Delay Analysis Methods

Does it mean that storing period performance I can open project schedule as it was at any date in the past and compare this schedule with the current or any former schedules with each other? We discussed Critical History and delay analysis and I mentioned storing project history for analyzing which activities were critical in the past, what changes were made at what time, etc. I did not understand from your post if these functions are supported.

You were right about nothing new - Spider Project keeps project archives since version published in 1993.

Thank you,

Vladimir

Hi Vladimir,



In P3 inder ’Tools’ you have a function ’Store period performance’, which you can use to store period performance, after every update. In OP v4 you had a facility, called ’history’ with which you could do the same. In fact as I recall, you could use the history files, to retain the correct percentages after updates, for s-curves. Another simple way of capturing history, is to export the fields you would require to database files.



Regards,



Philip

Philip,

I want just to remind you that I am waiting for your answer in case you missed my posting.

Best Regards,

Vladimir

Philip,

I have thought that I know P3 and Open Plan capabilities.

If you will explain me how to compare current project schedule with the schedule that existed one week ago, one month ago, two months ago, one year ago, etc. I will be grateful. Besides I want to be able to open project schedule as existed on February 1st or any other date in the project history. It does not matter if you will explain P3 or Open Plan features.

Thank you in advance,

Vladimir

What I am talking about is 15 years old at least Vladimir, nothing new



Regards

Agreed Gary, By the way Vladimir, P3 and even the old open plan DOS V4 had history features, spider is nothing new.

David,



I have just written a reply to a posting in the As Built Critical History thread that is equally as relevant to this thread. This is partly about the choice of delay analysis methods.



I won’t repeat it all here, but it sets out my some of my views about how to go about choosing the most appropriate method.





Gary France

Spider Project keeps project archives. At any moment you can open any previous project version and compare any two of them. At the line of balance presentation you can launch a movie that shows project performance (planned and actual).

David,



Let me be the first to put forward ’Windows’ methodology as the most reliable to produce the ABCP. As you are aware, this is a series of time-slices based on progress updates at say monthly intervals in accordance with progress reporting during the project. With ’windows’ analysis the criticality as determined at the time-slice is traced back to the start of the ’window’ as activities completed during the window will not show up on the time-slice as being critical.



My personal view is that as the criticality of an activity at the ’window’ update, or time slice, is based on its path (activity durations & logic) to completion of the project, then the remaining network must undergo a ’reliability’ exercise to verify activity logic and durations and also that it represents the contractors intent as at the time of the update. This should be done at every ’windows’ update and the Analyst/Expert should give his reasoning for any changes resulting from the reliability exercises.

David,



Very good question. The words cat and pigeons come to mind.



I predict this might become a hotly debated thread.



Prepare for many answers.



Gary France