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