METHODOLOGIES EXAMINED
THEN: CPM: at the “Practical” Examiner’s Table
NOW: GPM: transitioning to a Planner’s ideology
GRAPHICAL PATH
CRITICAL PATH Presented by: Noel Alvarez, PMP, LEED AP 1/28/2015
1
PREFACE Graphical Path Method (GPM) = new/innovative & improved Critical Path Method (CPM) = tried & true So… the intent of this presentation is to introduce GPM by way of comparison to CPM 1/28/2015
2
AGENDA CPM: at the “Practical” Examiner’s Table GPM: transition back to a Planner’s ideology CPM vs. GPM: summarized comparison GPM: a bid for full-fledged adoption GPM: a real life story (case study)
1/28/2015
3
CPM: AT THE “PRACTICAL” EXAMINER’S TABLE
1/28/2015
4
CPM (& Logic Charts): Need No Introduction
Time-scaled Activity focused Waterfall display 1/28/2015
CPM: at the “Practical” Examiner’s Table
5
Views on CPM Nearly 50 Years Ago! CPM intended to introduce a planning ideology into bar chart scheduling where the planning was not documented and activity dates were backed into vs. based on logic. As it turns out, over time that ideology “got turned on its head” in that what we ended up with were bar charts, just the same!
1/28/2015
CPM: at the “Practical” Examiner’s Table
6
Views on CPM 10 Years Ago! “…we have collectively evolved the profession to where planning is no longer the essential first step in the scheduling process…Today’s schedulers have been taught a mechanical approach to scheduling, that to a very great extent downplays or even ignores the planning process…And so we see a mad rush to greater and greater dependence on the computer.” Extracting from the Foreword in an article featured ENR, four experts were quoted as “lamenting the state of scheduling…” 1/28/2015
CPM: at the “Practical” Examiner’s Table
7
Bold View from Industry Leaders! A quote from AACE’s Planning and Scheduling Committee
I fully agree with the notion that CPM is not the “holy grail” of scheduling, no matter what the software companies may claim. CPM has, in many ways, ceased being a
planning tool: it’s become the “weapon of choice” for unsophisticated owners who don’t understand planning and, of course, for experts advocating their professional opinion on a project’s “failures”. 1/28/2015
CPM: at the “Practical” Examiner’s Table
8
A simple visualization of time – doubtful!
1/28/2015
CPM: at the “Practical” Examiner’s Table
9
CPM uses batches and several non-transparent engines
Cause: Mysterious, database-driven scheduling computations 1/28/2015
CPM: at the “Practical” Examiner’s Table
10
Cause: Cross-function / Collaborative Planning Efforts/Ideals are Diluted 1/28/2015
CPM: at the “Practical” Examiner’s Table
11
GPM: TRANSITION BACK TO A PLANNER’S IDEOLOGY
1/28/2015
12
Three Networking Alternatives
1 Arrow Diagramming Method (ADM) Original network notation introduced with CPM in 1957; arrows are used to denote activities, and finish-to-start (FS) dependencies are modeled by connecting the finish nodes of activities to their respective successors’ start nodes 1/28/2015
GPM: transitioning to a Planner’s ideology
13
Three Networking Alternatives (cont’d)
2 Precedence Diagramming Method (PDM) Network notation introduced in 1961 and extended in 1963; boxes or scaled bars (shown) are used to denote activities, and activities are connected with logic ties to model FS dependencies and PDM dependencies known as start-to-start (SS), finish-tofinish (FF) & start-to-finish (SF) 1/28/2015
GPM: transitioning to a Planner’s ideology
14
Three Networking Alternatives (cont’d)
3 Logic Diagramming Method (LDM) Time-scaled network notation introduced with GPM in 2008; dimensioned bars with end nodes are used to denote activities, and activities are connected with multiple-arrow links through their end nodes or embedded nodes to model FS dependencies or PDM dependencies, respectively 1/28/2015
GPM: transitioning to a Planner’s ideology
15
Before PDM and the PC, Planning was a Collaborative Process and Typically Executed on a Surface Surface: large sheet of butcher’s paper taped to a drafting board or wall
Collaborative: stakeholders worked on the evolving plan until a “Logic Diagram” was created 1/28/2015
GPM: transitioning to a Planner’s ideology
16
Before PDM and the PC, Planning was a Collaborative Process and Typically Executed on a Surface (Cont’d)
Scheduling: followed on a computer – not on the planning surface. These software applications did not draw the logic diagram, just the activities and their durations 1/28/2015
GPM: transitioning to a Planner’s ideology
17
GPM Alternative to Logic Charts
1/28/2015
GPM: transitioning to a Planner’s ideology
18
The GPM Technology Breakthroughs
Technology comprised of an “object-base” graphical user interface based on the logic diagramming method (LDM), GPM algorithms and GPM/LDM rules 1/28/2015
GPM: transitioning to a Planner’s ideology
19
The GPM Technology Breakthroughs
With GPM technology, every addition/ revision/improvement made to the schedule is transparent and in real time 1/28/2015
GPM: transitioning to a Planner’s ideology
20
The GPM Technology Breakthroughs Both GPM and LDM are innately functional in the computing paradigm popularized by tablets and smart phones (touch screens)
1/28/2015
GPM: transitioning to a Planner’s ideology
21
Showcased GPM Breakthrough #1: Planners Can Drive Activity Dates After Early Dates Without Using Start Constraints
1/28/2015
GPM: transitioning to a Planner’s ideology
22
Showcased GPM Breakthrough #2: Total Floats Left of the Data Date Because GPM calculates total floats as of 31 Jan 13 both before and beyond the data date, GPM algorithmically identifies the critical path left of the data date
Data date (DD), the update closing date, splits the updated schedule between the progressed (as-built) portion left of the DD and the forecast portion right of the DD 1/28/2015
GPM: transitioning to a Planner’s ideology
23
GPM offers the following to project stakeholders responsible for delivering the project Facilitates stakeholder collaboration Network a project by graphically positioning activities on a time scale Using a variety of simple intuitive logic ties to convey relationships No stakeholder is left behind Shared ownership of the plan Control reverts to all stakeholders not just CPM scheduling software technician 1/28/2015
GPM: transitioning to a Planner’s ideology
24
Advantage: Re-engages Visual Planning Methodology on Project Teams - Collaborate
1/28/2015
GPM: transitioning to a Planner’s ideology
25
Advantage: Restores Intuitiveness and Flexibility in Planning Methodology 1/28/2015
GPM: transitioning to a Planner’s ideology
26
Advantage: Represents, Visually and Technically Accurate, the Project Team’s Vision 1/28/2015
GPM: transitioning to a Planner’s ideology
27
CPM VS. GPM: A SUMMARIZED COMPARISON
1/28/2015
28
Activities, Events and Relationships GPM
CPM/PDM SS + 2
FF + 3
Source: PMBOK Fourth Edition, p 139
Activity-on-Link aka Logic Diagramming Method
Activity-on-Node─ Precedence Diagramming
Activities Have Start & Finish Nodes
Activities Commonly Are Boxes Without Nodes
Milestones are Stand-Alone Events
Milestones are Stand-Alone Events
Benchmarks are Zero-Total Float Milestones
Milestones with Equal SNE & FNL Constraints
A Common Node or Link Conveys FS Logic
A Separate Link Needed to Convey Each Logic Tie, Whether FS Logic or SS, FF or SF Logic (i.e., as Many Links as Relationships)
A Separate Link Needed to Convey SS & FF Logic
1/28/2015
CPM vs. GPM: a summarized comparison
29
Summary of Contrasting GPM & CPM Fundamentals GPM
CPM with Logic Gantt Charts
Time-scaled LDM networks innately convey PDM logic
Gantt charts with logic ties fail to convey logical flow
Stakeholders, not the algorithm, drive activity dates
Reliance on CPM algorithms biases activities to early dates
Constraints are not needed to start activities on planned dates
Constraints are required to start activities on planned dates
Planned dates do not supersede early dates, which conserves drift
SNE* constraints supersede CPM early dates, forfeiting drift
If planned start > early start and < late start, drift and float exist
Drift is always 0; If early start < late start, total float exists
Link gap measures logic tie leeway (different from free float)
Logic tie leeway is not a concept in CPM
SNE constraints are reserved for contractually-imposed dates
Does not distinguish planned dates from constrained dates
The schedule can be generated either forward or backward, or both
The schedule can only be generated forward from the project start event
Total floats are algorithmically calculated left of the data date
Total floats are only available forward of the data date
The as-built critical path is calculated left of the data date
As-built critical path cannot be calculated by the CPM algorithms alone
Stakeholder strategies in context are key in resource leveling
Automated software heuristics drive resource leveling
Capable of modeling floating & pacing risks in simulation
Early dates bias does not allow modeling of floating or pacing risks
1/28/2015
CPM vs. GPM: a summarized comparison
30
GPM: A BID FOR FULL-FLEDGED ADOPTION
1/28/2015
31
Testimonial from Virginia Tech Prof. de la Garza
“
I have been using NetPoint and GPM in my project controls classes for a few years now. NetPoint is intuitive for the students and they don’t have to struggle with the tool in order to build quality network schedules. In fact, NetPoint’s combined time scale and Logic Diagramming Method (LDM) create a much clearer graphical representation of the schedule than other scheduling tools. Students can concentrate on learning quality scheduling rather than learning a scheduling software tool.
”
Jesus M. de la Garza, PhD Vecellio Professor of Construction Engineering & Management Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering Virginia Tech - Civil and Environmental Engineering
1/28/2015
GPM: a bid for full-fledged adoption
32
“I have wondered how, given the diverging routes that planners, schedulers, project managers, owners, and educators are taking, we will ever again bring to projects the kind of synergistic creativity known in the early days.” James J. O’Brien, Foreword to Faster Construction Projects with CPM Scheduling, by Murray B. Woolf. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2007).
To me, the loss of the logic diagram has been the unrecognized tragedy … …your GPM brings it back full circle.
1/28/2015
GPM: a bid for full-fledged adoption
33
Level 1 Plan at a “Mature” State
GPM: a bid for full-fledged adoption
Start-Up Planning (Sample)
Objectives: 1. Finish validations prior to construction impacting the facility 2. Minimize Resources GPM: a bid for full-fledged adoption
Master Planning (Sample)
• • •
Two-hour session to align time of projects Cost Loaded based on initial estimates Real-time analysis of construction timing and cost plans
GPM: a bid for full-fledged adoption
Early GPM Adopters Organization
1/28/2015
Since
GC/CM
Gilbane Building Company
2009
Electric Utility
Manitoba Hydro
2009
Pharmaceutical
Merck & Company
2009
Owner/Governmental
US Army Corps of Engineers
2009
Academic
Virginia Tech University
2009
GC/CM
Walbridge
2010
Owner
Walt Disney Company
2010
EPC Contractor
Bechtel
2010
Pharmaceutical
Medimmune
2011
Pharmaceutical
Johnson & Johnson
2011
EPC Contractor
Jacobs Engineering
2011
Supplier
Invensys
2011
A/E Consultant
Stantec Consulting
2011
PM/CM Consultant
ORCAS Project Controls
2011
Fusion Development
ITER Organization
2011
Biofuels
Butamax
2011
GC/CM
Kenny Construction
2012
GC/CM
Hoffman Construction
2012
Producer Oil & Gas
MEG Energy
2012
Owner
Port Authority of New York & New Jersey
2013
GPM: a bid for full-fledged adoption
37
GPM Literature by Dr. Gui Mitigating the Planning Fallacy Risked Schedules, the New Normal 2013 NetPoint User Conference, new Orleans, LA (PowerPoint) Scheduling, Fast and Slow, Algorithms and intuitions
2012 NetPoint User Conference, Orlando, FL (PowerPoint)
GPM Deep Dive, Master the Algorithms
2012 NetPoint User Conference, Orlando, FL (PowerPoint)
Scheduling a Project at Different Levels
2011 PMI College of Scheduling Conference, San Francisco, CA
Guide to the Forensic Scheduling Body of Knowledge Part I
2010 with G. Jentzen, D. Fredlund, D. Field & P. Spittler
GPM® and Forensic Total Float
Selected by PMI College of Scheduling for presentation at 2010 PMI Global Congress, Washington, DC
GPM® and Forensic Total Float
2010 PMI College of Scheduling Conference, Calgary, CAN
Graphical Planning Method™
July 2009 in the CM eJournal
GPM®: A Networking Method Anchored on Objectbase Principles
2009 PMI College of Scheduling Conference, Boston, MA
Project Planning Using Logic Diagramming Method
2008 AACE International Conference, Toronto, CAN
Graphical Planning Method (A New Network‐Based Planning/Scheduling Paradigm)
2008 PMI College of Scheduling Conference, Chicago, IL
An Algorithmic Dissection of Graphical Path Method (GPM®) Float, Drift and Total Float in Comparison to CPM Total Float
Mather, T. & Liu, L. (2011). PMI College of Scheduling Conference, San Francisco, CA
From Asymmetry to Transparency in Project Planning
Mather, T. (2010). PMI College of Scheduling Conference, Calgary, CAN
History and Future of Time‐Scaled Planning
Zann, J. & Mather, T. (2009). PMI College of Scheduling Conference, Boston, MA
GPM Literature by Other Authors
1/28/2015
GPM: a bid for full-fledged adoption
38
GPM: A REAL LIFE STORY (CASE STUDY)
1/28/2015
39
Interactive Planning Assignment PMA Consultants: Pharmaceutical Solutions Project – South Carolina, USA
• Key Observations & Considerations: – Design Uncertainties – Design Constructability not Performed – Limited Project Team and End Users Interaction – Q&V Strategy Not Communicated nor Finalized
1/28/2015
GPM: a real life story (case study)
40
Interactive Planning Assignment PMA Consultants: Pharmaceutical Solutions Project – South Carolina, USA
• Key Observations & Considerations: – Schedule High Risk Items: • Permit Agency will review storm water runoff prevention plan for the entire facility due to proposed additions • Limited Readiness on Production Line (post PQ) • Facilities Qualification (post Line PQ) – potential 2nd cycle for PV
– Schedule Med Risk Item: • Design omission of a sump and/or tank and its location could prevent foundations work from starting due to land-locked condition at building site 1/28/2015
GPM: a real life story (case study)
41
1/28/2015
GPM: a real life story (case study)
42
1/28/2015
GPM: a real life story (case study)
43
1/28/2015
GPM: a real life story (case study)
44
Q & A 1/28/2015
45
Thank You Noel Alvarez, PMP, LEED AP PMA Consultants Principal Truth in Scheduling™
1/28/2015
46