I believe Gary has the best intentions for PEO, an organisation to set planners aside from say the CIOB members. That’s if you want to join a club!
The PEO web site has very useful information in it which to date Gary offers access free to non members, so how can non members complain Chris. Are you a member??
Lead times! The data from the Mace website is printed in the building magazine and produced from Mace experience and Mace trade contractors. It can only be a guide but very useful to monitor trends!
The excel programmes are to give a simplistic view of a projects timetable. KISS principle!
As for production rates, well I really believe this is an unsolvable problem. Planning Planet and the construction Library has a very comprehensive list of out puts.
Remember any set of out puts will be based on a collection of data converted to an average out put, that assumes you are going to employ an average workforce. Outputs and resources in a programme can only be a guide!
I believe one of Gary’s aims is to collect & share knowledge allowing Planners to perform better and thereby improve the standing of Planners within our respective industry.
Member for
21 years 5 months
Member for21 years5 months
Submitted by Chris Oggham on Thu, 2007-02-08 03:45
You seem quite disenchanted by the PEO, both the organisation and the content of its website. Have you tried contacting Gary France to tell him about your concerns? Hes a very approachable guy who, I am sure, would be able to explain whats happening and take on board any points that you wanted to make.
As for your point about the lead times being taken from the Mace site, thats not really surprising, Gary is one of the Directors. So if you have any problems with the PEO let him know, hed be pleased to get your comments.
well Im not expecting him to put me on his Xmas card list, but a quick look will reveal that the production rates section promises (as it has done since launch):
"Sorted by industry, this section will provide details of planned production rates. By way of example, how many people does it take and for how long, to construct foundations, brickwork, structural steel frames, railway lines, roofing and the like. This will be a very comprehensive list of pan industry production rates.
"
The lead times are taken from the Mace site
The case studies section is full of Excel programmes (nuff about that already), Newsletters not updated since Autumn 05, a job page (cos there arent many of those on the web already), etc etc.
All for the cut price sum of £135 a year... Emm, have I missed a point here ??
It all looks very promising, but I cant see any substance - certainly not to justify those prices
Member for
20 years 4 months
Member for20 years4 months
Submitted by Charleston-Jos… on Wed, 2007-02-07 05:48
"Why not APE will be like Planning Planet" - not sure what this means, but at a guess, Ill repeat "cos its a money making venture for the owners". I mean, who in their right mind would pay £22 for a PEO polo shirt ??
Well it really doesnt surprise me in the least that a lot of PP members are also members of APE. It goes a long way to explaining the inactivity on this site too (see my other grumbling threads for details - this monkey business is sending me nuts). And just as I see the PEO 10 bar Excel programmes as a waste of time, so too would uploading a 50,000 activity programme. Programmes need to be of a sensible size, and in a format that can be easily read. PDFs suit this criteria fine.
Looking across these 2 websites, Im beginning to see there may be some truth in the image of Planners as thinkers rather than do-ers
Member for
20 years 4 months
Member for20 years4 months
Submitted by Charleston-Jos… on Tue, 2007-02-06 05:32
That is very hard to APE. You know a lot of PP members are also APE members. I tend to agree with your observation. Perhaps APE can explain there position.
Why not APE will be like Planning Planet. Very easy to be a member. In PP you can also come and go anytime, no hard feeling.
REgarding to your post, this is a great idea. Can PP handle P3 file with 50,000 acitivites. I got P3 schedule that range from minimium 5,000 activities to 50,000 activities some are live projects while some are previous projects.
How are we going to make this a reality.
cheers,
charlie
Member for
22 years 8 months
Member for22 years8 months
Submitted by Brennan Westworth on Wed, 2007-01-24 02:26
Member for
24 years 5 monthsRE: Case Studies - dont knock PEO
I believe Gary has the best intentions for PEO, an organisation to set planners aside from say the CIOB members. That’s if you want to join a club!
The PEO web site has very useful information in it which to date Gary offers access free to non members, so how can non members complain Chris. Are you a member??
Lead times! The data from the Mace website is printed in the building magazine and produced from Mace experience and Mace trade contractors. It can only be a guide but very useful to monitor trends!
The excel programmes are to give a simplistic view of a projects timetable. KISS principle!
As for production rates, well I really believe this is an unsolvable problem. Planning Planet and the construction Library has a very comprehensive list of out puts.
Remember any set of out puts will be based on a collection of data converted to an average out put, that assumes you are going to employ an average workforce. Outputs and resources in a programme can only be a guide!
I believe one of Gary’s aims is to collect & share knowledge allowing Planners to perform better and thereby improve the standing of Planners within our respective industry.
Member for
21 years 5 monthsRE: Case Studies
Tom,
You seem quite disenchanted by the PEO, both the organisation and the content of its website. Have you tried contacting Gary France to tell him about your concerns? Hes a very approachable guy who, I am sure, would be able to explain whats happening and take on board any points that you wanted to make.
As for your point about the lead times being taken from the Mace site, thats not really surprising, Gary is one of the Directors. So if you have any problems with the PEO let him know, hed be pleased to get your comments.
Regards
Chris Oggham
Member for
22 years 4 monthsRE: Case Studies
well Im not expecting him to put me on his Xmas card list, but a quick look will reveal that the production rates section promises (as it has done since launch):
"Sorted by industry, this section will provide details of planned production rates. By way of example, how many people does it take and for how long, to construct foundations, brickwork, structural steel frames, railway lines, roofing and the like. This will be a very comprehensive list of pan industry production rates.
"
The lead times are taken from the Mace site
The case studies section is full of Excel programmes (nuff about that already), Newsletters not updated since Autumn 05, a job page (cos there arent many of those on the web already), etc etc.
All for the cut price sum of £135 a year... Emm, have I missed a point here ??
It all looks very promising, but I cant see any substance - certainly not to justify those prices
Member for
20 years 4 monthsRE: Case Studies
Tom,
Do you know Gary?
He may re-act to your post.
Cheers,
Charlie
Member for
22 years 4 monthsRE: Case Studies
Charleston, its not hard to APE (I actually meant PEO www.planningengineers.org) - cos its true.
"Why not APE will be like Planning Planet" - not sure what this means, but at a guess, Ill repeat "cos its a money making venture for the owners". I mean, who in their right mind would pay £22 for a PEO polo shirt ??
Well it really doesnt surprise me in the least that a lot of PP members are also members of APE. It goes a long way to explaining the inactivity on this site too (see my other grumbling threads for details - this monkey business is sending me nuts). And just as I see the PEO 10 bar Excel programmes as a waste of time, so too would uploading a 50,000 activity programme. Programmes need to be of a sensible size, and in a format that can be easily read. PDFs suit this criteria fine.
Looking across these 2 websites, Im beginning to see there may be some truth in the image of Planners as thinkers rather than do-ers
Member for
20 years 4 monthsRE: Case Studies
Hi TOM,
That is very hard to APE. You know a lot of PP members are also APE members. I tend to agree with your observation. Perhaps APE can explain there position.
Why not APE will be like Planning Planet. Very easy to be a member. In PP you can also come and go anytime, no hard feeling.
REgarding to your post, this is a great idea. Can PP handle P3 file with 50,000 acitivites. I got P3 schedule that range from minimium 5,000 activities to 50,000 activities some are live projects while some are previous projects.
How are we going to make this a reality.
cheers,
charlie
Member for
22 years 8 monthsRE: Case Studies
I agree too...
A section for planning publications and technical papers would also be good.
Member for
18 years 10 monthsRE: Case Studies
i agree.