Comments on: Project e-Tip of the Week http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/2003/04/30/139/ The magazine for the project age Fri, 16 May 2008 18:47:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5 by: Claude Emond http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/2003/04/30/139/#comment-352 Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000 http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/2003/04/30/139/#comment-352 a fantastic 'e-nitiative', Hal. You can be sure that I will be reading those tips very attentively and share my own related ideas when possible. Another reason for me to keep posted and rush people to your weblog for sound and refreshing advice. Cheers, Claude Claude a fantastic ‘e-nitiative’, Hal. You can be sure that I will be reading those tips very attentively and share my own related ideas when possible.

Another reason for me to keep posted and rush people to your weblog for sound and refreshing advice.

Cheers,

Claude
Claude

]]> by: Hal http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/2003/04/30/139/#comment-353 Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000 http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/2003/04/30/139/#comment-353 Frank makes important points. The practice is recommended for the day-to-day and weekly coordination of task completion. The reliability of one performer's task completion allows the next performer to plan their mobilization and make promises for completion. This keeps work flowing avoiding the usual delays seen on constuction projects and where multiple teams interact to deliver on the promise of the project. We do not recommend (agreeing with Frank) that you use initial activity schedules as the basis for measuring the reliability of the planning system. Like Frank, we say that the promises we all want to keep are the ones we make to the customer. That would entail promises about project completion and interim promises for 'deliverables' of different types. The balance of the scheduling-like planning dates are useful as a basis for continuing the planning with the project performers as the project proceeds. I take exception to Frank's characterization empty information of the percent of kept promises. We have found studying why we are able to succeed is usually more fruitful than the ever-so prevalent preoccupation we have with why we failed. We do suggest people track and characterize plan failures (tasks promised by Last Planners that were not completed as promised). [There will be an up-coming Project e-Tip on this.] Investigasting the causes of failure is useful for avoiding those failures. However, we invariably learn more from studying what is working. We first learned this from the Gallup study that served as a basis of the best-seller First, Break All the Rules. For those of you who know more than a little about the Theory of Cosntraints and Critical Chain based Project Management probably see where Frank and I diverge. Some people misunderstand that disagreement as having to do with lean thinking. It is really about the linguistic action perspective. p.s. Frank and I are big fans of each other. I look forward to reading every comment he leaves for readers and me. :+: Frank makes important points. The practice is recommended for the day-to-day and weekly coordination of task completion. The reliability of one performer’s task completion allows the next performer to plan their mobilization and make promises for completion. This keeps work flowing avoiding the usual delays seen on constuction projects and where multiple teams interact to deliver on the promise of the project.

We do not recommend (agreeing with Frank) that you use initial activity schedules as the basis for measuring the reliability of the planning system. Like Frank, we say that the promises we all want to keep are the ones we make to the customer. That would entail promises about project completion and interim promises for ‘deliverables’ of different types. The balance of the scheduling-like planning dates are useful as a basis for continuing the planning with the project performers as the project proceeds.

I take exception to Frank’s characterization empty information of the percent of kept promises. We have found studying why we are able to succeed is usually more fruitful than the ever-so prevalent preoccupation we have with why we failed. We do suggest people track and characterize plan failures (tasks promised by Last Planners that were not completed as promised). [There will be an up-coming Project e-Tip on this.] Investigasting the causes of failure is useful for avoiding those failures. However, we invariably learn more from studying what is working. We first learned this from the Gallup study that served as a basis of the best-seller First, Break All the Rules.

For those of you who know more than a little about the Theory of Cosntraints and Critical Chain based Project Management probably see where Frank and I diverge. Some people misunderstand that disagreement as having to do with lean thinking. It is really about the linguistic action perspective.

p.s. Frank and I are big fans of each other. I look forward to reading every comment he leaves for readers and me. :+:

]]> by: Bernard Ertl http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/2003/04/30/139/#comment-354 Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000 http://www.reformingprojectmanagement.com/2003/04/30/139/#comment-354 Charting the Reliability of Task Completions only makes sense for projects that have stable working conditions. Within the industrial maintenance turnaround project arena, we have found that schedule compliance will typically average around 40-50%. Instead of focusing on percentage of planned tasks completed, we measure percent of plan complete by charting the percentage of earned manhours (versus total planned manhours) against a minimum progress attainment curve. Schedules are used to provide field supervision with a focus on priorities. As long as critical and near critical jobs maintain progress, the bulk of non time critical jobs can be worked out of sequence in accordance with changing conditions in the field. Tracking earned manhours against the plan instead of actual scheduled tasks gives the team credit for staying productive when conditions arise that prevent adherance to the schedule. Charting the Reliability of Task Completions only makes sense for projects that have stable working conditions. Within the industrial maintenance turnaround project arena, we have found that schedule compliance will typically average around 40-50%. Instead of focusing on percentage of planned tasks completed, we measure percent of plan complete by charting the percentage of earned manhours (versus total planned manhours) against a minimum progress attainment curve. Schedules are used to provide field supervision with a focus on priorities. As long as critical and near critical jobs maintain progress, the bulk of non time critical jobs can be worked out of sequence in accordance with changing conditions in the field. Tracking earned manhours against the plan instead of actual scheduled tasks gives the team credit for staying productive when conditions arise that prevent adherance to the schedule.

]]>