Changing the logic when project is underway

Primi,

You should inform your management about the changes in logics so that they could verify if the activity sequences are still logical and realistic based on the project’s methods and strategies. It is only then that you could rely on the accuracy of the project completion date or in case the project finish date is constrained, the accuracy of the total floats.

If you change the logics of your current schedule, your current dates might not anymore match the target schedule. You can check this by showing two bars in P3, show the Target & the Current schedule.

Regards.

Hi,

Arrange a meeting with the project team. Raise your concerns and discuss on activities sequence with the engineers to re-arrange it.

Then do a necessary amendment and present it to the project team for approval. Upon approval you can use it as a current working schedule.

Regards.

Clive,

I think Primi is referring to Current Schedule not Baseline.

If you’ll not change the logic, how could you plan the remaining activities especially when the project is already delayed and P3 reports out-of-sequence activities?

Regards.

Hi Sen,

I agree with you.

In the event the logic of the current schedule is not realistic, then, it should be change to reflect what will be the current plan of the project team.

Regards,
Charlie

Right, Charlie.

The Current Schedule reflects the Actual Dates and the current plan.

Best regards.
Sen

Hi Sen,

While we agree on the fundamentals of planning, in the real world there are a lot of school of thinking.

Life will be more miserable for planning in the event QS alway snoop at the back of planning activities and start the question the wisdom of changing the logic.

The planner worse nightmare will materialize in the event an active QS and claim specialist start jumping on the planning activities and propagate the QS way of planning, that is unrealistic planning.

Believe me, I was there and I will continue to live with this kind of people.

The best way is to live in peace and harmony with everyone, changing logic or not changing the logic.

cheers,

Charlie

Primi,

There is nothing inherently wrong about changing the logic and sequence of activities once a project is under way. In fact, a project schedule is a living document and it should be ‘tweaked’ as the life of the project extends.

If the changes that you propose results in improved work productivity or safer working conditions for the contractor, (or allows more float in the work schedule), these will be good ‘selling’ points to convince others of the advantage of the changes.

Cultures in every country and company are different, but I would suggest that you don’t sit down in a large Project Team meeting and make a general announcement. Talk to others (engineers and managers) on a 1-2-1 basis first, before firming up on your changes.

However, you do need to ensure that your changes are consistent with the Contract and Target Schedules. Any changes you make to your Current Schedule will not change your Baseline!

Sounds to me as if you are a pro-active planner. ;-)

Cheers,

Stuart

www.rosmartin.com

Charlie,

Sorry that I am so ignorant, but what is a “…QS way of planning,” ?

Does he plan with a tape measure and pocket calculator?

Does it stand for “Quite Sensible way of planning”?

Please enlighten me.

Yours in utter ignorance,

Stuart

www.rosmartin.com

While it may not be necessary to alter the baseline for minor changes of logic, it is important to keep a controlled log of any changes you have made (once you have Project Team agreement).
This will be necessary for when your Client requires confirmation and justification of any benefits that result.
It will also come in handy if your Client wants you to put in a revised Baseline, reflecting these logic changes, in order for you to measure your performance against this new schedule.
This change log can take many forms, at the moment, I’m just using a locked Excel Spreadsheet, detailing the date the Change was made, the Act Id affected, the nature of the change (logic, dur... etc), the Justification for the change, and an ’approved by’ box. This doesn’t take long, and it covers your back... :o)
Happy Planning...
Gordon

Hi Bill,

I agree with you 1,000 percent.

That the way of a true and real planners.

Thanks for the confidence in the right directions.

Regards,

Charlie

you cant have 1000 per cent
per cent is per 100
isnt it
oscar

Logic must be changed to reflect current status if things change. Of course you should have a baseline to compare with and show the effects/need for changes. You can take a baseline or copy at anytime and thus in the event that you needed NOT change the logic you can revert back to your copy.

On the other hand it all depends on the frequency of your progress updates.

Dear Clive...
Well, ok, if you insist... [deleted by Moderator])
I suppose this topic could become quite polarised depending on the nature of project we each work upon. If the Project is something that has been done plenty of times before, and you know (within reason) how it will all be done, and are confident that NOTHING will go wrong.. ever.. then complete your baselined plan, print it out all nice for everyone to see.. then turn your PC off, and make sure you close the door behind you on the way out.

However, if you intend to be there for the life of the Project, if the Project requires some optioneering, if your Project Teams can work on their initiative (perhaps improve on their processes), or if you think that there is the SLIGHTEST possibility that Mr Cock up will pay a visit, then you must be ready to reflect these events within the plan, even if reflecting reality means changing the logic on your original plan.
Have already, briefly, touched upon the subject of change logs.
It’s only my perception of the way things should be, but if you are not prepared to finesse your plan to reflect what is actually happening, or going to happen within the Project lifetime, you’re not planning

No matter how many activities you have in your program you still need to understand where your project is going and reflect real life status.

If you can not do that then you are failing to manage your program. At this point you may need to make use of hammocks/levels of effort(P3e) for easier management... etc etc that is what we are paid for.

Morning Clive,
... well, you DID ask ...
Again, I suppose this may ... again... depend on the nature of your project / industry. In many industries, it is far less likely that the process (particularly process design, or software design) is set in stone (pardon the pun) than, say, bridge building for example. What you can do in these circumstances is make your best judgement at the inception of the plan, refine it through the bid / contract agreement processes, and set your baseline.
While the pace of change in bridge building practices may or may not be lightening fast, it is quite possible that in other arenas, the project teams may have to react slightly faster to a more dynamic environment, and the planner will have to respond to this.
In these arenas (powergen + Nuclear being one that Primi and I share experience in) the guys should be constantly refining their design processes and methodologies to become more efficient, effective and to take account of any new ideas and philosophies that come to light. In these circumstances, the planner would be well advised to be flexible, but thorough in documenting their changes.
Kindest regards,
Gordon

Hi Gordon,

A very good answer, to sum it up before planners jump in to answer boots and all they should look at the nature of the business the planners are in and think of the different requirements.
Personally changing the logic of the current shedule (not baseline) should be standard practise with the knowledge of management of course and recorded. It is not always possible to plan everything perfectly and events on site may have a effect on the schedule which could have a effect on material delivery for example. If you dont make the logic changes how are you going to get the real picture and warn the various departments of the problems?

That’s my five cents worth

Gordon
Once again I think the nature of the industry is an inherant facet of the type of programme produced.
Where the end product is fluid the programme logic may require to be changed.

This is where I am advocating the programme is detailed at a level when and only when the intent is known and further detailed as the information becomes more concrete.

The concept that you can vary the logic on a 10000 activity schedule seems wrong to me. However if that schedule has the key achivement dates identified and the broad brush activities defined at the primary stage I dont believe it is too much of a problem to change the sub logic while still retaining the global intent

However the industries I have worked in are not development but construction orientated so I cannot comment on what happens in them

Kind regards
Oscar

Oscar,
Perfectly valid point. Two Phrases that spring to mind are:
1. Horses for courses... you do what is most appropriate in your field.
2. Live and let live... try not to shout at people who’s opinion differs from your own (not you Oscar, those individuals who speak IN CAPITAL LETTERS ALL THE TIME know who they are:o)). It just may be that the person you’re shouting at knows a lot more about Planning in their field than you do.
Now take a big deep breath, in through the nose, out through the mouth....
ahhhhh... doesn’t that feel better?
Have a lovely day, all

You hit the Bullseye, Gordon.

It is very disappointing that in this civilized and professional planning planet we live in, there are still those who are unethical in their writings.

Regards.
Sen

Hi to all,

Agree with you Sen and Gordon.

PP is a democratic world. We can only hope that in our interactions within PP, we may be able to be considerate with others.

Lets live and enjoy the freedom we have in PP.

I for one was also subjected to this kind of writing but I take things in stride. It is part of the world and plannet we live.

I still believe that logic shall be change to reflect the reality of construction projects.

Cheers,

Charlie

Clive,

Read the previous replies, it looks like you’re pretty set in your ways and whatever the other PP Planners try and explain to you will not be digested properly.
Think new petrochem,Power,and atomic project. If you can draw up a schedule at tender stage.Baseline it, and then follow it through construction phase without having to adjust the logic for any whatsoever reasons. Youre a magician and a better planner than me and good luck.

I’m sure some PP Planners in the building game that you are in will be-able to give you some suitable examples that you may or may not apply in the future. I’ve already tried but failed.

Clive appears to have a point whether it works for you appears to depend on how complete your info is and how you develop your programme and what industry or ’game’ you work in

It appears that he has read the comments but is not talking about nuclear etc

Joel it appears to me you live in a glass house and are throwing arrogant boulders perhaps not in capitals. Sen you also could be consideredon the border of the same acusation

I believe he has a point about carefully considering the implications and not willy nilly changing for the sake of maintaining the schedule

Oscar

My 2 cents

I think that it is a project planners duty to question the logic and try to find ways to accelerate or improve the schedule. This often means finding smart ways to overcome logic people usually take as gospel.

Example’s of this are:
- instead of assembling everything in situ, preassembling modules and lifting into position as soon as access is available.
- Hot bolting, this applies to shutdown work and involves the partial removal of bolts while the equipment is still in service. (flanges, manways etc)

This needs to be done in consultation with the project team because the best plan in the world is useless without buy-in from the people actually executing the work.

Ok but couldnt you have started with this logic

Could’ve, should’ve... didn’t

Oscar and Clive,

The difference is Building is a pretty repetitive industry.
The business we are in Greenfield projects is one of, with most of the time not much info to go with. Therefore to forecast a perfect schedule is not possible. I hope you now understand

Can we now move on ?

Thanks

Clive,

Hey, if it works for you stick to it and good luck.

Come on Joel
You threw the stones
Defend your position
Oscar

There was no stones thrown, PP was designed to answer questions from Planners in need. The way we understand the questions and based on our experiences.
The answers should be short and precise, not turned into a literature exercise, or used to out smart each other as I have seen on other topics replies and not used to waste Planners time who has little to do, but to inform and assist other planners in need. Respecting other planners opinions and views even if we sometimes dont get accross with our own opinions.

C’est las vie.

Gents,
If I may intercede...

One such example comes from my industry.
Prior to being given any cash to carry out a large scale nuclear project, we have to provide rafts of information to all and sundry, including the NDA (a governmental organisation).
One such required submittal may be a reasonably detailed level 4 Plan for the life of the Project.
It is not unusual for these Projects to last in excess of 5 years, by which time, certain aspects of the Commissioning Phase may well have changed, for example.
I wouldn’t for a second suggest that we’re right and everyone else is wrong, just that we’re right for the circumstances we find ourselves in.
Neither would I say we’re better Planners for having to be so responsive, we’re just victims of circumstance :o)
Have a lovely day

Primi,

We digress....

I guess from all of the above, that the following can be inferred..

a) If you’re Project dictates (and it may, depending on its nature), then it is right that that the logic in the plan should be amended to reflect reality.

b) This should only be done following consultantion with the relevant members of the Project team and Project Management.

c) Any such changes should be fully documented, outlining the reasons for the change, consequences of the change, approval details (see point b) etc. etc.

And don’t worry that you created a monster ;o)... this thread only goes to show that the world of Planning is as interesting on divers as the world that our Plans reflect.

Hope we helped,

Regards

Gordon

Gordon and Joel
The replies are disapointing and the point remains unanswered by example
Joel as you so suggest this is not a interlectual forum so what the point
Surely you must answer not just flick it off of course with 100000 imaginary nuclear activities to satisfy the govenment you may be too busy creating planning ?????? jobs to respond
Oscar

Oscar,

[sigh] ... they’re not imaginary activities... the industry, while young, has been going strong for a few decades now.

We build our Baseline Projects using the KNOWLEDGE (another thread, Oscar ;o)) of those Projects that have gone before. These allow us to put together quite accurate descriptions of how the Project will run.

However, things change;
for example one my current Projects:
Our subbies are NOT now supplying the eqpt for our Installation Team to Set to work, rather it has been decided that it would be more cost efficient to let contracts for Det. Design, Manufacture and set to work as a one big hit.
Also, due to the positioning of our equipment, we’ve figured out that it will be more practical to only have part of the conveyor system Installed, then stop, Install the Grouting cell, and finish the Installation of the conveyor. This is to allow the safest and easiest working conditions available due to the changed dimensions of the Cell.
With a complex design process, these changes happen, not a lot we can do about it except plan.

This doesn’t stop or mitigate the requirement for a fully detailed and costed Plan at the inception of the Project. It is taxpayers money being spent, on Nuclear Projects, the NDA and the National Audit Office would both throw blue fits if we didn’t endeavour to substantiate the figures we ask them to commit to.

And there we have another full, reasonable response, with no sniping, or aspersions cast... nice, isn’t it?

;o)

Glad to see the accountants tell the nuclear industry how to plan thus allowing changes to logic
not so long ago contracts had periods and unions delayed them re isle of grain etc now contracts have no periods and accounts substatiate them and the tax payer is told they finish on time and in budget similar to japanese contracts
I am so pleased that the nuclear industry is in such capable hand and that the process is made sorry not made up as you go along
a plan of action
1. become planner in nuclear industry
2. wait until accountant signs off project
3. time taken makes design outdated start at 1
4. If 3 does not occur [Deleted by Noderator.]

Oscar not a nuclear planner thank god

Primi

the answer to your question is in # 41 and answered by a planner working in the same field as you (Nuclear)

Next forum debate, Thanks

Hope this will help you Oscar?

Here are some more examples as you requested.

Copies from another debate and working in the same field Petro-Chemical.





RE: NUMBER OF ACTIVITIES


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We should be starting a new thread, as this is no longer related to the above subject. However, In addition to Sen’s post, I agree that we should be reviewing logic on a regular basis in line with the workflow on site and the availability of resources to make it a more realistic schedule.

In construction or whatever task it maybe. You have this inherent logic which you can not change (progressive way of doing a task) and the preferred logic or workflow (your preferred means and ways of attacking the work). The workflow should be agreed with the construction team and this should be done considering the availability of resources.

Regards,
Daniel

RE: NUMBER OF ACTIVITIES


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is correct, Joel. Logic review, analysis and updating are part of the schedule progress updates. And I’m referring to the CURRENT Schedule not Baseline. I’d say the Logic should be reviewed, analyzed and updated because Project Team including the client are monitoring the project finish date. Without changing the logic, a lot of activities are becoming out of sequence, thereby not showing the true calculated total floats or project finish date – just as I’ve stated in "Changing the logic when project is underway" topic.


Regards,
Sen

RE: NUMBER OF ACTIVITIES


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project: LNG Plant(2 Trains)

Scope of Works: EPC (Engg, Procurement & Construction)

Duration: 36 Months

No. of Activities: 3000 (at Level 3)

Software: P3.1

No. of Scheduler: 1

Takes 3 days to prepare monthly progress update on P3 schedule including logic review, analysis and update.

Joel san,

I’m foreseeing stones are be coming back..

Cheers!
Sen

Thanks Sen,

Just using what this site is for, I might as well have a go myself.

By the way "Interlectual" actually spelled Intellectual
has the following meaning:

Intelligent and knowledgeable: having a highly developed ability to think, reason, and understand, especially in combination with wide knowledge

I still dont understand what my Posting #37 led you to believe that I suggested PP was not a Intellectual site, I think you’ll have to change your logic. I hope you’ve baselined.


That did’nt feel so bad

Regards.

Joel san,

No offense meant in my previous post; just want to lighten the discussion.

(By the way, you are referring to Oscar Wild-E’s Post No.40 regarding the ‘Intellectual’ in reply to your Post No. 37)

May we hear from Oscar?

Regards.
Sen

Change logic as many times as required but follow the proper change control mechanism. i.e.

1- Eevaluate why it is required.
2- Discuss the options with your team.
3- Make comparison between options.
4- Check its impact on time, cost and risks
5- Finalize the option.
6- Get the client/stakeholder buy in (formal approval).
7- Make it your new baseline/target

Follow this process else as discussed earlier baseline goes away your claims go away. :)

Cheers.

Yes I think that is the key point to take from this thread. Change is inevitable, it is how change is managed that will govern the sucess of the programme.

On my projects, once the baseline has been agreed I implement a Schedule Change Request system to document and approve / reject all changes to the baseline.