Once upon a time float was generated by logic using CPA and a client should be able to evaluate if the contractor was playing games with it.
In my opinion nobody owns the float, who ever uses it first gets it whether it’s the contractor because the programme is slipping or the client because he’s made a change.
If a programme is constructed correctly there is a good way of predicting future problems with a float distribution report.
Member for
23 years 8 months
Member for23 years8 months
Submitted by Daya Sugunasingha on Fri, 2005-06-10 09:50
I beleave that the ownership of "float" should reflect the degree of risk each of the parties to the contract have accepted to take dependent on contract details.
Member for
23 years 6 months
Member for23 years7 months
Submitted by David Bordoli on Fri, 2005-01-28 05:30
Thanks for your reply. I admire and appreciate your contributions over the last few days.
When I wrote that note the buffer task didn’t exist so your refinement is very welcome.
When v8 and the buffer task was introduced I forecast that it would become a really useful tool in the planners’ box and would sooner or later be copied by all other software producers. I think it has great scope and maybe we (sorry, I mean you!) should start a thread discussing what we can do with it. The obvious one is to reduce float in programmes without reducing their dynamic nature. Contractors especially might like to look at that to protect any, otherwise, apparent float.
As with concurrency, I think the question of ownership of float has still got some legs in it, despite what case law and the Protocol seem to say. There are a number of scenario that haven’t yet been properly discussed and the ‘who ever needs it first’ ruling is a bit too a simplistic fit all rule in my very humble opinion!
Regards
David
Member for
20 years 9 months
Member for20 years9 months
Submitted by Jonathan Kirby on Thu, 2005-01-27 17:35
A futher refinement to lead in, or Design or Procurement programmes is the have the front end ASAP bars separated from the [say] Manufacture or JIT delivery with a buffer task. this is a good way to put some contingency in the whole process and you can have more realistic times for the actual activities [often the activities are given overly long durations to allow for this] and monitor the buffer tasks.
This helps to resoure level the front end activities without messing about with durations and keep an eye on the risk to construction at the same time.
the delivery JIT can be locked to move with its on site activity with the Max slope function in the link properties.
Member for
20 years 1 monthRE: Lead-In
Unfortunatly the case law and lawyers do not agree but if you pay a lawyer to decide your entitlement he will secure his first
Member for
21 years 7 monthsRE: Lead-In
Once upon a time float was generated by logic using CPA and a client should be able to evaluate if the contractor was playing games with it.
In my opinion nobody owns the float, who ever uses it first gets it whether it’s the contractor because the programme is slipping or the client because he’s made a change.
If a programme is constructed correctly there is a good way of predicting future problems with a float distribution report.
Member for
23 years 8 monthsRE: Lead-In
David
I do agree.
I beleave that the ownership of "float" should reflect the degree of risk each of the parties to the contract have accepted to take dependent on contract details.
Member for
23 years 6 monthsRE: Lead-In
Jonathan
Thanks for your reply. I admire and appreciate your contributions over the last few days.
When I wrote that note the buffer task didn’t exist so your refinement is very welcome.
When v8 and the buffer task was introduced I forecast that it would become a really useful tool in the planners’ box and would sooner or later be copied by all other software producers. I think it has great scope and maybe we (sorry, I mean you!) should start a thread discussing what we can do with it. The obvious one is to reduce float in programmes without reducing their dynamic nature. Contractors especially might like to look at that to protect any, otherwise, apparent float.
As with concurrency, I think the question of ownership of float has still got some legs in it, despite what case law and the Protocol seem to say. There are a number of scenario that haven’t yet been properly discussed and the ‘who ever needs it first’ ruling is a bit too a simplistic fit all rule in my very humble opinion!
Regards
David
Member for
20 years 9 monthsRE: Lead-In
David.
A futher refinement to lead in, or Design or Procurement programmes is the have the front end ASAP bars separated from the [say] Manufacture or JIT delivery with a buffer task. this is a good way to put some contingency in the whole process and you can have more realistic times for the actual activities [often the activities are given overly long durations to allow for this] and monitor the buffer tasks.
This helps to resoure level the front end activities without messing about with durations and keep an eye on the risk to construction at the same time.
the delivery JIT can be locked to move with its on site activity with the Max slope function in the link properties.
JK