The GUILD closed my objections and issued some cosmetic changes I am in complete disagreement. Therefore I am opening this discussion again as to have a place to openly discuss my further comments.
- http://www.planningplanet.com/forums/guild-project-controls-gpc/591410/…
- http://www.planningplanet.com/forums/guild-project-controls-gpc/591069/…
- http://www.planningplanet.com/forums/guild-project-controls-gpc/586276/…
I am having difficulties as how best to transfer the discussion subject-body when points not included under the topic subject-body surfaced during the discussion and were moved to multiple discussion forums by GPC Admin.
Sorry for any inconveniences.
In our state and municipal construction jobs as wel as in private construction jobs it is not unusual to allow some flexibility with regard to the billings cutoff date.
Say that during a given billing period 100% of billable work is zero because no billable activity was not realized. Such can be the case of concrete on a mat foundation delayed a couple of days because of rain. All preparation activities that are non-billable was done during the financial period but the pouring happened a couple of days after the end of the financial period. Here it is not unusual to allow some flexibility with regard to the billing period. The contractor will be allowed to submit a payment request for a slightly different financial/billing period and not forced to wait until next billing period. This causes no problem with the time phased data if using Excel or Spider Project that allows for flexible financial/billing periods, on the other hand if using P6 or MSP software as a payment tool you will not have such flexibility.
The same happens with other similar concrete pouring preparation activities where no payment is allowed until concrete is placed.
Everything is becoming too complicated for the average job, too many restrictions on the use of the tool as if every job will end in court.
No wonder most field supervisors as well as many Contractors disdain and dislike formal scheduling procedures to the point they prefer to outsource it to meet contractual requirements and use manual methods and electronic worksheets to plan their own work.
If the GPC wants to elevate how others view the CPM Schedule it would be good not to forget there is another side of the coin.
PP Admin,
How can we help? Please email PP Admin with what you want on there and we will update it. As I said in my earlier post; the top thread must have (1) the GPCCAR text that you are questioning, (2) how YOU feel the text should be presented in order to be correct and (3) your logic / reasoning for it.
Best Regards,
Rafael
Dear All,
We recieved numerous "flag as abusive" alerts to the past few posts on here (so what I think is unecessary) have been edited out; I think I had to edit 3 or 4 different posts on this thread.
ADVICE: If anyone is unhappy about what somone has said then advise the Administration and they will deal with the problem but by retailiating both party's become the problem - so please everyone, let's have some more careful use and choice of words.
Please, if anyone sees anything I have missed (and I should be working and not wasting time doing this so shame on any offenders) please email [email protected] and we will have it addressed by whomever (whomever or whoever?) is on duty.
Rafael Davila, the GPC Admin advised that you are having a problem in editing the top most thread? How can we help? Please email PP Admin with what you want on there and we will update it. As I said in my earlier post; the top thread must have (1) the GPCCAR text that you are questioning, (2) how YOU feel the text should be presented in order to be correct and (3) your loigic / reasoning for it.
If the issue and how it should be fixed is not presented then how can we effect change for the better?
Regards.... PP Admin
Paul,
You might have disagreement with the USA DOD but you are so biased that you publish within the GUILD a one side version about mandating EVM and a one sided version about mandating the CPM Schedule as a Payment tool.
You said - Rafael, IF you or any other contractor, whether in the USA or Indonesia or Outer Mongolia or the Antarctic is being paid for the work they have physically completed (which is almost certainly 100% of us) then they are using SOME FORM of "Earned Value Management".
Your article are wrong, your call for ambiguous practice is wrong.
The DOD do not recommends EVM except for Development Contracts that meet specific thresholds and discourage its use on firm-fixed-price [FFP]contract to the extent it would require a waiver by the DOD for it to be used on FFP contracts, it is your inability to recognize USA practice that is an issue.
I do not want to add something else to Section 9 of the GUILD document, I would like it to be corrected by someone else that is not so biased as you are. I do not want to be part of it but to raise my independent voice about the many wrong things (I think) it promotes.
My experience with the AACE International when at one time I was considering becoming part of it was that as a condition I would be required to abstain criticizing the AACE International. By asking me to abstain criticizing the GUILD unless I become part of it you are showing the same attitude, not everyone wants to be part of a group that promotes ideas they do not agree and find extreme/biased. I have no interest in becoming part of the GUILD.
Your frequent references of articles of your authoring as to substantiate your own work seems to me a poor choice, too much of self-promoting yourself.
Best Regards
Rafael
By looking at the US Census on Construction we can estimate what is the USA collective wisdom.
If you calculate the percentage by volume of work of all construction contracts that mandate the CPM as a billing tool you will have that in less than 2% [100 x 22,043/1,133,932] of USA CONSTRUCTION contracts the CPM schedule is mandated to be used as a payment tool.
Because for practical purpose no single construction contract falls into the category of "Development Contracts" where EVM is required by Federal Government then for practical purposes in 0% of USA CONSTRUCTION contracts EVM is mandated.
The results of this simple mathematical exercise are overwhelming.
To say that the collective wisdom in the USA does not matter is nuts. That over than 98% of USA construction contracts value do not mandate the CPM as a billing tool and that for practical purposes 100% of construction contracts do not mandate EVM is a clear message of what is our collective wisdom. In the USA many of us agree with the wisdom of over the 98% of our construction contracts that do not require the use of CPM as a billing tool in construction contracts, many of us agree with the 100% of our construction contracts that do not require formal EVM in construction contracts. As a general rule we do not make use of what we find of little or of no justified value.
I do not pretend to say USA wisdom/practice is near perfect, it is not. While 75% of our construction volume is private work where the contractor have real bargaining power in the remaining 25% it is common for the Agencies to require CPM software by brand specification, illegal in theory but rarely enforced. This practice is creating an oligopoly of a couple of software vendors that have no interest in providing good enough resource modeling capabilities. This 25% is way too much of an imperfection.
The collective wisdom in the USA is the opposite of the GUILD collective wisdom.
Best Regards,
Rafael
Paul and the GPC,
1) Update the schedule with all Actual Finishes as of the Billing Closing Date; 2) Reconcile any Out of Sequence Progress by showing the correct logic as it actually happened and include that reconciliation in the billing package (along with soft copy of the updated CPM schedule).
I do not see any DRAFT watermark on the GUILD document, so I read it as a finished product, unless it will forever be a DRAFT and therefore forever useless.
I have mentioned multiple times that changing the schedule any change in the schedule for whatever reason it shall be subjected to a long revision procedure and that non approved schedules will be rejected right away, it goes beyond your whims.
In USA practice it might be a handful of Federal Government Agencies require the CPM as a payment tool as it was in my only such experience at a Navy Job. Such requirement became a nuisance to the point it was agreed:
Here private jobs as well as state and municipal government jobs are not required to use the CPM as a payment tool. It is practical and sensible compromise that keeps away the need for too much granularity and the frequent revisions of the CPM model that using the CPM as a payment tool requires. Such approach in any way prevent us from issuing our payment applications and schedule updates that meet the requirement to represent true progress but without the complication the requirement to use the CPM as a payment tool creates.
3) Filter out ONLY those activities which have an actual finish from the last billing closing date to the current billing closing date; (The rest of the unbilled activities showing the status of the entire project are included in the soft copy of the schedule which we also submitted with the billing).
This is just a report filter good for those having knowledge on the CPM software, but here many responsible of approving the Application for Payment do not have knowledge of the software.
Here everyone knows and understand Excel but not Primavera P6, MSP, Asta PP, Spider Project or perhaps a GUILD favorite. It would be irresponsible on their part to require CPM software as a payment application tool and not use it to verify the payment application calculations as well as the required schedule changes when activities must be split as to fix out-of-sequence caused by the requirement to use the CPM as a payment tool.
What CPM software are you advocating to be imposed to the Contractor who is responsible for the means and methods and all the other parties having some say in the submittal and approval of the payment application in order to prevent the payment process becoming a Tower of Babel?
4) Because (consistent with GAO’s “Best Practices” ) we keep our activity durations to less than a single billing period (in most cases, 30 days) so we can use the 0% - 100% rule, meaning we can only bill for those activities which are PHYSICALLY 100% complete, which means “normal” (not serious) punch list items do not count as that is covered by the retention. This results in an added "big push" to finish as many activities as possible before the billing closure date, which is good for both the owner as well as contractor).
We do not use 0%-100% rule it makes no sense at all either for billing or for schedules that are to be resource leveled. Say a $150,000 equipment unit is 90% installed, such nonsense rule means no payment or full payment. Acceptable in Indonesia but not in the USA.
By splitting activities resource leveling can schedule them apart instead of contiguous. Acceptable in Indonesia but not in the USA. I had no idea the GUILD oppose to BEST resource leveling models.
Big push makes not much sense, if unattainable it can promote delaying the activity to start early during next payment period. The emphasis on managing the schedule though the payment application is not a good management approach.
Your prior statements about how bad some US Government performs is erratic and self-serving: the US DOD by your standards is bad while the GAO is a US Government Agency is a good reference; only when convenient it is good reference, when not convenient it is a bad reference. If GAO scheduling practice is so good why taking the effort to make a duplicate of it unless something is wrong? Why re-invent the wheel?
Many of us consider DOD reference and its assessment of no requiring EVM in firmed-fixed-price contract based on years of experience and a good assessment, on the other hand I do not believe the GAO reference is a flawless reference, similar to the GUILD it is biased in favor of some flawed theories like placing artificial limits to activity duration. Many such as The American Bar Association believe other references adopted by the GUILD, such is the case of AACE International RP for forensic analysis is nonsense.
The danger with the GAO reference is on their lack of making it clear it is intended as a management guide for the agencies not to be imposed to their private contractors. It would be easy for morons with initiative to copy and paste it in into private contractor contracts. We do not need more cookie cutter guidelines that people have a tendency to view as black and white when referenced in our contracts become a legal mandate. Mandating the contractor such strict control on their means and methods by incorporating such references into our contracts is an intromission not welcomed by everyone here, different to Indonesia/Jakarta.
5) We review the proposed billing with the project manager and/or contracting officer who agree that it is acceptable to them. (Informally unless there is an issue).
In our practice prompt payment is very important and we have no time for informal process we do not recognize, the vast amount of out-of-sequence events that using the schedule as a payment tool will create a vast amount of issues to be solved by a lengthy formal review of the changed schedule, changes that will require a change in the Contract Baseline activities no matter if EVM is required or not. In public contracting formal informal changes are not recognized and prohibited by law, different to private practice. Different to Indonesia/Jackarta were there are no requirement for formal changes no matter if public contract.
6) We compile the supporting documentation to prove that the work has been completed in substantial compliance with the technical specifications. (i.e. concrete break test reports, NDT test results etc). 7) We provide any supporting documentation to establish that we have met of fulfilled all the “shall” clauses in the contractor, which most often meant certified payrolls and having met the minority set aside requirements;
So do we, but this can be a frequent source of OOS issues that must be solved and submitted for a lengthy approval process when the CPM is required to be used as a payment tool. On a 10,000 thousands activity schedule it is to be expected a few such occurrences will happen on every payment application.
8) We officially submit the bill, which has already been pre-approved and within 30 days, we get paid. Assuming the paperwork is in order, IF we are not paid within 30 days, we are entitled to bill a late payment penalty of (back then 16% per year).
We have similar requirements but the paper work will not be in order until all OOS issues are formally submitted and approved after a lengthy process.
9) Having outlined this process, the question is whether this process is or is not necessary for a projecct control professional with less than 5 years experience to "Know and Understand". (See Module 02.2- Developing the Project Control Career Path Development Plan, Figure 3 http://www.planningplanet.com/guild/gpccar/develop-project-controls-career-path-development-plan.
Your outline might be good for Indonesia/Jakarta but does not automatically apply to the USA where the practice is so different. To understand USA process as outlined in my answer does not require more time than submitting a couple of applications under the supervision of an experienced PM. If between these two applications there is a month period a month shall be enough to figure it out how OOS events can delay the payment process if the CPM is required as a payment tool.
10) IF the Fellows, who are the Peer Review Committee, believe the answer is YES then we include it. If not it is expected that this information is picked up through reading and understanding the SUPPORTING information which in this case is the GAO's "Best Practices in Capital Budgeting's section on Earned Value Management," the GAO's "Best Practices in Scheduling" along with the NDIA , NASA and other referenced documents.
That the Fellows believed the answer is YES with regard to mandating EVM and use of CPM as a billing tool tells me the Fellows are unqualified to make judgments on how things are done in the USA and what is best to USA.
That GAO call it “Best” many of us find it wrong as if there are no other better practices. As if mandating artificial limits to activity duration is best practice when it is not a universal truth.
While NDIA does not specifically distinguish between firm-fixed-price contracts as to determine when to apply EVM in DOD contracts it does increases the threshold. Because NDIA partnered with DOD and does not make any comment against the DOD discouraging the use of EVM in firm-fixed-price [FFP] contract it shall be interpreted as that they are in agreement. The GUILD makes reference to NDIA which partnered with the DOD but says DOD is not good and do not mention their agreement/disagreement with NDIA with regard to the thresholds and application to FFP contracts, this is weird.
Hope this makes sense to you so that you can better understand the USA processes and the practical and legal constraints we are working under my jurisdiction, a USA territory.
Best Regards,
Rafael
Hi Paul,
thank you for the comprehensive answer to my post.
I will answer to some of your statements and will clarify my concerns.
I appreciate the work of small group of professionals that develop first version of the Guild standard as appreciated the work of Bill Dunkan and others developed the first version of PMBOK Guide. I am sure that you remember that this first version of PMBOK Guide was free for the download at PMI site. PMI at that time tried to build professionalism in project management and I expect that the Guild is trying to improve professionalism in project planning. I hope that the Guild will try to avoid PMI destiny and will be as open for criticism and discussions as possible letting all members and non-members to contribute to Guild and its standards development. Open discussions is the best way to keep the Guild and its standards alive.
I have my own concerns about the content of Guild standards. I would include only those areas that are truly international and useful for all planners. I fully agree that the schedule shall be resource and cost loaded, that project success criteria shall include costs, that project planners shall control and compare Planned Value, Earned Value and Actual Cost but few of them manage payments that are certainly organized different ways in different countries.
Why are you so sure that the Guild standards describe the best practices? For many years I presented at different conferences much more advanced practices that are in use in Russia. Few people understood what I spoke about. Unfortunately so called “developed” countries use the project management practices that were the best in the early 60-s. You suggest Russians to adopt them? I always answer to questions of Russian managers like how "they" manage their projects with so poor tools, without considering volumes of work, resource productivity, without integrating scheduling with estimating, and a lot more?
“Developing” countries like Russia have developed tools and techniques that are successfully used in many projects and by thousands companies. But to receive credentials they shall study methods and tools that are not used in their countries, that are obsolete but are the best practice somewhere else. When I prepare people to PMP exams I always suggest my students to forget how they manage real projects and imagine that they know nothing except PMBOK Guide to be able to pass the exam. I would not be pleased to tell the same to people who would try to get Guild credentials.
Thank you for your good opinion about Spider Project. It includes methods and techniques widely used in Russia but when I try to promote our approaches I hear that MS Project and P6 do not support them and these packages are required to be used in most contracts in the “developed” countries. Spider Project was developed to include all the best in the project management, in “developed” countries best practice includes what is supported by Microsoft and Oracle. Feel the difference.
Returning to the topic I think that the standards shall include only those topics that are necessary and typical for most planners in most projects in most countries. Managing of payments is not one of them. Making standards too large we do not motivate people to study them.
And thank you for considering Rafael's opinion. I am sure that PP shall be open for any discussion and Guild standards shall be improved basing on PP members feedback even if it was not formal.
Vladimir,
The GUILD never adequately addressed the issue of what to do when a pay item within a CPM activity is not finished or accepted for full payment while some or all of the activity successors can start crating a distorted CPM schedule that requires a schedule fix. This schedule fix is usually required by our agencies to be re-submitted and approved before being accepted for any purpose because of the legal implications creating a serious issue for the submittal of the Payment Application. This does not happen in our private jobs as there the use of CPM as a payment tool is not required and it is accepted to declare finished an activity if all its successors can start no matter if a few pay items are on hold for payment.
It means that the documents and the reasoning used by the GUILD are poor and as a result the GUILD is a poor reference for developed countries like the USA, as it does not consider what happens in the USA where use of EVM is discouraged on Firm-Fixed-Price contracts and the use of CPM as a payment tool is extremely rare in private jobs.
Best Regards,
Rafael
Vladimir,
Thanks for your prompt reply, it will take me some time to absorb what implications it has in our practice on a 10,000 activities CPM if on average there are four pay items per activity. Because it is possible on any given activity all successors can start even if the four pay items are not completely finished then the use of 4 additional activities might be required, and this adds up to 50k activities instead of 40k, WOW quite a CPM updating challenge. I will continue the discussion in due time at Spider forum.
Regarding:
Best Regards,
Rafael
Hi Rafael,
Your thoughts are interesting and thanks for taking the time to share them. It is only when we discuss things (effectively) that change is brought about. You have shown some issues in your reply to me. Those of us who are sufficiently interested in making it happen will indeed make it happen if indeed change is necessary.
In my experience you need to show WHAT is right and WHY it is right then people can UNDERSTAND and change WILL happen.
Please thought, address the issue raised in my most recent post my friend. Thank you.
Regards.... PP Admin
I have a meeting with the Guild people on Monday and will have them more clearly define / shape their Change Control Procedure; which is what you appear to find frustrating.
PP Admin,
The continuous re-editing and continuous relocation of my discussions is what created this mess.
My differences with the GUILD are abysmal so I doubt I will ever be in agreement with it, all I will be able to do is to raise my dissenting opinion in this and any forum I see the GUILD is present or referenced.
I doubt the GUILD will ever be adopted by our local private sponsors are they are not so picky as to use or require EVM or to use the CPM as a payment tool.
On the other hand I see much bias on the GUILD in favor of EVM and the use of CPM as a payment tool that I find it detrimental to our practice if it is ever adopted by reference by some of our Agencies.
The reluctance by the GUILD expressed in this debate to recognize how things are done in the USA, the reluctance by the GUILD to recognize how the US DOD is against the use of EVM in FFP contracts and call it irrelevant we call it stubbornness, similar to the UK Cambridge dictionary definition.
We use the figure of the mule to represent stubbornness and therefore I do not believe it to be unprofessional to use it as an illustration especially when the GUILD have demonstrated much stubbornness with regard to EVM and the CPM as a payment tool.
Best Regards,
Rafael
PS - Happy father's day.
Rafael,
we recommend to use following rules for creating project activities in detailed schedule:
1. Activity shall be measurable and so shall use certain unit of volume,
2. Resources assigned to activity shall have certain productivity,
3. Activity shall have certain unit cost or fixed cost,
4. An amount of materials required by an activity may be fixed or the same per each unit of volume,
5. Activity duration shall not exceed two periods of schedule performance analysis.
If unit cost, productivity, materials are different at activity parts create several activities instead of one.
If these rules are followed then grouping activities by types we get the reports of volumes planned and done by types. This information is used for estimation of Earned Value but as I wrote previously it is used for comparison with the payment documents and not as the payment documents for many reasons: work could be done and still not approved, Contractors for some resons may want to be paid for some part of already done work, advance payments are usual, payments may require achiving certain milestones, etc. A lot depends on contract conditions.
One activity may include different types of work in higher level schedules. Such schedules may be used for calculating Earned Value only if the payments are done for the finished activities. In this case activity contract cost shall be assigned to activity finish moment.
In Spider Project it is possible to use workarounds and to set several volumes of work for the same activity but it will work only if their execution is proportional. In the real life people different types of work are done at different times and so such estimates are too rough to be used for estimating Earned Value.
Everyone on this thread is providing interesting thought and comments. Now will it introduce change for the better; we shall see. Nonetheless (productive) debate is required in order to initiate change; that's why we are all here.
However, Rafael you are required to reEDIT the top post of this thread to adequately describe and introduce the specific issue being debated in this thread. The current nonesne is unhelpful and adds no value. Please therefore edit the initating post so that readers can understand the specific issue you are debating.
If you do not then we will ask GPC Admin to do it, failing that it will be removed.
Regards... PP Admin
Dear Paul,
the fact that other associations use peer reviews does not prove that this is the best process to develop something useful.
The documents they created using this process proves it.
The strength of Planning Planet always was in open professional discussions on any topic. If GPC standards will be developed and improved by the close group of "peers" they will become one more set of "recommended practices" that only "peers" will use.
Honestly I do not understand at all why payments issues were included in GPC standards. Few planners are involved in payment processes, contracts are different in different countries and I do not take part in this discussion just because in Russia everything is different and instructions that were developed are absolutely useless.
Do we develop Global standards or something that will be used by a group of peers?
To be certified by Guild Russian planner shall study some theory that he/she will not use. Is it right? Why to get one more certification that is as practical as certifications of PMI, IPMA, AACEI, etc.? It is sufficient to get any of them to prove that you know the theory that was considered useful by some peers in some part of the world but is not applicable in the real projects.
The problems that are not openly discussed will stay forever.
Best Regards,
Vladimir
contracts and agreements is discouraged, regardless of dollar value.
For those passionate about Project Controls and wish to become part of the decision making team, to help shape what the Guild Commnity collectively consider to be best practice guidelines, you are cordially invited to Join the Guild where you will have a voice in making these kinds of decisions.
The call for the postulates to represent BEST is SNOBBISH & WRONG.
I have seen other publications claiming theirs to represent GOOD practice but do not recall any claiming to be THE BEST.
I recall those who advocate strict adherence to be the subject of much criticism by those of us that believe there are many alternatives as good or better.
Many of us believe such Flat Earth theories are wrong and promote a monopoly on knowledge and that anyone who objects is deemed to be wrong.
Well the Earth is not Flat.
Some humility by the GUILD in all its modules would do no harm while none will eventually cause much harm when those who adopt it and enforce it by reference into our contracts and make literal interpretations because that is preciselly what it promotes by being so biased and stubborn.
My apologies to the Founders of Planning Planet, but this is far from what it was years ago.
Rafael Davila answers are in Bold.
PS Rafael as a follow up to my comments on the damage delayed payments are causing, here are two articles from ENR:
One of the undocumented causes is the obstruction some procedures impose on the contractor as well as on those approving the payment requisitions. An utterly detailed payment application linked to a CPM schedule that is distorted as soon as a an activity payment item is not approved but the successors are allowed to start as said many times before is one such case I experienced in the Hangar Job.
There are also no shortage of credible academic research published on this topic, which is why I believe it is ESSENTIAL to stop following the US Government divorcing payment from performance and get back to implementing earned value as was developed during the 17th and 18th century, was formalized by Henry Gantt around 1910 or so and is still in use in the private sector, "hard money" contracting as well as modern factories from the maquiladora of Mexico and Honduras to the Nike and Reebok factories in Bangladesh and Vietnam.....
The EV theory developed in the 18th/19th century is very different to EVM developed during the mid 1900’s where a crude attempt to tie CPM time element to EV was done by the PERT team, a crude attempt that misses to distinguish EV by critical versus non-critical activities as if it does not matter. In any case as said before it is a fallacy EVM is needed to use the CPM as a payment tool.
Given contractors live and die by our cash flows, nothing serves as a better incentive than to enable us to enhance our cash flows by doing what you the owner want, which is to finish as many activities as soon as possible. But to make it work, the payment has to be closely linked to and made as soon after the activity is done as possible.
Given that contractors live and die by our cash flows we welcome simplified procedures that meet the need and do not get into obstructing the payment procedure. An utterly detailed payment application linked to a CPM schedule that is distorted as soon as an activity payment item is not approved but the successors are allowed to start is not welcomed here.
EVM promotes the blind idea to finish as many activities as soon as possible without any consideration to the delaying effect it can have on critical activities when resources are scarce. A wrong approach promoted by the above statement.
Rafael Davila answers are in Bold.
Let me respond to your comments one at a time but for the future PLEASE try to keep your posting to a single topic as it makes it easier to respond.
Because you took the initiative to ask me how to submit my posts I will take mine and ask you to PLEASE do not segregate my postings as it is more difficult to follow the multiple postings every paragraph will generate, it might take you a bit longer but keeps some order.
How did G703 get into the discussion?
If you ever read G702 you will notice G703 is the continuation of G702. No discussion about G702 is complete without addressing G703 or its equivalent.
Do you really think this is a "best tested and proven" practice"?
Do you really think the idea of billing by CPM activity is a "best tested and proven" practice"? A practice that is so granular that can yield a 40,000 line billing document on a 10,000 activities CPM with an average of 4 pay items per activity. The proposed practice I consider too granular, excessive micro management when current practice in the USA have been not to require the use of the CPM as a tool to be married to the billing document because of the issues it creates when all activity successors can start but not all pay items are fully closed.
I asked you to tell me how do you propose to handle the out-of-sequence issue each occurrence creates and how to handle the contractual requirement for any changes in the CPM as well as the billing document be duly submitted and approved before they can even be considered for review as a billing document. I will appreciate if you address this issue in accordance to USA contracting practice once and for all.
On February 23, 1857, 13 architects met in Richard Upjohn's office to form what would become the American Institute of Architects.
All this is nice information but what does it add to the discussion or debate?
It adds to the discussion because it shows that for decades, if not for centuries contractors in the USA have been billing without use of CPM, a practice that is most common today. Only a few Agencies require such marriage and my experience in a single job in over 35 years representing contractors was so bad that the job ended in court and the contractor was awarded a substantial amount. The billing process was a nightmare.
[PDG] No, this is your misinterpretation. As noted in the GPCCAR we can only bill for work which has fulfilled three criteria
No this is a misinterpretation by you and the GUILD who have no understanding on how billing documents are required to be presented in the USA. For your knowledge in the USA it is required that once the billing template is approved it shall be submitted in full, meaning no single line will be omitted no matter if no work have been performed on this line. It is a standard requirement we in the USA understand and accept while the GUILD do not. The document must be submitted unfiltered for it to be available to the view of those who have to stamp their approval, many experts in construction issues but not hooked into particular CPM software. It is not uncommon for them to be given a full PDF unfiltered version of the application.
[PDG] OK I understand what you are saying but because the GPC advocates Activity Based Costing, what you describe would not happen, at least not as part of the billing process. If you go to Module 08.6
Well it might not happen in Jakarta but it does in the USA where it is not uncommon for many CPM activities to include several pay items. One such example was already provided in the discussion. As a reminder it refers to the case when a Lighting Fixture installation activity includes the installation of several fixtures of different types, each type with different quantity and different unit price. Then I posted an example of how this is done within P6 and asked Vladimir about how this is done within Spider Project as it only allows for a single volume of work per activity while in my example each lighting fixture have their own volume of work within the activity.
I know how to make the 40,000 lines document for a 10,000 activites schedule with an average of four different pay items per activity in SureTrak. A piece of cake just a few trees required for the paper documents required, we are not 100% paperless as it look it is the case in Jakarta, especially with legal and pay documents, computer files are not good enough for everything. Seems like module 08.6 is equally biased on the one sided view that billings via CPM is a good idea.
[PDG] Now this is a rude and totally unnecessary statement. Having survived as a union contractor for 18 years and with the exception of South America, having worked all around the world, says that I have at least some understanding of “how things are done” as a private sector, for profit contractor working on firm fixed price or unit in place contracts. Are there other experiences or contexts? Absolutely. Are yours different from mine? Want to share them? Then you are welcome and encouraged to submit them via the templates developed and made available for that purpose.
It is not a rude statement as long as it is true. I am sharing the experience in a forum discussion I hope will not be censored. I do not want to submit my comments via a template to a closed membership club.
[RD] You said: "Note the grayed out cells (5000 to 10,000 activities) represent what the reference cited by you recommended as the typical or ideal size of CPM schedule, which I do agree with." This is not correct, I said it is not unusual, and that is different to typical, my most common activity count is close to 900 activities and each would contain several/many cost codes if used to generate payment applications.[PDG] I was only quoting from the reference that YOU cited. You need to be very careful about your citations. Putting on my Academic’s hat, I look at every reference your provide to see if it does or does NOT support the point you are trying to make, So if you cite something, you had better make certain that is supports your statements. In this case your reference did NOT support what you asserted.
I never said a 10,000 activities schedule is typical, I said it is not uncommon, typical and not uncommon have different meanings in the English language. In any case you need to be very careful about your calls. Putting in my non-academic but snobbish hat my reference do not pretend to support typical and ideal size is not the same, knowledge of the English language is enough.
If there are no financial constraints there is no value in linking payment application to figure out an overly detailed cash flow. Optimum cash flow management requires consideration of financial constraints, calculating NPV of a poor portfolio selection is not good enough.
No NPV required, just applied common sense to a very simple problem that in order to make it very simple it is not required to consider NPV. Are you still wondering if NPV is to be considered in my sample problem? For your information NPV is not relevant in short duration schedules. Then apply common sense to the sample schedule and show the value of your Hat.
[RD] Following an approved Baseline makes no sense as soon as there are changes in the scope of work, any change matters as was disclosed in the infamous BIG Dig job where contractors were required to follow an always obsolete baseline schedule. [PDG] Then why bother having an approved baseline at all? This is why the GPCCAR advocates that we REBASELINE whenever the original baseline no longer accurately represents what is happening in the field.
I advocate for having an approved baseline as a reference but not as an active management document. I am against the urge to tie payment applications to a CPM Baseline doomed to always be obsolete. Tying payment application to EVM is wrong because EVM requires the baseline to be approved.
And having brought up Boston’s Big Dig, although we were not a contractor on that project, I know of several of my fellow contractors who were and given this was an unmitigated disaster in terms of project management, I would hardly hold that out as an exemplar of “best tested and proven” practices, but more an example of what NOT to do.
This job is an example of why the idea of using Baseline Schedules and EVM as a tool to manage a job is a bad idea and belongs to any discussion the pushes so much for such a flawed idea.
PDG] Yes, I agree that there are weaknesses in using EVM and over the years, many of them have been addressed. Have you taken the time to look at the NDIA document we incorporated by reference into the GPCCAR? Well worth doing as they have fixed a lot of the weaknesses.
A lot of BS into the NDIA document, it do not adequately address the fact that EVM do not distinguish between critical and non-critical activities in their EV calculations.
At the same time, I know of no other method which so clearly and unambiguously links performance and payment.
Well it is not needed; it can be done without the need of EVM that is so dependent on a Fixed Baseline. The micro management of the schedule as proposed by the GUILD can be done within the CPM using regular cost loading directly into the current schedule. The fundamental issue of distorted schedule as the result of successor activities started when the activity is not finished because some pay items are not is not automatically solved by either approach. A problem that is exacerbated by the common contractual requirement for the payment document not be changed until approved. The advocated procedure to tie the CPM to the payment application generates the need for a changed payment document even in the absence of a change in scope of work.
Once again it appears to me that you are trying to find excuses or justification for “Business as Usual” practices, while common, are NOT “Best Tested and Proven” practices but the kind of BS that PMI advocates in their PMBOK Guide(from page 3 or page 5, using “those practices used on most projects, most of the time”.) That is NOT what the GPCCAR was designed to be. We worked hard by doing extensive research to ensure that what the GPCCAR was advocating was BETTER or to a higher standard than the PMBOK Guide OR AACE’s RP’s advocate……
It looks to me you are trying to find excuses to push your one sided agenda for "New Flawed Business Practice" worse than “Business as Usual”. Not everyone is a blind advocate of the PMBOK, I am not one such advocate. Of course I do not fund it as bad as the AACE Forensic RP.
http://barbaconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/fall-2009-const-lawyer-w-judd_001.pdf
I do not buy everything I read.
IMHO, the root cause of this prolonged debate herein still not be discussed deeply. It due to the nature of engineering work for project, small changes vs large changes in work volume. For this reason, it divides project into different approaches. Each is most suitable for each specified situation. No one is fit for all.
Mr Paul,
Thank you for your clarification on black sides of back-to-back, I agreed fully. About advance payment, it has many purposes. Firstly, for quickly action for preliminary/preparation work. Secondly, It also depends on relationship between owner and contractor. If seller trusts buyer fully on proactive payment like many reputable owners, he does not need to subordinate this this advance payment.
The following is another unilaterally closed post on the FORUM tab the GUILD is taking possession as if their own tab is not enough.
http://www.planningplanet.com/forums/guild-project-controls-gpc/591410/…
Dear Rafael,
Thank you. These two statements are specific and actionable and as such have been recognized and are being reviewed and analyzed by the Guild Members. When any changes / improvements to the module are agreed to by the peer review teams, we will post notice of those findings once a decision has been made.
Because you have chosen to post your thoughts here and not via the GPCCaR Change Formsuggestion template I will have to close this thread so its content can be actioned as a specific and defined scope of work for the review teams.
Thanks and Regards, GPC Admin (@Jason)
For those passionate about Project Controls and wish to become part of the decision making team, to help shape what the Guild Commnity collectively consider to be best practice guidelines, you are cordially invited to Join the Guild where you will have a voice in making these kinds of decisions.
It looks like the GUILD have intention to unilaterally close and censor all my discussions they are in disagreement. As I said before I do not have the required published, open-source references and in addition I want is to be an open discussion, not a closed discussion.
Planning Planet is no longerr the same open forum that encouraged diverse opinions and their open discussion. It looks new Admin members are taking over and are changing the rules.
The following is the last unilaterally closed post on the FORUM tab the GUILD is taking possession as if their own tab is not enough.
http://www.planningplanet.com/forums/guild-project-controls-gpc/591071/gpccar-m09-4-assessing-interpreting-progress-data-introduci
Dear Rafael,
Thank you. These statements were specific and actionable and as such have been recognized and have been reviewed and incorporated by the Guild Members.
Details of the changes will be communicated to Guild Members.
Because you have chosen to post your thoughts here and not via the GPCCaR Change Form suggestion template I will have to close this thread so that this change is concluded; any new comments should be made via the aforementioned Change Form or a new duscussion thread.
Thanks and Regards, GPC Admin (@Jason)
For those passionate about Project Controls and wish to become part of the decision making team, to help shape what the Guild Community collectively consider to be best practice guidelines, you are cordially invited to Join the Guild where you will have a voice in making these kinds of decisions.
Vladimir,
In our jobs it is not unusual for some activities to include several pay items, each with a different quantity, different unit price, different dollar amount. How do you account for this under your proposed method?
We are required to show in a transparent way the quantity [volume of work], the unit of volume, the unit price, the extended dollar amount for budget, total to date and current period for every pay item.
In the case of activities such as elevated slab forms it might have different pay items such as forms, electrical, mechanical, reinforcing steel, each with different quantity, different unit of work ... but multiple pay items and their corresponding activity must be modeled under the same activity as to keep the resources working as a team.
I have not figured it out within Spider Project no matter if using cost loading at the activity level, at the resource level or material resource. It looks like an easy task if using P6. Looks easy but it do not solve the issue when an activity is 100% finished for purpose of successors to start but some pay items are not finished. It do not solve the contractual requirement for any changes in schedule to be approved prior to submittal of any updated schedule that include unapproved changes.
I have seen the requirement to use the CPM Schedule as a billing document on a Federal Government job and the experience was a disaster. We used SureTrak and to include several pay items on a single activity was easy. The inspector did not understood the need to address the out-of-sequence issue with a changed "divorced" schedule whenever an activity is 100% finished for purpose of successors to start but some pay items are not finished. This was the Hangar Job I have mentioned you before and that maybe you recall. The only job requiring the CPM as a tool for payment application in my over 35 years experience preparing payment applications for my construction work jobs.
It was a relatively small remodeling job, perhaps less than $3M US dollars. Because of the paper reduction act we were not required more paperwork at time of submitting the payment application along with the schedule update. It was enough to submit 7 copies, each on a 2in binder and close to 400 pages, making it a box of about 2ftx2ftx2ft. It was fun to see the documents being rejected and asked to resubmit them because of a minor disagreement. They never understood the legal concept that any item in disagreement should be deducted but the payment shall not be placed on hold by requiring to resubmit the application.
I wonder how it would be if a $20M dollar job not uncommon for my client, maybe over 2,500 pages per binder, a huge binder. Uncle Sam is second to none in bureaucratic paperwork, give them any excuse to add to the paper work and they will take it as if paper is more important than the end result.
Best Regards,
Rafael
Mr Paul,
Some solutions to resolve the disadvantages of milestone method you mentioned can be:
+ Contract need to include strict clause for payment cycle duration, Contractor can claim some reasonable extra compensation if owner delay his payments.
+ Always adopt Advance Payment, and it should have enough value to ensure positive cash flow in beginning period.
+ Insert milestones between key milestones (convergence points) to ensure each 2 months has at least 1 milestone
+ Back-to-back and/or Flow-down payment method from Main Contract into SubContracts/Vendors to ensure Contractor will pay Subcontractors/Vendors when receive money from Owner.
Another aspect is financial capacity of Contractor, it also help Contractor survives from bankrupt, and more competitive than other Contractors.
So far, in my previous projects I've seen some payment methods below:
1. Lumpsum -> Activity Base Costing (Cost loading CPM Schedule)
2. Lumpsum -> Payment Milestones
3. Unit Rate: Pay by previous agreed unit-cost rate for Work Class x actual work volume done (in some special cases unit is workforce, eg. expert services they record the timesheet...)
4. Cost Plus: pay by actual invoices
5. Open Book Estimate: similar to lumpsum but show all internal calculation and disclose for Owner, and final price will be agreed after commencement of work.
The ABC has at least 2 weak following
+ It's too rigid. It doesn't encourage Contractor to follow flexible ways to meet targets (convergence points). Contractor will try to work on large value activities rather than find optimized way (re-sequence, change logical relationship, critcal path, resource critical path). All you know that more flexible, more success
+ It depends very much on nature of design development, and type of project. If project is fast-track and current engineering phase is not detail enough, quantity/scope will frequently change, baseline estimate need to be revised frequently also.
When apply ABC method , the "many pages" issue, in my experience as a general contractor, owner needs two 2 things:
+ Physical % Progress at WBS level (hard copy)
+ backup data (Level 4,5,6,supporting documents) in native files (Excel, XER,...)
And he only sign-off on the Physical % Progress at WBS level --> only one (1) page!
Dear Rafael, Tong Cong Tuan, Johannes and Vladimir,
Thank you. These statements have been recognized and are being reviewed and analyzed by the Guild Members. When any changes / improvements to the module are agreed to by the peer review teams, we will post notice of those findings once a decision has been made.
In my personal experience on this particular matter I have:
I'm not sure any of that add's value but that describes my experience and I am not sure I should be adding my point of view as I am acting as an administrator; I will check; I may be in trouble!
Thanks and Regards, GPC Admin (@James)
For those passionate about Project Controls and wish to become part of the decision making team, to help shape what the Guild Commnity collectively consider to be best practice guidelines, you are cordially invited to Join the Guild where you will have a voice in making these kinds of decisions.
Convergence is defined by hard logic not by cost unless you are leveling financial constraints that will create the temporal soft links something neither P6 or MSP can do. In the absence of financial leveling the cost link to the CPM is passive.
Using milestones as a mean to get a 100% divorce the time distributions will be very rough and unreliable. In such case the model will not yield reliable financial resource leveled schedules.
Mr Rafael,
Disagree, It depends on what the payment milestones are established by both Client and Contractor. If it is really convergence points, it will push the Contractor to follow CPM Schedule in an active way not passive way, For instance, A-> F, B->F, C->F. Then F will be the convergence points, like some milestones: Stack-up upper deck for offshore platform construction, 3D Model 60% review in detail design, Delivery for some LLI equipment, complete Piping hydrotest, etc...To meet these milestones, Contractor need to follow CPM schedule in an innovative way, they will know where are the first priorities in thousand activities in current period, how to meet them, how to make the CPM schedule more "intelligent", they control the work more effectively.
Another advantage is it resolves the painfulness of payment process, you know what I means when there are some small deviations between design and actual work completed on site, client will have reason to pend the payment of Contractor.
But sometimes, Contractor will trick Client when define payment milestones are not same with convergence points, like building of warehouse, complete shelter of equipment...which will never to be critical path. Still it's another story.
In addition, For identification of payment value of each payment milestones, both Contractor and Client still need to cost load the CPM Schedule independently, then mutual agreement will be reached during bidding phase to ensure good cash flow for both Companies but still link money with work process.
BR,
Mr Rafael,
The "Divorced" issue you mentioned is inevitable. In my exprience, sometime Client accept 80%=100% for small value task if they pursuit the EV payment method. No need to 100% accurate
However to resolve this issue, I prefer payment milestones rather than EV payment method. It's easy for both client and contractor, they just need to mutually agree on key milestones. These key milestones should be the convergence points of the projects, it's the keys for all down-stream tasks to be rescued.
BR,
I am still waiting for a satisfactory answer by the GUILD to the fundamental question of how you approach a distorted CPM schedule when the timing of payments do not follow the intended logic of the schedule. The so called Divorced Schedule requires the submittal and approval of a revised schedule as well as a revised baseline required for EV calculations, a time consuming effort that takes a substantial amount of time.
For many activities the breakdown quantities per activity must be broken down into further detail to account for cost differences. Take for example lighting fixtures, a single lighting fixtures installation activity might have several fixture types some costing several times the cost of other fixtures included under the same activity. Or for example an elevated slab avtivity where different trade and WBS resources must be included within same activity as to keep them working as a team under resource leveling. Such single elevated slab activity will include form work, reinforcing steel, electrical and plumbing rough-in pay items that must be quantified in order to substantiate the billing cost.
Because project sponsor or his representative do not know the activity details and what pay items are included until the CPM is submitted and approved they will have to make a take off on their own to verify each quantity after the 10,000 activities schedule approval. On a 10,000 activities with several pay items per activity, say four/activity it means 40,000 items must be quantified and revised against the contractor estimate.
How much time and effort do you believe such endeavor will take?
Johannes and Vladimir,
Thanks for taking the time to debate and challenge my points of view. Thanks for your tolerance and understanding that while debating is confrontational in nature it is necessary when there are opposing views.
Best Regards,
Rafael
Hi Raphael
The answer is quite simple. There needs to be a pragmatic approach to the schedule updates and the approvals of baselines.
The point I am making is that the world is approaching challenges in a different part of the world in a variety of ways, and that is what it should be.
What is not a practical methodology in one part of the world it may be a mandatory requirement in one other part.
We have to accept these differences, and the Guild of Project Controls Compendium and Reference provides us with a useful handbook and reference guide to further develop the project controls processes,plans, procedures and manuals to suit our particular needs.
Regards Johannes
Johannes
I am still waiting for a satisfactory answer to the fundamental question of how you approach a distorted schedule when the timing of payments do not follow the intended logic of the schedule. The so called Divorced Schedule requires the submittal and approval of a revised schedule as well as a revised baseline required for EV calculations, a time consuming effort that takes a substantial amount of time.
Probably in your country revised schedule an revised baseline do not require approval but here it is a contractual requirement. Be reminded that here the acceptance of a revised baseline have legal consequences in the USA.
In an industry where margins are razor thin, the mandated procedures of a payment application via CPM schedule are not understood by everyone and that will inevitably delay the processing of payment applications until the revised schedule as well as a revised baseline are duly approved as per our standard contract conditions resulting in slower payments that can can be devastating.
Best Regards,
Rafael
Hi Raphael
Thank you for your post.
“Here” I guess, is somewhere in the U.S. For me,”Here” is in Europe and more particular in The Netherland. You may understand that cultural differences can have an impact how projects and in this case payment payments are handled. Off course, general accounting principals and rules need to be followed.
Your second bullet point.
· Agree on a CPM schedule, fully resourced and cost loaded and baseline.
· Agree on Payment Schedule at the same time as establishing the baseline.
· Establish Payment conditions and frequency
· Update and agree on the progress of the work achieved
· Run a report “Earned Value Cost” on the CPM scheduling tool
· Establish the proposal invoice, by the Earned Value Cost data and issue for payment
· Agree and sign off for payment
Regards Johannes
Johannes,
Best Regards,
Rafael
Hi all
Interesting discussion
I have worked on contracts were the payment schedule was directly derived from the priced activities in the approved Primavera schedule. The Primavera schedule was resourced and cost loaded.
Most of these type of contracts were EPC, lump sum type contracts.
Regards Johannes
Rafael,
I expected that this Spider feature is country specific and so we included it only in Russian version.
In Russia there are certain forms (KS-2, KS-3, KS-6) that contractors submit for payments. These forms report the volume done for different types of jobs and payments are made basing on agreed contractual unit costs. These documents are mandatory in most construction project and Spider Project can generate them.
But I never wrote that Spider Project may be used for accounting itself.
These documents are not created on activity level, they require grouping the works by contract defined types and reporting overall volumes by types together with associated contract costs.
So most contractors have two parallel budgets in their projects - for real expenses and for the contract with the different costs of the same jobs. And only few contractors use Spier Project for generating these reports for payments in the way I described in my previous post. I don't mix payment documents and accounting.
I am also curious about the way MSP and P6 can be used for generating payment documents since they do not plan and report volumes of work done.
Vladimir,
No scheduling software meets our accounting standards and no one here runs company accounting using a CPM software.
I am not an accountant and many reports shall be missing from the previous list.
In an industry where margins are razor thin, the mandated procedures of a payment application via CPM schedule not understood by everyone resulting in slower payments can be devastating. So I wonder how the GUILD tacles all the issues I mentioned in my prior postings. I'm all ears waiting for the GUILD.
Best Regards,
Rafael
Rafael,
Spider Project can generate payment documents from the schedule but it does not mean that they can be used for this purpose.
The work can be done but still not approved and accepted, payment method depends on contract conditions - in one project half finished job will be paid, in another payments are linked with certain milestones. Contractor may select what finished job shall be paid now and what later, the Client may pay in advance, etc.
So payment documents created by Spider Project are useful for comparison of the work done and the work paid.
In any case for creating payment documents we create special WBS where the jobs are grouped by types (all concreting jobs are under Concreting phase, etc), so phase volumes make sense. Here unit costs are applied to job types and payments are done for volumes performed unless the contract is fixed price and payments are linked with the schedule milestones.
So 10000 activities schedule has reasonable amount of work types or schedule milestones that are associated with payments.
But once again we warn our customers that payment information generated by the software shall be used for comparison only because project status is based on management information that could be not supported by the documents required by accounting.
But still there is workaround. Some of our customers want to use Spider Project for both project management and accounting, They create two parallel tracks of project versions.
After project plan and project baseline were approved they manage projects usual way entering actual data basing on line managers reports. But when they get the documents that confirm that certain amounts of work were done and accepted they return to the baseline and enter this information creating parallel project version. And so on, one branch of Spider Project versions is based on actual information, another one - only on documented data. It is possible to compare these versions and get reports on work done but yet not approved and accepted, or not finished but already paid.
But once again - I am afraid that our approaches and methods could be country specific and Spider Project specific. I did not meet other software that supports these methods.
I do not believe the Banks and Sureties will accept partial solutions that do not adhere to accounting principles. A schedule generated payment breakdown that do not matches current period invoice is not an acceptable solution.
To my knowledge Spider Project do not have this issue, maybe the GUILD is to endorse it as the only software capable of tracking payment applications in accordance to accounting principles.
Even if the GUILD require software capable of generating payment application reports that do follow accounting principles I do not believe the idea is practical. I am still waiting to see some documentation by the GUILD showing several 10,000 activities schedules used as basis for payment where all issues that I have mentioned are tackled. Needless to say I want to see several payments applications for a couple of projects on same portfolio using different financial periods. No doubt a piece of cake for the GUILD, I am not asking for too much as this is how the GUILD says it is regularly done.
GPC Admin,
I am not into publish-or-perish approach by the GUILD that requires published open source references.
My interest is on challenging the assertions of closed membership clubs that represent the interest of a few. Dangerous assertions that many times are adopted in our contracts as if the only acceptable way. Someone got to be an independent critic, if I become part of it then I must be in substantial agreement with the GUILD, but I am very far from being in agreement with a substantial amount of the GUILD assertions.
For a start I am in complete disagreement with the GUILD assertion that using the CPM schedule as a payment tool is good practice because it misses the practical implications of such idea. The only published reference I have regarding the issues with the use of CPM as a payment tool falls short of providing a good answer and in addition I do not believe is "open source".
Best Regards,
Rafael
____________________________________________________________________________
Hi Rafael,
I was on the development committee of the GAO's "Best Practices in Scheduling" and like you, I too do not agree with everything. However, given the "committee" consisted of several hundred people, to get the consensus we did is nothing short of a miracle.
Which is why the GPCCAR was designed to be a "living document"- If you or anyone else disagrees with what has been written then we have developed a process to follow and a template with which you can propose changes- terms_of_reference_for_gpcbok_editors_appendix_a_-_rev_1.01. Theis process can be found at the BOTTOM of each and every page in the GPCCAR
There are only three requirements:
1) There must be some PUBLISHED REFERENCE to back up or support any proposed changes (Why? Because as publishing papers are a part of the certification process, if there are contentious or competing tools/techniques or methodologies then we want to see our members publishing papers on those topics)
2) The reference must be "Open Source" (non-proprietary) available under some form of Creative Commons License. (Why? Because we don't want to run afoul of copyright laws by using proprietary materials. We also do not want those who are preparing for any of the Guild Certifications to have to go out and purchase expensive books- hence the use of the GAO, and DoE documents)
3) The reference must be accessible via the internet/mobile device. (Why? Because we believe the real need for the GPC Compendium and References (CAR) and the certifications will be coming from the developing/newly emerging nations where "hard copy" books are not only expensive but often unobtainable.
Explained another way, the GPCCAR was designed to be a STARTING POINT only and we expect it will evolve over time which is why we are encouraging constructive and robust debates here on the forum, recognizing that this is OUR document and if it means we have to include or incorporate opposing or differing views then so be it.
Hope this makes sense?
Thanks for updateing that Rafael,
I have been asked to advise that if you want a quicker turnaround / viewpoint forming on issues then you need to show how you recommend the narrative / images in the module be amended; i.e. what you propose to be removed, added and / or changed.
If you are sufficiently inclinded to offer the solution as well as questions then we will collectively make better progress. If not, then it will take longer.
Thanks and enjoy your weekend Rafael.
When the GUILD Admin decided to segregate my postings into several and moved some of my comments and questions it looks like some important questions just disappeared. Some are starting to be included but it is becoming very difficult to track all these changes.
Best Regards,
Rafael
GPC Admin (Jason),
What is wrong with my approach under this specific thread?
He who asserts must prove. In order to establish an assertion, he must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. Facts must be accurate.
Sorry if you do not like the confrontational nature of any debate but I see absolute lack of supporting evidence and logic on the GUILD assertions I am contesting as mistaken or wrong.
Best Regards,
Rafael
Refer http://www.planningplanet.com/forums/guild-project-controls-gpc/591070/…
GPC Admin,
I cannot see why the authors do not take the challenge and respond to my claims the source of the GUILD postulates I am challenging is poor, nonexistent and wrong.
I tried long ago to get some real answers on my initial postings and all I got were poor answers or none. I find in such abominable error some of what is being said at the GUILD that I find it dangerous and therefore my strong response.
Because you have split original thread into many, following your approach I have no other option than to ask what is wrong with my approach under this specific thread?
Best Regards,
Rafael