The difference between P3 and V5 is that in P3 they call it sub-projects, and V5 it is a project. But this is just semantics.
I have had this problem before, of main contractors locking contractors out of the system,and trying to impose their rules. My system is very simple, in that you set up a seperate project, or in the case of P3 a sub project, for interfaces, where everybody has access to. You create the milestone for handovers within your own project, and copy them to this project, and link them directly. Create an activity ID lets say you are Mechanical, something like MIF10045, and the E&I create an activity id EIF10045, and you linke these. In principle you first agree dates when handovers will take place, and then you constrain the milestone with not later then constraints, the preceding activities like handovers from civils, structural, whatever are handled in the same fashion. By going into this interface project and observing the total float, on either predecessor or successor actities will will be able to see to problems, without having to see their programs. Filters make this even more obvious when you look at float.
It is all a question of negotiating and managing problems, and if the "main contractor" is not handling it in this way, ie without transparency, he is either in somebodies pocket, or just does not realise reality. Transparency is the key to the problem, if you cannot achieve something, talk to the other parties, and come to some realistic solution, this is what planners are for.
Member for
19 years 3 months
Member for19 years3 months
Submitted by Peter Protopapa on Wed, 2006-08-16 14:29
On this paricular project its P3 3.1. As far as I can tell using 5.0, they have done away with the sub-project concept.
My company is not a sub in the traditional sense because our contract is with the client not the main. Things are further complicated by the fact that we are both providing equipment and doing the installation of most of it but depend on the prime for foundation for instance and they need us to finish to do their piping and steel and so on in and out.
As far as I can tell so far, and from what they have told me, they are using first early constaint option. The point is that they shouldnt be messing with my activities in the first place(and I might just go ahead and remove them if I dont agree) and there is no reason i shouldnt just get the whole file unless they are trying to hide things. In general it doesnt help me to do a good job scheduling my part of the work or give the client a true picture of whats going on.
There will always be problems with updating since the mains portion will be behind by 2 weeks in this case when I move my data date.
I hope this clarifies things for you and isnt more information than you were expecting.
Peter
Member for
21 years
Member for21 years
Submitted by Philip Jonker on Wed, 2006-08-16 13:59
Can you clarify which version of Primavera you are working in, ie. P3, P3e, or Primavera project manager version 5?
The approach to your problem is different dependent on the software you are using. Can you also explain how the interfaces are handled, ie. is your handover dates within your sub-project, and who is setting the constraints, as well as the type of constaints, ie. mandatory, not later than, or whatever. This will allow me to give you some advice, but not knowing all the facts, only allows me to do guesswork. Interfaces is always a difficult problem to resolve and ground rules have to be set. If the main contractor wants to bulldoze over everybody, he at least has to tell you what he is going to do, such as applying constraints,etc. These are common law issues. If you want to dictate, at least let the affected parties know.
Regards
Philip
Member for
19 years 3 months
Member for19 years3 months
Submitted by Peter Protopapa on Wed, 2006-08-16 08:57
Thanks for your input but things have gotten "loonier" in the interim! They are now constraining my activities (without telling me about it first) with early start/finish on predecessors/successors and the using the Log to show the Activity ID its start/finish date and its description. Funny, isnt that what would be achieved if they just gave me the whole thing in the first place!
I personally think this could cause more problems than it solves since the person at the other end has to make sure everything stays current after each update or even change of one activity and make all the changes in constraints and Logs and if they are anything like me they will miss a few each time!
There will be a site meeting today which will include a discussion of this method (which I will teleparticipate in)and hopefully sanity will return.
Member for
22 years 2 months
Member for22 years3 months
Submitted by Bill Fitzgerald on Wed, 2006-08-16 01:11
the loss of the master project links indicates that they are using "checkout/checkin" subprojects rather than "backup a subproject" in the utilities.
This cico system is a waste of time for that reason, see if theyll use subproject backup which, although it will not show you the master project link, your subproject will still adhere to the restraints.
Ask them to insert milestones into your subproject which clarify there is a logic link to their master, then at least you can see it.
Bill
Member for
21 years
Member for21 years
Submitted by Philip Jonker on Fri, 2006-07-28 14:53
I believe we are talking P3 here, so citrix and the rest has nothing to do with it.
The principle is simple, every contractor runs his own program, with an agreed baseline. Interface milestones are added for each handover and receipt, and the are linked. Once this is done, a base date is set. The managing contractor controls this program, and can view all the varies contractors activities. Each contractor imputs his updates on an agreed cutoff date, and the managing contractor then runs a time analysis (schedule), and reports on variances. You must watch the float on the interface dates to see where problem are occuring, and at the same time the variences between your dates and the baseline, if these are not the same, notify the managing contractor, as this means the contractor you are handing over to has made changes to his program, not consistent with his baseline program.
Member for
19 years 3 months
Member for19 years3 months
Submitted by Peter Protopapa on Fri, 2006-07-28 13:40
While I do like your thinking there are some flaws in it.
You are assuming that the management here would be able to exploit such a situation but unfortunately they tend to get themselves into such a hole that it wouldnt help.
Believe me that I do know how to take advantage of the situation and make the prime pay, and I do!
The real problem is that, as far as construction goes, there are occasions where I rely on their pred to start an activity and they rely on that activity for their next and so on backwards and forwards and my trying to do a good job keeps getting in the way!
I might just plug the incoming dates, do my thing to getting durations and ties to where I want them and then unplug to send back.
Member for
22 years 10 months
Member for22 years10 months
Submitted by Ronald Winter on Fri, 2006-07-28 10:27
As far as a claims situation goes, not knowing the other schedule constraints frees you from having to consider them. Do you want to have to agree to leaving the site for three weeks and then returning due to someone else’s conflicts? Do you want to have to integrate delays by others into your planned schedule? No, you do not.
Being denied information on coordination issues with other subs means that the General is assuming all responsibility for this. Give them your ‘unfettered’ schedule that shows them how you plan to do your work. Tell them that you expect them to stick to it. Any delays to your schedule from outside sources (including other subs) is cause for a delay and/or disruption claim on your part. Your ‘unfettered’ schedule will be there to document your case.
Take your good luck and just stick to your plan. That is what you bid and that is the best way to keep your profit margin. Good luck!
Member for
19 years 3 months
Member for19 years3 months
Submitted by Peter Protopapa on Fri, 2006-07-28 09:16
Thanks for the info. Unfortunately the holder of the master level doesnt want me to have the whole thing because I might get too much insite as to how they are doing things. Very short sighted and will ultimately cause them more problems than it solves, but there you have it.
Ill look into the citrix thing more closely.
Regards,
Peter
Member for
20 years 6 months
Member for20 years6 months
Submitted by Rashid Iqbal on Thu, 2006-07-27 19:35
This is the way people run the integrated schedule without being on a multiple user enviroment. If the client shares the program via citrix then all the links will be live and you can easily schedule your work with repsect to the completion dates of predecessors (which could be activities of other contratcors).
The other way is to ask the the master schduler to send you a copy of program after he has integrated your schedule. Make his copy a target project for your update and sort out the variances.
Member for
21 yearsRE: Sub-Project Sceduleing
Hi Peter,
The difference between P3 and V5 is that in P3 they call it sub-projects, and V5 it is a project. But this is just semantics.
I have had this problem before, of main contractors locking contractors out of the system,and trying to impose their rules. My system is very simple, in that you set up a seperate project, or in the case of P3 a sub project, for interfaces, where everybody has access to. You create the milestone for handovers within your own project, and copy them to this project, and link them directly. Create an activity ID lets say you are Mechanical, something like MIF10045, and the E&I create an activity id EIF10045, and you linke these. In principle you first agree dates when handovers will take place, and then you constrain the milestone with not later then constraints, the preceding activities like handovers from civils, structural, whatever are handled in the same fashion. By going into this interface project and observing the total float, on either predecessor or successor actities will will be able to see to problems, without having to see their programs. Filters make this even more obvious when you look at float.
It is all a question of negotiating and managing problems, and if the "main contractor" is not handling it in this way, ie without transparency, he is either in somebodies pocket, or just does not realise reality. Transparency is the key to the problem, if you cannot achieve something, talk to the other parties, and come to some realistic solution, this is what planners are for.
Member for
19 years 3 monthsRE: Sub-Project Sceduleing
Hello Philip,
On this paricular project its P3 3.1. As far as I can tell using 5.0, they have done away with the sub-project concept.
My company is not a sub in the traditional sense because our contract is with the client not the main. Things are further complicated by the fact that we are both providing equipment and doing the installation of most of it but depend on the prime for foundation for instance and they need us to finish to do their piping and steel and so on in and out.
As far as I can tell so far, and from what they have told me, they are using first early constaint option. The point is that they shouldnt be messing with my activities in the first place(and I might just go ahead and remove them if I dont agree) and there is no reason i shouldnt just get the whole file unless they are trying to hide things. In general it doesnt help me to do a good job scheduling my part of the work or give the client a true picture of whats going on.
There will always be problems with updating since the mains portion will be behind by 2 weeks in this case when I move my data date.
I hope this clarifies things for you and isnt more information than you were expecting.
Peter
Member for
21 yearsRE: Sub-Project Sceduleing
Hi Peter,
Can you clarify which version of Primavera you are working in, ie. P3, P3e, or Primavera project manager version 5?
The approach to your problem is different dependent on the software you are using. Can you also explain how the interfaces are handled, ie. is your handover dates within your sub-project, and who is setting the constraints, as well as the type of constaints, ie. mandatory, not later than, or whatever. This will allow me to give you some advice, but not knowing all the facts, only allows me to do guesswork. Interfaces is always a difficult problem to resolve and ground rules have to be set. If the main contractor wants to bulldoze over everybody, he at least has to tell you what he is going to do, such as applying constraints,etc. These are common law issues. If you want to dictate, at least let the affected parties know.
Regards
Philip
Member for
19 years 3 monthsRE: Sub-Project Sceduleing
Thanks for your input but things have gotten "loonier" in the interim! They are now constraining my activities (without telling me about it first) with early start/finish on predecessors/successors and the using the Log to show the Activity ID its start/finish date and its description. Funny, isnt that what would be achieved if they just gave me the whole thing in the first place!
I personally think this could cause more problems than it solves since the person at the other end has to make sure everything stays current after each update or even change of one activity and make all the changes in constraints and Logs and if they are anything like me they will miss a few each time!
There will be a site meeting today which will include a discussion of this method (which I will teleparticipate in)and hopefully sanity will return.
Member for
22 years 2 monthsRE: Sub-Project Sceduleing
Peter
the loss of the master project links indicates that they are using "checkout/checkin" subprojects rather than "backup a subproject" in the utilities.
This cico system is a waste of time for that reason, see if theyll use subproject backup which, although it will not show you the master project link, your subproject will still adhere to the restraints.
Ask them to insert milestones into your subproject which clarify there is a logic link to their master, then at least you can see it.
Bill
Member for
21 yearsRE: Sub-Project Sceduleing
Hi Peter,
I believe we are talking P3 here, so citrix and the rest has nothing to do with it.
The principle is simple, every contractor runs his own program, with an agreed baseline. Interface milestones are added for each handover and receipt, and the are linked. Once this is done, a base date is set. The managing contractor controls this program, and can view all the varies contractors activities. Each contractor imputs his updates on an agreed cutoff date, and the managing contractor then runs a time analysis (schedule), and reports on variances. You must watch the float on the interface dates to see where problem are occuring, and at the same time the variences between your dates and the baseline, if these are not the same, notify the managing contractor, as this means the contractor you are handing over to has made changes to his program, not consistent with his baseline program.
Member for
19 years 3 monthsRE: Sub-Project Sceduleing
While I do like your thinking there are some flaws in it.
You are assuming that the management here would be able to exploit such a situation but unfortunately they tend to get themselves into such a hole that it wouldnt help.
Believe me that I do know how to take advantage of the situation and make the prime pay, and I do!
The real problem is that, as far as construction goes, there are occasions where I rely on their pred to start an activity and they rely on that activity for their next and so on backwards and forwards and my trying to do a good job keeps getting in the way!
I might just plug the incoming dates, do my thing to getting durations and ties to where I want them and then unplug to send back.
Member for
22 years 10 monthsRE: Sub-Project Sceduleing
Peter,
As far as a claims situation goes, not knowing the other schedule constraints frees you from having to consider them. Do you want to have to agree to leaving the site for three weeks and then returning due to someone else’s conflicts? Do you want to have to integrate delays by others into your planned schedule? No, you do not.
Being denied information on coordination issues with other subs means that the General is assuming all responsibility for this. Give them your ‘unfettered’ schedule that shows them how you plan to do your work. Tell them that you expect them to stick to it. Any delays to your schedule from outside sources (including other subs) is cause for a delay and/or disruption claim on your part. Your ‘unfettered’ schedule will be there to document your case.
Take your good luck and just stick to your plan. That is what you bid and that is the best way to keep your profit margin. Good luck!
Member for
19 years 3 monthsRE: Sub-Project Sceduleing
Thanks for the info. Unfortunately the holder of the master level doesnt want me to have the whole thing because I might get too much insite as to how they are doing things. Very short sighted and will ultimately cause them more problems than it solves, but there you have it.
Ill look into the citrix thing more closely.
Regards,
Peter
Member for
20 years 6 monthsRE: Sub-Project Sceduleing
This is the way people run the integrated schedule without being on a multiple user enviroment. If the client shares the program via citrix then all the links will be live and you can easily schedule your work with repsect to the completion dates of predecessors (which could be activities of other contratcors).
The other way is to ask the the master schduler to send you a copy of program after he has integrated your schedule. Make his copy a target project for your update and sort out the variances.
Regards
Rashid