Interrelation between schedules

Khaled

All levels should be derived out of the same schedule by filters.
In case of co-operation with partners there might be different sub-projects for export/import - i.e. technical reasons - with relationships between them. For the whole project you’ll have to load them all.
How to process in detail will depend on the software you use.

Regards
Dieter

Dear khaled,

yes. u can. use the same file. i am talking if you are doing in p3 or p6.

1. change all level-2 activities to hammok (p3) or level of effort (in p6). assign code level-2
2. create level 3 activities by giving link to level -2 activity with start to start of first activity and finish to to finish of last activity.
3. assign code level-3 to them
4. you can load cost, resources etc., on level-2 for ease if you want

AK

The activities in the Level 2 schedule are related in some manner with FS, SS, FF relationship. Changing the activities to Level of Effort raise this question: Can a Level of Effort activity drive its successor?

Hi Khaled

You cannot work down from level 2 or 3 to level 4 without starting again with a true programme at level 4 that avoids all planning abominations - see the thread.

Start from level 4 using only fs links and work upwards.

Best regards

Mike Testro.

Khaled

A level of effort has no own duration, it’s always driven by other activities. So you only can change those overhead activities to LoE/Hammock after you planned that part in detail.

Mike

As a Forensic Analyzer you only know plans which are finished - I remember you point out that you aren’t a planner. But how can a planner start? In some areas you have a good information in other just a rough idea --> displayed by a long activity. Later as your information becoming better, you’ll replace the long activity by short, detailed. Planning always will be from rough to detail.

Regards

Dieter

Hi Dieter

I do a lot of tender programmes for contractor’s so I do know plans from the very beginning.

In delay analysis I come across finished plans that are full of abominations - which is why I get involved in the inevitable disputes.

I will say this as many times as is necessary - if you can’t build it you can’t plan it.

For instance I know how to build a hotel so when I was asked to set down a programme for a hotel based on an artists drawing for a brochure I could do it in level 4 detail from the bottom up.

I was also able to give three alternatives for the potential structure - steel - concrete - load bearing brick/block.

So I know that it can be done.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Mike,

Fully agree with you. Start from level 3 or 4 and works upwards.

Working with proposal is the TIME for a Level I. We have information because we got the ITB (Invitation to BID). We prepare level I, because we do not want to spend a lot of man-hours in scheduling when the uncertainty of wining the project is so high.

Once the Project is in House, we planners must push the TEAM to define good scope of work. Is the time for having level 3 schedule, the intermediate levels is just a matter of rolling up with the appropriate coding based on WBS.

I avoid the use of level of effort or hammocks.


Cheers,

Mike

If I follow your words, only a bricklayer is able to plan a house - or an electrician? or a heating engineer? or a roofer? or...? You see, even a house needs different specialist, for a project this is even more. The project team will put its knowledge together to perform the project.
You’ll never find a planner who is a specialist in all disciplines - co-operation makes a good plan.
In addition a planner has to start his work at a time when not all information is available.
I prefer a top-down approach. But as you I claim that a detailed plan must be created before an offer was made, before a contract was signed.

Best regards

Dieter

Dieter,

this time I do not agree with you.

The bottom-top is the right approcah.

Cheers,

Dieter wrote:

"I prefer a top-down approach. But as you I claim that a detailed plan must be created before an offer was made, before a contract was signed."

I think the whole "top down/bottom up" argument is a false one. The fact is, as you say, that one must ultimately have a detailed plan. (Though not necessarily "before the contract is signed" -- many of the large and multiyear US DoD programs on which I consult could not possibly have anything but a summary level plan at signing!)

Wherever one starts the planning process, eventually the top down/bottom up plans have to be reconciled, the detail with the big picture overview.


Dieter also wrote:

"If I follow your words, only a bricklayer is able to plan a house - or an electrician? or a heating engineer? or a roofer? or...? You see, even a house needs different specialist, for a project this is even more. The project team will put its knowledge together to perform the project.
You’ll never find a planner who is a specialist in all disciplines - co-operation makes a good plan."

I agree with this -- subject matter expertise is crucial, but doesn’t necessarily have to reside totally within the corpus of the project planner. As a consultant, I have led planning efforts on fighter jet avionics, office buildings, commercial software, IT systems, airport maintenance, medical devices, and even nuclear plant outages (sorry, didn’t mean to scare you!). And I promise you that, though I am not the latest Renaissance Man, these projects were better planned than they would have been under the leadership of 99.9% of the technical experts that assisted the process(es). And that is because I understand the not-altogether-simplistic process of project planning.

Carmen wrote:


"I avoid the use of level of effort or hammocks."

I agree -- and the process of DRAG analysis absolutely requires the removal of LOEs and hammocks. Otherwise:

1. They will potentially end up on the CP, which they never should.
2. They will potentially distort the schedule and artificially constrain the DRAG of a parallel critical path item.

In my classes, I suggest that MS Project users give any LOE task a name that starts with the letters LOE, to make it easy to recognize and filter out for schedule analysis.

Steve,
I disagree. There are activities like Project Management that last from one event to another. They shall be taken into consideration and be presented in the project model.
I don’t see why they shall constrain the DRAG. They do not add to the project duration.

Hi, Vladimir.

First, please note that I said "MS Project users"! I would not be surprised to learn that Spider has no problem with LOEs. (The first package I ever learned, Project-2 from PSDI, handled LOEs and hammocks just fine.)

Here is the problem with MSP:

Halfway through a project, a certain cost account (Mechanical Engineering, say) starts. The ME work is laid out in 40 discreet tasks lasting a total of 80 days, and is managed by an ME cost account manager (CAM). So we have a parallel LOE called "CAM Manages ME Work", which starts when the ME work starts and finishes when it ends, for a planned duration of 80 days. Now, in MSP, the LOE has no slack, and we have parallel CPs consisting of (1) the discrete work tasks adding up to 80 days, and (2) the 80-day LOE. If the work activities are shortened, the cost account continues to take 80 days because the LOE is still 80 days long! We’d have to go in and manually reduce the length of the LOE.

DRAG computation requires an accurate float calculation for each activity parallel to the critical path, and on a schedule of several thousand activities, it’s hard to see.

Of course, if Spider, like Project-2, has the ability to recognize and ignore the float of LOEs, then it should not be an obstacle to its ability to compute DRAG.

Fraternally in PM,

Steve D.

Hi Stephen

I am not a planner and I have no idea what you are talking about.

Please don’t try to explain because I can survive without the gory details.

I use one resource called "hours" and that works for every situation.

The "hours" are derived from the cost plan using proven % labour ratios.

This cuts right across the need for outputs.

The only add on in resource modelling is the gang size.

Best regards

Mike Testro

Hi Carmen,
I follow the same approach as you which top down. When you go from say level 2 to level 3, do you interralate the 2 schedules? If so, how do you do that.
Can I get a copy of an example schedule where level 2 and level 3 are realized? Or, the WBS for level 2 and 3 schedues? My e-mail is:
khch@mail.firkant.net
Thanks in advance

Khaled

Sorry, but there isn’t a level 2 AND a level 3 schedule. It is ONE schedule with different layouts: among others, level 2 and 3.

Regards
Dieter

Dieter,
you are right and I share your approach but most people create separate schedules for each of 4 levels and then have synchronization problems.
In Spider Project one of Gantt Chart options suggests to select what WBS Levels to show. This way you can select if to show Level 2, 3, 4 or 7 schedule.
Actually there is only one project (portfolio) schedule that may be presented with different level of details.

Regards,
Vladimir

Vladimir

We do it by using filters which are attached to layouts. Then just open the required layout and print.

Regards
Dieter

In regards to all o this

In terms of a BID i would assume that there would be sufficient data available eg , contract specific data , scope of work , tender drawings , from this and the know capabilities of that particular historic programs “as built”, I can develop a pretty significant program that rolls up ,

However I would assume that the Planner cant do this on his own , he would need to sit with the construction manager and bottom up plan