| Author |
Message |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 03, 2007 - 05:34 pm: |    |
I've inherited a "Construction Progress Documentation" Section that includes elaborate requirements for the Contractor's Construction Schedule, including cost-and-resource-loaded CPM network analysis, Primevera submitted on a CD, etc, etc. Of course, the problem is that we don't have the software, and even if we did, no one within our company, myself included, has anywhere near the technical sophistication required to be able to review such a schedule.
So I'd like to know how others are specifying construction schedule requirements. Do you have different requirements based on project scale/ scope? When you've got a CM involved, do they develop the scheduling requirements? What kind of review obligation do you place on the Design Professionals? Does anyone have a secret for getting the Superintendent's typical "2 week look-ahead" schedule to bear at least some relationship to the official project schedule? Any input will be appreciated.
Thanks. |
Phil Kabza
Senior Member
Username: phil_kabza
Post Number: 247
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 03, 2007 - 06:23 pm: | |
A few thoughts from someone who falls more into the shallow side of the scheduling sophistication pool ...
A well-assembled and frequently managed Gantt chart often serves a modest project far better than the advanced bells and whistles network that gets abandoned due to its complexity. Few projects under $10M really justify a network diagram, unless they are fast-tracked, phased, or involve owner occupancy complexity.
CM involved? By all means, pass the scheduling issues off on them. That's what they're good at, and get paid all those bucks for. I'd pass on even reviewing a schedule when there's a CM. Make sure the owner (and your contract) agree with that decision, though.
The Superintendent's "look ahead" should be pulled off the full construction schedule AFTER it has been updated for the next progress meeting review. Otherwise, one or the other schedule (or both) are meaningless. |
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: bunzick
Post Number: 692
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 04, 2007 - 08:48 am: | |
Schedule complexity should be related to the complexity and size of the project. The type of network diagram schedule referred to in anon's post would only be used in situations where the owner was sophisticated, or when a scheduling consultant is used. Often a construction manager is on board for larger projects who has this expertise. Phil's observation about suitability for projects costing at least $10 million is a good one. (Of course, these days that's a lot of projects.)
All of the scheduling software is capable of generating Gantt charts. If you're not using scheduling software, though, you can't enter the data needed to determine critical path because tasks are not linked to those that must be done before or after. A straightforward way to generate simpler schedules is to alter the degree of detail. Fewer tasks mean a more manageable schedule. Don't require a submittal of the data on disk unless you plan to really examine it (and are you sure you want to?) You can require submittals in the form of simple Gantt charts, network diagrams, and multiple other views that suit the needs of the project. |
J. Peter Jordan
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan
Post Number: 228
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 05, 2007 - 10:53 am: | |
Most of what I have seen for large and small (approximately $1M) in the last several years has been generated from Primavera or MS Project in the form of "Gantt" (or bar) schedules. These frequently indicate "critical path" sequences and when properly updated will provide the Architect and most CMs with the information they need to stay informed about the schedule.
Interfaces for these software packages negate the need to generate a separate network (or dependency) diagram. This would have been absolutely necessary if you were working on a central computer system (mainframe or mini) to which the project manager did not even have terminal access.
I strongly suspect the more elaborate procedures outlined in the text in MasterSpec, from which there are probably numerous echoes in office masters, are probably remnants of a time when project scheduling was done with CPM/PERT software in batch mode from terminals hooked to a central computer system. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Sunday, April 08, 2007 - 11:55 am: | |
Mind if a (excuse my profanity) superintendent chirps in? Some excellant remarks were made above regarding schedules. Schedules are in effect another set of plans. They have been made over complicated by construction management people trying to justify their existence. I work on smaller projects on the CA central coast and I write my own schedule on all of my projects using MS Project. I review and update the schedule monthly, and MY 2 week look aheads do ACTUALLY pertain to schedule reality. Subs hate me.......Owners love me.
I recently was on a 3 mil ditty at Cal Poly with a CM. They wanted Primavera, HAD TO HAVE IT! We bought the program, set a junior PM educated on the program to work on it. The project was 75% complete before they agreed on the critical path!
In the meantime, I lined my bird cage with the Primavera schedules, and posted in my office the MS Project schedule (in Gantt chart form).
I don't need to be told when to put the key in the office door....DUH.
The bottom line is, if Superintendents are not involved in the schedule writing and updating, they are not performing to the required level, period. The superintendents understanding of the schedule is as important as the understanding of the plans, in my opinion. |
(Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 08, 2007 - 12:06 pm: | |
Just an update on my last post......The project I described came in 10 calander days late which was somewhat of a miracle in itself given the CM involved, BUT, I guess while they were fine tuning the schedule, someone at the CM's office forgot to order the equipment the structure was designed to house. So now they have a 2 1/2 million dollar pigeon coop, as far as I'm concerned anyway..... |
Nathan Woods, CCCA, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: nwoods
Post Number: 198
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 09, 2007 - 12:24 pm: | |
Anon, welcome to the forum. Please post here frequently and often! We welcome your comments and perspective. If you feel that you may contribute other posts in the future, please register with some sort of name that we can use to know you, even if it's "John Doe Contractor". |
M. Purdue
New member
Username: super_slo
Post Number: 1
Registered: 04-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 12:34 am: | |
Thanks Nathan. You might see me drop in some font occasionally if I feel the veiw from the nuts and bolts end is in some way helpful.
I was somewhat surprised to find this board of spec writers......I thought you all were unemployed with the advent of 'cut and paste'!
Anyway, I'm known as Mark on the streets, online all my friends call me SLO. =-)
Thanks again..... |
Doug Frank FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: doug_frank_ccs
Post Number: 178
Registered: 06-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 08:25 am: | |
Not only a "Contractor",, but one with a sense of humor (at least I hope you were being sarcastic about the Cut and Paste).
Welcome Mark,, or if I may, SLO. It's great to have folks like you contribute and I look forward to your insights and comments. |
M. Purdue
Junior Member
Username: super_slo
Post Number: 2
Registered: 04-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 09:32 pm: | |
Thanks Doug......Yes, I try to inject humor into most of my dribble. Seriously, it's a relief to interact with people of intelligence. Glad I found this place..... |
William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: wpegues
Post Number: 657
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 09:44 pm: | |
From our point of view on the architect's side of things, I have many options for different kinds of tracking software, charts, schedules, etc. Officially, we don't care about any of them, we don't review them, we don't want them.
They are there for the owner. Different owners have different interests in what they see. Some understand more than others and we do offer suggestions if we think a different system would work better for the project or for them.
I think that is really true for most owners - on most private projects. I do know some ddesign firms (architects and engineers) that really get into these things. But for us it all comes down to 'for what reason'. Mostly its not our requirement.
William |
|
4specs.com Home Page