Difference between Retain Logic and Override Progress

Anoon,

I agree with most statements in your post:

1. Construction starts before engineering is finished. And so the horison of detailed planning covers 2-3 months with less detailed schedules of future works (rolling wave planning).
2. The team on monthly payment may be not interested in acceleration but top management is. And if top management understands the benefits of proper planning, requires and understands proper planning, the system works. That is why I wrote in my previous post that it is easier to implement good project management systems in small and medium size companies.
3. In Russia it is not rare when construction workers are paid not for the time but for volumes done. When people start to get much more money for proper work they not only understand the value of planning but participate suggesting the better ways to do the work if the planner missed something.

Bottom line: Implementation of good planning and scheduling requires involvement of most interested people and motivation. It works only together with overall project management system implemented in the company. Planning and scheduling is the team work with the scheduler as facilitator and leader.

Anoon,

that is why I wrote about project management system in the organization.

If it was implemented all projects shall be managed in accordance with the company standards that include methodology, templates, databases of the corporate norms, typical fragment library, etc. Though projects may be unique the ways they are managed shall be standardized. The company manages project portfolio and so projects shall use the same codes, cost components, resource dictionary, etc. The planners shall work within the company and consultants may be invited to help with the complex cases.

These standards may be implemented in companies of any size. Our clients in Russia include construction companies of any size from the largest to smallest. But in Russia contracts require the ways the schedule and progress shall be reported and not the ways project shall be managed as I have seen in some contracts abroad (what software shall be used, what consultants shall be hired, etc.). Such requirements prevent the creation and usage of own project management system.

Please be warned that the CAO Schedule Assessment Guide is misleading with regard to some important issues.

Anoon,

you wrote "A scheduler's job in a large organization is really difficult where he/she cannot do anything but just to follow whatever his/her superiors tells them to do."

Yes, when top management does not understand that project schedule reflects the reality and is the decision making tool. Good schedule answers to any what if question and helps to find the best possible way for future improvements. Wise managers don't tell what to do but sit with the scheduler and find what can be done. Unfortunately many managers do not understand this and project schedules are frequently just drawed and this is why the proposals to draw another one but two times shorter are not rare. Without corporate project management culture the schedules will be poor and the schedulers will not have any authority. The schedules become not decision making but communication tools considered as the Guides and nothing more.

if you look at my example for progress over ride you wil see that it does not work well with hard logic. As soft logic is preferential logic it is sometimes necessary for crew flow but could be challenged. 

Dr Paul,

an example in the paper does not require "soft dependencies".

In any case weekly reports shall be created sequentially.

Hi Dr.Paul,

I meant an example in the paper you suggested to read.

“As an example, when elaborating a working plan, one package is the submission of 25 weekly reports, one per week. The plan was that once finished a weekly report the next one could start. What logic is recommended when deliverables have to be submitted with a certain frequency and they depend on one to another?”

Maybe I did not understand this example.

We used soft logic for one purpose: to determine the direction of work and compare the results of different ways. To build the pipeline from the point A to point B or vice versa?

I suggest to get an approval from superintendents for schedules that are used for construction management. What you described is impossible if they were involved in planning and understand why certain order of works was selected. As I wrote in one of my previous posts out of sequence may happen if the schedule missed something or something happened at the construction site.

In any case the reason shall be documented and analyzed. If something was missed the scheduler shall fix the problem and submit new improved work plan. If something happened new situation shall be modelled and new plan created. It is perfect if the changes were made before еруrealization but it is not always possible. Lessons learned help to avoid the errors in the future. But if out of sequence did not have the right reason the superintendent shall be warned and future work shall be done in accordance with the initial plan.

When we implemented penalties for superintendent for not reasonable out of sequence execution in one construction company the speed of construction was substantially accelerated. But by out of sequence we meant the change of work order in the resource constrained schedule. When these penalties were announced superintendents started to pay much more attention to project schedules and out of sequence execution became rare.

Bottom line: If the schedule takes into account all existing constraints, is created and approved with the participance of site personnel, is updated frequently enough out of sequence execution is rare and may teach the company to improve future schedules.

If the schedule was created in the distant office, was not approved by site managers, is very high level and does not take into account some project constraints then it may be used as communication and contract management tool but not for creating reliable work plans and decision making. Out of sequence in such schedules may occur just because they did not take into account some project constraints and so usually the schedules shall be corrected, not the order of work on site.

We usually create and manage three schedules in parallel – optimistic for project team, expected (with required contingency reserves) for project management, “pessimistic” for contract (with additional management reserves). We teach project managers that they manage contingency reserves, the work will not finish before the finish of optimistic schedule. In the project that lasts one year they have much smaller time (like 20 days) for managing risks and uncertainty, for making the project successful. If out of sequence eats project manager’s reserve it is serious and requires special attention. It can eat this reserve directly or by increasing risks and uncertainty in future works.

Best Regards,

VL

@ Dr. Paul,

[VL] We used soft logic for one purpose: to determine the direction of work and compare the results of different ways. To build the pipeline from the point A to point B or vice versa?

[PDG] As a "hard money contractor" where my own money is on the line if the project succeeds or fails, we use the soft logic to allocate and level resources 2 - 4 weeks in advance. (One week back, 3 Week Look Ahead schedules)

 [VL] Look ahead for three weeks is not sufficient in many projects. We always schedule the whole project with detailed data on those works that are supported by ready drawings and estimates for other works. The aim is to optimize overall schedule and it may determine activity priorities for current jobs. We try to avoid soft links and use resource constrained scheduling optimizing the order of works. The computer estimates more options and creates better schedules than people.

[VL] I suggest to get an approval from superintendents for schedules that are used for construction management. 

[PDG] We do not agree with this. There is a HUGE difference between "getting their approval' for a schedule not created by them and forcing the field people to show the scheduler what they plan on doing.  Getting their approval may give them some accountability but what we want them to do is actually plan their work.  The process is what is important, not the schedule itself.

 [VL] Superintendents know that they shall work on approved schedule and it makes them to participate in schedule creation. They do not see the connections of their current work with the future works and so partial optimization may lead for worse overall results. So overall optimization is the responsibility of the scheduler and project manager but the schedule shall take into account all existing constraints and technologies.

[VL] When we implemented penalties for superintendent for not reasonable out of sequence execution in one construction company the speed of construction was substantially accelerated. 

 [PDG] We prefer REWARDS rather than PENALTIES. We base interim rewards on SPI and CPI which means the field supers are always looking for ways to OPTIMIZE trade-offs between costs and time.  We do NOT want them looking ONLY at the CPM schedule but also the cost budgets.

 [VL] We used both. At my example we increased superintendents salary by 20% (Reward in advance!) but told them that each case of wrong out of sequence will cost them 10% of their salary and each quality problem discovered in their shift will cost another 10%. So please come to the construction site earlier and accept the work of the previous shift. It was done because we noticed that most quality problems occurred because one shift missed that some jobs of the previous shifts were not finished. The result was tremendous. I am shy to say that the speed of construction was increased by almost 40% (no quality problems, optimized schedule and smooth work with minimal changes). And remember that people were paid not for the time but for volumes of work that were done and everybody became happy.

[VL] We usually create and manage three schedules in parallel – optimistic for project team, expected (with required contingency reserves) for project management, “pessimistic” for contract (with additional management reserves). 

[PDG] We do much the same.  We show both early (optimistic) and late date (pessimistic) curves and while we want the field to work towards the Early Date Curve, we also do NOT want them breaching the Late Date Curve (Negative Float) As long as they stay between the ED and LD curves (Leveled or Realistic Curve) we are happy.  Unlike you, most of our clients provide us with UNREALISTIC scheduled completion dates to begin with, so we always show the exact dates the client has asked for in the bid documents, but then practice "defensive scheduling" by loading the schedule with all the owners activities that we know they will be late in delivering, (site access, shop drawing reviews, clarification responses etc) and connecting those activities (using discretionary logic) to near critical path activities.  Then when the owner delays us, (which they almost always do) then we invoke the "but for" defense- "Mr. Owner, "but for" the fact you delayed us, we would have finished on time".  "And now that you've delayed us, we cannot finish per the original contractual dates and now need a change order giving us an extension of time and extended overhead expenses."

[VL] This is usually done when the Owner insists on too aggressive dates. It is risky. We try to involve the Owners in planning but it is not always possible. Including Owner’s activities in the schedule is MUST! The links of Owner activities with the Contractor’s activities are not discretionary. Contractor jobs depend on material supplies, ready to use drawings, permissions, etc.

I always enjoy our debates,

Vladimir