I am not a Planning Engineer but found this interesting.
On a personal note, I am hungry for further knowledge but I have missed the boat for full time education & in anycase, I found that "on the job training" is far more beneficial than full time.
I once knew an eastern contractor who have a Senior PM mentoring some new graduates. He spent at least once a month in the evening, tutoring them & set them research so when they meet next time it is practical experiences that filter back.
We (in England) do not have similar system. We rely on reading ourself and attendinng courses at our own cost & time. (I believe this is a selfish approach because valuable tested knowledege & experiences are not passed down person to person or face to face, we tends to want payment for it).
I also found that most seminars or courses organised by CIOB or RICS or others cost too much and the interesting courses are mainly in London or Glasgow or somewhere. These are not repeated throughout the country.
Holding down a fulltime job and having to pay for the course, take away the 1.5 or 2 days off plus expenses are demanding. Employer are not so understanding too.
In my humble opinion, senior professionals(those who are Fellows or Chartered or even lecturers could contribute back into the organisation and make it a organisation policy that they should share their knowledge with younger members for free, younger members should also not be too eager to promote right to the top without the relevant experiences(not academic qualifications). If we keep getting too many "Talk-Talk" graduates pushing/jumping up the ladder, I do not blame the older members not passing on the knowledge either otherwise they will be out of a job sooner.
The whole approach/system have to be overhauled.
Universities or companies could offer their premises for free on evening or weekend siminar to keep course fees down and have it available all over the country and so more and more practical experiences are filter back into the system.
I also think planning is one of those profession that require experiences and not so much text book. Having good lecturers and fulltime courses do not necessary produce good planners. That is probably why so many others who start off in other professions end up as good senior planners, you need the knowledge of the whole operation.
I would like to learn more and develop not just in commercial management but scheduling/planning too but TIME is limited and having discussion like this or some form of virtual forum, learn at your leisure will help.
Cant some one record their own video with visual examples(home movies) etc and post the video on an internet forum so anyone can access it at any time to learn? then discuss in open forum like this?
I am think something similar to CNNet where they reviewed camaras in a video.
My 0.0005 of a penny worth.
Cheers
Member for
23 years 6 months
Member for23 years7 months
Submitted by David Bordoli on Mon, 2007-02-26 05:55
I suppose I should be thankful that you used ‘sometimes’ to temper your denigration of ‘professors’. My experience is somewhat different and, as I have said elsewhere in these for a, without our academic and research bodies our industry would not have progressed to the state it has done now. In fact, you will see that the sponsors of the research are universities and I have had the honour of attending lectures by both Professor Andrew Baldwin and Professor Simon Austin and if you were to look at some of their research you will find they are instrumental in some of the most significant recent developments in planning techniques.
In my experience the biggest changes in the structure of higher education is that courses have become ‘modular’ with more choice for students and a greater range of subjects. I have no reason to think that the universities I have attended are significantly different in their course contents to any other (okay, Loughborough’s Civil and Building Engineering is far superior!). Planning and programming is taught but like all subjects in higher education, just because you have passed a module does not mean that you can go out and practice. The same is true of quantity surveying, structural analysis, setting-out, management and so on.
What seems to be missing as afar as I am concerned is the development of planning and programming as a serious career. It seems to me that most bright graduates in decent training programmes do not want to stick with planning and programming as a career. After a couple of years at the most the tendency is to move towards project management and contracts management. This means that our project leaders tend to know about planning but are not experts in it, in the same was as they have experts to assist them in procurement, finance, health and safety and so on.
It is up to us to make the difference. The first major step has been taken by Gary France with the Planning Engineers Organisation. At least now there is a place where we can go to easily access information. As Gary said there is currently little in the way of formal training, qualifications, recognition, publications or even an exchange of ideas. A good number of us are members of other professional bodies, but we have never really felt at home there. Some of us have had some part-time, short training in planning, but on the whole we are largely self-taught. Part of the development plans of the PEO include the provision of training:
The training undertaken by the Organisation will be undertaken online, in association with a University. The Training Co-ordinator will be a member of the Universitys staff. The Training Co-ordinators role is to:
Assist in determining training course content.
Arrange for the training course content to be written and published via the Internet.
Undertake all administration relating to organising and implementing the training course.
Upgrading course content.
Matthew, I agree with what you say in that the Industry needs to get its act together and have a concerted push at increasing the role and capability of planners. Sometimes, though, as lone voices we can feel a little impotent. Given what Constructing Excellence say about the situation I would guess that this should already be on their radar. The PEO will have a bigger voice in the future and in the meantime we should also try to encourage established Institutions (the CIOB for instance) to promote our discipline.
So Charlie, I don’t know what you are doing about it – do I take that when you say ”We will advertise planning planet in the University” that is what you do (or are going to do) or will you be leaving that up to someone else? As far as letting students joining Planning Planet, as far as I was aware there is no restriction on anyone joining.
I feel certain the future for planning and programming education is bright. There are some excellent short course around, particularly in the field of Delay and Disruption analysis and so on. I also feel pretty certain that Andrew Fowerdew will, if he stops working so hard, end up being pretty influential on the UK education scene (sorry Andrew, didn’t mean to drop you in it like that – but you know what I mean!). For all of us, who might misguidedly think we have some special expertise, it is our duty to promote, assist and train those that could do with some encouragement.
Rant over – no offence intended to anyone…
David
Member for
20 years 3 months
Member for20 years4 months
Submitted by Charleston-Jos… on Sat, 2007-02-24 02:54
Sometimes the professors are absent-minded, Sometimes the professors follow old sylabus that will become irrelevant as new graduates join the workforce.
Most of the times, the professors are ignorant on what happening in the construction industry related to planning.
How to change.
We will advertise planning planet in the University, ie.: if possible we will let the students members in PP.
cheers,
charlie
Member for
20 years 10 months
Member for20 years10 months
Submitted by Andrew Flowerdew on Sat, 2007-02-10 08:23
Interesting survey, especially the uptake of the SCL Protocol.
As far as T.I.A for retrospective analysis is concerned, it doesnt surprise me that the uptake is limited as the method is relatively time consuming and hence expensive to implement BUT:
It tends to be time consuming because we always seem to have to start with a blank sheet of paper and build up the information up from scratch. This is due to the complete absence of using the method during construction when it would actually help most. In this respect it is a great pity that this aspect of the SCL Protocol hasnt been more widely adopted.
Maybe the more widespread use of contracts like the NEC and PPC2000 with greater programming requirements are seen as sufficient and hence the Protocol has been partially sidelined - the NEC could (and should in my opinion!) be interpreted as obliging the use of T.I.A as its chosen programming method. PPC2000 is abit more woolly in its wording but the overall sentiment is similar.
At the end of the day whatever the contract, the use of T.I.A during the project is nothing more than good management practice and should be adopted whether the contract calls for it or not. This leads to another point in your article - hows everyone going to learn how to do it (or at least do it properly)? A theme we have discussed before!
Member for
19 years 5 monthsRE: Analysis Paralysis
Hi Richard & all,
I hope others can contribute their opinion too and suggest some practical solutions or practices that we might be able to adopt.
We need argument for & against, then it is HEALTHY.
Viewed 276, there must be quite a few thoughts that ran pass those light bulbs.
I am just exercising my grey mass and asking questions, you all can be specialists too..Ha Ha!!
Member for
19 years 5 monthsRE: Analysis Paralysis
Hi,
I am not a Planning Engineer but found this interesting.
On a personal note, I am hungry for further knowledge but I have missed the boat for full time education & in anycase, I found that "on the job training" is far more beneficial than full time.
I once knew an eastern contractor who have a Senior PM mentoring some new graduates. He spent at least once a month in the evening, tutoring them & set them research so when they meet next time it is practical experiences that filter back.
We (in England) do not have similar system. We rely on reading ourself and attendinng courses at our own cost & time. (I believe this is a selfish approach because valuable tested knowledege & experiences are not passed down person to person or face to face, we tends to want payment for it).
I also found that most seminars or courses organised by CIOB or RICS or others cost too much and the interesting courses are mainly in London or Glasgow or somewhere. These are not repeated throughout the country.
Holding down a fulltime job and having to pay for the course, take away the 1.5 or 2 days off plus expenses are demanding. Employer are not so understanding too.
In my humble opinion, senior professionals(those who are Fellows or Chartered or even lecturers could contribute back into the organisation and make it a organisation policy that they should share their knowledge with younger members for free, younger members should also not be too eager to promote right to the top without the relevant experiences(not academic qualifications). If we keep getting too many "Talk-Talk" graduates pushing/jumping up the ladder, I do not blame the older members not passing on the knowledge either otherwise they will be out of a job sooner.
The whole approach/system have to be overhauled.
Universities or companies could offer their premises for free on evening or weekend siminar to keep course fees down and have it available all over the country and so more and more practical experiences are filter back into the system.
I also think planning is one of those profession that require experiences and not so much text book. Having good lecturers and fulltime courses do not necessary produce good planners. That is probably why so many others who start off in other professions end up as good senior planners, you need the knowledge of the whole operation.
I would like to learn more and develop not just in commercial management but scheduling/planning too but TIME is limited and having discussion like this or some form of virtual forum, learn at your leisure will help.
Cant some one record their own video with visual examples(home movies) etc and post the video on an internet forum so anyone can access it at any time to learn? then discuss in open forum like this?
I am think something similar to CNNet where they reviewed camaras in a video.
My 0.0005 of a penny worth.
Cheers
Member for
23 years 6 monthsRE: Analysis Paralysis
Dear Charlie (and all)
I suppose I should be thankful that you used ‘sometimes’ to temper your denigration of ‘professors’. My experience is somewhat different and, as I have said elsewhere in these for a, without our academic and research bodies our industry would not have progressed to the state it has done now. In fact, you will see that the sponsors of the research are universities and I have had the honour of attending lectures by both Professor Andrew Baldwin and Professor Simon Austin and if you were to look at some of their research you will find they are instrumental in some of the most significant recent developments in planning techniques.
In my experience the biggest changes in the structure of higher education is that courses have become ‘modular’ with more choice for students and a greater range of subjects. I have no reason to think that the universities I have attended are significantly different in their course contents to any other (okay, Loughborough’s Civil and Building Engineering is far superior!). Planning and programming is taught but like all subjects in higher education, just because you have passed a module does not mean that you can go out and practice. The same is true of quantity surveying, structural analysis, setting-out, management and so on.
What seems to be missing as afar as I am concerned is the development of planning and programming as a serious career. It seems to me that most bright graduates in decent training programmes do not want to stick with planning and programming as a career. After a couple of years at the most the tendency is to move towards project management and contracts management. This means that our project leaders tend to know about planning but are not experts in it, in the same was as they have experts to assist them in procurement, finance, health and safety and so on.
It is up to us to make the difference. The first major step has been taken by Gary France with the Planning Engineers Organisation. At least now there is a place where we can go to easily access information. As Gary said there is currently little in the way of formal training, qualifications, recognition, publications or even an exchange of ideas. A good number of us are members of other professional bodies, but we have never really felt at home there. Some of us have had some part-time, short training in planning, but on the whole we are largely self-taught. Part of the development plans of the PEO include the provision of training:
The training undertaken by the Organisation will be undertaken online, in association with a University. The Training Co-ordinator will be a member of the Universitys staff. The Training Co-ordinators role is to:
Assist in determining training course content.
Arrange for the training course content to be written and published via the Internet.
Undertake all administration relating to organising and implementing the training course.
Upgrading course content.
Matthew, I agree with what you say in that the Industry needs to get its act together and have a concerted push at increasing the role and capability of planners. Sometimes, though, as lone voices we can feel a little impotent. Given what Constructing Excellence say about the situation I would guess that this should already be on their radar. The PEO will have a bigger voice in the future and in the meantime we should also try to encourage established Institutions (the CIOB for instance) to promote our discipline.
So Charlie, I don’t know what you are doing about it – do I take that when you say ”We will advertise planning planet in the University” that is what you do (or are going to do) or will you be leaving that up to someone else? As far as letting students joining Planning Planet, as far as I was aware there is no restriction on anyone joining.
I feel certain the future for planning and programming education is bright. There are some excellent short course around, particularly in the field of Delay and Disruption analysis and so on. I also feel pretty certain that Andrew Fowerdew will, if he stops working so hard, end up being pretty influential on the UK education scene (sorry Andrew, didn’t mean to drop you in it like that – but you know what I mean!). For all of us, who might misguidedly think we have some special expertise, it is our duty to promote, assist and train those that could do with some encouragement.
Rant over – no offence intended to anyone…
David
Member for
20 years 3 monthsRE: Analysis Paralysis
Matthew,
Sometimes the professors are absent-minded, Sometimes the professors follow old sylabus that will become irrelevant as new graduates join the workforce.
Most of the times, the professors are ignorant on what happening in the construction industry related to planning.
How to change.
We will advertise planning planet in the University, ie.: if possible we will let the students members in PP.
cheers,
charlie
Member for
20 years 10 monthsRE: Analysis Paralysis
David,
Interesting survey, especially the uptake of the SCL Protocol.
As far as T.I.A for retrospective analysis is concerned, it doesnt surprise me that the uptake is limited as the method is relatively time consuming and hence expensive to implement BUT:
It tends to be time consuming because we always seem to have to start with a blank sheet of paper and build up the information up from scratch. This is due to the complete absence of using the method during construction when it would actually help most. In this respect it is a great pity that this aspect of the SCL Protocol hasnt been more widely adopted.
Maybe the more widespread use of contracts like the NEC and PPC2000 with greater programming requirements are seen as sufficient and hence the Protocol has been partially sidelined - the NEC could (and should in my opinion!) be interpreted as obliging the use of T.I.A as its chosen programming method. PPC2000 is abit more woolly in its wording but the overall sentiment is similar.
At the end of the day whatever the contract, the use of T.I.A during the project is nothing more than good management practice and should be adopted whether the contract calls for it or not. This leads to another point in your article - hows everyone going to learn how to do it (or at least do it properly)? A theme we have discussed before!