PERT – What’s in a name?

I could choose to call the image at the top of this page a tennis ball – it is about the right shape and is a bright colour, but if I chose to do so all that results is confusion! The name we call things matters because it communicates what we are talking about to our audience.

Over the last week we have been dragged into a number of Linked-In discussions focused on questions such as ‘Do you use PERT?’ Partly as a result of our latest blog on the PMBOK 5th Edition  and also because Mosaic Project Services (and particularly Patrick) has a high profile writing about scheduling history.

The overriding conclusion from the debates we’ve witnessed is no-one knows for sure who is saying what. Each user of the term PERT may be referring to a Network Diagram, a Monte Carlo simulation, some other simulation or the actual PERT technique developed in the 1950s. If the basic premise of the debate is not clearly defined the net result is a lot of noise and no possibility of reaching a conclusion of consensus – in exactly the same way as playing tennis using the ‘ball’ pictured above, all you end up with is a mess.

I’m not sure why so many organisations and people chose to use names that have a very specific meaning completely out of context but it seems increasingly commonplace:

• it may simply be a lack of awareness, assisted by seeing many similar incorrect usages of the name;
• it may be a desire to look clever by using technical jargon, which of course backfires big-time as soon as someone who knows hears the misuse;
• it may be an overt commercial move to trade off a well know ‘brand’ to make a tool or offering seem better than it is.

What is important to consider though, is apart from the first option none of the other factors are ethical behaviour and all of the factors destroy effective communication.

To help bring some level of knowledge into the discussions around PERT, we have published a White Paper today on ‘Understanding PERT’.  This paper outlines exactly what PERT is and was, identifies the shortcomings in the technique and delineates what PERT ‘is not’ and the reasons why. After everyone has understood what PERT is and is not, let the debates continue but this time with the effective communication of ideas between the protagonists, ie, a communication in which the receiver actually understand what the sender is meaning.

The alternative was effectively described by Robert McCloskey, a US State Department Spokesman several years ago ‘I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realise that what you heard is not what I meant!’  Effective communication needs a mutual understanding of the terms used.

Download the White Paper

Project Time Management Workshops for Planners & Schedulers

We are pleased to be part of the team launching the Project Time Management Certificate (PTMC) in Australasia. Mosaic’s Project Time Management Workshops are designed to:
- Offer a practical one-day scheduling and planning course.
- Underpin studies for the CIOB PTMC examination.
- Start a Blended training course for the PMI-SP credential.

In cooperation with the Chartered Institute of Building, Mosaic will be running a series of practical 1 Day Project Time Management Workshops that will be followed by a PTMC examination conducted by CIOB in the same city a few weeks later. Our first workshop will be held in Canberra as part of the Project Governance and Controls Symposium on the 9th & 10th April:
- Project Time Management Workshop – 9th April
- Free Controls Professional networking evening – 9th April (follows workshop)
- Project Governance and Controls Symposium – 10th April
- PTMC Examination – 4th May

These events are designed to re-frame project controls in Australia and provide an on-going forum for cross-industry, cross-association, cross-discipline discussions to advance the status and understanding of project controls. 2013 is the foundation year for what is planned to be a regular annual event.

The PTM Workshop is a valuable 1 Day course as well as providing a foundation leading to professional credentials.

Unlike the PMI-SP credential which requires formal training and a minimum of 3 years of experience for a candidate to be eligible for the examination, the PTMC is designed as a rigorous knowledge test that is open to anyone. Potential candidates can choose to self-study or take a course or any combination that works for them:

The PTMC is designed to provide experienced schedulers with proof they understand their discipline and offer graduates and others wishing to become a scheduler an opportunity to learn the art and skills associated with being a professional planner and scheduler – there is far more to the profession than simply using software!

More information:
- The PTMC Credential.
- PTM workshops (full schedule of dates).
- Book into the Canberra PTM workshop.
- Book into the free networking evening  (scroll down page – cash bar)
- Join us at the Project Governance and Controls Symposium.

The Symposium and networking events are underwritten by the not-for-profit PM Global Foundation and apart from physical costs, all of the income from the PTM workshop will be used to help develop this important initiative. We look forward to your support.

The UN/CEFACT format for project data

The UN/CEFACT format for project data is an XML schema that standardizes schedule, cost, and earned value data from organization to organization no matter the software used to input the information.

UN/CEFACT is a subcommittee of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). It is an official intergovernmental standards organisation connected to ISO. The goal of the UN/CEFACT is to improve worldwide cooperation by facilitating trade and electronic business by developing international EDI (Electronic Data Interchange) standards for electronic trade documents in XML format.

UN/CEFACT XML is the current data standard used for an Integrated Program Management Report (IPMR). The US Department of Defense implement this standard via Format 6 of DI-MGMT-81861. The IPMR’s primary value to the Government is its utility in reflecting current contract status and projecting future contract performance. It will be used by the DoD component staff, including program managers, engineers, cost estimators, and financial management personnel, as a basis for communicating performance status with the contractor.

The DoD IPMR contains data for measuring cost and schedule performance on acquisition contracts. It is structured around seven formats that contain the content and relationships required for the electronic submissions.
Format 1 defines cost and schedule performance data by product oriented Work Breakdown Structure (WBS).
Format 2 defines cost and schedule performance data by the contractor’s organizational structure (e.g., Functional or Integrated Product Team (IPT)).
Format 3 defines changes to the Performance Measurement Baseline (PMB).
Format 4 defines staffing forecasts.
Format 5 is a narrative report used to provide the required analysis of data contained in Formats 1 to 4 and 6.
Format 6 defines and contains the contractor’s Integrated Master Schedule (IMS).
Format 7 defines the time-phased historical & forecast cost submission.

With this weight of interest and support, the UN/CEFACT format for project data will become increasingly important and already a number of organizations, including Acumen are now offering a free, web-based file converter to translate proprietary schedule information into the XML format (see: http://www.projectacumen.com/news-item/acumen-launches-un-cefact-file-converter/).

At the moment the UN/CEFACT format seems to be used by clients to receive and compare project data from contractors or tenders. But I expect before long, the concept of data exchange will take hold and importing the XML file will become a standard feature on most main-line tools; however, a word of warning!

A consistent file format is not the same as a consistent analytical outcome. Different tools, different versions of the same tool and different switch settings within a singe tool can produce significant variations in the calculated results from identical data. To quote Fredric L. Plotnick, Ph.D., Esq., P.E. “Choose your Software – Choose your Options – Choose your Results”. Identical data formatting does not mean identical analysis results. We have a long way to go for standardized data analysis. For more on the analytical challenges see: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/PDF/Schedule_Calculations.pdf

Why are schedules failing?

There seems to be fairly wide consensus that the modern practice of scheduling is not delivering the results needed to help projects succeed.

My feeling is that with a few notable exceptions the underpinning ideas of the Critical Path Method (CPM) of scheduling developed in the 1950s and 60s have been forgotten and most software and most scheduling practice uses ideas from the 18th century.

The concept of Bar Charts was developed in the 18th century (or possibly earlier). Joseph Priestley (1733-1804) published his ‘Chart of Biography’:

He is quoted as saying “…a longer or a shorter space of time may be most commodiously and advantageously represented by a longer or a shorter line.”

A few years later a full range of modern charts were published by William Playfair (1759-1823) in his ‘Commercial and Political Atlas’ of 1786:

By the end of the 19th century sophisticated barcharts appear to have been in general use (at least in Europe – the project below was built in 1910):

For more on the early development of scheduling see A Brief History of Scheduling.

Henry Gantt developed his production management systems for factories in the early part of the 20th century with a range of charts designed as production monitoring and control tools:

Importantly Gantt did not use simple bar charts and had no interest in one-off projects. He was focused on machine shop efficiency and production quotas:

For more on his work see: Henry L. Gantt – A Retrospective view of his work.

CPM and PERT were invented in 1957 as computer based analytic models:

Importantly, in both systems, planning the logic and entering the information into the computer precedes calculating the schedule. Both CPM and PERT used ADM networks:

The ‘precedence diagram’ (PDM) network was published in 1961 as a simplified manual process to make CPM available to people without access to expensive mainframe computer time – in the PDM system as published drawing the logic diagram also precedes calculating the schedule.

There is no question CPM offered significant advantages over the traditional bar charts that had been in use for more that 100 years. In my view, the major advance that generated the improved project outcomes was the need to think through the work logically, focusing on the activities and sequence of work before any attempt to schedule the project was possible. This was equally true of both the mainframe systems and the manual systems in use through the 1960s and 70s. James Kelley (co-inventor of CPM) had a very similar view.

The same concept of good practice is embedded in the PMBOK® Guide. The separate processes in the 5th Edition are:
6.1 – Plan schedule
6.2 – Define Activities
6.3 – Sequence Activities
6.4 – Estimate Resources
6.5 – Estimate Durations
6.6 – Develop Schedule
6.7 – Control Schedule

CPM was recognised as an improvement on bar chart planning! So my question is: If CPM scheduling is supposed to be a logical process why do so many scheduling tools default to, and planners work from, 250 year old Bar Charts? Is this the cause of scheduling failures?

There are tools around that default to creating the schedule logic in a network diagram but they are in the minority. I will be discussing one of these at the Construction CPM conference in New Orleans later this month (see: http://www.constructioncpm.com/). Micro Planner X-Pert is a true CPM System that supports the PMBOK® Guide schedule development process:

And lets you chose the networking style PDM or ADM:

For more on Micro Planner see: http://www.microplanning.com.au/

But back to the key question, is scheduling failing through lack of skills and training, a lack of knowledge, poor techniques focused on 250 year old bar charts or some other reason?

The 15,000 articles a month downloaded from our planning resource page, suggest a strong interest in planning and scheduling but this interest does not seem to be reflected in the status or planners or project outcomes. I look forward to the discussions….

Henry Gantt – Debunking the myths

It may come as a big surprise to many, but Henry L. Gantt did not invent bar charts despite many people miss labelling them ‘Gantt Charts’ and he had nothing to do with developing project management!

This definitive paper highlights the origins of bar charts in Scotland in the 18th century and looks at Gantt’s real work in manufacturing – when you have finished reading it, I hope you will agree the following myths should be ‘busted’ once and for all:

Misconception #1 Henry Gantt developed ‘Bar Charts’ – Fact, bar charts were developed 100 years before Gantt, his charts were sophisticated production control tools, not simple representations of activities over time.

Misconception #2 Henry Gantt contributed to the development of ‘project management’ – Fact, Gantt’s work was in machine shops and factories focused on batch production and factory throughput. Many of his ideas can be adapted to modern project management but Gantt sought to eliminate ‘one-off’ jobs that could not be batched and managed efficiently.

Read the full paper in the December edition of PM World Journal at: http://pmworldjournal.net/?article=henry-l-gantt-1861-1919-debunking-the-myths-a-retrospective-view-of-his-work

Is this Start-to-Finish calculation correct?

I have recently been approached to help with an answer to the following PMP or PMI-SP type of question:

Activity A has a duration of 5, Activity B has a duration of 10, they are connected with a SF link from A to B (no lag). What is the total float for Activity A?

The basic construct of any link is that lags (or leads) create overlap. If the link was a FS link from B to A, B would finish at the end of time period ‘10’ A would start at the beginning of ‘11’. Therefore changing to a SF link, the start of A on ‘11’ is allowed because B finishes at the end of ‘10’. This makes sense, if permanent power is connected ready for use on Thursday morning; you can finish with the temporary generators on Wednesday night (unless you choose to specify an overlap, ie impose a lag).

However, the function of a link is to control the performance of the successor (not the predecessor). This raises a number of logical possibilities.

Option 1: Activity A has no predecessors, therefore it should start at ‘1’ and no successors therefore it should finish at ‘5’ and this applies to both the forward pass and the back pass meaning the Total Float is 0.

Option 2: Activity A has no predecessors, therefore it should start at ‘1’ and no successors, but the Late Finish is derived from the latest finish of the schedule. Therefor the Early Dates are 1 and 5 and the Late Dates are 10 and 6 giving a Total Float of 5.

Option 3: The SF link operates in the reverse direction and therefore A follows B and the ES and LS of A is ‘11’ therefore Total Float is 0

Option 4: The calculation option shown above where the forward pass and back pass are calculated using different methods.

The way I believe SF link calculations work correctly is set out on page 11 of our paper ‘Basic CPM Calculations’ downloadable from: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/PDF/Schedule_Calculations.pdf Based on this, my view is the link operates from A to B therefore Option 1 applies in the absence of any instruction to allow the schedule to ‘float to the longest path’. The consequence of this would be for B to have a negative float of 10 days.

However, I have a nasty suspicion though the question setter is looking for Option 4 as the answer. What do you think the correct calculation should be and importantly why?

_____________________________________

Dec. 11th: Thanks for the discussion below and comments via email.

Based on the problem as presented and a careful review of the comments, I believe the correct answer is:

If the network was properly constructed with a finish milestone and both activities linked to the milestone, the link would still be redundant, but the Float on A would be 5 as per Paul Giammalvo’s example below (the same result would occur if the scheduling option was set to float all ‘ends’ to the latest EF (float-to-longest-path) .

Note: Paul uses a different positioning convention for Early and Late dates.

Launch of the Project Time Management Qualification (PTMQ) Framework in Australia

The free CIOB event scheduled for the 15th November in Melbourne will be the de facto launch of the CIOB PTMQ Framework in Australia covering the various routes to the Project Time Management Certificate (PTMC) examination. Depending on interest, training courses and examinations can be organised wherever there are sufficient numbers.

The PTMC has no prerequisites – whist the examination is rigorous, formal training courses are optional, experienced schedulers in particular may choose the self-study option.

The PTMQ framework is part of an overall strategy developed by the CIOB to improve project outcomes and address widely held misconceptions about the role of effective time management within project management.

As a starting point, effective time management, the courses and the credentials have nothing to do with tools. In exactly the same way a car is a means for a skilled driver to implement his/her objective, scheduling software is a means for a skilled scheduler to implement effective time management. Unfortunately most schedulers are taught how to run tools and virtually nothing about what planning and scheduling is supposed to achieve.

We all know a significant proportion of projects run late and many that finish on time have been de-scoped. The process led by the CIOB has been focused on defining the problem and building practical solutions to address these issues that cause $billions to be wasted on projects every year. The overall solution that is nearing completion includes:

• Publication in 2011 of the CIOB Guide to the management of time in complex projects.
• Development of a new form of contract for complex projects due for publication later this year.
• Development of the PTMQ framework, officially launched on the 1st November
• Running a sustained campaign to raise awareness of the importance of effective time management in achieving value from an investment in a project.

PTMC fills a major void in the publicly available project management qualifications. The certification tests a persons understanding of effective time management and is designed for people entering a project scheduling role. For the first time project managers, PMO managers and HR departments can require an impartial assessment of a job candidates understanding of the role of project scheduling in the successful delivery of projects!

Existing ‘time management’ qualifications either require years of experience prior to the candidate being eligible to sit the examination or are tools focused and simply certify the person knows how to ‘push buttons’ to make the designated software ‘go’.

PTMC complements these existing qualifications at the entry level, focusing on the objectives of good scheduling practice to support tools focused skills (you cannot do effective scheduling without the tools). Additionally, PTMC provides a stepping stone towards the more advanced certifications either within the CIOB framework or others such as the PMI-SP.

If you are based in Melbourne we look forward to seeing you on Thursday 15th November, to register and anyone else interested in this exciting development see: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/Training-CIOB-TM_Credential.html

CIOB launches Project Time Management Certificate

The Chartered Institute of Building has launched its Project Time Management Qualification (PTMQ) framework upon which the CIOB will assess and accredit Project Time Management professionals placing CIOB at the forefront of establishing the premier industry standard in planning, scheduling and project control.

The first element of the framework, the Project Time Management Certificate (PTMC) was launched at a gala function in London, by the CIOB President last week. Unlike existing certifications, this qualification is focused on assessing the candidates knowledge of practical project time management.   It is designed for new entrants to planning and scheduling as well as those who are already engaged in the management of time on projects. Holders of the PTMC will have demonstrated a rigorous understanding of the practice that underpins project planning and scheduling.

The launch of the PTMQ framework moves CIOB one step close to completing a five year strategy to provide standard education, training and accreditation in time management.

Back in 2008 CIOB research found that 67% of complex building projects were late. Of those delayed 13% were more than 3 months and 18% over 6 months. This finding prompted the CIOB to embark upon the development and publication in 2011 of the CIOB Guide to Good Practice in the Management of Time in Complex Projects which sets down the process and standards to be achieved in preparing and managing a time model.

The Guide underpins the new CIOB contract for the management of complex projects due for publication later this year, and the PTMQ framework for assessing and accrediting the Project Time Management professionals required as part of the CIOB contract.

The PTMC examination is open to CIOB members and non-members, those who have gone through Project Time Management training or those who have self-studied. It will appeal to anyone looking for a relevant and credible qualification in project time management. And in combination with the forthcoming Practitioner (PTMP) and Specialist (PTMS) credentials, it will offer a project time management qualification structure that will provide a progressive development path based on assessment of skills, knowledge and experience in planning, scheduling and project controls.

Mosaic is the exclusive CIOB partner for delivery of training in Australia and New Zealand, with rights to deliver training throughout the wider region. We are currently working on a planned series of public workshops and examinations commencing in Q1 of 2013. Courses and/or examinations can also be arranged for organised groups. For more information on this exciting development see: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/Training-CIOB-TM_Credential.html

UK and European readers contact: http://www.athenaprojectservices.com/

The Effective Management of Time – Free event 15th November

Despite the completion of many successful projects, research by the CIOB has found that many complex and mega projects fail to adequately manage time despite financial penalties. In response to these findings, the CIOB has developed the Guide to Good Practice in the Management of Time in Complex Projects (The Guide) supported by new contract forms and time management qualifications.

The CIOB Victorian Centre in conjunction with AIPM will host a free event on the 15th including my up-date on these important developments followed by networking and drinks.

Download the CIOB_Nov-12_Event Flyer (places are limited)

See more on the presentation.

Scheduling Training

Mosaic offers a range of scheduling training options primarily focused on achieving a pass in a specified examination, see: Credential Training  (and you have to pay for these!!)

Murray Woolf, a colleague of many years is offering you an opportunity to study the mechanics of CPM free of charge! All you need to buy is the base text used in the study……

If you don’t thoroughly understand how CPM works, you are at the mercy of you software and most tools get the mechanics wrong to a greater or lesser extent. This is not a simple subject! Our paper on Schedule Calculations took over two years and input from more than a dozen experts (including Murray) to settle on the current assessment of ‘correct’ CPM calculations.

Murray’s book CPM MECHANICS takes this analysis much further and focuses on how the mechanics affect the practice of CPM scheduling. His free symposium (or paid course) uses the book as its foundation text and works through the text to build a deep understanding of our practice.

You can choose between a free study session or a full course for $500 including PDUs – its a ‘free’ choice.

Why are we promoting this course? Simply because our exam prep courses do not go deeply into the mechanics of the CPM process – it is not a requirement of the examination specifications and the courses are focused on getting you through the exam!

But I personally believe developing a CPM schedule without a good understanding of ‘CPM mechanics’ is as dangerous as driving a car with no idea of ‘vehicle mechanics’. You are perfectly OK until something starts to go wrong and then you are helpless. Murray’s course won’t help you change a tyre or fix a fan belt but it will help you understand and fix broken schedules, and more importantly help you avoid getting into trouble in the first place! For more information see: Murray’s Course Information Page