project of a budget of around ($5 Million, 2 years) can be completed with without anytools whatsoever. The only scheduling that is needed is an excel sheet and a calculator. The Construction Manager can draw the schedule with excel on ONE page and monitor it and reduce the cost on a daily basis. I have done this at least 50 times.
On larger projects, where the uncertainities are more, different people are working on different tasks, the issue becomes harder. The actual plan is difficult to FORM. Time is needed to create it, and many other factors come into play. For the sake of argument let us assume that the only issue here is to come up with a plan to save time and money. Speaking from my experience, I get 5000 activites (150 pages) projects frequently, and I review and return them within 4 hours for the simple reason that it is not representing the project. Most frequently, a planner prepares the Schedule, and the experienced people do not have the time to check the Method Statement, Constructabilities, Deliverables, relationships, and Contractural constraints.
I am confident that you program Spider is a magnificent tool. The issue in not with the black box. The issue is with creating the model. The Construction Manager/ Owner (who are the decision makers) must be able to communicate directly with the software to take the important decision. Nowadays, the tools are driven by Schedulers who know how to use the tool (to some extent/ depending on their experience) without the proper interaction from management. This tool is used to create Schedules to show contactual milestones, and unless the other party is experienced enough to debug the submitted program, it become a contractural document that is supposed to be monitored and tracked to achieve the project.
My suggestion is simple, Model Creation must be simple enough like punching the buttons on a calculator. I think that you need to communicate with Texas Instrument and create such a tool.
I also suggest that you send the 4 guys copies of Spider with all the supporting documents. Let them test it and use it and next they sit down and have coffee, they would be able to talk about something of value available on the market and ENR can publish the state of the available tools around the world. Of course, I understand that there are many other issues at play here, but it seems that they guys genuinely want to improve the status.
No body is talking about the Black Box, everyone is assuming it is working correctly. The issue here is that getting the right information, in the right order to create the right model is something left for specialist.
With kind regards,
Samer
Member for
24 years 8 monthsRE: A brief history of Scheduling
Hi Samer,
what is your proposal?
Remember track "Let’s Challenge Spider"?
Ask or suggest something that is required but is not supported.
Spider Project is a tool for finding proper management decisions based on the information that was entered. If you created reliable schedule model then the software shall provide you with the optimal or near optimal solutions for the project schedule, resource assignments and usage, that take into consideration all existing constraints.
What is missing?
The paper that you mentioned described the oppinions of some people. By the way none of them knew Spider Project. Do you agree with them?
Best Regards,
Vladimir
Member for
17 years 3 monthsRE: A brief history of Scheduling
Dear Rafael,
I came accross a very interesting article published in the ENR magazine in 2003:
" Critics Cant Find the Logic in Many of Todays CPM Schedules." It is a 4 page article quoting "Priests" and "tool makers" in this field.
www.cpmguru.com/.../ENR%20-%20Critics%20of%20Todays%20CPM%20Schedules.p…
So, we can reasonable say that up to 2003, according to published sources, that the state of Scheduling is a mess.
The basic need of the Owner/Construction Manager to save time and money is not met "easily" by the available tools in the market. The user-tool interface is a mess. Users cant transform their ideas into CORRECT networks of logic easily, in order for the black box to calculate it correctly.
I still think that we need to get the guys in a brainstorming session and transform that "Lebombo bone" into a modern tool. Think of it like an ipod. On one side you input the data and on the other side you get the time and cost savings.
I think that I just came up with the next ORACLE market penetration idea :) load your software of choice on ur ipod for $9.99/mo :)
With kind regards,
Samer
Member for
17 years 3 monthsRE: A brief history of Scheduling
Dear Mike,
Yes the Slide Rule is very important discovery. It lasted 300+ years.
But I still think the newest information is the "Lebombo bone" from 35,000B.C.
With kind regards,
SAmer
Member for
19 years 10 monthsRE: A brief history of Scheduling
Hi Samer
I forgot the most important one.
Circa 1650 the invention of the slide rule following John Napiers discovey of logarithms.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
17 years 3 monthsRE: A brief history of Scheduling
Dear Mike,
hahah. Thank you for the remark. I will do better next time.
With kind regards,
Samer
Member for
19 years 10 monthsRE: A brief history of Scheduling
Hi Samer
A excellent piece of research but you missed out some English contributions:
1. Charles Babbage - Difference Engine - 1849 - a fully programmable calculating machine.
2. Bletchly Park WW11 code breaking computer constructed by Alan Turin circa 1941
3. Clive Sinclair first pocket calculator using LEDs early 1960s
And it was the Ancient Greeks who discovered electricity by rubbing an amber rod with silk to generate powerful static charges - the Greek word for amber is electron.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
17 years 3 monthsRE: A brief history of Scheduling
Dear Rafael,
The base 21 idea gave me a good laugh. Thank you.
With the help of google and few ideas looking at a schedule in front of me, I decided to find out the history of paper, mathematics, electricity, computing tools, CPM, and here are the findings:
Paper:
1. Early people discovered that they could make simple drawings on the walls of caves, which was a great place for recording thoughts, but wasnt portable.
2. About 5,000 years ago, Egyptians created "sheets" of papyrus by harvesting, peeling and slicing the plant into strips
3. 3,000 years. The person credited with inventing paper is a Chinese man named Tsai Lun.
4. 10th century, Arabians were substituting linen fibers for wood and bamboo, creating a finer sheet of paper
5. In 1448, Johannes Gutenberg, a German, was credited with inventing the printing press
Tools
1. The original compact calculator was the abacus, developed in China in the ninth century.
2. The young French mathematician Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) invented the first adding machine in 1642, a clever device driven by gears and capable of performing mechanical addition and subtraction.
3. The first commercially successful adding machine was developed in 1886 by William Seward Burroughs (1855-1898).
4. The "Millionaire," a machine invented by Otto Steiger in 1894, was the first adding machine also capable of direct multiplication.
5. The Atanasoff–Berry Computer (ABC) was the first electronic digital computing device.[1] Conceived in 1937, the machine was not programmable, being designed only to solve systems of linear equations.
6. The hand-held pocket calculator was invented at Texas Instruments, Incorporated (TI) in 1966 by a development team which included Jerry D. Merryman, James H. Van Tassel and Jack St. Clair Kilby
The numbers:
1. The Arabic numerals or Hindu numerals or Hindu-Arabic numerals are the ten digits (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). The decimal Hindu-Arabic numeral system was invented in India around 500 AD.
2. While the word algebra comes from the Arabic language (al-jabr, الجبر literally, restoration) and much of its methods from Arabic/Islamic mathematics, its roots can be traced to earlier traditions, most notably ancient Indian mathematics
2. Prehistoric mathematics: The origins of mathematical thought lie in the concepts of number, magnitude, and form.[8] Modern studies of animal cognition have shown that these concepts are not unique to humans. Such concepts would have been part of everyday life in hunter-gatherer societies. That the concept of number evolved gradually over time is evident in that some languages today preserve the distinction between "one", "two", and "many", but not of numbers larger than two.[8]
The oldest known mathematical object is the Lebombo bone, discovered in the Lebombo mountains of Swaziland and dated to approximately 35,000 BC.[9] It consists of 29 distinct notches deliberately cut into a baboons fibula.[10] There is evidence that women used counting to keep track of their menstrual cycles; 28 to 30 scratches on bone or stone, followed by a distinctive marker.[11] Also prehistoric artifacts discovered in Africa and France, dated between 35,000 and 20,000 years old,[12] suggest early attempts to quantify time.[13]
The Ishango bone, found near the headwaters of the Nile river (northeastern Congo), may be as much as 20,000 years old and consists of a series of tally marks carved in three columns running the length of the bone. Common interpretations are that the Ishango bone shows either the earliest known demonstration of sequences of prime numbers[10] or a six month lunar calendar.[14] Predynastic Egyptians of the 5th millennium BC pictorially represented geometric designs. It has been claimed that megalithic monuments in England and Scotland, dating from the 3rd millennium BC, incorporate geometric ideas such as circles, ellipses, and Pythagorean triples in their design.[15]
4. The most ancient mathematical texts available are Plimpton 322 (Babylonian mathematics c. 1900 BC),[1] the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus (Egyptian mathematics c. 2000-1800 BC)[2] and the Moscow Mathematical Papyrus (Egyptian mathematics c. 1890 BC). All of these texts concern the so-called Pythagorean theorem, which seems to be the most ancient and widespread mathematical development after basic arithmetic and geometry.
Electricity
1. Benjamin Franklin and Electricity In June of 1752, he performed his famous kite experiment, drawing down electricity from the clouds and charging a Leyden jar from the key at the end of the string.
2. Thomas Edisons greatest challenge was the development of a practical incandescent, electric light. Contrary to popular belief, he didnt "invent" the lightbulb, but rather he improved upon a 50-year-old idea. In 1879, using lower current electricity, a small carbonized filament, and an improved vacuum inside the globe, he was able to produce a reliable, long-lasting source of light.
CPM
CPM was the discovery of M.R.Walker of E.I.Du Pont de Nemours & Co. and J.E.Kelly of Remington Rand, circa 1957. The computation was designed for the UNIVAC-I computer. The first test was made in 1958, when CPM was applied to the construction of a new chemical plant. In March 1959, the method was applied to a maintenance shut-down at the Du Pont works in Louisville, Kentucky. Unproductive time was reduced from 125 to 93 hours
Now we are using all of the above to save time and money on our construction projects. Now I have to say that my favorite was discovering tha the oldest known mathematical object is the "Lebombo bone".
With kind regards,
Samer
Member for
19 years 10 monthsRE: A brief history of Scheduling
Hi All
The standard abacus is a marvelous calculating machine - I never mastered it although I tried.
I once worked with a Japanese company in Baghdad and the Project manager did all his calculations on an abacus.
The European engineers were intrigued because thay used somewhat rudimentary calculators from Texas Instruments. (this was in the late 80’s pre computers)
I set up a challenge of abacus v calculator with a somewhat complex calculation - something like:
((197*42)/18)+(14.57*28.6)=??
The abacus won by a fair margin to 2 decimal places - 876.37.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
21 years 8 monthsRE: A brief history of Scheduling
Samer,
About the Abacus thanks for highliting about the decimal point is amazing. And they only used base 20, imagine if using base 21 (boys edition abacus).
Best regards,
Rafael
Member for
17 years 3 monthsRE: A brief history of Scheduling
Dear Rafael,
Thank you for your kind reply. I think that the softwares that we have nowadays are doing a great job at solving problems. And I hope that their black boxes are programmed correctly.
I saw that you referred to the abacus earlier and that it is not designed to solve the decimal points. So I started a small google search and found the following the you might find interesting about the accuracy of "human" before the word computer came to existance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abacus
" Native American abaci
.....
Altogether, there are 13 rows with 7 beads in each one, which makes up 91 beads in each Nepohualtzintzin. This is a basic number to understand the close relation conceived between the exact accounts and the natural phenomena. This is so that one Nepohualtzintzin (91) represents the number of days that a season of the year lasts, two Nepohualtzitzin (182) is the number of days of the corns cycle, from its sowing to its harvest, three Nepohualtzintzin (273) is the number of days of a babys gestation, and four Nepohualtzintzin (364) complete a cycle and approximate a year (1 1/4 days short). It is worth to mention that in the Nepohualtzintzin, amounts in the rank from 10 to the 18 can be calculated, with floating point, which allows calculating stellar as well as infinitesimal amounts with absolute precision."
Now this is the first time that I read that article, but I found it interesting that they are using "floating" and "absolute precision" for a systm that was invented by humans 4000 years ago.
If you dig a little deeper and click on the Mayan culture and CONSTRUCTION, you will find the following:
"The Classic period (c. 250–900 AD) witnessed the peak of large-scale construction and urbanism, the recording of monumental inscriptions, and a period of significant intellectual and artistic development, particularly in the southern lowland regions.[9] They developed an agriculturally intensive, city-centered empire consisting of numerous independent city-states. This includes the well-known cities of Tikal, Palenque, Copán and Calakmul, but also the lesser known Dos Pilas, Uaxactun, Altun Ha, and Bonampak, among others. The Early Classic settlement distribution in the northern Maya lowlands is not as clearly known as the southern zone, but does include a number of population centers, such as Oxkintok, Chunchucmil, and the early occupation of Uxmal."
You will agree with me that these guys 4000 years ago, planned well and scheduled their Construction sites well. They had limited resources and were able to build structures with local materials that lasted until our present day.
With kind regards,
Samer
Member for
21 years 8 monthsRE: A brief history of Scheduling
Samer,
I tried to illustrate the issue on how wrong and misleading many software are by not being able to get it right within a simple two activities schedule, I don’t believe a computer is necessary to understand the five activities schedule either. Is not a black box, is an easy to verify fact.
That different software can yield different results and maybe only one can provides you with true float after resource leveling is no reason to throw to the floor these tools, they can still be of some use.
Do not throw to the floor your CPM software as if no longer wanted toys, even if not high end, even if used as a low end calculator or an abacus.
Best regards,
Rafael
Member for
17 years 3 monthsRE: A brief history of Scheduling
Dear Mike,
Many thanks for your kind support. I highly appreciate it.
I think that you should have entered this discussion a while back, but it is not too late.
Dear All,
For me a Scheduling Programs are a big calculator. Everyone can use the +, -, *, /, = and punch in the numbers and get the right answer. Unfortunately, not everyone can juggle few thousand activities using windows and then VERIFY the right answer.
The level of mathematics envolved in programming the box is high, and an engineer (Junior or Senior) does not have the time to understand it (even if can understand it, his company is not paying him to understand it), bearing in mind that, it has to be understoond and verified by the other party. So, it is better to assume that the black box is giving the right answers until it is critical enough project to veryify the results using another black box.
History speaks for itself. Civilizations were built without computer or programs. CPM came in the 1950s. Needless to say, that current civilizations underwent TWO world wars without computers or programs.
I can very much assure you ALL, that Engineers CAN build construction projects successfully without ANY computers or ANY Schedules. If the Romans, Egyptians, and Chinese succeeded in building Empires for hundreds and thousands of years, then my statement is valid. Can you tell me the name of the software that enabled the British Empire (largest Empire in history) to rule for hundreds of years! The answer is No. You agree with me that it required a lot of planning and scheduling. That is why, I am confident that todays Engineers can do the same thing if they are put under similar circumistances, for the simple reason that they have more education and more understanding of Engineering than the "Engineers without Degrees" hundreds of years ago.
Let me state very clearly that the CORE purpose of a CPM software is to SAVE TIME AND MONEY. If the softwares that engineers are using these days are not providing this, then the original purpose is lost. These tools are adding more confusion and are not being used properly. Gates was successful in creating a "friendly window environment" that other are using as "input" to the black box, and "output" to view the results. Scheduling Software are like tools in the hands of users. Can a T-square draw a perfect drawing! You are mistaken to think it can. Even if it has a buzzing name.
Ultimately, scheduling tools must evolve in order to enable the user with "reasonable" experience to use the tool to save him/her time and money, and for this result to be verifed (i.e, a checking mechanism).
With kind regards,
Samer
Member for
24 years 8 monthsRE: A brief history of Scheduling
Hi Mike,
we live in a free world and everybody can do what he/she likes if it does not harm anybody.
I can imagine that in your projects resources are unlimited, Unfortunately in most projects where we are involved there are resource restrictions and creating project schedules we cannot ignore them. Our schedules consist of many thousands activities and manual levelling I consider as a joke.
Most people just draw their schedules and their schedules do not answer to what if questions. They are almost useless. When people manage projects they manage resources and if the model does not answer to the questions on resources it does not help much.
Best Regards,
Vladimir
Member for
19 years 10 monthsRE: A brief history of Scheduling
Hi Samer
I have had the same knockabout chat with these two eggheads on the topic of resource levelling on a number of occasions on PP.
I am with you Samer - I dont trust any computer to make my decisions - especially when it wont tell me what it has done to my schedule.
I now let Raf & Vlad speak to each other on their own level where they can do least harm to the rest of us.
Best regards
Mike Testro.
Member for
17 years 3 monthsRE: A brief history of Scheduling
Dear Rafael and Vladimir,
I agree that the Schedule is very important for the "what if" analysis, and it is used for many decision making actions pertaining to recourses. Actually, this can not be done in a timely manner without these tools.
I am very much against trusting the black box without understanding its formula. The problem is that people start applying the constraints and lead and lags, calenders and local and global options without understanding the black box formula. They you have an output that is support to predict the time and cost throughout the next couple of years.
Unless you have a systematic process to verify the input, and make sure that you Model is correct, there is no way to make certain that the output is correct unless you rely on experienced engineers with prior experience in a similar project.
With kind regards,
Samer