Dilemma with consultant/project manager re updating

R. Catalan,
Referring to post #37, we were submitting reports to a different Planning Engr then (the past 6 months). He was replaced. No official correspondence from the incumbent Planner regarding implementation of his directive yet. Upon receipt, we will comply and will also keep on submitting the previous updating scheme.

Hi Arlene

It seems that you are not in a serious delay situation at present but when you are you will have a problem.

The Contract Programme does not represent the method of working and may not respond correctly to the impact of delay events - it may give a longer entitlement.

So you should run the analysis on both programmes and submit them both for the Engineer to award an EOT.

If he awards on the basis of your working programme then that should then become the contract programme by default.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Arlene,

I hope you are not confused for now. Another unsolicited advices that I may suggest:

1. Continue doing what is required by PM or Consultant.
2. Also continue doing what you believe is right (and keeping back-ups).
3. Submit only reports that are required (or official).
4. Make efforts to suggest what you believe is better strategy.

You have lots of options, anyway it all comes down to good communication.

cheers!

Dear All,

Am now quite uncertain if I will ever seek advise from PP.

Arlene hope your not confused yet. Ha-ha-ha-ha...

Honestly, I enjoy it and will post again when am not busy.


Cheers to all..

Don’t be confused Arlene.

On the claim by your PM consultant, if there’s nothing there, in FIDIC, then there’s nothing there. Don’t believe on something that comes from nothing.

Everything else are just opinion.

Cheers,

Good Morning Guys,

Further to the ongoing discussion on the subject matter (Dilemma with consultant/Project manager re updating), yes it is true that on site activities may not happen in the same manner as planned, i believe that it has to be amended time to time to reflect the actual situation (Coz retaining the clause 14 logic will result sometime showing delay on the project completion although it is not). In this regard i just want to share my real time experience here.

On one of my project the Project Manager/Engineer has accepted to receive the updates with the changes subject to that i provide them in writing that what chages have been done while updating the programme (that means when you schedule the programme there wont be any out of sequence activities), while keeping the approved clause 14 programme as a baseline to monitor the project Progress.

I know it is bit difficult task but its beneficail to track the changes and this system worked well to reflect the actual delays on the project from time to time.

Regards,

MAS

(In reference with Samad’s post)

That’s a good approach – to provide in writing the changes made every time doing the update. I should have kept a record for myself in case alleged of “manipulating the schedule to hide delays,” when I only intend to rectify the out-of-sequence activities.

I’ll put this into practice.

Hi Arlene

I know it was not your intention but it is very difficult to manipulate the the schedule to hide delays and still retain credibility.

Somehow you have to pretend that some activities could have started later and still achieve the end date.

Fine while you are using up float but not when you are approaching criticality.

I have often seen "catch up" programmes where the planner has reduced all durations and piled activities on top of each other - daft approach that many seem to get away with.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Make use of the option "Progress Override" (i supposed it is where is intended to).

just another uncolicited opinion...

I agree with what Arlene is doing plus the keeping of records of what is being updated. For me, updating the relationship to reflect actual is not act of revising the programme but rather part of the updating process. Managing Primavera may not be limited to inputing of actual quantities and dates only but also inludes actual relaltionships which is important to derive the True Critical Path each time the programme is updated. If the activities in question do not belong to the critical path, revising the relationships to reflect actuals seemed really not a issue at all.

If Primavera is the approved and agreed software to be used in managing the project,then it may need to be respected when it says that the activities are already out of sequence or something needs to be done. Just need a regular print out of the log report as part of the records.


Regards,
Arman

Just a opinion from a refresh collegue,

I am facing the same problem for majority of the schedules I have programmed. There are 2 aspects of the situation as I see:

1- Project Control Team(!) should track the latest approved construction PROGRAMME. You should only update actuals no more. Reason: Whenever you want to form a basis for a delay claim, the CLIENT can reject the claim if the logic or durations of the dynamic programme is different from baseline. Abnormal delays will not be a problem. Whenever CLIENT concerns about delays you can ask for a PROGRAMME revision and make the neccessary changes you want.

2- If There are !!!commissioning!!! or a another jobs that are going to be planned according to your progress, these huge delays will be problem. It is possible to modify your dynamic schedule as per actual sequence and your progress figures will not be changed if you are manitoring by earned value analysis.

The main problem is the baseline PROGRAMME itself. Every one of us aware of the how the best PROGRAMME should be (Abominations!!). But the reality is not that obvious (ex: team size& experience vs work load in market).

I can suggest you a way that I used for the latest revision I made for one of my schedules:
-Schedule situation:
*2 years package that the commissioning plan created by CLIENT at the stage of end of the 1st year.
*There can be delay that will result in CLAIM s for CONTRACTOR
*Commisioning team request the forecasted end dates of the minor package completions for their plan.
-The solution for the latest revision to the PROGRAMME:
*Negotiated with CLIENT &PM about the situation and solution. Approval taken.
*PROGRAMME detailed in some parts (not at all) for the get realistic end dates.
*Retained Logic changed to Progress Override (I am using P3 by the way)
*The important think is that you need to add many FF relations in order to prevent the situations as:
-Before Update: Piping W. ---- FS ---- Hydrotest
-Update: Majority of the packs have been tested before waiting of finalizing all works by using removable spools and valves different from first plan
-After update: Hydrotest will finish before piping works(Progress Override effect)

With these I have more realistic end dates whatever the actuals are and I do not have to change the logic unless need of a revision occurs.

Sorry for the long thread. If anyone read it and have a benefit I would be glad,

Good day Pals,

Regards,

Safak

Hi Mike,

Any comments to Safak’s post below? I am specific to "Piping Works - FS - Hydrotest (before and after update)".

Thank you in advance.

Best regards,
Anoon

Sofak,

My problem with Progress Override is that it includes the changing of completion dates of those progressed activities which I want to retain the completion dates. While changing the relationships of progressed activities in a selective manual manner allows me retain the logic of other progressed activities which I want to retain its completion dates. Both method upon scheduling changes the critical path vs. purely retained logic option. Different Critical Paths means different network logics.

Regards,
Arman

Dear Armando,

You are completely right. But you can retain completion dates with extra FF relations as creating or revising schedule if you are going to use progress override. It was a opinion and my schedule is working fine right now. On the other hand the critical path can change by the actual % and date update also.

Regards,

Safak,

Its ok, in fact your opinion is very useful & really make sense...On the other hand, what I am just trying to point out is that I am being careful in using the options as it create different critical paths which give rise to the question as to which is really the true critical path at the time of the update.

Once we publish our periodic report, the operations personnel will look at the dates. There are even managers who will focus on the critical path & would ask for critical path update. As scheduler, it is very important that we check properly the dates before we publish to make sure we are not providing mis-leading information...suggestion only...


Regards,
Arman

Dear All,

We are planner, not fortune teller. We can only plan work base on our knowledge and information at any particular point in time. As soon as you completed the plan, the plan might all be history and incorrect.

Sometime it’s just matter of sit down with the clients and carefully explain the situations and the plan, common sense do bring people together. Of course you do need to have the right forum to bring the matter to the table.

If the entire clients do not understand we live in a real world, you can only educate them to certain extend... Then you leave it to the court and judge to bring common sense in good order.

HTH

Alex

ohoooo,

Nice Alex,

"We are planner, not fortune teller".

Good one

Hi Alex,


I believe that the thread was not about planning, it was about scheduling. Taking care of the dates in the programme especially after updating is an important role as an scheduler. It was not about court cases, how we deal with the clients, what kind of clients, etc., rather it was about getting more understanding & broaden our knowledge as to how Primavera really works with all its functionalities.

It was about the Progress Override & Retain Logic functionalities of Primavera.

Progress Override functionality overrides the logic resulting in different dates of a specific activity. ex. Activity A has FS relationships with activity B. But activity A already has an actual start and Activity B is not finished yet. The FS logic is no longer satisfied. Primavera provided functinalities to deal with these cases like the Progress Override and Retain Logic options (default). In the example, using progress override Primavera will give a completion date of activity A equal to data date plus its remaining duration. While using retain logic option, Primavera will give a completion date of activity A equal to data date plus the sum of the remaining durations of activities A & B.

These functionalities produces its own different critical path. As an scheduler, the responsibility to exert effort to identify and produce the true critical path as far as these functionalities are concerned in relation to the science of PERT/CPM is by no reason at all in lined or synonymous to fortune telling but rather a symbol of responsible scheduling manner or pratice...

Your comments, corrections, suggestion or tricks regarding the understanding and usage of the functionalities will be highly appreciated...

Let us seek to be a wide & not wild user of Primavera...and I agree with you...No fortune telling...


Regards,
Arman

Arman

Thanks for your effort for a detail reply, I will try to follow your standard.

"I believe that the thread was not about planning, it was about scheduling. Taking care of the dates in the programme especially after updating is an important role as an scheduler. It was not about court cases, how we deal with the clients, what kind of clients, etc., rather it was about getting more understanding & broaden our knowledge as to how Primavera really works with all its functionalities."

Did I confuse you, any scheduling require to have a plan (Baseline) to start with if you read the inital message, this is all about the update of the baseline plan. I suggest you read it form the beginning, and yes its about how to handle the client, that is what I suggested, to put the common sense in the table with the right forum, it is important who you speak to and how you approach and in front of what audiance.

"It was about the Progress Override & Retain Logic functionalities of Primavera. "

NO it was not just about the progress override / retain logic, you need to read between the line carefully.

"Progress Override functionality overrides the logic resulting in different dates of a specific activity. ex. Activity A has FS relationships with activity B. But activity A already has an actual start and Activity B is not finished yet. The FS logic is no longer satisfied. Primavera provided functinalities to deal with these cases like the Progress Override and Retain Logic options (default). In the example, using progress override Primavera will give a completion date of activity A equal to data date plus its remaining duration. While using retain logic option, Primavera will give a completion date of activity A equal to data date plus the sum of the remaining durations of activities A & B."

We are here to discuss the dilemma with the consultant (PEOPLE) not with the software functionality

"These functionalities produces its own different critical path. As an scheduler, the responsibility to exert effort to identify and produce the true critical path as far as these functionalities are concerned in relation to the science of PERT/CPM is by no reason at all in lined or synonymous to fortune telling but rather a symbol of responsible scheduling manner or pratice...

Your comments, corrections, suggestion or tricks regarding the understanding and usage of the functionalities will be highly appreciated... "

Appreciated with your effort, but your comments seem to be off tracked with the topic.

Alex

Alex,

I stand corrected with my comments and with regards to the standards, I have no intention of whatsover as it may seemed to be...Good day!


Arlene said...
------------------------
...I explained that if relationships are not revised to reflect the actual situation, then the programme can no longer be used as reference for construction since it does not reflect the actual or the new forecasted sequence of activities. It is also rare that the planned programme is completely followed/implemented in actual due to several affecting actual conditions.

Let me know if I am making a right point about this. I don’t know how else to make the consultant accept my explanation regarding the changes made to eliminate out-of-sequence activities, which consequently reduce delay. Perhaps someone can show me publications regarding this so I can show it to him. Or maybe you can enlighten me on how to explain it further.

P.S. I only make changes in Current schedule not in Baseline programme.
-------------------------------------

Arlene was actually asking if how she managed Primavera was correct or not. She did not made any change in the Baseline programme (It was not her concern). She was actually using the retain logic option and manually changed the relationships of progressed activities to suit actual site conditions. She did not use the progress override option.

Her dilemma with consultant was only the result of what Arlene was asking about which is changing the relationships producing a different critical path against that of a purely retained logic option.

Progress override shortens the path which may appear hiding delay.

I agree with what Arlene did because and she’s not changing any to the baseline. She may need to show to the consultant that Primavera is having such functionality and that it allows her to do so...Otherwise, a different agreed software might as well be used.


Regards,
Arman

Sorry Arman

Don’t understand your points. One moment you said its about the software, and the next something else. Anyway have a nice day

Alex

Its ok Alex, my apologies for the confusion...