Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Framing
Dry wall
Taping
Painting
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
(a)
8
9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Framing
Dry wall
Taping
Painting
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
(b)
Framing
Dry wall
Taping
Painting
Constraint
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
(c)
Figure 7.2 (a) Four overlapping activities, planned to take 14 days overall; (b) when
updating, the Framing activity is taking 2 more days than planned, triggering a 2-day delay in
its successors; (c) when updating, the Framing activity is proceeding as planned, but the
start of the Painting activity is deliberately delayed
updates that is too long and one that is too short. The former case may yield negative
consequences such as the following:
•
Waiting too long to update a schedule may eliminate the effectiveness of updat-
ing as a control tool. By the time work progress is reported and analyzed,
managers may not have the time or opportunity to take corrective action. This
factor can be demotivating for them.
•
The amount of work progress that occurred during the period may overwhelm
the scheduler. Also, the superintendent or project manager may forget some
information, such as when an activity actually started or finished, if the activity
occurred a month ago and was not formally documented.
•
Having a long reporting period may encourage procrastinators to put off cor-
rective measures by using the logic, “We'll do it later. There is plenty of time.”
Conversely, a reporting period that is too short may be costly in terms of time
consumption, overhead, and reporting costs. It may also become a nuisance to the
management team.
Typically, the frequency of updating increases at certain times, such as in the last
month or two of a project or during a “crunch time” (e.g., before a deadline).
Search WWH ::
Custom Search