Out-of-Sequence Work

If it is a CPM, out-of-sequence activity is not happened.
If allowed from beginning, we need to identify and explain why let it happen, list the condition for future monitoring. Further change need approval.

I am avoiding to have out of sequence in the schedule, changing the logic during the progress update.
I mean A, B, C with f-s relationship.
At a certain point B start but not completed without A been completed I change the relationship adding a f-s between B and A, then another f-s between A and C.
Other wise I am going to over estimate the completion data, have a resource requirement bigger than the real one, and putting in panic the management that saw a bigger manpower requirement for a short time.
This method is good and used if A, B, C are consistent with them.
If not, a more careful logic change must be done.
I mean a simple example are all three service ducts runs to be installed I can adopt this method.
Let me know Your point of view.

Luca,


I like the way you explain regarding the out of sequence work. I have just one clarification to make they are the
sequence you mentioned, are those relationships soft or hard constraints?

Hope to hear from you soon.

Regards

E, Montales

I am considering them “soft” relationship.
I am explaining why.
I told they must first of all consistent between them
In a construction schedule, where for example You have to schedule hundred or thousand of duct runs, You divide by area, and start duct by ducts for each area, with the main logic (area by area, and a main idea duct by duct with the construction manager or section engineer).
During the construction the section engineer, without changing the logic between each area, inside an area make one ducts run before, I do not need to reschedule all, but I must be congruent in my updating.

While I also write “If not, a more careful logic change must be done.” With this I mean if for example instead of complete an area, as per main logic, the site work jump to another, the logic must be real re-arranged.

Are You agree?

Luca,

Thanks for your reply. I agree on one the point that you dont change the schedule but that brings me to another question. What will happen to the successor activities that resulted in the logic change you did as per your example,, should they follow the new logic or maintain the original. If they should follow the new sequence as per actual wouldn’t it be confusing as in you will change the schedule logic in every update?

Regards

E. Montales

It will change these ’soft’ links.
Remind we are speaking on ducts by ducts run.
On the other hands I will have an resoruce over-load and early completion data.
If a major logic change is required, I can not just do it like nothing.
But in a construction part of the schedule, where the required detail is so high.
Is a local change in the logic.
You have to agree with the Client, as when You will issue the schedule to him, every month or what else, he will check it. Looking for any changes, so he must be awarded that You are doing these modification, and I am involving him every week, taking him informed of any minor changes like these one.
While if the change in logic is major ’hard’ link I must accept the out of sequence until I have not agree a new ’approach’ with the management and then submit to the client.

I made a little slide to explain this and see the effects, if You want to have a look, send me Your email address and I will send.

This is how I am doing, may it can de changed.

PS It will not be logic changes in any updates, as the major logic how the gangs are working and organized, the division by sub area and their sequence logic will remain.
This is the main important issue.
Inside a small area it can loose interest if I am doing a ducts run before of another, except the case is an important way to give power at some equipment. But are not any more considered ’soft’ link.

Luca,

Thanks for you very detailed explanation. My email address is jojo71@edsamail.com.ph please do send the example you mentioned in your explanation. This hell a lot in the current projects im undertaking.


Thanks

E. Montales

You got it.