Resource links in activities of multi storeyed projects

Yes, it is acceptable. Another example - pipeline construction. You choose direction of construction and this direction defines links.

Kumar,

In highrise building usually you will have two different links:
a) First you link the activities for each floor to form a complete network without any open end. This will allow you to arrange the activities based on work sequence and identifies the work one after the other.
b) Second you link the activities between the floors from same trade. This will allow you to determine the number of teams are required to complete the work on time.

Regards.

Thanks for the reply received.
There are some draw backs in resource links.For eg In the base line schedule if we connect same trade activities in various floors due to crew movement,let us assume the activities are scheduled starting from the lower floors -Floor 1 and connected to the upper floors(Floor2,Floor3,floor 4 etc).

While updating if we start the work for the particular trade in an intermediate floor eg floor 4 before starting floor 2 then it will result in out of sequence during scheduling.


Also if 1 lower floor is delayed all other upper floors will show delayed,whereas actually the work in uppper floor can be done independently

There is an alternative way of doing the same,if we schedule the activities to be independent of each other and then show the resource relation by providing lag to the predessor activity
Eg Drawings,material approval in Floor1- Fs 0 -False ceiling in Floor 1
(Duration for False ceiling in Floor 1 =10 days)
Drawings,material approval in Floor 2-Fs 10-False ceiling in Floor 2 (Duration =10 days)

Assuming Drawings and material approval are received for floor 1 and Floor 2 at same time then False ceiling in Floor 1 will be completed 10 days after drawing approval and False ceiling in Floor 2 will start after 10 days of drawing approval of floor 2.
The result is same as linking False ceiling in floor 1 and 2 with FS=0 relationship.
In the above case the activities are clearly independent of each other.
Which way is better

Hi Kumar,

I don’t think they are draw backs.
The software can not do everything automatically, it always need your input. If you cant start floor1 as planned, there must be some reason, adjust the schedule to reflect the actual status.

for baseline comparision, i like to keep a high level baseline, or just focus on some key dates. Update the detail schedule and then you will get a forecast for these key dates. On a very detailed level, there are always a lot of changes of schedule. On this level, it’s difficult to maintain the baseline.

Kumar,

The preferable method is Option 1. When you update the work programme on weekly basis and if any out of sequence activities happened, you still can readjust the links to reflect the current status at site upon discussion with the managers and engineers.

This will allow you to forecast the new completion date based on current situation at site. Also you can easily identify whether the project is ahead or behind the schedule.

If you use Option 2, How do you identify the current finish date after you update the work programme? You will end up readjusting the lag for each activity on floor basis and it is a tedious work.

Regards.