How to Fail a Project

Yes, some fluff, I agree. I would post some pictures of kittens, but I’m not sure the tags are supported.

anyway, eventhough I’m new to PP I rekon Charlie’s attitude toward himself is fairly transparent. I’m personally always wary of such circumstances so I’m good, ta. Perhaps being old has something to do with that though :P

I cried when they shot old Bessie...

It fails; because planners failed to use the right unit of measurements.
What I want to say is , most planners use duration % complete , and keeps on sitting inside thier office until the duration consumes. Instead use % physical
This type of measurement(%duraton) has no-way in my practice , which I considered it Stupid....

Ulysses;

Not sure I would agree that ’most’ planners use duration to status their project. In the process industry, we have been using some form of earned value since the early 1990s. Since then, EV has become pretty much the standard, I think.

Regardless, if your original schedule is flawed, no methodolgy will save it. It may make the flaw evident sooner, but unlikely to change the outcome.

I agree that percent complete based on the passage of time is ’stupid’ and extremely hazardous to the credibility of the project. It may well aggravate the problem, but IMHO is not an underlying cause. But then, I could be wrong.

Is there a way to stop receiving notification emails on this subject?

i’m sorry, this is really going to fail!

Hi Anoon how are you ? someone feels falling...anongbalita dyan..

Ulysses

based on you practice, could you further elaborate as to why the use of duration is a Stupid idea (just to enlighten the readers) and eventually become a cause for a project failure?

Hi Adrian,

The concept of using % duration has remained a nightmare.

Take this simple example;
Suppose you have a task of 100 sq.m. painting work, then let us say 80 MH to complete the job,in 1 painter @ 8 hr/day = 10 days to complete.

Then, assuming you have consumed 40MH , which is equal to 5 days . You then say the duration % complete is 50 % do you agree?. OK

Whereas, the actual % complete in Physical is only 20 sq.m which is 20% in physical status, then I would ask you. which one is the correct status of the project???.

In other words, we can say 100% complete duration = 40% physical, assuming the trend is constant.

Physical % is more accurate and convinient if based on performance index to earn value approach.

In fact, sad to say that in P3 some can manipulate and abuse the use of autocost rule that violates the true meaning of planning..

Uly

Hi Ulysses,

I totally disagree with your comments and I would say it is misleading. I suggest that you should think twice before making a statement.

Not all task or activities are measurable by physical progress and that is why the planning tools like primavera are designed to have this option for planner to decide the best option to use when creating a schedule. Majority of the planner/ scheduler are programming their schedule based on the available information during the process and corrected as the detail reliable data/ source became visible.

Good examples of duration activities are design stages. Design is normally track and measure by duration and not by quantities. Sometime it is measured by hours if details are required. Another good example are indirect labour such us management and staff. Again those are measured by durations and not physical quantities. Equipments are also track by hours or durations but not physical.

Units or hours are also a good tool of monitoring progress. It is more meaningful and useful by converting physical progress quantities into man-hour per unit of measure which is a good tool when using earned value management. From this you can measure the productivity factor of each activity against the budget.

Physical are very good only for all measurable task and having a productivity steps to weight each steps for much more accurate progress.

Looking forward on your opinion…
Rodel

Hi Rodel ,
Maybe i have striked your ego. i would answer you then, im just busy right now.
It’s a very interesting conversation,anyway..
Uly

Hi,
I think any company must go through as idealized theory meets practical reality. And yet, even with the problems these companies experience, there is a load of valuable information to be learned, particularly when it comes to understanding the nature of such failures.

Hi uly,

Sorry you’re not striking anything. I just want to correct your wrong statement for the sake of new planners. In addition regarding to your example, If you are an expert/ experience planner you should update your remaining duration based on the trend to have a correct duration percent complete and not just accepting the default and having a 50% duration complete because from the example given, 5days remaining durations (40Hrs) are not possible to complete the task.

Rodel

Hi Rodel,
Your statements are totally flawed, and absolutely wrong. I would proved it for sometime, im quite busy rigthnow...
uly..

Rodel;

The two examples you site - design and procurement, lend themselves quite easily to earned value. Both have deliverables - drawings and purchase orders. Both have measurable steps - start, review, issue for approval, incorporate vendor data, isssue for construction, as-built (not recommended); material requisition, rfq, bid tabs, issue po. Each step can be assigned a value in hours. As each step is accomplished those hours are measured against hours expended. The step can earn partial credit up to the amount budgeted for the step - no more.

I harp on this because we are brought back to why projects fail. With inadequate information (project controls), the project manager is unable to respond quickly to a worsening situation. Without data he is blind. Blind men cannot lead.

Elasped time is no measurement. If you cannot measure an item, you cannot control it. You make no attempt to control level of effort functions (project management, for example) because they generally have little impact on the outcome of the project. Controllable items do.

Hi Uly,

Where did you hear that a project failed because they used a flawed progress measurement? Was there a case wherein the planner was blamed for using duration as progress measurement? I think this is absurd.

I would not agree or disagree with anyone on the issue because for me, the topic of % complete is a very subjective issue. The progress measurement you’ve mentioned are just mere indicators, it’s not an exact science that’s why it’s pointless to argue which one makes sense or doesn’t makes sense. It only indicates for something. As long as you can defend your position to anyone questioning where you got your numbers, then you’ll be ok.

On top of the % indicators, making a report on Critical Path Analysis gives more sense to those managing the projects. Percentage for a number people are sometimes misleading and doesn’t really give a clear picture of where you are. It only indicates for something, unlike CPM delay analysis. Who cares if it’s 50% or 60%, what PM wants to know is if the the project is delayed or not. if delayed, what can be done to recover the delay. If the delay is unrecoverable, then this is an entirely different ball game.

IMHO,
Se

In my opinion, the initial settings for a certain program / schedule has to be agreed before even trying to run that schedule. There are options to consider and the parties involved must evaluate on which option will best fit their requirements. Whether it is based on duration, cost, resource units, physical etc., as long as you got a measuring tool that was set-up and agreed that would give you a figure to report on...i think it’s fair. I don’t believe that accuracy of calculating percent progress lies only on one of the mentioned options.

Uly, how are you?

Uly,

I’m looking forward for your comment and hoping for your fruitful endeavour that may enlighten us and learned more about planning technique that we might be missing.

Dennis,

Sorry if you misunderstood my statement or the (meaning) intension of measurable item that I stated. It points to the Physical construction measurement like square meter, linear meter, cubic meter etc…

Design, Engineering, Management and Staff are measurable offcourse by durations or like what I mention earlier, hours can be used if details are required. There also production step that can be set as parameter of measurement like the example that you mentions. But all of these are normally measured by durations which has been estimated and submitted together with the bid defending on the type of contract where client and contractor are engage with.

Normally the contract have the organizational chart and staffing to know the budget intension for Management, Staff and Supervisor and their durations which is the one of the basis to use when required to claim for prolongation costs.

Also please note that CPM use duration for calculations. EOT using time measurement for claim and all planning tools are using durations for calculation but these are not the issue here.

The issue is the statement where : "using % duration type is stupid"

If the planner/ Scheduler undertand the logic and proper use of planning tool then what is the stupidity of using % duration type? Why all planning tools use durations as type of measurement?

Regards,
Rodel

Hi all,

Progress % complete whether units, duration or physical are just indicators.
Assessing progress can be done used more than 1 method, ie. cost, activity duration, manhours, physical quantities, ..

Adapting any method in the assessment of your project progress will not lead to a project failure, the most important thing from my POV is to use a method which is:
1- Logical.
2- Can be derived using the data you have at the beginning of the project.
You should also adapt this method till the completion of the project.

Regards,
Karim

Hi Rodel,

Rodel said : Design, Engineering, Management and Staff are measurable of course by durations or like what I mention earlier, hours can be used if details are required.

I opposed this statement..

Take note in Design and Engineering, can also be measured by physical or in terms of quantity. like; conceptual design stage , drawings, submittals , approvals, revisions and etc. The only thing is to agreed by all concern as to what physical % at certain stages of work accomplished in a certain time. ex. drawings . civil complete=20%, archi complete=30% …etc. this can be measures in physical as agreed.

In duration type of measures, as what I said to my earlier post can be subjected to abused, let us look to this example.. a drawing task has already consumes 50% of the total ManHour, whereas, the actual work being perform in physical is only 20% ,

Rodel said: Equipments are also track by hours or durations but not physical.

Again ,I opposed this statement.

Equipment and Manpower resources are similar but not in terms of productivity, this is “self explanatory”, in my previous simple example a 100 sq.m. painting works , say an equipment paint consumes 50% duration , whereas the physical % is only 20% . this again mis-leads you.

You made mentioned also about accepting the default in software. In P3 autocost rule either you link or unlink the rule no 1 the input of variables are the same.. not like in P5 , P6

Uly,

Thanks for the response but you’re not answering the questions arise from your statements.

“Using % duration type is stupid”

I agree with you that Design and Engineering can be measured as “AGREED” by physical weighted percentage but not quite correct because the basis of measurement are still durations by months, weeks, days or hours as used for budgeting. Drawings can be measured by quantities but specification, data analysis, approval and major design activities are measured by duration. For example Management and Staffs is duration base which used when preparing a bid or estimate for budgeting same for equipment and small tools etc…. Those are present within the duration of the project which normally estimate by month, days or hour and or durations.

A good example is a planner for the project: How do you measure the planner within the duration of a project? Can they be measured as “Agreed stages/ parameter” or Physical progress?

Again as for your example for painting works: As an experience planner or should I say as qualified planner, it is their responsibility to update the remaining durations to reflect the actual progress and each trend/ productivity to have a correct duration progress and not just entering 50% duration complete on the % duration field. Planner responsibility is to reflect the correct estimated remaining duration based on the current trend/ productivity of the task.

Karim state exactly the point that we are trying to portray where % complete type are only progress indicator and planner have options to use defending on the case to case basis or available information when the baseline schedule was done. Again it is not a perfect science and one of the major responsibilities of a planner is to reflect the actual scenario and update as required to envisage a correct status of the project.

For my understanding the selection of % complete type or progress indicator options on the planning tools like primavera is for planners comfort specially when combining with the correct Duration type and synchronisation of related fields when updating the progress.

Ex: Duration Type = Fixed Duration and Units combined with Duration % complete type.
These setting synchronise the remaining durations to % Duration Type and actual units which allow the user/ planner have an automatic update on the % duration field and Actual unit field when remaining duration change.

Open for suggestion, comment…
Rodel

Hi rodel,

Using % duration type is stupid”---Don’t absorb it seriously...it is a subjective issue , remains controversial...
uly

Rodel,

Your statement:
Ex: Duration Type = Fixed Duration and Units combined with Duration % complete type.
These setting synchronise the remaining durations to % Duration Type and actual units which allow the user/ planner have an automatic update on the % duration field and Actual unit field when remaining duration change.

You mean in P3.I agree, that’s it becuase P3 tool is not so refined and not completely developed, unlike the P5 or the new release P6 .

In P5, when your % complete set-up is in duration ,you cannot enter datas in both variable ( % and Dur.) . Possible only to Physical % .
Uly

HI guys,

Kabayan (Countryman)

Please Please we will not get emotional about this.

It is very easy to faila project.

I think it is better to understand

WHY PROJECT FAIL?????

I’ll start a thread to break whatever????

Cheers,
Sensei
Successful Project Managemnent Consultant

Uly,

I totally disagree with you. Play with your P5/ P6 and using combination that I just mentioned and you will find that durations, remaining duration and At complete are both updatable. There’s a lot of combination that you can used to automate update on other related fields.

For your more accurate information please refer to your PM Reference Manual.

To have a clearer view of the arguments based on your cited example regarding Painting.
Qty = 100SM, OD = 10 day = 80hrs = 8 hrs/day
Actual Progress = 40hrs, 20SM

As a experience planner, after the progress update is done which of the following are the proper presentation of the schedule update and why?

a)     % Physical = 20%, OD = 10 day, Remaining Duration = 5 days, At completion = 10days,Budget Units = 80hrs, Actual Units = 40hrs, Remaining Units = 40hrs, At completion units = 80hrs
b)     % Duration = 50%, OD = 10days, Remaining Duration = 5 days, At completion = 10days, Budget Units = 80hrs, Actual Units = 40hrs, Remaining Units = 40hrs, At completion units = 80hrs
c)     % Duration = 20%, OD = 25days, Remaining Duration = 20 days, At completion = 25days, Budget Units = 80hrs, Actual Units = 40hrs, Remaining Units = 160hrs, At completion units = 200hrs
d)     None of the above


Charles,

Thanks for your concerned but emotion is not involved on this issue. One of my trainie raised this question that where I explained the logic and uses of % duration type and its importance on the schedule.

Regards,
Rodel

There are a few blinkered people on here. Firstly, we are here to learn from others. What is right for some may not be right for others. For instance, I have found EV for procurement unreliable and therefore misleading as the information flow was unreliable and often non-existant and mainly out of our hands but for others the results could be good.

Going to the Physical % complete discussion. If you are 20% physical complete but with 5 remaining days left; Which is correct? Answer the one which is most accurate and only you can decide this. With Uly’s example it’s possible they had difficulties at the beginning due to inexperience or setting up time and although the jobs is only physically 20% complete they feel there are only 5 days remaining!

Now physically PC is best for EV or when it’s the only way to determine how far you are through the job. I always ask the team leader when will they finish. They have the experience and may use PPC to come up with the end date. I will question him if I feel the estimate is questionable.

To any new members reading this thread,

Charlie (Sensei) is not a successful PM consultant.

He isn’t even a successfull data entry clerk.

Mark;

I agree that once the po is issued there is a significant loss in direct access to information. At that point, expediting and progress pay (a form of EV) have to suffice.

EV evolved because personal evaluations were flawed - too subjective. Most design/construction people are optimistic - tomorrow will always be better, we will work harder. the info/eqpt. will arrive, the approvals/dwgs are on their way. If you can easily determine the state of progress, you do not need EV. A walk around the job site or design floor will tell you all that you need to know. The design lead or superintendant knows more about his work than anyone else, but he has to contend with self-interest and optimism. EV attempts to remove both.

In this example the durations are so short as to be easily verifiable, but what do you use when they are not (rhetorical)?

You are right, there is "no one-size fits all." But, inadequate measurement/control robs the PM of reaction time. The time to address problems while they are small and manageable. I think EV, in all its variants, helps to provide the required insight - early warning, if you will, that subjective progress measurement does not.

Mark,

Physical PC doesn’t tell how far you are through the job, it tells you how much of the required effort has been expended.

Duration PC tells you how far through the job you are. (i.e duration)

To argue about which is best is pointless.
Each type has its place, duration is good for linear activities such painting a wall and physical is good for other things, such as activities that may require more effort upfront but cannot be claimed as finished until a small thing is done at the end of the duration.

The important thing is that the planner understands what percentage the workforce are telling him/her.

I have tried to explain the difference to engineers, but they just look at me all weird and sheepish.

An good planner spends 30% of his time on the computer and the other 70% correctly translating the responses of others.

Oliver

AGREE WITH YOU OLIVER............

with minor modification....

......An good planner spends 10% of his time on the computer and the other 90% correctly translating the responses of others.