I do a lot of tender programmes and I always all use bottom up planning following my stated principles.
The 2500 activity programme I mentioned earlier took 16 hours to complete.
I have a library of cascades that I cut and paste into the programme.
Never waste anything - if you have put together a bottom up cascade for constructing a battered backfill for a retained basement - save it in the library. You will need it again some time.
In some cases, the contract requires that the duration of the activities must not be more than 14 days, otherwise expalanation must be provided. The use of SS/FF relationship in this situation will be very minimal.
An experience planner would not devulge the planning of the works to the lowest level. The contract would require maximum duration to force the contractor to detail the programme. It is always big challenge to the planner to have the programme approve showing only the details he want to show to the client. The client will always ask for some more.
An experience planner will know when he should and should not use the SS/FS relationship. It depend on a lot of considerations. I will not simplify the programme if the critical path cannot be clearly defined in the programme, adding 10 or few hundreds activities will always worth it.
Mike - it appears to me you are promoting power-project. I have used it once and its a good software as the other softwares. To ban the use of SS/FF relationship is not realistic, I agree with Charlie.
Cheers..
Member for
24 years 4 months
Member for24 years4 months
Submitted by Nicos Pozatos on Fri, 2009-01-16 23:34
I also have a preference to FS relationships becuase is giving in a more clear manner and easy to communicate the sequnce of works, someting that is very important during construction.
SS or FF relationships are also usefull and might suit better the manner that things actually hapen on site.
It all depents on the level of detail you are using in your programme. The more detailed is the programme the more appropriate is the FS relastionships.
And this level of detail is the most critical decision for a planner. He has to choose , depending on the project, the Project Management team skills and requirements the appropriate level of detail.
For me choosing the proper level of detail is the talent of the good planner.
Regards,
Nicos Pozatos.
Member for
20 years 4 months
Member for20 years4 months
Submitted by Charleston-Jos… on Fri, 2009-01-16 21:46
It is not realistic. Your experience in the preparation of baseline program on the contractor side was history.
It is not possible
By pursuing your opinion with regards to the thread (Ban these Planning Abominations), I can conclude you have not been bludgeon by the dark side (consultant approving baseline program), hence, you want it easy in forensic planning.
It is not possible.
Why pursue this idea?
Would it be better to analyze complicated program in this way forensic planner can claim more money?
I would agree with you if you were doing a proper delay analysis but, I believe software applications were developed to do more than just that. For instance, for use in tendering purposes where simplification presents better to a Client who may not have any idea or interest in construction detail. Hence, SS/FF relationships may be better suited.
Member for
19 years 10 monthsRE: Ban These Planninng Abominations.
Hi J H
I do a lot of tender programmes and I always all use bottom up planning following my stated principles.
The 2500 activity programme I mentioned earlier took 16 hours to complete.
I have a library of cascades that I cut and paste into the programme.
Never waste anything - if you have put together a bottom up cascade for constructing a battered backfill for a retained basement - save it in the library. You will need it again some time.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
19 years 10 monthsRE: Ban These Planninng Abominations.
Hi All
Well thank you all for getting the debate of to a flying start.
No one has yet told me any valid situation in construction where a FF link is necessary you use it because there is a facility in the software.
In my opinion use of SS links are just lazy.
I have seen programmes where there is a milestone that leads off to three sub stages that can start simultaneously.
The planner has linked the milestone to the first stage then used SS links down to the other stages.
This is a distortion of logic and the links go awol when progress is added.
I make a good living in delay analysis because planners do not know what they are doing and as far as I am concerned long may it continue.
If you all followed my precepts I would be starving - as a German client once told me "Ve can live vith dat"
Regarding PowerProject there was a debate last year on a thread P3 v PP Pros and Cons
I use both sets of software but adopt PP wherever possible.
Best regards
Mike Testro
Member for
17 yearsRE: Ban These Planninng Abominations.
JH,
You will appreciate power project doing tender programme.
Cheers..
Member for
17 yearsRE: Ban These Planninng Abominations.
In some cases, the contract requires that the duration of the activities must not be more than 14 days, otherwise expalanation must be provided. The use of SS/FF relationship in this situation will be very minimal.
An experience planner would not devulge the planning of the works to the lowest level. The contract would require maximum duration to force the contractor to detail the programme. It is always big challenge to the planner to have the programme approve showing only the details he want to show to the client. The client will always ask for some more.
An experience planner will know when he should and should not use the SS/FS relationship. It depend on a lot of considerations. I will not simplify the programme if the critical path cannot be clearly defined in the programme, adding 10 or few hundreds activities will always worth it.
Mike - it appears to me you are promoting power-project. I have used it once and its a good software as the other softwares. To ban the use of SS/FF relationship is not realistic, I agree with Charlie.
Cheers..
Member for
24 years 4 monthsRE: Ban These Planninng Abominations.
Hello Planners,
I also have a preference to FS relationships becuase is giving in a more clear manner and easy to communicate the sequnce of works, someting that is very important during construction.
SS or FF relationships are also usefull and might suit better the manner that things actually hapen on site.
It all depents on the level of detail you are using in your programme. The more detailed is the programme the more appropriate is the FS relastionships.
And this level of detail is the most critical decision for a planner. He has to choose , depending on the project, the Project Management team skills and requirements the appropriate level of detail.
For me choosing the proper level of detail is the talent of the good planner.
Regards,
Nicos Pozatos.
Member for
20 years 4 monthsRE: Ban These Planninng Abominations.
It is not possible if you prepare 20,000++ activities as baseline program for approval by client representatives.
Member for
20 years 4 monthsRE: Ban These Planninng Abominations.
Hi Mike,
It is not realistic. Your experience in the preparation of baseline program on the contractor side was history.
It is not possible
By pursuing your opinion with regards to the thread (Ban these Planning Abominations), I can conclude you have not been bludgeon by the dark side (consultant approving baseline program), hence, you want it easy in forensic planning.
It is not possible.
Why pursue this idea?
Would it be better to analyze complicated program in this way forensic planner can claim more money?
Cheers,
Happy Planning and Scheduling
Member for
16 years 9 monthsRE: Ban These Planninng Abominations.
Mike,
I would agree with you if you were doing a proper delay analysis but, I believe software applications were developed to do more than just that. For instance, for use in tendering purposes where simplification presents better to a Client who may not have any idea or interest in construction detail. Hence, SS/FF relationships may be better suited.