Activity on Arrow and Non-Continuous PDM are wrong.
Forum Sponsor
Top Posters
James Williams
74 posts
Johannes Vandenberg
14 posts
Soheil Barekat
4 posts
Peter Holroyd
51 posts
Neil Atkinson
5 posts
Trian Asmoro
1 posts
Erkan Polater
9 posts
Luis Jr Ngade
6 posts
Ben Welsher
1 posts
Rohan Dashputre
0 posts
Hi Samer,
when the schedule is based on the estimates and expert judgement the verification process includes the verification of the estimates.
For an example:
1) If the crew assigned to an activity is full and reasonable,
2) If the productivity of assigned resources is correct,
3) If the crews and productivities are the same for all activities of the same type in the whole schedule,
4) If all necessary materials were assigned and material consumption corresponds with the quantity of work to be done on each activity,
5) If material consumption norms (consumption per activity volume unit) are the same for all activities of the same type,
I can add to the list cost verification, etc.
It is very time consuming and the work will be much easier if you may be sure that all data are based on the norms that are listed in the separate tables.
Best Regards,
Vladimir
Hi Rafael,
I just wondering how well you are in database? Have you used all of them before? I remember during my school days when Database was introduce using different programs language like Basic, C language, Pascal, Fortran, Cobol, Dbase, Foxpro...etc… and I believed oracle is the first commercial product released. IBM, Informix and Sybase entered the Arena until Microsoft bought Sybase and now the only 3 major databases exist which was by IBM (Informix), Microsoft and Oracle.
How can you say that “Oracle is no good at database development”? How good are you in database management system? Are you a programmer developer which I believed who works on database management system all the time? I think is the software or program application deals with the database so the question should be how good or efficient the software is and not the database.
w/ kind regards,
Rodel
mimoune
The viewer is free to anyone just that to my knowledge only registered user can download it and then distribute it for free, otherwise Spider Website would be slowed down by everyone downloading the viewer.
What happens is that Spider Project Development Team is very prolific and dynamic and a few times a month they upgrade the software (usually very minor upgrades), so the viewer must also be upgraded.
Fortunately it takes me about 2 minutes to download a full file of the new version. It is not like P6 about 30mb of P6 and 600MB of an external database requiring about 3 installation CD’s, the database engine usually a Microsoft Database, by logic deduction because Oracle is no good at database development. They have not figure it out a more efficient database that requires no PhD to administer. I call P6 the mother of all inefficient software; they are very good at being inefficient. Why do you think it makes many PP members to laugh at it?
Thanks for the reference to SDEF, this was precisely to the standard I was referring. And like Vladimir already said it will not make all software to perform equally. The idea of this standard is to allow for the government to specify a standard that is open and not vendor specific. This to my view, although might close some options to the Contractor, it is an acceptable compromise, at least better than a single option.
Vladimir,
Can I distribute 20,000 or 60,000 copies of the viewer to any government agency for free so 20,000 or 60,000 reviewers can take a look at all the data in my submitted files? If not enough maybe more?
If your answer is yes then Government agencies should consider start requiring free copies of the viewer, as many as they wish.
Best regards,
Rafael
Vladimir
an example of common format is SDEF, it is requested from contractor who deal with us army corps of engineers to submit their schedule in that format.
http://www.cecer.army.mil/facts/sheets/cf-26.pdf
and yes i know each software has different capabilities, but you can always agree on a common ground, the most basic informations( activity id, activity description relationships etc) it is in the benefit of everybody, specially independent vendors (asta, spider, deltek).
and you can keep saying that spider is the best thing invented after CPM method, but as long as it is not used by planners, it will stay always an underdog player,
unless spider management begin to think out of the box, and ask themselves how to make this product sells and used !?
i don’t know, but a free viewer will make no harms, and make people like Rafael happy ;)
best regards
Mimoune
edited : me silly i did not know you have already a viewer, when you purchase a spider license.
Dear Vladimir,
I was checking 5000 activity Schedules each for 5-6 Contractors on a monthly basis. Each schedule should not take more than 4-6 hours to check if the activities, logic, durations, scope changes, resources, percentages, or schedule changes have been done. I always know more about the site than any other person for the simple reason that I spend at least 12 hours daily on sites not in the office site. So all my reviews are actually very clear, quick, and with the latest information since I have direct contact with all the supervisors and teams in addition to the management teams.
You can also run variance reports like claim digger to get a variance list once you get the baseline approved.
Softwares today do much more than Scheduling; reflecting the project planning, monitor progress, and provide trends and forcasting.
With kind regards,
Samer
Sammer,
I have compared many times sample jobs modeled within Primavera SureTrak, MS Project and Spider Project.
They essentially converge on very simple models up to a point where the more sophisticated resource leveling algorithm enter into play, the good thing is that by displaying the resource usage diagrams you can see Spider Project worked within the constraints and consistently yielded better results than the rest. Not to mention the display of true values of float after resource leveling only Spider Project can provide.
By the way have you ever tested the 2 activities sample job that shows how wrong Primavera SureTrak, Primavera P3, Primavera P6, Power Project, MS Project and many other are at displaying the correct value for float after resource leveling? No ISO standard needed, just 5 minutes of your time. A similar exercise you can do with other sample jobs.
Do not expect Vladimir to tell you line by line the algorithm(s) rules, yes there are several. I believe some of them, if not all, cannot be applied to MS Project because MS Project places a constraint on the activity start as each is delayed, denying the algorithm to un-status the activity for better results, the same might happen with other software because of available functionalities such as true modeling for shifts.
Best regards,
Rafael
Hi Mimoune,
the standard format means the same data set?
But they are different. Please look at my earlier posts.
A set of fields in Spider Project is different.
We can import almost everything but export only those fields that will be understood by other packages.
Best Regards,
Vladimir
Samer,
Spider Project is designed for usage as the corporate planning tool. It means that the schedules that are created with the use of Spider Project, if properly organised, will be based on the corporate norms and dictionaries.
Spider Project reference-books include such parameters as norms for material requirements per volume unit of typical jobs, unit costs for typical jobs, resource productivities on typical assignments, resource crews for typical works, etc. Besides the schedules are usually created using the library of typical project fragments that describe the technologies of achieving low level results.
Audit is easy if it is enough to verify corporate norms.
Do you have some proposal for an audit of some middle scale (like 10,000 activities, 500 resource types) project where estimates were based on expert judgements? How long will it take?
I don’t understand what do you mean by scheduling system VS management system. Project schedule shall be based on the corporate standards and give all necessary information for management decisions.
Dear Rafael,
It seems that the Spider team has created a great tool since it stood your indepth analysis and output requirements. But the question is: How do you verify the results?
With kind regards,
Samer
Samer,
I agree, because of the difference in computed values only one software is right, this is Spider Project, all the rest are wrong.
Is simple use Spider Project as the Standard for the audit, any software that yields different results is wrong.
Best regards,
Rafael
Dear Vladimir,
When you start going into that level of details, it becomes more than a Scheduling tool. It becomes a management tool. IMHO you need an audit on the process.
If you do any kind of computations, you need verification. If you are doing a process, then a standard audit procedure is acceptable.
With kind regards,
Samer
Vladimir,
There is no need to go as far as to the sophisticated algorithms, even in the basic computations they do differ. Continuous PDM vs. Non Continuous PDM vs. AOA traditional Computations can yield different results for early dates. Even the planning unit plays a role.
The best that can be done is getting an approximation, everyone, including the government must start by accepting this.
At least in one issue most software agree, is in showing incorrect float after resource leveling, incredible but true, all wrong in the most basic computation that even with a 2 activities job it can easily be shown.
Well perhaps this can be a justification to use whatever you want, anyway they got it wrong, so why so much insistence in not letting the team responsible for the management of the resources and workforce that actually will be doing the job choose his tools.
Best regards,
Rafael
Samer,
Spider can export the schedules directly to P6 and MS Project, save as a set of CSV files, send any table to Excel, etc.
I talk about another problem - where we can export activity volumes of work, resource assignment productivities, team assignments, cost components, resource and material production, project financing, etc?
Do you know such fields in the Primavera database?
So yes, we send what can be understood - durations, relations, total costs. But a lot of information is lost.
And besides P6 cannot simulate shift work.
So P6 will not verify Spider schedule, and besides Spider optimizes resource constrained schedules, level not only renewable resources but also materials and costs.
P6 produce some resource constrained schedule and cannot level materials and costs.
And what P6 can verify?
Best Regards,
Vladimir
Dear Vladimir,
Why cant you save the activity list with relationship, durations in Excel and then load it into another software. Excel can be the intermediate medium between softwares. Just an idea.
With kind regards,
Samer
Samer,
verification of the results produced by one software using other software is impossible. Different softwares use different algorithms and have different modelling capabilities.
If you will download Spider Project and will try to create the same project as construction example in Demo in P6, you will find that in P6 it is just impossible.
Best Regards,
Vladimir
Mimoune,
Over 34% of construction is done by government agencies, if government agencies require for your software to comply with an open file format for data exchange any software that misses to comply will eventually lose over 34% of the contractors, perhaps over 70% as only 30% exclusively bid on private jobs.
http://www.census.gov/const/www/c30index.html
Total................................846,233..........100.00%
...Private...........................553,491............65.41%
......Residential...............250,776............29.63%
......Nonresidential.........302,715............35.77%
...Public.............................292,742...........34.59%
......State & local............264,724............31.28%
......Federal..........................28,018................3.31%
In millions of dollars, a market of about 846 Billions per year in the USA alone.
It will have no effect trough private job biddings, we all will benefit from the right posture of our Government agencies that will make many options available, then also the private job market will benefit.
Of course there is no benefit for them if the requirement is not enforced, particularly to Primavera who in this way is forcing everyone to follow their whim. In any case if Primavera does not complies then let them be out, better many options than a single and rubbish one.
Best regards,
Rafael
Hi all
vendor lock-in is a well known practice in the software industry, and the most famous case is sun (now oracle) open office versus Microsoft office, sun created an open file format (ODF) to make exchange files between competing office suite possible, Microsoft riposted by creating a competing file format OOXML, and even managed to make it an ISO standard, the hick is even microsoft is not interested to fully comply to its own standard, see the link bellow for further information
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/04/microsoft-office-15not-20…
but the question is whats the benefit to Oracle and Microsoft to adopt an open exchange format for scheduling software ! Nothing, after all, they are interested that you buy their packages, not to make your life easy to change to another product.
Now the real question why the others vendors( asta, deltek, spider,sciformat, x-planner) are not adopting a standard format. Perhaps they are happy about their niche market.
Independent vendor should be more creative, for example, spider, perhaps something like free spider viewer, where you can load your program and print view all the reports you want,
best regards.
Mimoune
Rafael,
Yes youre absolutely correct, we have freedom of speech, freedom of religion and secular government, freedom of association. Australian values are Australians respect women, other peoples beliefs, democracy, and our mates and we always give each other a fair go.
w/ kind regards,
Rodel
Dear RAfael,
Open bidding is a different issue. The committee assigned by the Owner determines what is best for the project and it qualifies a short list of qualified tenderers. Hence, the playing field should be leveled to all players.
In a standard management system, say ISO, you need to verify the results and later validate it. The verification of the computations done by a computer software can be made by another software or by hand. And in both cases, by a different person. This is the minimum acceptable management standards that should be the norm in the future.
With kind regards,
Samer
Rodel,
With your clarification no apology is needed, yes both parties got to respect each other, both have their needs and this is why I advocate for a solution that can satisfy both. Our Federal Government tried a solution by means of a standardized database file to allow the transferring of data but seems Primavera advocates got out with it. Maybe Primavera subtlety boycotted the intent. I believe they should have been left out.
By the way, I perceive more freedom in the UK than in the USA. I would not be surprised if this also is the case in Australia.
Best regards,
Rafael
Rafael,
My apology, wrong choice of words, it should be request and not beg. I know you understand what I mean.
Here in Australia we have freedom and respect our rule.
Best Regards,
Rodel
Rodel,
Scheduling software is an essential part of the Means and Methods of the Contractor, here at this side of the Atlantic Means and Methods are supposed to be by the Contractor under the traditional forms of contracts. The interpretation is binding by common law, here the law take precedence over the written words of the contract.
Also it is a known fact Contractors are not free to negotiate contract conditions under bidding for government jobs, is take it or leave it. Here under public bidding is considered immoral and illegal to brand specify, but very frequently this is not followed precisely by our institutions. This leads to favoritism and even kickback by suppliers, is against our credo calling for free enterprise.
Contractors as well as all taxpayers give a substantial amount of money to government agencies, is not the agency money contractor’s are begging, the money belong to the people, we don’t have to knee down to the agencies and thank them.
Why Contractors are to be forced to use such rubbish software as Primavera P6, why not MS Project, Asta Powerproject, Spider Project or any other? Because is convenient to a Program Manager at the expense of hundreds or thousands contractors.
In the USA and its territories we have very different laws to what you have at Queensland, we are claiming for our laws be respected even if “common law”.
Private jobs are another thing, but even under private contracts there are some interpretations that protect the contractor right to keep control of the means and methods.
The attitude of some Owners that Contractors got to beg is wrong, is unprofessional. When a Contractor is invited to a close bid is because he is good, shall not be because he knee down and kiss the foot of a particular manager. I would suspect, and believe me have seen it with my own eyes, the manager wants him to beg is probably looking for some kind of kickback, maybe a home remodeling at his vacation home, or just a new emergency generator in hurricane prone areas. Incredible, what a mind set, "the Contractor got to beg".
Best regards,
Rafael
Rafael,
I admire your vision and everyone is whishing the same. The question is who is capable to do what we wish for? A computer programmer/ software developer is doing what they can do by trial and error but nobody is perfect. Even the most powerful software still having bugs but they will not know the problem until someone discovers or encounter while using it. Any software developer or companies spend a lot of moneys for a project and completed for sure they need something to comeback and the only way of doing it is to release their products and have it tested for long period of time. If bug has been discover for sure an action from their side will be made and release patches to fix it. But that’s not an easy fix and something will come out again and again until another products or upgrade will be release again. If you read the brief history of planning and scheduling started from manual to computer to nothing until someone tried to give a try again but until now still not perfect. The old computer was running in a punch card now multi-terabyte and more enhancement and more innovative modern technology still coming.
We should thanks we are now living in much easier and modern technology compare to what we have before. From manual to abacus to calculator now computer and more to come. An organization/ institution has nothing to do with what we have. They support what they believe which has been reviewed by the expert and decided by the top rank management.
In regard to owner nominating there preference, what wrong with that? They just want to justify what they are paying for. If they believed that will do the job and a contractor agreed then what’s the problem? They did not force them; the contractor was the one begging. If the contractor dictating what they want then what will happen? Whose client will bind to that kind of agreement?
w/ Kind Regards,
Rodel
Sammer,
Your request has been exposed by many forever. Yes you are right; even some third party developers have complained about the software developer not being clear what each field means.
About exposing the details of their particular algorithm I understand why they can be reluctant to expose them, these took years and thousands of dollars (a few Euros) to be developed and tested, why expose them for free to others.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm
- "Algorithms, by themselves, are not usually patentable. In the United States, a claim consisting solely of simple manipulations of abstract concepts, numbers, or signals does not constitute "processes" (USPTO 2006), and hence algorithms are not patentable (as in Gottschalk v. Benson). However, practical applications of algorithms are sometimes patentable. For example, in Diamond v. Diehr, the application of a simple feedback algorithm to aid in the curing of synthetic rubber was deemed patentable. The patenting of software is highly controversial, and there are highly criticized patents involving algorithms, especially data compression algorithms, such as Unisys’ LZW patent."
Best regards,
Rafael
Dear Rafael,
Amazingly enough, amongst 100 economies in the world, I have read that there are 51 companies! So the definition of free enterprise is changing, like everthing else in the world. When you see specification clearly stating the specific brand, then the only reason for that is someone is pushing to use this brand.
I think that if the tool makers outline clearly how the black box is getting the results in the help section, things would get simpler to verify and to use. You end up gaining experience with what works with the software to operate it, not what is the correct theory of doing things and how to verify the correct answer.
With kind regards,
Samer
Samer,
For a start they should stop fooling the user by stop providing wrong values for float after resource leveling, if incapable of showing true values then better no provide these or stop providing the resource leveling functionality, is misleading, is an abominable error, is wrong.
To provide a standardized database for purpose of exporting/importing where all software can communicate the basic fields, most fields will be common among all software and a few particular of each software so they can still be exported/imported then the software can handle some by use of functionality such as formulas or at times will just be reference values that will keep record of the non-common values. This would require some sort of standard, a practice our federal government tried and stopped, at the end a few nailed the majority.
I also would like from owners to stop forcing the contractor to use software for their own planning by brute force, let the contractor use its own selection. Forcing hundreds of contractors to use the Owner selection is undemocratic, goes against the basic principles of free enterprise, it is morally wrong. Perhaps Contractor’s trade associations, the PMI (if relevant for something), the whole Planning Planet Community and a few others should raise the voice against this practice. The argument that must be standardized is no excuse; the end does not justify the means.
About the rest, the market and user needs should dictate. I believe in free enterprise although some of our institutions seems like not.
Best regards,
Rafael
Dear Rafael,
What do you recommend that the tool makers do to improve their tools?
With kind regads,
Samer
All,
To resolve the issues regarding float calculation after resource levelling I downloaded the test xer from Rafael.
This is what I found out. Primavera is calculating the same result as shown from the screen shot shown by Rafael done in Spider Project after a few experiment.(note: we are not comparing software to software here. It is just an experiment what bugs Primavera have when levelling a resource.)
The screen shot from Rafael using Primavera showing wrong float is because the units allocated for Task 2 is exceeding from the max units set on the R2 which is 8hrs/day. On screen shot below it shows 13.33hrs/day having 40hrs/3days. (note: hrs or unit is used to represent unit/duration). In this case Primavera will not touch or calculate Task 2 because levelling in P6 doesn’t extend duration that is why it will remain at it is.
After changing labor units assign to Task 2 (8hrs/day * 3 = 24) I run resource levelling again and below is the result. Total float = 2 which is the same as Rafael Screen shot from Spider. (note: This experiment is limited only on the sample provided and haven’t test on unlimited activities)
Another issue that I found out is “Hours Per Time Period” (Users Preference-> Time Units tab) is used to calculate for total working hours per day and use the calendar as limit of time per working hours. See below by changing 8 working hours to 12 working hours the total float change from 2 to 1.
I also test using different activity type between Resource Dependent and Task Dependent and it has no effect if using same calendar. See below using Resource Dependent Activity Type with 8hrs – 5 days working calendar and 8 hrs working hour’s cycle set on Hours Per Time Period.
Conclusion: Based on the sample xer provided, P6 stands as calculating correctly when levelling resource.
See comparison below using same labor unit/ resource loading as showed on the profile
Note: This is conducted to resolve the issue and not to harm anybody.
Platform use for testing: P6.1
Rodel and Vladimir,
If you move activity A1010 to the late bar location as determined by the 10 days total float shown in the example R2 will be over-allocated then this by definition is not resource constraining and the value as shown is misleading and is wrong, I would call it limited resource over-allocation as to distinguish it from true resource allocation. Does this mean P6 is incapable of performing true resource constraining? Is there a way to make P6 to display correct float value for activity A1010 that satisfy the requirement for the resources no to be over-allocated? What value of float for activity A1010 will P6 show if true resource constraining that does not allow for over-allocation is performed by P6, of course assuming P6 can perform true resource constraining?
What is the practical value of a functionality that does not solve the issue for over-allocation? How can you say a mathematical model supposed to solve the issue on resource availability allows over-allocation to happen is mathematically correct? In any case the values shown shall be named “over-allocated resources float” as not to mix it with the true definition of resource critical float and shall be shown on under a different field while the correct value for resource float shall still be shown under the total float field.
If P6 is going to provide over-allocated float under the same column other correct values are shown then at least shall provide an indicator of where this is happening. In such case I still prefer to show 2 columns, one with the correct value and another with a value that allows over-allocation though I do not know if the last value is useful.
If float can be anything you want then why show it, why use the term in CPM specifications? Better keep it simple float is always 0.
Best regards,
Rafael
I did not mean that resource has less work hours.
The requirements on the work do not utilize the whole work time of the resource and the resource is able to do some other works in parallel.
It is necessary to define both quantities and workloads of assigned resources.
Best Regards,
Vladimir