(PS-3041) Survey of Scheduling Specifications in Construction Contracts and Criteria to Evaluate Their Quality
Author(s)/Presenter(s): Pei Tang; Umesh K. Jois
As an important part of the construction contract, the scheduling specification should provide clear and accurate guidance in project management, especially in helping management team better communicate, expose, and resolve problems. However, it is not rare that those goals have been compromised in lots of projects due to the inferior quality of scheduling specifications. The purpose of this technical paper is to discuss what scheduling specifications should include and develop the criteria to assess their quality. The clauses in existing scheduling specifications implemented by several U.S. large agencies in their construction contracts will be investigated to identify the positive and negative effects. Based on the analysis, the criterion will be established for evaluating scheduling specification quality as well as the recommendations in developing scheduling specifications.
(PS-3047) The Art of Decoding Manipulated Schedules for Forensic Schedule Analysis
Author(s)/Presenter(s): Rachel Domingo, PSP; Gayathri J. Shetty
The project schedule is a necessary tool in performing most delay analysis methodologies. Its usability and reliability depend on the integrity and accuracy of the project schedule. Schedule manipulations can result in inaccurate or multiple critical paths, unrealistic forecasted dates, and an overall misrepresentation of the project status. Therefore, it is crucial for delay experts to be able to verify and validate that the project schedule is a reasonable and accurate representation of the contract scope, terms and conditions, and progress status. Additionally, it is important to identify whether manipulations to the project schedule have been performed, or if it was generated to create or support a claim. Identifying and addressing these manipulations will allow the delay expert to then use the project schedule to reveal an accurate depiction of the cause and quantification of delay(s).
The purpose of this paper is to present a ‘checklist’ of red flags that signify potential schedule manipulation, so that corrections can be made, or alternative analyses can be considered. Specific case studies will be presented to illustrate the effect of the manipulation and to provide an example of the corrections applied as recommended by AACE International’s RP-29R-03, SVP 2.3 (2.3. Schedule Updates: Validation, Rectification, and Reconstruction).
(PS-3076) How AI and Short Interval Planning are Improving Denver’s Infrastructure Projects
Author(s)/Presenter(s): Adam T. Althoff. PSP; Paul Self
Connecting a master schedule with work planned and executed in the field can be a challenge. Too often the work defined in the schedule is completely disconnected from the actual tasks planned and executed by the team responsible for the work. Combine this with the fact project management has shifted from being a truly linear ‘plan-then-execute’ process to more of an iterative one where planning and execution are not necessarily sequential.
Currently an infrastructure mega-project in Denver, CO is undertaking a massive planning effort that considers shifting plans while eliminating the disconnect between the project controls and field teams so that everyone can work from the same set of objectives. This required looking at planning a little differently and what is needed from a plan at various stages in the project’s life cycle.
• Pre-planning – the development of top-down, deliverable-based high-level plans
• Planning – the detailed sequencing of work using CPM
• Short Interval Planning – the steps we need to carry out on a daily basis to accomplish the work
This paper discusses the real world application of these iterative planning techniques, with a focus on Short Interval Planning (SIP), and the role technology has played in making this a reality for this mega-project.
(PS-3081) Building Complex Schedules in Primavera P6: Lessons from a Contractor's Perspective
Author(s)/Presenter(s): Michael Lepage
In this paper, I'll describe lessons learned in following an intricate schedule specification to build a complex project schedule using Primavera P6. Contractors often are made to follow a schedule specification with constraints on schedule development that result in a Primavera P6 schedule that is extremely detailed and challenging to maintain. This paper aims to discuss and explore advantages, limitations and challenges of building complex schedules in Primavera P6. Included in the discussion will be resource-loading, cost-loading, schedule activity detail, limitations of Primavera P6 software, as well as reporting and other relevant topics.
(PS-3082) Float Consumption and Resiliency Theory Put into Practice
Author(s)/Presenter(s): Greg M. Hall, PSP
A frequent source of disagreement between owner and contractor is the quantification of delay using an additive Time Impact Analysis such as that described in Recommended Practice 52R-06. Owners are hesitant to grant time extension when they believe a contractor can revise Resource Driven Logic (RDL) to partially or fully mitigate the impact of a delay. While most project management teams can successfully use this method early in a project, they often run out of mitigation options as the job progresses.
The 2018 Technical Paper PS-2871: A Realistic Look at Float Consumption explored several metrics for identifying Resiliency, a measure of how readily a Critical Path Method schedule could be adjusted to accommodate delay. PS-2871 explored the theory using one example project.
This paper will further explore the concepts of Average Relationship Free Float on RDL, Activity Free Float Density Factor, and Schedule Performance Index correlation using a number of projects in various markets. The goal of this research is to reduce time impact disputes using Resiliency metrics to identify when “free” mitigation is no longer feasible.
(PS-3086) The Great Debate - Owners vs. Contractors - Are We Done Yet?
Author(s)/Presenter(s): Jeffrey Milo, PSP; John P. Orr, PSP
CPM scheduling has become a standard requirement in construction contracts between Owners and Contractors. These parties are all too frequently at odds during the effort to prepare a single schedule that meets both their needs. Sometimes the ‘rules’ (in the form of contract specifications and recommended practices) can obscure rather than enlighten this process. One of the greatest causes of contention and misunderstanding is disagreement on what is required to finish a project, and what the word “done” really means. This session will pick up where The Great Debate - The Contract Schedule – Owners vs. Contractors left off with a panel of Owner representatives and Contractor scheduling managers, discussing, and comparing their interests, goals, actions, and scheduling options during project closeout. Our debate will include such topics as substantial & final completion, partial or beneficial occupancy, a Contractor’s right to finish early, commissioning & closeout, change management, the punch list, and liquidated damages. Although presented in the format of a debate, the goal of this session is not to determine a winner, but to reach agreement on shared goals and viable solutions that benefit both parties. A properly utilized CPM schedule is a tool, not a contest, that should serve the interests of both Owner and Contractor.
(PS-3087) Examining Schedule Performance in Phase Transitions on Vertical Construction Projects
Author(s)/Presenter(s): Daniel P. Gilmour, PSP; Matthew L. Pringle, PSP
On many vertical building construction projects, poor schedule performance trends often coincide with periods of phase transition. For example, schedule execution commonly suffers as projects transition from the structural phase of construction to building enclosure and interior build-out. Utilizing multiple recently constructed vertical construction projects as case studies, this paper will analyze historical schedule data using probabilistic methodologies such as Monte Carlo simulation to identify schedule performance and execution trends. Using these case study models, the authors will examine possible root causes for schedule performance declines in phase transition including institutional tunnel vision, scheduled project geographies, project management staff scoping responsibilities, and phase pre-planning. Finally, this paper will offer strategies and potential solutions to combat negative schedule performance trends in periods of phase transition for future vertical building construction projects.
(PS-3095) A Study on Installation Duration Analysis Method of Engineering Project Based on Gauss Distribution Curve Fitting
Author(s)/Presenter(s): Xinpei Xia; Jie Wang; Chunfu Xu
The critical path method is usually used to analyze the installation duration for engineering projects. However, for some industries without clear critical path, there is no mature method to analyze and determine the installation duration when the installation engineering quantity is known. Based on the construction data of previous projects, this paper analyzes and verifies the distribution characteristics by time of installation engineering quantity by using theory and curve fitting method, and develops a set of analysis method for installation duration of engineering projects based on Gauss distribution curve fitting, and verifies validity of the method by an application case in nuclear engineering project. This method can be used to evaluate the installation duration when the installation engineering quantity and building area of the evaluated project are known. This method is a new method for evaluating the installation duration of engineering projects besides the critical path method. It is suitable for all kinds of industrial projects, especially for projects with new technology or lack of reference.
(PS-3101) Schedule Trend Control Charts in Excel
Author(s)/Presenter(s): Bryan Eaton, CCP PSP
Schedule Analysts should go beyond the basics of updating and providing a Gantt Chart with a critical path. They should provide Project Teams and Project Management with insight into the health of the project through trend analysis and assist in identifying specific activities contributing to the deterioration of the health of the project. The standard schedule platform’s reporting features are limited and typically not user-friendly. Often activity trend analysis and schedule quality metrics are not provided but can be purchased for specific schedule platforms and versions. This paper presents Schedule Trend Control Charts which I have developed using copy/paste of schedule data into a Microsoft Excel workbook. The charts include Trend of Total Float, an S-Curve based on finish date and milestone trends as well as associated analytical techniques. The charts are primarily designed for the Schedule Analyst, but can be presented to management.
(PS-3112) Capital Improvement Program Stage-Gate Planning and Scheduling
Author(s)/Presenter(s): Mir M. Ahmad; Christopher W. Carson, CEP DRMP PSP FAACE
Proper Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) planning is crucial for successful accomplishment of projects, however, often CIP planning and scheduling is done poorly leading to negative outcomes.
At the inception of a capital project, there is rarely enough information available to develop comprehensive schedules, so commonly they are not developed until design is complete, resulting in an adverse impact to the program. Without good planning, there is no targeted timeline of assets generating revenue, potential spending, future capital budgeting, and financing. A successful approach we use for a $100M CIP client program is the Stage-Gate planning & scheduling approach in which project schedules are developed using a two-tier schedule technique, developing a detailed schedule to cover work to the Sanction Stage and beyond that a high-level schedule based upon benchmarking or historical data. This paper demonstrates our practical approach to successful adoption of Stage-Gate planning and scheduling.
The authors, working for an ENR Top 50 Program Management Firm ranked at #14 in June 2018, have developed a successful and efficient method of planning and scheduling capital programs, following the AACE TCM Framework and Recommended Practices. This paper will provide detailed guidelines for setting up the CIP Stage-Gate process, developing the two-tier scheduling technique, a useful Baseline & Re-Baselining approach, benefits of Stage-Gate planning, analyzing the integrated CIP schedule, and KPI reporting in accordance with the Stage-Gate approach.
(PS-3113) Scheduling 201- A Professional Strategy for Enhanced Execution
Author(s)/Presenter(s): Rohit Singh, P.Eng.
Experience indicates that applying planning and scheduling only to a fundamental level is inadequate for project successes. Current projects in Infrastructure, Mining, Oil and Gas and many others are experiencing substantial losses as a result. A professional strategy that is comprehensive and addresses scope, change, criticality and risk is necessary. This will also provide a framework for claims protection and avoidance. This paper addresses this strategy.
The author a veteran professional project controls consultant and educator with over 30 years of experience in the on mega projects specializes in Planning and Scheduling application on projects; this paper is based on his experience and research (inclusive of applicable AACE recommended practices framework)
The 5 topics addressed in this paper are:
1- Baseline scheduling a fundamental strategy.
2- Integrating the Schedule with Estimating and Cost
3- The strategic selection of Schedule relationships to create a realistic critical path
4- The Monte-Carlo risk model analysis importance.
5- Communication the essential ingredient to a viable professional scheduling program
The goal is to provide a framework for schedule professionalism focused on with an intermediate level of experience and want to expand their knowledge in planning and scheduling.
(PS-3120) Integrating the Last Planner System™ into the CPM Schedule
Author(s)/Presenter(s): Jonathan R. Hunt; Hannah E. Schumacher, PSP
LEAN Construction practices are becoming prevalent in the construction industry. However, the success and methodology of implementation is varied. This paper outlines a functioning methodology of best practices to implement elements of the Last Planner System ™ (LPS) from the Lean Construction Institute in conjunction with Critical Path Method (CPM) scheduling. This methodology realizes the benefits of both system for Project Management.
In this paper the authors will describe the process for integrating the information derived in Pull Planning sessions into a baseline schedule to provide not only the high-level plan for the job, but also the detailed level execution planning for production monitoring. They will delve in to managing the CPM relationships and activity IDs to maintain schedule integrity for baseline comparison for future evaluation.
They will demonstrate the use of 6-week look ahead schedules and weekly work plans based on the updated schedule. The review of the execution of those weekly work plans based on the planned percent complete and the reasons for variance against the plan. The trending of these variances will be used to identify and mitigate on-going production issues and strive for continuous improvement.
(PS-3127) Investigation of the Role of Project Management Firm in the Planning Process
Author(s)/Presenter(s): Dr. Ashokkumar Subbiah, PSP
In construction projects, a project management firm is appointed to ensure that the project is completed within the planned duration and estimated budget. The project management firm's aims to make the planning process successful by ensuring that influencing factors like main contractor's execution plan, the design consultant's deliverable, the stakeholder’s commitments, the chosen contract and procurement route are well coordinated. When one or more of these influencing factors impacts the planning process it is found that a ‘shadow culture’ exists between the project participants which, it is argued, is only observable from the perspective of an embedded participant observer. The shadow culture influences the failure of the planning process and its efficacy relates to the ‘quality’ of human inter-relationships among immediate stakeholders. Shadow culture was evident in a similar study on the 2012 Olympic Stadium project but served as a supporting tool for the success of planning process.
A series of recommendations is provided that may be helpful in enhancing the efficacy of project planning process from the perspective of a project management firm; these include better training at the pre-construction phase; recognition of shadow processes, and better appreciation of the impact of contract type and chosen procurement route.
(PS-3141) Benchmarking As-Built Lags
Author(s)/Presenter(s): Ronald M. Winter, PSP FAACE
When someone decides to use a CPM relationship lag other than 0, how often does that given lag actually result in the planned delay between activities? How often does the standard Finish-to-Start relationship with a 0 day lag actually result in a Finish-to-Start with a negative days lag? Is there a pattern?
How well are planned versus actual relationship lags managed? No one knows because no one measures them. Hundreds of papers have been written about planned versus actual activity durations. How come no one has thought to measure planned versus actual relationship durations? Who is this No One who is measuring everything? Attend this benchmarking presentation and be the first to find out.
(PS-3149) (Panel Discussion) The Scheduling Truth or Lie Game - Fellows Edition
Author(s)/Presenter(s): Christopher W. Carson, CEP DRMP PSP FAACE; Ronald M. Winter, PSP FAACE; James G. Zack, Jr. CFCC FAACE Hon. Life; Nelson E. Bonilla, CCP FAACE Hon. Life
This will be a panel discussion, no paper, to have a fun-filled event using resources from the Fellows Committee. Chris Carson will moderate the panel discussion, and there will be three "Truthers" who are experienced schedulers to give examples of hard-to-believe stories related to Planning & Scheduling. Our panel of two "Interrogators" will each take one side, truth or lie, and cross-examine the Truthers in an effort to uncover the fake truth. After the rigorous interrogation is over, the audience will vote on the truth of the story. No scheduler resources will be damaged in this discussion.
The goal is to demonstrate the wide variety of scheduling situations that an experienced scheduler will run into, show how good a scheduler must be at reporting the facts, and see if the audience can tell the difference between the schedulers' "Truth or Lie".
(PS-3154) Successful A/E Design Scheduling
Author(s)/Presenter(s): Christopher W. Carson, CEP DRMP PSP FAACE; Aaron Fletcher, PSP; Noah A. Jones, PSP; Leo Carson
Delays often originate within the Architectural and Engineering (A/E) design effort, and schedules developed to plan, organize, and monitor design tend to be high-level and not very useful. When the schedule does not provide the right methodology and details, its value for monitoring is limited. Sometimes there is even a failure to recognize the difference between consumed hours and progress and without the right schedule, performance can suffer without being recognized. A well designed and managed A/E design schedule promotes quick and accurate updates, supports proactive analysis to minimize delays and claims, and aligns with other project controls functions to enable integrated cost-schedule-risk design scheduling.
The authors, working for firms that provide engineering design services, have experience in working with designers to develop the right level of detail for the design portion of a project, to establish a stage-gate approach to design milestones so they can align with cost, schedule, and risk monitoring, and so performance can be accurately measured. The authors bring a wide range of perspectives, from Process Engineering design scheduling, to Design-Build A/E scheduling, to CM Agency A/E monitoring, to CM at Risk A/E support scheduling. This paper will offer a proven approach that demonstrates guidelines for schedule design, development, monitoring, analysis, updating, and reporting, as well as set the benchmark to facilitate mitigation when necessary.
(PS-3163) Independent Project Controls Professionals - Working for the Project and not the Company
Author(s)/Presenter(s): David J. Hatwell, CFCC PSP; Paul Gabriel, PSP
The traditional project controls role on typical construction projects almost always include both an Owner’s and a Contractor’s project controls staff. These two groups often have overlapping scopes of work, competing motivations and work on behalf of their individual companies and not necessarily for the project. This paper will discuss the viability of an independent, project owned project controls specialist. This paper will describe how a specialist can work on behalf of the project, independent of the various entities. This paper will detail the scope of this role, how changes are managed and adjudicated, and will describe the process from NTP (project inception because on larger integrated projects we may be brought in from initial deal, design etc.) through Completion. This paper will identify demonstrate scopes of work that an independent project controls professional would be to engage in that the normal project controls role would be unable to. As part of this presentation, we would will present two case studies: 1) a billion dollar hospital in Philadelphia and a 2) $700 million dollar project in Nashville.
(PS-3181) Who Owns the Dates of the Procurement Package Status Report? - Practical Application on Mega Project
Author(s)/Presenter(s): Lise Bouchard, CCP
It is not unusual when executing projects to have differences between the procurement package status report dates and the procurement schedule which causes confusion and often discredit the schedule as the single source of truth. But who owns the dates shown in the procurement status report? When executing a mega project with thousands of activities and hundreds of procurement packages, it is important to develop an effective process to update, align and forecast the procurement dates. This paper discusses a practical application on a mega project on how the procurement team and the project controls team worked together to develop a bi-directional interface and process to analyze and integrate the dates from the schedule and the procurement package status report to ensure both tools are aligned and impacts of any changes are captured properly and effectively.
(PS-3187) "What Do You Use a Schedule for? It Depends on What You Want to Accomplish"
Author(s)/Presenter(s): Daniel L. Edmiston; William Carney
The purpose of this paper is to explore and discuss two common ways a CPM schedule can be used in today’s project environment. One is as a forecasting (look ahead) tool to identify and/or plan for potential risks or opportunities in the project and allow sufficient time for the Project Manager / stakeholders to mitigate the risks or capitalize on opportunities. The second is to use the schedule as an accounting (backward looking) reporting tool to ascertain what milestones were achieved and what resources (time / man-hours / money) were consumed and when. Both methods provide value to the project team but in different ways and need to be uniquely addressed both when constructing and preparing status for the project schedule. This paper will attempt to illustrate some of the differences in both schedule assembly and statusing methods.
(PS-3209) Schedule Updates: Decreasing Level of Effort for Project Teams
Author(s)/Presenter(s): Kimberly Smith; Jasmine Chapelle
The most frequent complaint from organization leaders about schedules is the level of effort needed for updates. The most frequent complaint from schedulers is obtaining accurate, timely updates. Both sides of the fence want the project schedule to support decision making and provide early warning of schedule/cost overruns.
To that end, this presentation will outline the expectations that must be managed on both sides of the fence as well as detail techniques for schedulers to streamline the update process to the meet the common goal of maintaining a schedule that supports project management. Techniques incorporate best practices of studying the organization, flexible communication channels, and tailoring update frequency to the actual project needs. Real world antidotes of schedulers obtaining updates in creative ways, such as withholding coffee, will ground the presentation in the busy, shifting-priority environment in which we work.
(PS-3217) Mastering Out-of-Sequence Progress – Part 3
Author(s)/Presenter(s): Ronald M. Winter, PSP FAACE
Identifying out-of-sequence progress in the real-world can be the key to understanding disruption and productivity loss. This is a current CPM ‘hot topic’. Now significant, new information and unusual situations involving out-of-sequence progress have been discovered since last year’s conference.
Certain cases of out-of-sequence events have been impossible to identify until now. This paper explains a new technique to identify all cases of out-of-sequence progress, even previously undetectable inactive indirect out-sequence activities. An even larger database of schedules is cataloged and presented as more accurate benchmarks. These benchmarks can be easily applied to rate other schedules to evaluate their degree of out-of-sequence progress.
Last year, better out-of-sequence progress reporting using P6 software was introduced. This year learn how to add out-of-sequence progress reporting to Microsoft Project. The instructions included here are all that is needed to add this feature to your MS Project software (and for free)! Come and let your ‘geek flag fly’. The author promises that this is the last paper on out-of-sequence progress that he will ever write, but only if you attend the presentation!
(PS-3237) Reduced Project Duration via Intelligent Scheduling: Lessons from Construction, Aerospace, Ship Production and Other Domains
Author(s)/Presenter(s): Dr. Robert Richards
In construction, production and maintenance environments the method of allocating resources and managing other constraints significantly affects the efficiency of progress and thus the overall project duration. Resources include human resources, equipment resources, and physical-space resources. Due to the inherent complexity of resource allocation and constraint management, project durations can be twice, or more, longer than needed if one uses conventional resource leveling versus intelligent scheduling. The benefits of intelligent scheduling are due to both a shorter initial schedule in concert with the benefits of adaptive execution, that is, executing the scheduled activities/procedures intelligently as the actual execution deviates from the original schedule.
Unfortunately, many construction, production, and maintenance projects do not benefit from such intelligent scheduling technology. This paper draws lessons from experience with various domains including ship fabrication, airplane production, maintenance, repair & overhaul (MRO), and various construction projects that intelligent scheduling has benefited.
(PS-3243) Which Metrics to Use?...and When?
Author(s)/Presenter(s): Shoshanna Fraizinger, CCP
The master integrated project schedule is a key project control artifact that is so much more than a sequential listing of project milestones, activities and start dates.
The quality or “health” of that schedule is paramount to ensuring that the integrated master schedule can provide accurate and reasonable information so that informed decisions can be made.
Multiple resources exist which provide guidance for evaluating schedule quality;
- NASA Schedule management handbook
- DCMA 14 point assessment
- GAO Schedule Assessment Guide
There are also many software based tools on the market can be used to directly interrogate the schedule for schedule quality validation or improvement.
However there appears to be a “gap” in the body of guidance and tools with respect to the defining the “extent of application” of said guidance and tools.
Most presume the schedule in question is the schedule produced for project authorization (ie; a class III schedule as per RP 27R-03).
But what if the schedule being produced related to earlier phases of project definition? Or perhaps is meant to support a class II cost estimate? Or the development of an analysis schedule required for mega project risk profiling? In these instances, the standard metrics set up by software defaults may be too much, or too little information to analyze and address schedule quality concerns
Using the general principles of RP 27R-03, this paper intends to draw upon recent project file reviews in support of risk profile and cost estimate validation, with reference to; the works of Dr. Griffiths, Ron Winter, the GAO Schedule assessment guide and DCMA assessment, to propose a scaled correlation of the prescribed sets of schedule health check metrics defined in software defaults to the schedule classifications characterized within the RP.
(PS-3244) Schedules in Design-Build
Author(s)/Presenter(s): Jessica Colbert, PSP; Kimberly D. Forbes, PSP
From 2013 to 2017, the value of design-build construction put in place within the United States grew nearly 43%. The dollars projected to be spent in this market through 2021 is expected to grow another 26%, reaching approximately $324B.  The Design-Build delivery method presents additional challenges to the development and management of a project schedule. Detailed project scope is under development for the first phase of the project and as more information becomes available, design and construction operational plans change. This paper highlights the added variables to schedule management present in the Design-Build delivery method and makes recommendations to both Contractors and Owners to deal with these considerations.
(PS-3255) Using Time and Location Scheduling Methods to Review Linear and Non-Linear Projects
Author(s)/Presenter(s): Stanko Pavlovic, PSP
Using Primavera P6 or Microsoft Project to create Critical Path Method schedules is a recognized standard/software in almost every country, especially in North America. Projects can be very complex and detailed to such level that they could consist of more than 50,000 activities. Verifying the logic, duration, critical path and finish dates of most crucial activities using the traditional Gantt charts or linear precedence diagrams can be a cumbersome and overwhelming exercise. Using linear schedules for linear projects (Railway, Road, Pipeline, Tunnel, Transmission line, etc.) that combine time and location to give you a smarter and easier way to review, optimize and update these project schedules can save you a great amount of time and effort. But what if we don't have a linear project?
This presentation provides a vision and a guideline on transforming non-linear projects into linear schedules in order to print one picture that could be worth more than a thousand words.
(PS-3261) Reporting-Tool P6 Visualizer
Author(s)/Presenter(s): Marina G. Sominsky, PSP
The reporting tool called P6 Visualizer℠ has been released by Oracle® over half a decade ago, however does not seem to be used widely despite its’ decidedly customizable functionality. P6 Visualizer can be installed and launched as a stand-alone application that connects to P6 database and allows to review P6 schedule without having Primavera P6 installed. It extends the native built-in P6 reporting capabilities through customizable Gantt charts, Grids, and Timescaled Logic Diagrams. Furthermore, P6 Visualizer now houses Schedule Comparison tool, formally known as Claim Digger.
This paper provides a comprehensive overview on how to create user-designed layouts and reports using P6 Visualizer for different scenarios of an enhanced examination of project’s status information. It also shows examples of automating P6 Visualizer reports with output to a printer or file. Verification of project and activity data options using Schedule Comparison versus Claim Digger is included.
(PS-3283) The Habits of Highly Effective Scheduling
Author(s)/Presenter(s): Sylvia M. Donado
Projects are becoming more complex and costly therefore, requiring greater attention to the management of time and resources. There are some of the principles used in scheduling that bring arts and science together. These principles can be used to effectively communicate your plan, establish production goals, monitor and manage progress and manage change in your projects and programs.
In order to effectively build and manage a project schedule knowledge must go beyond the scheduling tools used and learn some of the basic rules and concepts. Software is a powerful tool in implementing projects that must be properly and effectively use this tool you are limiting your ability to properly execute, monitor, & control your project.
Project schedules are about business intelligence. The health of project based organizations is based on the health of all the individual projects put together. Your schedule goes beyond where you are right now, it’s also meant to make predictions and help mitigate risks as well as take advantage of opportunities.
Project schedules are meant to be the tool for managing the work and reaching the goal. Sufficient detail must be included in the schedule in order to provide a viable tool for monitoring and controlling however, managing the tool should not become a project. Consistency in language and procedure should be used to ensure accuracy and proper communications with stakeholders.
(PS-3287) Using Resource Dictionaries to Track Delay Events During Construction
Author(s)/Presenter(s): Robert A. Santucci, PSP
Identification and association of delay events with the affected/impacted schedule activities is an important step in the tracking, preparation, and presentation of time impact evaluations. This paper proposes using the Resource Dictionary module, found in most common scheduling software applications, to assign and track delay events. Today’s scheduling software provides different options the tracking and reporting new information, such as delay events. However, most of the coding options used to associate new data with individual schedule activities are limited to one-to-one relationships, where the secondary or “child” code may only be assignable to an activity once. Furthermore, when transferring schedule information between databases ( copying, exporting and importing electronic schedule files from one user to another, e.g. contractor to owner), the use of traditional activity codes may require the new user to reconfigure existing layouts and filters in order to track and present information reported previously. A solution to this problem is the creative use of the Resource Dictionary module to code and associate single schedule activity tasks with multiple delays. This allows the development and maintenance, within the schedule database, of an as-built history of delay impacts experienced over the course of construction.
(PS-3293) Lessons Learned on Integrating Linear Schedule with the CPM Schedule
Author(s)/Presenter(s): Kristy Kastner, PSP
How does Linear Scheduling Method work? Can it be effectively used in conjunction with CPM Scheduling?” The standard Gantt chart and long list of activities are not clearly understood by project team members and do not clearly depict the plan to achieve key milestones. This paper covers the lessons learned while importing the traditional CPM Schedule with the Linear Schedule on a large multi-year design-build project.
As a scheduler or a project team member, linear scheduling is a powerful tool for all members to grasp
a mega-project schedule’s location versus time correlation, as well as expected production rates in a single page document. This paper uses examples from a transportation project to show the lessons learned during pre-bid. The reader can learn how a single page linear schedule can properly represent the full project scope and is worthwhile to pinpoint schedule issues and flaws prior to the development of a realistic baseline schedule.