Updating the schedule with progress

I am looking for help in identifying the best way to update a schedule
for progress on a weekly basis. At the moment where I work we are just
updating the dates and adding a % complete.
However, I now think that it would be more realistic to do the
following each week:
Request a new finish date for any tasks that are already in progress
Request an updated start date and duration of any tasks that should
have started.
Then update progress on the tasks through to the current date.

I feel that this shows that tasks are taking longer for example and
shows visibility of where the project is running late.

I know that some people update the % complete and then re-schedule but
we are reliant on our subcontractors updates and we need to be given
finish dates from them really in order to notify another subcontractor
when they can start a successor activity for example.

Does any body have any views on this or an example of an updating
process that you use.

Thanks in advance for any views on this.

Andy

Sarah
Wed Mar 09 07:39:09 CST 2005

The only thing I would add is that, when you get a new finish date from
a sub, don't just enter the date in the Finish field. Modify the
Duration field until the Finish field shows the date you were given.
This will avoid putting a constraint on the task, but will move out
successor tasks.

wolseley6
Wed Mar 09 15:20:03 CST 2005

"Sarah" <sarahkiko@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<1110375549.756085.218120@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
> The only thing I would add is that, when you get a new finish date from
> a sub, don't just enter the date in the Finish field. Modify the
> Duration field until the Finish field shows the date you were given.
> This will avoid putting a constraint on the task, but will move out
> successor tasks.


Yes, agree entirely. I have avoided as many constraints as possible
anyway and don't wish to start introducing them.

The only problem I have now is that the subs as such are feeling
exposed by this as it obviously gives more visibility of their
activity. Ideally we should be using an EPM tool (Project Server
perhaps).
This is a large programme I am working on and to be honest is very
badly set up for scheduling. So, I have tried to set up the process as
mentioned in order to lessen the burdon on what info the subs have to
provide to me on a weekly basis.

Any views on this?

Andy

haixiang
Wed Mar 09 20:03:04 CST 2005

To update progress for large project is really difficult.
hope my story helps.
the management group for the project prepared the master schedule.
the master schedule contain more than 6000 tasks.
Subs were responsible to make their detail construction schedule based on
the master schedule. for example there was a task (Task A start on day1 and
finish on day100),subcontractor will make a schedule with tasks
A1,A2,A3.....An( A1 start on day1 and An finish on day100, so they are the
children of task A). we established a numbering system with it we can easily
identify the tasks in master schedule to their "children" in subs schedule,
then we can summarize progress info. of these "children" to the tasks in
master schedule.
All subs detail tasks add up to about 100000,and we update on a weekly basis.
Every week all subs are required to submit their updated detail schedules to
us.
Thanks to the numbering system, we can update our master schedule
automatically by using the data from the subs.
After update, we perform a analysis (critical path report), and then have a
meeting with all subs to tell them what they need to do,what they need to
take care.

In fact the subs can only give us the summarised tasks,we seldom review
those 100000 tasks, we just summarise them and update our master schedule.

So if your subs do not like to give you detail, tell them to give you a
summary which can meet your needs. (ensure the summary match your master
tasks or it will be difficult to update your schedule based on those
summarys)

At that time we use Privamera, it has the ability to make all subs'
schedules into a single project group, just as we insert subproject in a
master project in MSP. let subs to update their schedule and we can see the
result in the master schedule. But we did not do this, it will take hours to
just open the project. And it is impossible for the project management group
to set up the links between those 100000 tasks from dozens of different
contractors


"Andy" wrote:

> "Sarah" <sarahkiko@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<1110375549.756085.218120@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
> > The only thing I would add is that, when you get a new finish date from
> > a sub, don't just enter the date in the Finish field. Modify the
> > Duration field until the Finish field shows the date you were given.
> > This will avoid putting a constraint on the task, but will move out
> > successor tasks.
>
>
> Yes, agree entirely. I have avoided as many constraints as possible
> anyway and don't wish to start introducing them.
>
> The only problem I have now is that the subs as such are feeling
> exposed by this as it obviously gives more visibility of their
> activity. Ideally we should be using an EPM tool (Project Server
> perhaps).
> This is a large programme I am working on and to be honest is very
> badly set up for scheduling. So, I have tried to set up the process as
> mentioned in order to lessen the burdon on what info the subs have to
> provide to me on a weekly basis.
>
> Any views on this?
>
> Andy
>

wolseley6
Thu Mar 10 02:24:18 CST 2005

"=?Utf-8?B?SGFpeGlhbmc=?=" <haixiang.zhang@mw-zander.com> wrote in message news:<AAFEA4B4-E29E-4771-BA5A-18D1C3F1C952@microsoft.com>...
> To update progress for large project is really difficult.
> hope my story helps.
> the management group for the project prepared the master schedule.
> the master schedule contain more than 6000 tasks.
> Subs were responsible to make their detail construction schedule based on
> the master schedule. for example there was a task (Task A start on day1 and
> finish on day100),subcontractor will make a schedule with tasks
> A1,A2,A3.....An( A1 start on day1 and An finish on day100, so they are the
> children of task A). we established a numbering system with it we can easily
> identify the tasks in master schedule to their "children" in subs schedule,
> then we can summarize progress info. of these "children" to the tasks in
> master schedule.
> All subs detail tasks add up to about 100000,and we update on a weekly basis.
> Every week all subs are required to submit their updated detail schedules to
> us.
> Thanks to the numbering system, we can update our master schedule
> automatically by using the data from the subs.
> After update, we perform a analysis (critical path report), and then have a
> meeting with all subs to tell them what they need to do,what they need to
> take care.
>
> In fact the subs can only give us the summarised tasks,we seldom review
> those 100000 tasks, we just summarise them and update our master schedule.
>
> So if your subs do not like to give you detail, tell them to give you a
> summary which can meet your needs. (ensure the summary match your master
> tasks or it will be difficult to update your schedule based on those
> summarys)
>
> At that time we use Privamera, it has the ability to make all subs'
> schedules into a single project group, just as we insert subproject in a
> master project in MSP. let subs to update their schedule and we can see the
> result in the master schedule. But we did not do this, it will take hours to
> just open the project. And it is impossible for the project management group
> to set up the links between those 100000 tasks from dozens of different
> contractors
>
>
> "Andy" wrote:
>
> > "Sarah" <sarahkiko@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<1110375549.756085.218120@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
> > > The only thing I would add is that, when you get a new finish date from
> > > a sub, don't just enter the date in the Finish field. Modify the
> > > Duration field until the Finish field shows the date you were given.
> > > This will avoid putting a constraint on the task, but will move out
> > > successor tasks.
> >
> >
> > Yes, agree entirely. I have avoided as many constraints as possible
> > anyway and don't wish to start introducing them.
> >
> > The only problem I have now is that the subs as such are feeling
> > exposed by this as it obviously gives more visibility of their
> > activity. Ideally we should be using an EPM tool (Project Server
> > perhaps).
> > This is a large programme I am working on and to be honest is very
> > badly set up for scheduling. So, I have tried to set up the process as
> > mentioned in order to lessen the burdon on what info the subs have to
> > provide to me on a weekly basis.
> >
> > Any views on this?
> >
> > Andy
> >


Thanks for this; really helpfull actually.
Our subcontractors are insisting at the moment that they cannot
possibly update their schedules weekly. They have such a detailed
process that it takes a month to get through. However, I have yet to
see a usefull update once a month to be honest!
So, this causes us a huge problem; by the time we have an update from
them it is useless as it is already out of date and any risks we
should be mitigating have already occurred and turned into issues!

In order to try and reach a compromise we have set up a top-level
schedule with tasks from all parties summarised (aligned with xref to
uniqueID's) and linked together. We only expect them to report on
tasks that are currently in progress or should have started on a
weekly basis and then a review of the entire schedule once a month.
This was an attempt to try and reduce the burdon on them but is
obviously not ideal. This is still a problem for them!
I have now suggested that even an update based on a perception from
their Project Managers on the summary tasks weekly would do, but they
still argue that this cannot be done!

We have some phases of the programme that are expected to be complete
in 6 months time and just having 6 updates I think is inadequate.

Does anybody disagree/agree with my approach?

Thanks again,

Andy.

p.s. This was my first time at this newsgroup yesterday; fantastic to
have these responses. Think it might prevent me going mad; we are
having some major problems at the moment!!!

doniy
Thu Mar 10 18:37:06 CST 2005

Good luck
The requirements of scheduling and progress reporting should be included in
the contract to the subs

"Andy" wrote:

> "=?Utf-8?B?SGFpeGlhbmc=?=" <haixiang.zhang@mw-zander.com> wrote in message news:<AAFEA4B4-E29E-4771-BA5A-18D1C3F1C952@microsoft.com>...
> > To update progress for large project is really difficult.
> > hope my story helps.
> > the management group for the project prepared the master schedule.
> > the master schedule contain more than 6000 tasks.
> > Subs were responsible to make their detail construction schedule based on
> > the master schedule. for example there was a task (Task A start on day1 and
> > finish on day100),subcontractor will make a schedule with tasks
> > A1,A2,A3.....An( A1 start on day1 and An finish on day100, so they are the
> > children of task A). we established a numbering system with it we can easily
> > identify the tasks in master schedule to their "children" in subs schedule,
> > then we can summarize progress info. of these "children" to the tasks in
> > master schedule.
> > All subs detail tasks add up to about 100000,and we update on a weekly basis.
> > Every week all subs are required to submit their updated detail schedules to
> > us.
> > Thanks to the numbering system, we can update our master schedule
> > automatically by using the data from the subs.
> > After update, we perform a analysis (critical path report), and then have a
> > meeting with all subs to tell them what they need to do,what they need to
> > take care.
> >
> > In fact the subs can only give us the summarised tasks,we seldom review
> > those 100000 tasks, we just summarise them and update our master schedule.
> >
> > So if your subs do not like to give you detail, tell them to give you a
> > summary which can meet your needs. (ensure the summary match your master
> > tasks or it will be difficult to update your schedule based on those
> > summarys)
> >
> > At that time we use Privamera, it has the ability to make all subs'
> > schedules into a single project group, just as we insert subproject in a
> > master project in MSP. let subs to update their schedule and we can see the
> > result in the master schedule. But we did not do this, it will take hours to
> > just open the project. And it is impossible for the project management group
> > to set up the links between those 100000 tasks from dozens of different
> > contractors
> >
> >
> > "Andy" wrote:
> >
> > > "Sarah" <sarahkiko@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<1110375549.756085.218120@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
> > > > The only thing I would add is that, when you get a new finish date from
> > > > a sub, don't just enter the date in the Finish field. Modify the
> > > > Duration field until the Finish field shows the date you were given.
> > > > This will avoid putting a constraint on the task, but will move out
> > > > successor tasks.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, agree entirely. I have avoided as many constraints as possible
> > > anyway and don't wish to start introducing them.
> > >
> > > The only problem I have now is that the subs as such are feeling
> > > exposed by this as it obviously gives more visibility of their
> > > activity. Ideally we should be using an EPM tool (Project Server
> > > perhaps).
> > > This is a large programme I am working on and to be honest is very
> > > badly set up for scheduling. So, I have tried to set up the process as
> > > mentioned in order to lessen the burdon on what info the subs have to
> > > provide to me on a weekly basis.
> > >
> > > Any views on this?
> > >
> > > Andy
> > >
>
>
> Thanks for this; really helpfull actually.
> Our subcontractors are insisting at the moment that they cannot
> possibly update their schedules weekly. They have such a detailed
> process that it takes a month to get through. However, I have yet to
> see a usefull update once a month to be honest!
> So, this causes us a huge problem; by the time we have an update from
> them it is useless as it is already out of date and any risks we
> should be mitigating have already occurred and turned into issues!
>
> In order to try and reach a compromise we have set up a top-level
> schedule with tasks from all parties summarised (aligned with xref to
> uniqueID's) and linked together. We only expect them to report on
> tasks that are currently in progress or should have started on a
> weekly basis and then a review of the entire schedule once a month.
> This was an attempt to try and reduce the burdon on them but is
> obviously not ideal. This is still a problem for them!
> I have now suggested that even an update based on a perception from
> their Project Managers on the summary tasks weekly would do, but they
> still argue that this cannot be done!
>
> We have some phases of the programme that are expected to be complete
> in 6 months time and just having 6 updates I think is inadequate.
>
> Does anybody disagree/agree with my approach?
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Andy.
>
> p.s. This was my first time at this newsgroup yesterday; fantastic to
> have these responses. Think it might prevent me going mad; we are
> having some major problems at the moment!!!
>