Chapter 27
Progress Reporting
Abstract
This chapter describes a simple method for reporting and recording the progress and percentage complete using an activity on arrow network, and blacking in the completed lines or nodes. This requires regular feedback from subcontractors. To obtain the desired information and feedback from suppliers in a standard form, it is suggested that a standard blank bar chart template be sent to the supplier with the purchase order, together with a table of activities (depending on the product to be supplied) to be inserted in the bar chart for regular updating of progress reporting.
Keywords
Activities chart; Bar chart; Feedback; Progress reporting
Having drawn the network programme, it is now necessary to develop a simple but effective system of recording and reporting progress. The conventional method of recording progress on a bar (Gantt) chart is to thicken up or hatch in the bars, which are purposely drawn ‘hollow’ to allow this to be done. When drafting the network, activities are normally represented by single solid lines (Fig. 27.1), but the principle of thickening up can still be applied. The simplest way is to thicken up the activity line and black in the actual node point (Fig. 27.2). If an activity is only partially complete (say 50%), it can be easily represented by only blacking in 50% of the activity (Fig. 27.2). It can be seen, therefore, that in the case of the string of activities shown in Fig. 27.2, the first activity is complete while the second one is half complete. By rights, therefore, the week number at that stage should be 4 + 50% of 6 = 7. However, this presupposes that the first activity has not been delayed and finished on week 4 as programmed.
How, then, can one represent the case of the first activity finishing, say, 2 weeks late (week 6)? The simple answer is to cross out the original week number (4) and write the revised week number next to it, as shown in Fig. 27.3. If the duration of the second activity cannot be reduced, i.e., if it still requires 6 weeks as programmed, it will be necessary to amend all the subsequent week numbers as well (Fig. 27.4).
This operation will, of course, have to be carried out every time there is a slippage, and it is prudent, therefore, to leave sufficient space over the node point to enable this to be done. Alternatively, it may be more desirable to erase the previous week numbers and insert the new ones, provided, of course, the numbers are written in pencil and not ink. At first sight, the job of erasing some 200 node numbers on a network may appear to be a tedious and time-consuming exercise. However, in practice, such an updating function poses no problems. A reasonably experienced planner can update a complete network consisting of about 200 activities in less than 1 hour. When one remembers that in most situations only a small proportion of the activities on a network require updating, the speed of the operation can be appreciated.
Figure 27.2
Figure 27.3
Figure 27.4
Naturally, only the earliest dates are calculated, since this answers the most important questions, i.e.,
1. When can a particular activity start?
2. When will the whole project be completed?
At this stage, there is no need to calculate floats since these can be ascertained rapidly as and when required, as explained in Chapter 21.
Feedback
Apart from reporting progress, it is also necessary to update the network to reflect logic changes and delays. This updating, which has to be on a regular basis, must reflect two main types of information:
1. What progress, if any, has been achieved since the last update or reporting stage?
2. What logic changes have to be incorporated to meet the technical or programme requirements?
To enable planners to incorporate this information on a revised or updated network, they must be supplied with data in an organized and regular manner. Many schemes – some very complex and some very simple – have been devised to enable this to happen. Naturally, the simpler the scheme, the better, and the less the paper used, the more the information on the paper will be used.
The ideal situation is, therefore, one where no additional forms whatsoever are used, and this ideal can indeed be reached by using the latest IT systems.
However, unless the operatives in the field have the facilities to electronically transmit the latest updated position direct to the planning engineer’s computer, a paper copy of the updated network will still have to be produced on site and sent back to the planning engineer. Provided that:
1. The networks have been drawn on small sheets, i.e., A3 or A4, or have been photographically reduced to these sizes.
2. If a photocopier is available, updating the network is merely a question of thickening the completed or partially completed activities, amending any durations where necessary and taking a photostat copy. This copy is then returned to the planner, preferably electronically. When a logic change is necessary, the amendment is made on a copy of the last network and this too is returned to the planner. If all the disciplines or departments do this, and return their feedback regularly to the planner, a master network incorporating all these changes can be produced and the effects on other disciplines calculated and studied.
There may be instances where a department manager may want to change a sequence of activities or add new items to his or her particular part of the network. Such logic changes are most easily transmitted to the planner electronically, or, in the absence of such facilities, by placing an overlay over that portion of the network that has to be changed and sketching in the new logic freehand.
When logic changes have been proposed – for this is all a department can do in isolation at this stage – the effect on other departments only becomes apparent when a new draft network has been produced by the planner. Before accepting the situation, the planner must either inform the project manager or call a meeting of all the interested departments to discuss the implications of the proposed logic changes. In other words, the network becomes what it should always be – a focal point for discussion, a means by which the job can be seen graphically, so that it can be amended to suit any new restraints or requirements.
In many instances, it will be possible for the planner to visit the various departments and update the programme by asking a few pertinent questions. This reduces the amount of paper even more and has, of course, the advantage that logic changes can be discussed and provisionally agreed right away. On a site, where the contract has been divided into a number of operational areas, this method is particularly useful since area managers are notorious for shunning paperwork – especially reports. Even very large projects can be controlled in this manner, and the personal contact again helps to generate the close relationship and involvement so necessary for good morale.
Where an efficient cost-reporting system is in operation, and provided that this is geared to the network, the feedback for the programme can be combined with the weekly cost-report information issued in the field or shop.
A good example of this is given in Chapter 32, which describes the earned value analysis (EVA) cost-control system. In this system, the cost-control and cost-reporting procedures are based on the network so that the percentage complete of an operation can be taken from the site returns and entered straight onto the network. The application of EVA is particularly interesting, since the network can be either electronically or manually analysed while the cost report is produced by a computer, both using the same database.
One of the greatest problems found by main contractors is the submission of updated programmes from sub-suppliers or subcontractors. Despite clauses in the purchase order or subcontract documents, requiring the vendor to return a programme within a certain number of weeks of order date and update it monthly, many suppliers just do not comply. Even if programmes are submitted as requested, they vary in size and format from a reduced computer printout to a crude bar chart, which shows activities possibly useful to the supplier but quite useless to the main contractor or client.
One reason for this production of unsatisfactory information is that the main contractor (or consultant) was not specific enough in the contract documents setting out exactly what information is required and when it is needed. To overcome this difficulty, the simplest way is to give the vendor a pre-printed bar chart form as part of the contract documents, together with a list of suggested activities which must appear on the programme.
A pre-printed table, as drawn in Fig. 27.5, shows by the letter X which activities are important for monitoring purposes, for typical items of equipment or materials. The list can be modified by the supplier if necessary, and obviously each main contractor can draw up his own requirements depending on the type of industry he is engaged in, but the basic requirements from setting out drawings to final test certificates are included. The dates by which some of the key documents are required should, of course, be given in the purchase order or contract document, since they may be linked to stage payments and/or penalties such as liquidated damages.
The advantages of the main contractor requesting the programme (in the form of a bar chart) to be produced to his or her own format, a copy of which is shown in Fig. 27.6, are as follows:
1. All the returned programmes are of the same size and type, and can be more easily interpreted and filed by the main contractor’s staff.
2. Where the supplier is unsophisticated, the main contractor’s programme is of educational value to the supplier.
3. Since the format is ready-made, the supplier’s work is reduced and the programme will be returned by him earlier.
4. Since all the programmes are on A4 size paper, they can be reproduced and distributed more easily and speedily.
Figure 27.7
To ensure that the supplier has understood the principles and uses the correct method for populating the completed bar chart, an instruction sheet, as shown in Fig. 27.7, should be attached to the blank bar chart.
..................Content has been hidden....................
You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.