When you get used to using a certain piece of software you get to know how to set it up best from the begining and get round its weaker points and really make use of it stronger points and you can do it quicker then if you used software you don’t know too well because it presents too much of an effort to change to something different and new or you do not enough time to do so because of pressure at work to produce results asap.
Best of Luck
Regards
Daya
Member for
23 years 8 months
Member for23 years8 months
Submitted by Darrell ODea on Thu, 2005-06-23 10:56
Personally Im finding Powerproject too unstable at the moment. Ive just (for no reason) been locked out of the code library of my project because (somehow) the data has become corrupted.
Member for
20 years 10 months
Member for20 years10 months
Submitted by Alistair Blakey on Thu, 2005-06-23 07:14
"Just a short reply to MPX conversion. If you use V7 or V8 of powerproject you can obtain a macro from Astadev that will set up a button on your toolbar. This allows export and import of MPX programmes in both PP and MSP."
A word of warning: check the dates once the import/export is done - it is not perfect and large discrepancies can be found.
Member for
23 years 8 months
Member for23 years8 months
Submitted by Daya Sugunasingha on Tue, 2005-06-14 14:25
Just a short reply to MPX conversion. If you use V7 or V8 of powerproject you can obtain a macro from Astadev that will set up a button on your toolbar. This allows export and import of MPX programmes in both PP and MSP.
NB Also....
V9 of Powerproject will include this built in. Due to be released end of the year.
Regards
Member for
23 years 8 months
Member for23 years8 months
Submitted by Daya Sugunasingha on Mon, 2005-06-13 07:14
Microsoft replaced the MPX project exchange format with MPD (aka Microsoft Project Database), only used to agregate several MSP plannings in one database; and MDB (MS Access database).
PowerProject cannot open MPD files, and does not recognize MSP generated MDB files.
Therefore, the only way to transfer a project planning from MSP to PP is to create a MPX file. As MSP 2K and above do not know MPX, you will use Sciforma MPX2000 or something alike.
All the best
Alexandre Faulx-Briole
Member for
22 years 11 months
Member for22 years11 months
Submitted by Bernard Ertl on Fri, 2005-06-10 19:27
Daya, the MPX format was limited in the data that it stored and the structure for it too. AFAIK, PMI is working on an open schema for project data. I dont know when it might be published or implemented by vendors (or even if it will be adopted).
Sorry for the late reply, as the thread has just been re-surrected, but I think Messrs Heesom, D. and Mahdjoubi must have been some academics, that had no experience of practical planning, according to the their ratings of software. In fact brain dead may cover their answers better. Probably a couple of marketing surveyors, who have been smoking some strange green stuff.
Member for
23 years 8 months
Member for23 years8 months
Submitted by Daya Sugunasingha on Fri, 2005-06-10 09:42
What we need is to be free to interchange data from one software package to the other easily and without the risk of losing some incompatable data in the process.
But I suspect that the software houses in there aim to corner as much of the market for themselves dont see it that way and usually make it very difficult.
Why was the MPX facility in Project 2000 onwards discontinued?
Member for
20 years 10 months
Member for20 years10 months
Submitted by Andrew Flowerdew on Thu, 2005-02-24 20:52
To monitor a project and get usefull data out of - P3.
Cost - PP
Support you can talk to - PP
Client base usage or requirement in UK - P3
I really would like to say PP is the best, I use it more of the time exactly because it easier to use but somehow it often has that annoying habit of not quite giving you what you want.
Hard choice, for the money PP but somhow P3 has often just got that edge when you need it.
Being a user of P3/Microsoft Project for almost 10 years and Power project recently, I have found that while PP is good for tendering purposes, it lacks behind P3 when it comes to the actual monitoring of the projects during construction phase and when preparing the resource/cost reports and histograms. P3 is ahead of MSP and PP in this regards.
Other features of presentation are more or less same for all 3 softwares.
Did you find that independent Project Planning software review on the web? If so, can you let me know where you found it? Also, do you have access to any other similar reviews?
Regards,
Gary France
Member for
23 years 6 months
Member for23 years7 months
Submitted by David Bordoli on Fri, 2004-07-30 08:33
I have just found another independent academic Project Planning Software Review:
Heesom, D. and Mahdjoubi, L (2002). Technology Opportunities and Potential for the Virtual Construction Site, Volume 2, Project Planning Software Review. Built Environment Division, University of Wolverhampton. EPSRC Grant No GR/N00876. ISBN: 1-86162-0002-0.
The results (titled ‘Functionality of CPA Software) are:
MS Project 115
Powerproject 110
Primavera 103.3
Dekker TRAKKER 100
Project Schedule 96.5
OPX2 Pro 93.3
Planview 90
Turbo Project 88.2
CA-Superproject 86.6
Pertmaster 83.3
Realtime Projects 83.2
MicroPlanner Xpert 44.9
Some might find MS Project being #1 a little perverse in that it can only handle one dependency between two tasks! Also there is an erroneous assumption in the scoring that a file exchange format ‘Microsoft Project Database’ (MPD) is a ‘de-facto’ standard whereas clearly it is not; only 3 of the 12 products use it, one of them being MSP. If that scoring is removed the results change:
Powerproject 110
MS Project 105
Primavera 103.3
Dekker TRAKKER 100
Project Schedule 96.5
OPX2 Pro 93.3
Planview 90
CA-Superproject 86.6
Realtime Projects 83.2
Turbo Project 78.2
Pertmaster 73.3
MicroPlanner Xpert 44.9
There were two areas where Powerproject scored higher than Primavera:
Q2. Primavera allows 0-100 WBS (scoring 3.3 points) and Powerproject allows over 1000 (scoring 10 points).
Q4. Primavera allows 20000-100000 tasks (scoring 6.6 points) and Powerproject allows over 100000 tasks (scoring 10 points).
I know the maths don’t add up, there should be a 10 point difference, not 7.7 and I have no idea of the accuracy of other elements - I’m just the messenger!
If what you are comparing functionality wise, is to TP or PP. Where Functionally is concerned, in my opinion, TP/PP falls down in many other ways. (Hey, & no disrespect intended, this is just an opinion).
Regards,
Darrell
This last reply is on the defence.
I think that if you have to go into another software to do any function that should be part of your original planning software IT IS A FAILURE IN FUNCTIONALITY!
Daya
Member for
23 years 8 months
Member for23 years8 months
Submitted by Darrell ODea on Fri, 2004-07-16 10:13
I think that if you have to go into another software to do any function that should be part of your original planning software IT IS A FAILURE IN FUNCTIONALITY!
Although SureTrak cant store more than 1 baseline. But there is an utility in SureTrak to store/load the baseline data in CSV format. Hence user can use that to compare other baseline data.
Thanks for your comments but any number of baselines (Target Bars)can be shown against the actual worked activities. They can also be compared against actual work to show end variance (slippage) to produce a Progress Table.
We update and re-baseline each time the programme is revised, but we still need to compare the completed as-built against the original baseline programm not just the latest revision.
Suretrac does not allow this - you can only view one set of target dates. Does P3 allow this ??? I have never used it.
Sorry i am only a guest have been trying to join for days but it just wont let me for some reason!!!! Oh well!
To vere away from the technical issues you guys have discussed and to get back to the real heart of this thread may i just say that whilst Powerproject Teamplan is usable i must back the corner of P3 and Suretrak. I have now used both PP5 & 7 and although i can see the dramatic steps being taken i still find that in certain aspects it falls short of P3/suretrak.
A demonstration of my critisism is the visual aspects of PP/TP, to my knowledge you are unable to show target bars for each activity whereas showing Target bars in P3 is both easy to do and indeed to view. I think that at the end of the day the software has to show things in a particularly good manner, PP/TP however i find falls short on the display of information aspects.
Another one and again this maybe my lack of knowledge but i am not a great fan of the way progress shading is shown on the activity bars, can this be changed?????
Alistair Sharp
Member for
22 years 11 months
Member for22 years11 months
Submitted by Bernard Ertl on Fri, 2004-04-02 11:30
Originally posted by Bernard Ertl earlier in this thread:
In cases where a SS relationship is used, I agree that a FS relationship must be used to establish the end point relationship for the task within the logic network.
A "fundamental" requirement for critical path scheduling is closing the network and not leaving Activities dangling, unless there is a reason for doing so. If for example one had a string of activities all linked in accordance to its logic with FS I think that would be fine. On the other hand if one used SS the I feel it need to be closed with a FF or visa versa, dont you agree.
Regards
Daya
Member for
22 years 11 months
Member for22 years11 months
Submitted by Bernard Ertl on Wed, 2004-02-25 09:56
Hi Daya, no I was not talking about any specific software. I mentioned this at the end of my second post to this thread.
I was responding to a general claim. I think if you read my subsequent posts in this thread (to the first one which you took the quote from) you will see that I discuss the issue of the PDM FF construct in a general sense. For the reasons I already mentioned, I do not believe that it is a "fundamental" requirement for critical path scheduling.
The SS & FF relationships between two tasks can be modeled using SS & FS relationships (to the second tasks successors). Convenient <> Fundamental
Perhaps the painting pictures comment was a little strong. It sure made for an interesting discussion though.
On the 12 November 2003 you posted this in reply to David Bardolli posting ....
"IMHO, claiming the lack of a hammocking (or even just the lack of FF relationships for that matter) is a fundamental flaw is quite a reach. But I guess it depends on whether you are painting pictures or performing critical path analysis..."
Did you mean using Powerproject as akin to painting pictures, if not I appologise.
Powerproject can be used as a very basic bar chart drawing tool, but if used as it is intended, it can do all you want usually .... if not ASTA does give the user the opportunity to influence the development of the software and you cannot say that for many of the others
Regards
Daya
Member for
23 years 6 months
Member for23 years6 months
Submitted by Richard Welsh on Tue, 2004-02-24 10:14
I have no experience of P3, but use Suretrak (Because the client wants like it!). I do use MSP because our M+E department produces all there programmes in the format.
But, I maintain that Powerproject is the most easy to use out of all three and produces well presented programmes that ALL understand.
Bar Charts are easily read by all, from Project Manager to the Man/Woman at the "coal face". They can be modified and formatted to show v.detailed work on less paper (GOOD FOR TREES) and can be marked up by hand to show as-built dates including delays.
Lets not make planning / programming too complicated. We need to give a clear message to all in a "Contract Team" - not everyone is an expert in understanding complex structures / logic.
Regards
Gavin
Member for
23 years 8 months
Member for23 years8 months
Submitted by Darrell ODea on Mon, 2003-12-08 11:44
The formula I referred to earlier is in fact the heuristic algorithm (possibly Polynomial.)
The point I was making about this was that MSP certainly didn’t use it in earlier versions (upto MSP 2000) and was trying to ascertain whether P3 and Powerpoint do, as for time constrained projects it is a vital tool to use so the optimised solution is known.
My personal opinion is that presentation of detailed barchart is the worst format to ’pass downwards’ but this is obviously dependant on activity numbers - I am of the old school that believes in Multi-level plans each targetted at various levels of the organisation.
Member for
22 years 11 months
Member for22 years11 months
Submitted by Bernard Ertl on Fri, 2003-11-14 09:59
... you should be more considerate of your language ...
Yes, I concede, I did not phrase that well. Please accept my sincere apology. I am sorry.
On first reading I do not quite understand what you mean by FF relationships require calculating early starts ‘backwards’. I thought early starts (or earliest times) were calculated on the forward pass and late starts (or latest times) on the backward pass.
Yes, but PDM systems are calculating the early starts "backwards" for FF & SF relationships on the forward pass.
The FF relationship in most PDM implementations determines the early start for a task. This can only be accomplished by using a backwards calculation from the related task as the anchor. Thus, the early start calculations have two (or more) possible basis points if FF relationships are used within the logic network. See Joe Mansours post in the Contiguous or Interruptable thread for more background on the pitfalls involved in this.
I believe that it is possible to construct a network schedule without concurrent SS & FF relationships that represent the same structure. That is why I believe that the characterization of a "fundamental flaw" is unfair (regardless of what software the original comment was targeting).
I think we will have to agree to disagree on this.
Thanks for your comments… I was beginning to think this was an insignificant battle of semantics between Bernard and I!
You are absolutely correct about buy-in. In the UK Construction Industry at least bar charts are the norm for communicating plans upwards and downwards. I suppose it depends on the target of your audience but few in my industry would understand an A-o-L or A-o-N diagram.
I am not absolutely sure about your second point (it’s Powerproject by the way!) but I’ll do my best to get an answer for you.
Whilst I have more important things to do than respond I do not wish to give the impression of tacit acceptance of what you say.
I think if you wish to sling around such comments as “But I guess it depends on whether you are painting pictures or performing critical path analysis...” you should be more considerate of your language – maybe you meant, “… it depends whether one is painting pictures … “. I think you will agree that there is a world of difference in the direction of these two statements.
On first reading I do not quite understand what you mean by FF relationships require calculating early starts ‘backwards’. I thought early starts (or earliest times) were calculated on the forward pass and late starts (or latest times) on the backward pass.
In the extract from Bramble and Callahan that you cite I see no discussion on the integrity of early start/early finish. They appear to be considering the values of start float, activity float, and finish float which are an important factor in their discussion of Construction Delay Claims.
Having said that the comment that I originally reported was “MSP 2003 they have the fantastic fundamental flaw of only allowing one link between two tasks. ie you cannot have a SS and FF between the same tasks”. As you can see this is related to a particular software. One, which as I understand does not subscribe to your view of classic definition of a critical path method scheduling. In that case, and in relation to the methods it employs to schedule projects, calculate critical paths etc, I am in agreement with Richard Ormerod that it is a pretty fundamental flaw.
As you know the legal profession’s view of scheduling is not the same as the pragmatic view required by practitioners. Questions of float are important but there is already a view (in the UK at least following the publication of the SCL Protocol) that practitioners will modify the way they construct networks to eliminate float to protect them during potential disputes but, as a consequence, will reduce their flexibility in carrying out the works.
We have to move on. As an analogy; Newton’s Laws of Motion took over from the Greek and other philosophers views of time and motion and even now Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity has revisions. Classic theory is only good until a new classic theory comes along. I think it is probably time to move on from the developments of 1958/59 – techniques had to be relatively simple then, without number crunching computers the theory and practice was necessarily simple to match the resources of the time.
I think we will have to agree to disagree on this.
Firstly, In response to David, I have always used Activity-on-Arrow networks during my 25 or so years. Even in my current role, we went away from the corporate PDM tool to one that supports ADM purely because those who really dont give a hoot about plans but are an integral part (ie the assigned resources) thought that ADM was the simplest to understand. This is a key element in our attempts to get the all important buy-in so projects could (and indeed were) completed in acceptable timescale. The use of hammocks (sponge) is limited to management and Support activities for cost purposes only.
Secondly, To get back to the original subject: On a technical note which aggregation algorithm do MSP/P3/Powerpoint use?
I know that MSP certainly used a serial one at one point as opposed to the parallel algorithm. If a project is time-constrained, it is a must that the tool will give optimised results.
Member for
22 years 11 months
Member for22 years11 months
Submitted by Bernard Ertl on Wed, 2003-11-12 14:08
It looks like I am the one who touched a nerve. Sorry to ruffle your feathers (so to speak).
...IMHO a ‘discussion’ requires more than one contributor or opinion...
Agreed. Im looking forward to more participation on the issues raised. The topic I linked is still fairly new.
I do take a little exception to your veiled critism and suggestion that I may be...
I made no criticisms or suggestions targeting you. My comments were directed towards the use of FF relationships (in general) which require calculating early starts "backwards" - which is contrary to the definition of the critical path method. The integrity of early start/early finish is compromised when there is more than one basis (as mentioned by Bramble and Callahan).
And who mentioned hammocking?
Sorry, I was being too loose with terminology. I meant tasks/activities that used both a SS & FF relationship between them.
If you advocate the use of SS dependencies then you must also have FF dependencies (or at least a FS or imposed finish tying down the end). If not it is impossible to have a critical path ...
As mentioned previously, early starts for FF relationships must be calculated in a reverse direction (which is incompatible with the definition of the critical path method). In cases where a SS relationship is used, I agree that a FS relationship must be used to establish the end point relationship for the task within the logic network.
... exactly the sort of thing that virtually all project management software uses as it’s preferred method of communicating the plan ...
I am aware that PDM scheduling is popular. That does not provide a logical basis for claiming that the lack of ability to use of a SS & FF tie between two activities is a fundamental flaw. I believe I have taken a position of arguing fundamentals when I am discussing the application of scheduling relationships with regards to the critical path method.
My comments are not personal or related to any particular software. I am merely pointing out what is IMHO, an unfair characterization.
Thank-you for your forthright contribution. I am relieved that your statement is IYHO and IMHO a ‘discussion’ requires more than one contributor or opinion – but hey, lets not be pedantic here. However, I do take a little exception to your veiled critism and suggestion that I may be painting pictures rather than performing critical path analysis.
Even though I started using critical path analysis in the construction industry a mere 25 years ago I have never come across anyone who used Activity-on-Line, even way back then we were using Activity-on-Node and sending the stuff away to be computer analysed.
Things, and methods have developed and improved a bit and we can’t always depend on Classical Theory – I know some people do still subscribe to the world being flat but hey ho…
And who mentioned hammocking? I seem to remember that without the use of dummy activities A-o-N depends on ‘FS dependencies’ only. I almost can’t be bothered with this ‘discussion’ it is so facile! If you advocate the use of SS dependencies then you must also have FF dependencies (or at least a FS or imposed finish tying down the end). If not it is impossible to have a critical path – when I construct a programme (schedule?) I try to ensure the project has one start date and one end date and all activities have a start dependency and a finish dependency.
IMHO, again, I tend to think that Richard Ormerod at Asta does know what he is talking about. Serious planners could do worse than read his seminal paper on simulation (Bennett J & Ormerod R N. Simulation Applied to Construction Projects. Construction Management & Economics, vol 2. E & F N Spon, 1984). In there you might just glimpse the first demonstration of ‘linked bar charts’ and their use in critical path analysis – exactly the sort of thing that virtually all project management software uses as it’s preferred method of communicating the plan.
Whilst knowing nothing about eTaskMaker™ project planning software I am beginning to wonder if I touched a raw nerve?
[quote]Even in MSP 2003 they have the fantastic fundamental flaw of only allowing one link between two tasks. ie you cannot have a SS and FF between the same tasks - so once one has started there are no restraints![/quote]
IMHO, claiming the lack of a hammocking (or even just the lack of FF relationships for that matter) is a fundamental flaw is quite a reach. But I guess it depends on whether you are painting pictures or performing critical path analysis...
Member for
23 years 8 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
Each to his own!
When you get used to using a certain piece of software you get to know how to set it up best from the begining and get round its weaker points and really make use of it stronger points and you can do it quicker then if you used software you don’t know too well because it presents too much of an effort to change to something different and new or you do not enough time to do so because of pressure at work to produce results asap.
Best of Luck
Regards
Daya
Member for
23 years 8 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
Alistair,
Whats new then??
Just wait for the reactions.......
Regards,
Darrell
Member for
20 years 10 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
Personally Im finding Powerproject too unstable at the moment. Ive just (for no reason) been locked out of the code library of my project because (somehow) the data has become corrupted.
Member for
20 years 10 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
"Just a short reply to MPX conversion. If you use V7 or V8 of powerproject you can obtain a macro from Astadev that will set up a button on your toolbar. This allows export and import of MPX programmes in both PP and MSP."
A word of warning: check the dates once the import/export is done - it is not perfect and large discrepancies can be found.
Member for
23 years 8 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
Thanks
DS
Member for
22 years 11 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
Daya, you can find Sciformas MPX2000 here:
MPX2000
Bernard Ertl
eTaskMaker Project Planning Software
Member for
23 years 2 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
Just a short reply to MPX conversion. If you use V7 or V8 of powerproject you can obtain a macro from Astadev that will set up a button on your toolbar. This allows export and import of MPX programmes in both PP and MSP.
NB Also....
V9 of Powerproject will include this built in. Due to be released end of the year.
Regards
Member for
23 years 8 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
Bernard
Thank you. Never the less I did find it very useful tool in the past but it did have its limitations due to MSP only prefering one link.
Regards
Daya
Member for
23 years 8 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
Alexandre
Thank you very for that information, but where do I get Sciforma MPX2000. Is it a seperate software package from the MS range?
Regards
Daya
Member for
22 years 9 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
Daya,
Microsoft replaced the MPX project exchange format with MPD (aka Microsoft Project Database), only used to agregate several MSP plannings in one database; and MDB (MS Access database).
PowerProject cannot open MPD files, and does not recognize MSP generated MDB files.
Therefore, the only way to transfer a project planning from MSP to PP is to create a MPX file. As MSP 2K and above do not know MPX, you will use Sciforma MPX2000 or something alike.
All the best
Alexandre Faulx-Briole
Member for
22 years 11 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
Daya, the MPX format was limited in the data that it stored and the structure for it too. AFAIK, PMI is working on an open schema for project data. I dont know when it might be published or implemented by vendors (or even if it will be adopted).
Bernard Ertl
eTaskMaker Project Planning Software
Member for
21 yearsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
Hi David,
Sorry for the late reply, as the thread has just been re-surrected, but I think Messrs Heesom, D. and Mahdjoubi must have been some academics, that had no experience of practical planning, according to the their ratings of software. In fact brain dead may cover their answers better. Probably a couple of marketing surveyors, who have been smoking some strange green stuff.
Member for
23 years 8 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
What we need is to be free to interchange data from one software package to the other easily and without the risk of losing some incompatable data in the process.
But I suspect that the software houses in there aim to corner as much of the market for themselves dont see it that way and usually make it very difficult.
Why was the MPX facility in Project 2000 onwards discontinued?
Member for
20 years 10 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
To input and generally use - got to be PP.
To monitor a project and get usefull data out of - P3.
Cost - PP
Support you can talk to - PP
Client base usage or requirement in UK - P3
I really would like to say PP is the best, I use it more of the time exactly because it easier to use but somehow it often has that annoying habit of not quite giving you what you want.
Hard choice, for the money PP but somhow P3 has often just got that edge when you need it.
Member for
21 years 1 monthRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
Dear Planners
Being a user of P3/Microsoft Project for almost 10 years and Power project recently, I have found that while PP is good for tendering purposes, it lacks behind P3 when it comes to the actual monitoring of the projects during construction phase and when preparing the resource/cost reports and histograms. P3 is ahead of MSP and PP in this regards.
Other features of presentation are more or less same for all 3 softwares.
Regards
Asif
Member for
21 years 11 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
David,
Did you find that independent Project Planning software review on the web? If so, can you let me know where you found it? Also, do you have access to any other similar reviews?
Regards,
Gary France
Member for
23 years 6 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
I have just found another independent academic Project Planning Software Review:
Heesom, D. and Mahdjoubi, L (2002). Technology Opportunities and Potential for the Virtual Construction Site, Volume 2, Project Planning Software Review. Built Environment Division, University of Wolverhampton. EPSRC Grant No GR/N00876. ISBN: 1-86162-0002-0.
The results (titled ‘Functionality of CPA Software) are:
MS Project 115
Powerproject 110
Primavera 103.3
Dekker TRAKKER 100
Project Schedule 96.5
OPX2 Pro 93.3
Planview 90
Turbo Project 88.2
CA-Superproject 86.6
Pertmaster 83.3
Realtime Projects 83.2
MicroPlanner Xpert 44.9
Some might find MS Project being #1 a little perverse in that it can only handle one dependency between two tasks! Also there is an erroneous assumption in the scoring that a file exchange format ‘Microsoft Project Database’ (MPD) is a ‘de-facto’ standard whereas clearly it is not; only 3 of the 12 products use it, one of them being MSP. If that scoring is removed the results change:
Powerproject 110
MS Project 105
Primavera 103.3
Dekker TRAKKER 100
Project Schedule 96.5
OPX2 Pro 93.3
Planview 90
CA-Superproject 86.6
Realtime Projects 83.2
Turbo Project 78.2
Pertmaster 73.3
MicroPlanner Xpert 44.9
There were two areas where Powerproject scored higher than Primavera:
Q2. Primavera allows 0-100 WBS (scoring 3.3 points) and Powerproject allows over 1000 (scoring 10 points).
Q4. Primavera allows 20000-100000 tasks (scoring 6.6 points) and Powerproject allows over 100000 tasks (scoring 10 points).
I know the maths don’t add up, there should be a 10 point difference, not 7.7 and I have no idea of the accuracy of other elements - I’m just the messenger!
Regards
David
dbordoli@burofour.co.uk
Visit Buro Four on the web
Member for
23 years 8 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
Daya,
If what you are comparing functionality wise, is to TP or PP. Where Functionally is concerned, in my opinion, TP/PP falls down in many other ways. (Hey, & no disrespect intended, this is just an opinion).
Regards,
Darrell
This last reply is on the defence.
I think that if you have to go into another software to do any function that should be part of your original planning software IT IS A FAILURE IN FUNCTIONALITY!
Daya
Member for
23 years 8 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
Gavin,
In answer to your question, P3 does allow multi base lines.
Regards,
Darrell
Member for
16 years 9 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
[deleted by Moderator]
Member for
23 years 8 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
This last reply is on the defence.
I think that if you have to go into another software to do any function that should be part of your original planning software IT IS A FAILURE IN FUNCTIONALITY!
Daya
Member for
16 years 9 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
Although SureTrak cant store more than 1 baseline. But there is an utility in SureTrak to store/load the baseline data in CSV format. Hence user can use that to compare other baseline data.
Member for
23 years 2 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
Forum Guest,
Thanks for your comments but any number of baselines (Target Bars)can be shown against the actual worked activities. They can also be compared against actual work to show end variance (slippage) to produce a Progress Table.
We update and re-baseline each time the programme is revised, but we still need to compare the completed as-built against the original baseline programm not just the latest revision.
Suretrac does not allow this - you can only view one set of target dates. Does P3 allow this ??? I have never used it.
Member for
16 years 9 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
Hey all!!!
Sorry i am only a guest have been trying to join for days but it just wont let me for some reason!!!! Oh well!
To vere away from the technical issues you guys have discussed and to get back to the real heart of this thread may i just say that whilst Powerproject Teamplan is usable i must back the corner of P3 and Suretrak. I have now used both PP5 & 7 and although i can see the dramatic steps being taken i still find that in certain aspects it falls short of P3/suretrak.
A demonstration of my critisism is the visual aspects of PP/TP, to my knowledge you are unable to show target bars for each activity whereas showing Target bars in P3 is both easy to do and indeed to view. I think that at the end of the day the software has to show things in a particularly good manner, PP/TP however i find falls short on the display of information aspects.
Another one and again this maybe my lack of knowledge but i am not a great fan of the way progress shading is shown on the activity bars, can this be changed?????
Alistair Sharp
Member for
22 years 11 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
Originally posted by Bernard Ertl earlier in this thread:
In cases where a SS relationship is used, I agree that a FS relationship must be used to establish the end point relationship for the task within the logic network.
Bernard Ertl
InterPlan Systems Inc. - Project Management Software, Project Planning Software
Member for
23 years 8 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
Hi Bernard
Thank you for the comment.
A "fundamental" requirement for critical path scheduling is closing the network and not leaving Activities dangling, unless there is a reason for doing so. If for example one had a string of activities all linked in accordance to its logic with FS I think that would be fine. On the other hand if one used SS the I feel it need to be closed with a FF or visa versa, dont you agree.
Regards
Daya
Member for
22 years 11 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
Hi Daya, no I was not talking about any specific software. I mentioned this at the end of my second post to this thread.
I was responding to a general claim. I think if you read my subsequent posts in this thread (to the first one which you took the quote from) you will see that I discuss the issue of the PDM FF construct in a general sense. For the reasons I already mentioned, I do not believe that it is a "fundamental" requirement for critical path scheduling.
The SS & FF relationships between two tasks can be modeled using SS & FS relationships (to the second tasks successors). Convenient <> Fundamental
Perhaps the painting pictures comment was a little strong. It sure made for an interesting discussion though.
Bernard Ertl
InterPlan Systems Inc. - Project Management Software, Project Planning Software
Member for
23 years 8 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
Dear Bernard Ertl
On the 12 November 2003 you posted this in reply to David Bardolli posting ....
"IMHO, claiming the lack of a hammocking (or even just the lack of FF relationships for that matter) is a fundamental flaw is quite a reach. But I guess it depends on whether you are painting pictures or performing critical path analysis..."
Did you mean using Powerproject as akin to painting pictures, if not I appologise.
Powerproject can be used as a very basic bar chart drawing tool, but if used as it is intended, it can do all you want usually .... if not ASTA does give the user the opportunity to influence the development of the software and you cannot say that for many of the others
Regards
Daya
Member for
23 years 6 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
PowerProject. Been using for a while now. Easiest to use and gives the best results! What more do you want?
Member for
23 years 2 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
Another quick note.
I have no experience of P3, but use Suretrak (Because the client wants like it!). I do use MSP because our M+E department produces all there programmes in the format.
But, I maintain that Powerproject is the most easy to use out of all three and produces well presented programmes that ALL understand.
My Votes with Powerproject.
Regards
Gavin
Member for
23 years 2 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
Bar Charts are easily read by all, from Project Manager to the Man/Woman at the "coal face". They can be modified and formatted to show v.detailed work on less paper (GOOD FOR TREES) and can be marked up by hand to show as-built dates including delays.
Lets not make planning / programming too complicated. We need to give a clear message to all in a "Contract Team" - not everyone is an expert in understanding complex structures / logic.
Regards
Gavin
Member for
23 years 8 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
[Inappropriate message deleted by Moderator. Please be cordial to members and guests.]
Member for
16 years 9 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
[Inappropriate message deleted by moderator. Please be cordial to members and guests.]
Member for
23 years 8 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
P3 "Rules"
Dats wat I tink.
D
Member for
22 years 11 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
Daya, where have I posted anything specific to Power Project that could support your musings?
Bernard Ertl
InterPlan Systems Inc. - Project Management Software, Project Planning Software
Member for
23 years 8 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
IMHO I agree with every word of David Bordolis post and subsequent reply.
Those of you who may have used Microplanner in years gone by would agree that it did used activity on the node networks.
I also wonder if Bernard Ertl thinks that Power Project and Power Point are the same product?
Daya
Member for
16 years 9 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
Hi PPers,
Following some lively interest in the Powerproject subject we have now created a new Forum Category especially for you Powerproject Gurus.
We hope that this will be of interest to you?
Regards.
Member for
16 years 9 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
OOPS yes I meant Powerproject in my last (and first) post
Member for
16 years 9 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
The formula I referred to earlier is in fact the heuristic algorithm (possibly Polynomial.)
The point I was making about this was that MSP certainly didn’t use it in earlier versions (upto MSP 2000) and was trying to ascertain whether P3 and Powerpoint do, as for time constrained projects it is a vital tool to use so the optimised solution is known.
My personal opinion is that presentation of detailed barchart is the worst format to ’pass downwards’ but this is obviously dependant on activity numbers - I am of the old school that believes in Multi-level plans each targetted at various levels of the organisation.
Member for
22 years 11 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
... you should be more considerate of your language ...
Yes, I concede, I did not phrase that well. Please accept my sincere apology. I am sorry.
On first reading I do not quite understand what you mean by FF relationships require calculating early starts ‘backwards’. I thought early starts (or earliest times) were calculated on the forward pass and late starts (or latest times) on the backward pass.
Yes, but PDM systems are calculating the early starts "backwards" for FF & SF relationships on the forward pass.
The FF relationship in most PDM implementations determines the early start for a task. This can only be accomplished by using a backwards calculation from the related task as the anchor. Thus, the early start calculations have two (or more) possible basis points if FF relationships are used within the logic network. See Joe Mansours post in the Contiguous or Interruptable thread for more background on the pitfalls involved in this.
I believe that it is possible to construct a network schedule without concurrent SS & FF relationships that represent the same structure. That is why I believe that the characterization of a "fundamental flaw" is unfair (regardless of what software the original comment was targeting).
I think we will have to agree to disagree on this.
Agreed.
Bernard Ertl
InterPlan Systems Inc. - Project Management Software, Project Planning Software
Member for
23 years 6 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
Hi Forum Guest
Thanks for your comments… I was beginning to think this was an insignificant battle of semantics between Bernard and I!
You are absolutely correct about buy-in. In the UK Construction Industry at least bar charts are the norm for communicating plans upwards and downwards. I suppose it depends on the target of your audience but few in my industry would understand an A-o-L or A-o-N diagram.
I am not absolutely sure about your second point (it’s Powerproject by the way!) but I’ll do my best to get an answer for you.
Regards
David
dbordoli@burofour.co.uk
Visit Buro Four on the web.
Member for
23 years 6 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
Bernard…
Whilst I have more important things to do than respond I do not wish to give the impression of tacit acceptance of what you say.
I think if you wish to sling around such comments as “But I guess it depends on whether you are painting pictures or performing critical path analysis...” you should be more considerate of your language – maybe you meant, “… it depends whether one is painting pictures … “. I think you will agree that there is a world of difference in the direction of these two statements.
On first reading I do not quite understand what you mean by FF relationships require calculating early starts ‘backwards’. I thought early starts (or earliest times) were calculated on the forward pass and late starts (or latest times) on the backward pass.
In the extract from Bramble and Callahan that you cite I see no discussion on the integrity of early start/early finish. They appear to be considering the values of start float, activity float, and finish float which are an important factor in their discussion of Construction Delay Claims.
Having said that the comment that I originally reported was “MSP 2003 they have the fantastic fundamental flaw of only allowing one link between two tasks. ie you cannot have a SS and FF between the same tasks”. As you can see this is related to a particular software. One, which as I understand does not subscribe to your view of classic definition of a critical path method scheduling. In that case, and in relation to the methods it employs to schedule projects, calculate critical paths etc, I am in agreement with Richard Ormerod that it is a pretty fundamental flaw.
As you know the legal profession’s view of scheduling is not the same as the pragmatic view required by practitioners. Questions of float are important but there is already a view (in the UK at least following the publication of the SCL Protocol) that practitioners will modify the way they construct networks to eliminate float to protect them during potential disputes but, as a consequence, will reduce their flexibility in carrying out the works.
We have to move on. As an analogy; Newton’s Laws of Motion took over from the Greek and other philosophers views of time and motion and even now Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity has revisions. Classic theory is only good until a new classic theory comes along. I think it is probably time to move on from the developments of 1958/59 – techniques had to be relatively simple then, without number crunching computers the theory and practice was necessarily simple to match the resources of the time.
I think we will have to agree to disagree on this.
Regards
David
dbordoli@burofour.co.uk
Visit Buro Four on the web
Member for
16 years 9 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
Firstly, In response to David, I have always used Activity-on-Arrow networks during my 25 or so years. Even in my current role, we went away from the corporate PDM tool to one that supports ADM purely because those who really dont give a hoot about plans but are an integral part (ie the assigned resources) thought that ADM was the simplest to understand. This is a key element in our attempts to get the all important buy-in so projects could (and indeed were) completed in acceptable timescale. The use of hammocks (sponge) is limited to management and Support activities for cost purposes only.
Secondly, To get back to the original subject: On a technical note which aggregation algorithm do MSP/P3/Powerpoint use?
I know that MSP certainly used a serial one at one point as opposed to the parallel algorithm. If a project is time-constrained, it is a must that the tool will give optimised results.
Member for
22 years 11 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
David,
It looks like I am the one who touched a nerve. Sorry to ruffle your feathers (so to speak).
...IMHO a ‘discussion’ requires more than one contributor or opinion...
Agreed. Im looking forward to more participation on the issues raised. The topic I linked is still fairly new.
I do take a little exception to your veiled critism and suggestion that I may be...
I made no criticisms or suggestions targeting you. My comments were directed towards the use of FF relationships (in general) which require calculating early starts "backwards" - which is contrary to the definition of the critical path method. The integrity of early start/early finish is compromised when there is more than one basis (as mentioned by Bramble and Callahan).
And who mentioned hammocking?
Sorry, I was being too loose with terminology. I meant tasks/activities that used both a SS & FF relationship between them.
If you advocate the use of SS dependencies then you must also have FF dependencies (or at least a FS or imposed finish tying down the end). If not it is impossible to have a critical path ...
As mentioned previously, early starts for FF relationships must be calculated in a reverse direction (which is incompatible with the definition of the critical path method). In cases where a SS relationship is used, I agree that a FS relationship must be used to establish the end point relationship for the task within the logic network.
... exactly the sort of thing that virtually all project management software uses as it’s preferred method of communicating the plan ...
I am aware that PDM scheduling is popular. That does not provide a logical basis for claiming that the lack of ability to use of a SS & FF tie between two activities is a fundamental flaw. I believe I have taken a position of arguing fundamentals when I am discussing the application of scheduling relationships with regards to the critical path method.
My comments are not personal or related to any particular software. I am merely pointing out what is IMHO, an unfair characterization.
Bernard Ertl
InterPlan Systems Inc. - Project Management Software, Project Planning Software
Member for
23 years 6 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
Bernard…
Thank-you for your forthright contribution. I am relieved that your statement is IYHO and IMHO a ‘discussion’ requires more than one contributor or opinion – but hey, lets not be pedantic here. However, I do take a little exception to your veiled critism and suggestion that I may be painting pictures rather than performing critical path analysis.
Even though I started using critical path analysis in the construction industry a mere 25 years ago I have never come across anyone who used Activity-on-Line, even way back then we were using Activity-on-Node and sending the stuff away to be computer analysed.
Things, and methods have developed and improved a bit and we can’t always depend on Classical Theory – I know some people do still subscribe to the world being flat but hey ho…
And who mentioned hammocking? I seem to remember that without the use of dummy activities A-o-N depends on ‘FS dependencies’ only. I almost can’t be bothered with this ‘discussion’ it is so facile! If you advocate the use of SS dependencies then you must also have FF dependencies (or at least a FS or imposed finish tying down the end). If not it is impossible to have a critical path – when I construct a programme (schedule?) I try to ensure the project has one start date and one end date and all activities have a start dependency and a finish dependency.
IMHO, again, I tend to think that Richard Ormerod at Asta does know what he is talking about. Serious planners could do worse than read his seminal paper on simulation (Bennett J & Ormerod R N. Simulation Applied to Construction Projects. Construction Management & Economics, vol 2. E & F N Spon, 1984). In there you might just glimpse the first demonstration of ‘linked bar charts’ and their use in critical path analysis – exactly the sort of thing that virtually all project management software uses as it’s preferred method of communicating the plan.
Whilst knowing nothing about eTaskMaker™ project planning software I am beginning to wonder if I touched a raw nerve?
Regards
David
dbordoli@burofour.co.uk
Visit Buro Four on the web
Member for
22 years 11 monthsRE: MSP -v- P3 -v- Powerproject
[quote]Even in MSP 2003 they have the fantastic fundamental flaw of only allowing one link between two tasks. ie you cannot have a SS and FF between the same tasks - so once one has started there are no restraints![/quote]
It can be argued that allowing FF restraints as mentioned above is not compatible with the critical path method. See the What relationships are compatible with the critical path method discussion.
IMHO, claiming the lack of a hammocking (or even just the lack of FF relationships for that matter) is a fundamental flaw is quite a reach. But I guess it depends on whether you are painting pictures or performing critical path analysis...
Bernard Ertl
InterPlan Systems Inc. - Project Management Software, Project Planning Software