Expert, flexible training in the use of the most powerful scheduling software program in the world: Primavera P6 by Oracle.
Primavera Scheduling


Primavera SchedulingPigeons mystified Charles Darwin. He mentions them in the very first chapter of On the Origin of Species:

“The diversity of breeds of pigeons is truly astonishing. If one compares the English Messenger with the short-faced Culbutant, one is struck by the enormous difference of their beak, resulting in corresponding differences in the skull.”

There are as many species of pigeons as there are of dogs or cats. But today we are focusing on carrier pigeons and their cousins, homing pigeons. And what a noble history! Noah was the first to recognize a pigeon’s ability to carry a message. The Romans used pigeons to transmit the results of chariot races. Genghis Kahn and Charlemagne relied upon pigeons to carry messages to troops, as did the French in the Vietnam War.

Even today, pigeons are used to carry blood samples in remote parts of England and France. Not surprisingly, pigeons have also been dragged into nefarious duties. Drug traffickers in Afghanistan and Pakistan have utilized flocks of pigeons to deliver heroin, each one carrying 10 grams.

But let’s be honest. If rats could fly we might have used them instead. Pigeons deliver a message – right or wrong – from one party to another. They don’t (can’t) read the message or vouch for its accuracy.

Don’t be a pigeon. Too many schedulers are simply delivering information that is incorrect or incomplete. They fail to consider whether the current critical path makes sense, ignore activities that clearly should have had progress by now, and fail to analyze the potential impact of unforeseen events.

Not all information can be easily verified, of course. Unless the scheduler is posted to the field he or she can not independently verify actual dates, installed quantities, percent completes and the like. Still, there are times when the reported progress makes little sense, like my client who said he had started plumbing fixtures on the third floor of the building at a time when the structural steel to the second floor was being erected (he was taking credit for plumbing fixtures that had been delivered to the jobsite, but we had a procurement activity for that scenario).

That story involving the plumbing fixtures happened more than 25 years ago. Schedulers have long memories! More recently, I have been reviewing schedules on a 34-story apartment tower in the midwest for the owner. Ironically, plumbing is once again the issue.

A couple of months ago, installation of water heaters on nearly every floor showed up on the critical path. And with one week scheduled for installation per floor, we had water heaters occupying about seven months of the remaining critical path.

I understood how the water heaters wound up on the critical path. The contractor had added activity relationships between water heaters on each floor – something we were calling “crew restraints” way back in the early 1980s.

Here is the funny part. When I filed my report with the owner, the contractor accused me of modifying his schedule update! He had no idea these crew restraints existed or why they had been added. The reality is that the crew restraints had always been in the schedule but due to better progress on other paths, this water heater path had now been exposed.

If you are wondering why water heaters were such a concern, the fact is that most of the interior work (drywall, painting, etc.) had similar crew restraints. But only the water heaters assumed one floor at a time. I have no idea why. It is clearly a very conservative assumption, and as many of you who read my blog on a regular basis already know, I prefer The Schedule That Can be Beat.

Nevertheless, this project is behind schedule and letting the water heaters control the project completion date is not acceptable. Yet this trend continued for another month. Finally, the contractor revised the logic so that water heaters overlapped on some floors. The critical path is now starting to make a lot more sense.

That’s just it. A good scheduler should know what belongs on the critical path. Even when I am still building the baseline schedule I have an idea of what will be critical. During the monthly updates I believe I know what should be critical as well if my logic is still valid and the contractor makes sufficient progress.

Submittals tend to be ignored by the contractor because so many of them have large float values. Whenever a submittal pops up on the critical path after I make a preliminary run of the monthly update I get very suspicious. Most of the time, the contractor’s memory improves dramatically when I tell him a submittal is on the critical path (“oh yeah, we submitted those shop drawings weeks ago!”).

Schedulers cannot afford to be gullible. People gives us bad data all the time and expect a good result. Not going to happen! The guy who told me he was 75 percent complete last month will report that he is 60 percent complete this month. Which number is the truth? The reality is that we tend to get better information on the most critical activities because everyone more or less understands what “critical” means (fingers crossed).

So how do we avoid becoming pigeons? Here are a few things to consider:

  1. Never publish a schedule until the draft version has been reviewed by the project stakeholders. We do not want someone coming back and saying the logic is wrong, the durations are a fantasy, etc. after the schedule has been submitted to the owner.
  2. Use Activity Steps on complex tasks to make it easier to report progress. I think Activity Steps are one of the best features in Primavera P6 ignored by most casual users.
  3. “Gut check” the critical path. Even if the critical path seems acceptable to other project stakeholders, they are probably not scheduling experts and they certainly do not understand the details of the schedule nearly as well.
  4. Always use Retained Logic as the scheduling method in Primavera P6 for activities with progress. Nothing keeps you, and everyone else, honest like being confronted with out-of-sequence work.
  5. Avoid unnecessary logic changes. If the project is not going according to plan, why? If the owner is causing work to be performed out-of-sequence we need to preserve the logic to show the delay. But if the contractor has simply changed his mind, by all means modify the logic to keep it realistic.
  6. Educate yourself. If scheduling is not something you really understand, you need training or guidance. I studied CPM in college, but I really did not know how to apply it correctly until I started working side-by-side with professional schedulers.

There you have it. Spread your wings and fly! Okay, so perhaps that is not really the best metaphor.






The Future of Scheduling Software

Categories: P3, P6 EPPM, P6 Professional, SureTrak
Comments Off on The Future of Scheduling Software
Primavera Scheduling
Primavera Scheduling

Recently I read a blog by someone claiming that Primavera P6 will eventually disappear because there are much better scheduling programs now available. This is a great way to get people to read your blog, I suppose, but there is absolutely no reason to believe that Primavera P6 is a dinosaur happily living its life until some giant meteor program wipes it off the face of the Earth.

To begin with, none of us can accurately predict the future. There are the "unknown unkowns" (as popularized by former Wall Street trader Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his book, Black Swan) that are impossible to predict because we cannot even imagine that such a thing could happen. Might as well flip a coin to determine whether a program like P6 will survive because the results will be just as accurate.

Change is inevitable. I entered high school in 1974. My class was the first one not to learn how to use a mechanical slide rule, because hand-held calculators were becoming readily available. By the time I graduated in 1977 my calculus instructor had introduced us to a primitive desktop computer with a keyboard and no screen. When I graduated from college we were scheduling projects using a mainframe computer.

In 1983, Primavera Systems released its eponymous scheduling program, Primavera Project Planner (P3). Microsoft Project was released the following year. Microsoft does not like competition, to put it mildly. Here is just one example. Like many people, I used Netscape Navigator in the early days of the World Wide Web. Navigator was pretty cheap - I recall paying about $35 for the "Gold" version.

But when Microsoft released Windows 98 they included Internet Explorer for free. Internet Explorer was clunky compared to Navigator, but hey, free is hard to resist. Bye bye Navigator! (The irony is that Netscape Navigator started out as a free program to encourage its adoption, not unlike what Microsoft was doing).

My first spreadsheet program was VisiCalc. But unless you are over the age of 50 it won't ring a bell. Microsoft destroyed that product as well with Excel. Lotus 123 and Lotus Symphony were no match for Microsoft either.

So imagine you are little ol' Primavera Systems facing down the biggest software company in the world. Props for surviving even a few years! Granted, P3 was clearly a more robust scheduling program, but Microsoft Project was much cheaper. And it is not like P3 had a big head start. In the early days it would have been very tempting to just buy Microsoft Project.

Luckily, the consulting firm I was working for in the 1980s decided to buy P3 instead. It may have had something to do with the fact that Primavera's headquarters were right across the river from our offices. But the reality is that even back then it was not a two-horse race, and our firm did consider other alternatives before picking P3. We even hedged our bets by investing in an early competitor of Primavera.

Primavera has always had competition and responded accordingly. I still hear from Primavera users who pine for the days of P3. Really? I used P3 for nearly 20 years, starting with the DOS version and then Windows. It was like an old friend, my bread and butter scheduling program. But when Primavera P6 came along I kicked P3 to the curb and never looked back.

Oh sure, I griped a little during the transition to P6. It was different and required a learning curve. And when I was really busy that was sometimes annoying. I just wanted to get my work done! I am sure that most of us feel that way about technology, that sometimes change is not necessarily an improvement (Windows 8 comes to mind).

The thing is, P6 is better than P3 - demonstrably so. I became interested in selling P6 software several years ago for the simple reason that I was convinced it was much better than P3 and would become the new standard for scheduling software. It is ironic that people criticize P6 for both doing too much and too little. "I don't need all these features", some will say, while others will ask for more features. Oracle must think we are neurotic, or perhaps ungrateful.

Is P6 too complicated? Not really (pause for chuckles). Okay, so there is a lot going on with this software. I use about 70% of the features on a daily basis, which is why I have never really taught everything there is in P6. If someone like me, a professional scheduler for 33 years, cannot find reason to use some of these features I am pretty confident that most other users do not need them either.

Nevertheless, I mostly schedule construction projects. Primavera P6 was not developed for just one industry, and it certainly would not make much sense that software companies are going to develop scheduling software specific to each industry. There is one exception: linear construction such as tunneling projects does have its own standard-bearer, TILOS. This program schedules work based on time and location. P6 cannot match that.

I look at P6 the same way I looked at my first sportbike. Back in 1995 I purchased the most powerful 600cc motorcycle in the world: the Kawasaki Ninja. It was capable of a top speed of 155 MPH, which was serious velocity for an engine of that size. Redline was 14,500 RPM! Formula One race cars costing tens of millions of dollars were only reving to 16,000 RPM at the time.

Did I need that sort of performance? Obviously not. But if my bike was that good I knew the only limitation would be my skills. The bike would never let me down. The software will do more than I need it to, and that is the way it should be. Raise your hand if you use every feature in Microsoft Excel. My point exactly.

Last week I demonstrated to a manufacturer how to schedule and resource level one of their typical projects where the minimum duration for a task is two minutes and the maximum duration is only two and a half hours. That is not a level of detail I would ever see in a construction schedule. I don't schedule down to the minute of the day. But P6 can do that for people who do.

To those who believe that P6 has become stagnant, I would point out that Oracle has made 97 significant improvements since taking over Primavera Systems. How do I know this? Oracle has something called the Cumulative Feature Overview Tool. Enter the version of Primavera P6 you are currently using and the version you are thinking of upgrading to, and this tool explains what improvements have been made.

Getting back to the so-called demise of Primavera P6, I have a pretty good idea which program the author thought was the future of scheduling software. And like many of Primavera's competitors it is more expensive. In this case, you cannot just buy the scheduling module. Instead, you are buying an entire suite of programs related to planning, budgeting, cost and document control. So it is a little ironic this competitor would have the tag line, "Features Only Matter If They Get Used."

Sure, Primavera P6 can be integrated with other Oracle (and non-Oracle) programs, but it can also function as a standalone program. Many of my customers already have document control, estimating and other software. They just need a scheduling program, not a complete overhaul of their computing system.

Other competitors offer standalone scheduling programs, and I am certainly not going to debate the merits of each one here. I know my clients pretty well, and I do not believe they would feel insulted if I stated that I am better at scheduling than they are. After all, I have more than three decades of experience and I still work with this software every single day. I know what they need from a scheduling program. So here is my advice:

"Primavera P6 is your Ninja sportbike. Twist the throttle as much as you want. Fast or slow, it will take good care of you."

Software is a bit like evolution. The winners either adapt or die. Programs such as VisiCalc and Lotus 123 that were among the first to market did not last very long once competition arrived. Primavera has had competition since 1984. That is not to say that other products won't continue to steal some of Primavera's market share, but if it's my money that I'm playing with I will continue to put it on a winner. And Primavera is on a winning streak that has lasted more than 30 years.

Primavera P6 Certification

Categories: Oracle Gold Partner, Oracle University
Comments Off on Primavera P6 Certification

A simple word – certification – can create so much confusion. Nearly every day we are asked about this word. How do I become certified on Primavera P6? Or how do I become a certified Primavera P6 trainer?

Let’s start with the highest level of certification: Oracle University. Yes, there really is an Oracle University. In order to sell Oracle software a company must become an Oracle partner (i.e. pay a lot of money) and get a certain number of employees certified on the Oracle programs the company wants to sell. Oracle offers Guided Learning Paths (GLPs) to help its partners prepare for these certifications.

In order to view the GLPs, however, you must have access to the Oracle Partner Network. In other words, individuals who do not work for an Oracle Partner cannot review the training materials. The GLPs cover a lot more than just the software itself, so it is vital to access to this training.

The next step is to take a proctored exam. By “proctored” we mean an exam observed by a third party. Oracle offers some exams during OpenWorld in San Francisco (an annual event for Oracle Partners, programmers and devotees) but there are computer learning centers around the country who offer the same exams on a more frequent basis. A passing score is 70%

I can promise you that just understanding Primavera P6 is not enough to pass this exam. There are questions related to the target markets for this software and how to implement various solutions. Companies who sell Oracle software are expected to be able to demonstrate why this software is the right solution.

In a nutshell, this is what it means to be “Oracle Certified”. Not all trainers are certified, and it should be rather obvious by now why firms that are not Oracle Partners are unlikely to have trainers who are certified by Oracle University. Being certified by Oracle University implies a pretty serious commitment to teaching Primavera P6.

The next level of certification is by an Oracle Partner. While this may not sound as prestigious as being certified by Oracle University, the ultimate goal for non-trainers should be to learn the program, right? We are aware that job postings sometimes specify that applicants must be “certified” yet it is unlikely that the company posting the ad really understands the certification process.

Certification by an Oracle Partner will vary depending on the class. Online classes are either 8 or 16 hours of instruction, while in-person classes are 8, 16 or 24 hours. Each class has its own certification. We also offer certification via our On Demand Primavera P6 Training. When someone asks us which class to take, we try to understand what their job function requires. We offer a variety of classes to accommodate everyone’s needs.

The fact is that we have certified more than 2,000 people and not one of them has been turned down for a job because they lacked the correct certification. Each certificate we issue includes our Oracle Partner logo, and these companies know they can call us to discuss our curriculum. We want our students to succeed and we want companies to accept our imprimatur.

A couple of years ago a gentlemen contacted our firm and said he already knew Primavera P6 very well and therefore did not want to take a class. Instead, he wanted to buy a certificate from our firm! Needless to say, we declined. We have had our share of “experts” who did not understand the program all that well.

Any questions? Hopefully not, but let us know!


Owning an Activity in P6

Categories: P6 EPPM, P6 Professional
Comments Off on Owning an Activity in P6
Primavera Scheduling

I was watching a crime drama on BBC television the other night where a rising young detective was explaining to his superiors during dinner the need for “bold delivery of sanctions to the stakeholders”.

“Stakeholders?”, one of his superiors asked.

“Five years ago we just called them criminals”, the young detective replied.

Big laughs all around the table. And I suppose sometimes we feel that project stakeholders are somewhat criminal in what they expect from us. Limited resources paired with unrealistic expectations can be a little maddening for the scheduler who is supposed to create a miracle in the project schedule.

So today we are going to discuss what it means to own an activity. Specifically, we call this the “owner” in Primavera P6. The owner of a task does not have to be a resource, which means that any schedule can take advantage of this feature.

So who exactly can be the owner of an activity? The owner is a Primavera P6 user. If only one person is maintaining the project schedule it probably makes little since to assign owners to activities. In a more complex schedule, however, this feature is quite useful, especially in P6 EPPM.

Knowing how to assign an owner to an activity is the only real trick. You need to add a column to the Activity Table. Owner is found under the General category of columns, as seen below:



How we use the owner depends on which version of P6 that we are using. In P6 Professional the owner is primarily a way to filter out activities in the Activity Table. We can then give each user an idea of which tasks they need to take ownership of in terms of monitoring or updating progress.

In P6 EPPM we can go quite a bit further. To begin with, users can see the activities they own in the Dashboard. As we drink our morning coffee (hot chocolate for me) we can quickly scan all the activities we are responsible for – without having to open up the project schedules. For someone assigned to activities across multiple projects this is a tremendous tool.

Because the Dashboard is typically filtered to show only a portfolio of projects, we must keep in mind that not all of our activities will appear unless they are part of the portfolio currently being viewed. The Dashboard can take a long time to load if you have a large portfolio of projects, so I advise having one portfolio of projects limited to ones with activities that you own.

In the screenshot below you can see the My Activities portlet in the EPPM Dashboard, which is where the activities that I have been identified as the owner reside:


Primavera Scheduling

Here are two other benefits of P6 EPPM. When I click on the project in the portlet it automatically opens the project and takes me to the Activities page. When I click on one of these activities I am taken to a screen that shows me details of that activity. I can also edit progress on this activity:


Primavera Scheduling

The user will need access to the Projects module in P6 EPPM and have permission to edit activities. P6 Progress Reporter (a separate module in P6 EPPM) also utilizes owner to assign users to activities. This module is a simplified interface that can be run on tablets and much cheaper than a full P6 EPPM license.

Even on a smaller schedule we might have one person responsible for updating progress on submittals while someone else handles field activities. Quite a few of my clients have no desire to set up resources so this is an easy compromise for assigning activities to different people. Moreover, it may be practical to have just a few people reporting progress on activities without expecting every resource to provide this information.

Bottom line: if you do not want to assign resources to activities you can still use the owner field to track progress on activities.


Primavera SchedulingDuring our training sessions in Kansas City this summer I was describing how Primavera users approach status updates differently than many Microsoft Project users. Primavera P6 users will change the Data Date when updating the project schedule to match the cutoff date of progress. So a Data Date of November 1, 2016 means that we have considered all progress up to November 1, 2016. (The default time for the Data Date in Primavera is 12:00 am so normally we do not include any progress on the Data Date; I will explain how to change the default time in another post).

In Microsoft Project there is the Status Date, which functions like our Data Date. But inexplicably, many Microsoft Project users never change the Status Date when updating the schedule. I realize I am using a bit of a broad brush here, but I have personally reviewed many Microsoft Project schedules where I was not able to determine the cutoff date of progress very easily because the Status Date was still set to the day the project started. I end up searching for the latest actual date in the update to approximate what must be the Status Date.

The end result of not moving the Status Date in Microsoft Project is that activities will have planned start and finish dates that are in the past. A nominal November 1, 2016 update will show activities starting and finishing before that date. That would be a mean feat unless one has a time machine! Now, I suspect that many Microsoft Project users are self-taught and the program is easier to learn than Primavera P6 or Primavera Contractor. So it is possible that many Microsoft Project users simply lack the formal training to apply the tool correctly.

One reason for the confusion might be Microsoft Project’s insistence on displaying the day you open the file as the Status Date. Granted, until progress is applied to the schedule nothing happens to the planned dates, but making the Status Date appear to be fluid is not a good idea. And I suspect many Microsoft Project users are not changing the Status Date because they think the date has already changed; it has, but until the schedule is calculated this date is meaningless. This is why the true Status Date is often the project start date.

If everything went according to plan, we could get away with not moving the Status Date. But that has not been my experience for the past 29 years that I have worked as a scheduler in the construction industry. Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke famously said, “no plan survives contact with the enemy.” Battles and projects are both unique endeavors where anything can happen. Work often does not start according to the planned dates, takes longer to complete, or is performed out-of-sequence. Moving the Data Date is the only thing that keeps the schedule honest.

When I started my career as a professional scheduler I would often sit down with my clients and mark up the large (30″ x 42″) hand-drawn logic diagrams and tell them, “here are the activities on the critical path; it has been four weeks since I was last here, so you need to give me four weeks’ worth of progress along this path.” My clients would sometimes think I was being a bit harsh, but I knew what would happen when I changed the Data Date. The work not performed gets shoved to the right.

Temporary procrastination does not always cause an immediate impact to project completion, however. Activities that are ready to start but not currently on the critical path may still have enough Total Float to wait until the next schedule update. My favorite way to track these lagging, non-critical tasks is the Schedule Performance Index (SPI). The SPI compares planned progress in the baseline schedule to the actual progress in the current schedule, expressed as follows:

SPI = Performance Percent Complete ÷ Schedule Percent Complete

Performance Percent Complete sounds mysterious, but normally it is the same as Activity Percent Complete. You can check this setting under Admin > Admin Preferences > Earned Value. Schedule Percent Complete is merely the progress expected per the Project Baseline, whatever that might be. It is important to check which schedule is assigned as the Project Baseline since it may have been changed recently.

Because Performance Percent Complete is the numerator in the above equation an SPI of 1.00 or greater means that more work has been performed than expected. This is also quite hard to achieve, since SPI is based on the early dates in the schedule. So not starting a non-critical activity as early as possible hurts SPI just as much as starting a critical path activity late. For this reason I usually run SPIs filtered by: (1) all activities, (2) critical path, and (3) non-critical activities for comparison.

An SPI of 0.80 would tell us that we failed to complete 20% of the work scheduled for the current update period. Early in a project the SPI may not look so great, but the closer we get to the end of the project the SPI has to improve if we have any chance of finishing on schedule. The baseline can be the previous update and still be valid in some situations. We may have deviated so much from the original plan that running the SPI off the original plan is simply not relevant.

I do warn my students there is no clear threshold for SPI where being under a certain number means the project is clearly behind schedule. The most important thing is the trend. We cannot keep ignoring work that is otherwise ready to start if we want to avoid mass chaos during the waning moments of the project. Unless it will somehow cost us more money to start activities on time, what excuse have we got?

The only drawback to SPI is that the schedule must be resource-loaded, either costs or units. Without knowing the “weight” of each task Primavera cannot compare the progress of one task to another. The activity durations might be the same but the daily effort to perform the tasks can be quite different. In any case, we must still consider that not every activity may be resource-loaded (such as submittals) so SPI will not tell us anything about the progress on these tasks.

Getting back to the snowplow, the analogy that I always use is a broom sweeping the remaining work to the right. (Why we tend to see the future as being to the right and the past as being to the left is a bit curious, as if time travels west to east, but we seem to accept this as making sense). One of the participants in my Kansas City class mentioned how they think of the Data Date as a snowplow. I liked their analogy so much I warned them I would use it in my blog. And so I did!


Flag of the NetherlandsAnyone who upgrades Primavera P6 Professional to Version 16.1 will most likely encounter the following problem: Visualizer and Schedule Comparison (the new name for Claim Digger) will not run. The problem is an existing P6 bootstrap file that gets corrupted during the installation of Version 16.1 and therefore displays the settings for the Dutch language incorrectly. Dutch was only added as a language in Primavera P6 Professional recently, which explains why this problem did not occur sooner. If nothing else this might prompt you to consider whether Dutch is the primary language of Holland or The Netherlands. I guessed wrong, but then my ability to speak a second language comes down to saying everything in English very loudly.

This is a known bug addressed by Oracle in Doc ID 2074835.1

The easy workaround is to repair the bootstrap file. First, go to Control Panel in Windows and type “folder” in the search box. Then click on “Show hidden files and folders” and choose “Show hidden files, folders and drives”. From there you are looking for the following file path:

Computer > OS(C:) > Users > [username] > AppData > Local > Oracle > Primavera P6 > P6 Professional

This assumes the program has been installed on the “C” drive, which is a pretty typical standalone scenario. You will also need administrative privileges to access the program files.

Locate the PrmBootStrapV2 file and open it with a text editor like Notepad. Scroll down until you see the languages listed. In older versions of Primavera P6 the language name is listed first, followed by the language ID. But in Version 16.1 the language ID is now listed first. During the update process most of the languages are fixed, but not Dutch. In any case, it is important to check all of the languages to make sure the language ID appears first, as seen below:

  • <internationalizationSettings currentLanguage=”en-us”>
    <Language LanguageID=”en-us” LanguageName=”English”/>
    <Language LanguageID=”de-de” LanguageName=”German”/>
    <Language LanguageID=”fr-fr” LanguageName=”French”/>
    <Language LanguageID=”ja-jp” LanguageName=”Japanese”/>
    <Language LanguageID=”ru-ru” LanguageName=”Russian”/>
    <Language LanguageID=”zh-cn” LanguageName=”Chinese Simplified”/>
    <Language LanguageID=”zh-tw” LanguageName=”Chinese Traditional”/>
    <Language LanguageID=”es-es” LanguageName=”Spanish”/>
    <Language LanguageID=”pt-br” LanguageName=”Brazilian Portuguese”/>
    <Language LanguageID=”nl-nl” LanguageName=”Dutch”/>
    <Language LanguageID=”it-it” LanguageName=”Italian”/>
    <Language LanguageID=”ko-KR” LanguageName=”Korean”/>

Make any corrections as necessary, and then save the file. You should then be able to log into Visualizer and Schedule Comparison. And if you feel like it, brush up on your Dutch!






Claim Digger Limitations

Categories: Claim Digger, P6 Calendars, P6 EPPM, P6 Professional, P6 Tricks
Comments Off on Claim Digger Limitations

Primavera SchedulingClaim Digger is a convenient tool inside Primavera P6 for comparing schedule files to determine what changes have been made. But there are limitations to what Claim Digger can tell us about a revised file. Experienced Primavera users will recall that Claim Digger used to be a third-party program used to analyze Primavera P3 files. When Claim Digger was incorporated into Primavera P6 several years ago the functionality changed in ways that were both good and bad. Being able to export to HTML format is nice, but having the durations (including float and lags) displayed in hours is inconvenient on schedules with durations that are shown in days.

There are third-party software programs that can do much more than Claim Digger. Still, if you think that Primavera P6 costs as much as having a baby then anything that is “free” will be the most desirable option. So most of us will have to get by with Claim Digger until money starts growing on trees.

Note: in Version 16.1 of Primavera P6 Claim Digger is now called Schedule Comparison and is accessed from the Visualizer program. You will find Scheduler Comparison in the same location (Tools) as Claim Digger but clicking on this button will launch the Visualizer program.

The biggest limitation in Claim Digger has to do with calendars. Here are two scenarios where Claim Diggers will let you down:

  1. Changes made to a calendar, such as revisions to the number of hours per day, days per week, holidays, etc. are not picked up by Claim Digger
  2. Changing the calendar on an activity from Global to Project (or vice versa) is not picked up if both calendars have the same exact name

Indeed, Claim Digger will tell us nothing about calendars other than whether the name of the calendar is different. To demonstrate this for myself I created a Project calendar called “Standard” that is a copy of a Global calendar with the same name. I assigned the Global calendar to all of the activities in a sample project. After creating a baseline (copy) of this project I switched the calendar on the activities in the current project to the Project calendar. Claim Digger did not report any changes to calendars.

I then changed the name of my Project calendar in the current project to “Standard Days” and re-ran Claim Digger. As I expected, Claim Digger reported that I had changed the calendar. Yet other than the name, it was still the same Project calendar. I hadn’t changed anything else. In other words, a false positive.

Owners often run Claim Digger (or ask for the results) so anything that suggests a change when in fact no change was made creates unnecessary confusion. Conversely, a sneaky scheduler could block out additional days in the calendar to coincide with an owner-caused delay in order to exaggerate the impact. An experienced scheduler should be able to figure out if there are any shenanigans going on, but the reality is that P6 is chock-full of hidden traps for the uninitiated.

While we are on the subject, I often refer to myself as a “Primavera P6 Scheduler” because there are in fact specific techniques to scheduling projects with Primavera P6. Case in point: Microsoft Project does not allow two relationships between the same two activities, while in Primavera P6 this is perfectly acceptable. A good scheduler with poor Primavera P6 skills can still make a lot of mistakes because of their unfamiliarity with the program. For the same reason, I tend to be very cautious in Microsoft Project because it is not my bread and butter.

I started using Primavera software in 1987 so in my mind the rules that I observe have almost always been specific to one particular program. Prior to 1987 the software I used was proprietary and followed basic Critical Path Method rules. But CPM does not teach you about Activity Codes, Resource Leveling, and so many other things that are now possible because of software any more than an accountant would automatically know how to create a macro in Microsoft Excel.

“Old-school” schedulers who refuse to stay current on scheduling software get no sympathy from me. I started with proprietary scheduling software, learned Primavera P3, followed by Primavera SureTrak, Primavera Primavera P6, Primavera Contractor, and Primavera P6 EPPM. Not to mention all of the other programs like Microsoft Office that I have had to learn over the years. I had to learn WordPress just to type this silly blog!


My wife and I recently participated in a group hike to see the new land acquisition by our homeowners association. We own property in a 7,000 acre resort in the Sierras and the new parcel adds several hundred more acres of wilderness that will prevent development near our resort. The problem was, our group leader had told us in no uncertain terms that the last bus back to the resort would be leaving at 5:15 pm. Yet here we were at 4:00 pm still hiking in the wrong direction and realizing we had at least an hour of strenuous hiking uphill to the staging area. So we turned around and headed back. Our group leader was clearly cutting it a little too close.

I feel the same way about scheduling. Yes, there will always be critical activities, but they are of course only critical because other activities are, well, less critical. But if the longest path of activities are themselves quite aggressive then we are only setting ourselves up for failure. So my preference is to have a schedule that can be beat.

I am not talking about sequestering float. You may have heard about strategies to hide float in a schedule. This all started several years ago because nearly all construction contracts in the U.S. state that float belongs to the project and is therefore not for the beneficial use of just one party. The contractor or the owner can use the float, with dibs belonging to whoever grabs it first.

Contractors who felt more entitled to the float began devising ways to hide some of the float by tying activities to unrelated work that starts sooner than the more obvious successors. This removes float from the schedule and makes it more likely that an owner delay to a task will also delay the project. A non-critical activity can quickly become critical because it has very little float. For this reason, the sequestering of float is often prohibited in construction contracts.

In my case, however, I am only trying to avoid being too aggressive with activities that are on the critical path and for this reason I choose the least ambitious type of relationship for the majority of my activities: Finish to Start. My goal is to make roughly 80% of the relationships in my schedule Finish to Start. This percentage can be checked using the DCMA checklist available in P6 Web. DCMA stands for the Defense Contract Management Agency. This checklist – called Check Schedule in P6 Web – can be seen below:

Primavera Scheduling










You set up the parameters of the schedule in this menu. Once Check Schedule is run, the results appear in a separate window, seen below:


Primavera Scheduling







At a glance I know whether I achieved my goal of making 80% of the activity relationships Finish to Start. Other goals include managing durations and relationship lags. Anything in green is in compliance while red indicates not in compliance with the specified parameters.

My strategy of primarily using Finish-to-Start relationships is a direct result of the early years of CPM scheduling, when Activity-on-Arrow (AOA) was the dominant scheduling technique. In those days, the arrows represented tasks, whereas the nodes (circles in most cases) were the activity identifiers. Because of this technique, each task had two nodes referred to in this order: the I-Node and the J-Node. So you would see something like Activity ID 1000-1005. This technique was also referred to as the Arrow Diagramming Method (ADM).

The Activity-on-Node (AON) method became very popular in the early 1990s and was certainly spurred along by Primavera Systems’ decision to drop Activity-on-Arrow altogether when the first Windows-based version of Primavera Project Planner (P3) was released in 1994. Ignoring this brief history of scheduling software for a moment, consider that if the arrow represented the activity, then all relationships were Finish-to-Start. The J-Node of the predecessor was also the I-Node of the successor. Leads and lags were non-existent. The predecessor(s) always had to be complete before the successor could start. This can be seen in the following Activity-on-Arrow diagram:






We used to split activities into percentages so that, say, the first 25% of drywall hanging could start as soon as 25% of the walls had been framed. This effectively became the lag that we use today with Start-to-Start and Finish-to-Finish relationships. Otherwise, it was fully expected that some work would start out-of-sequence, meaning the successor starts before the predecessor is finished.

By the same token, Finish-to-Start relationships are far more likely to generate out-of-sequence progress in today’s precedence schedules. And my response is “great!” You are beating my schedule! I have set you up for success, not failure. Now, I realize some people are bothered by out-of-sequence progress, but unless there is truly a “bust” in the logic or the result of unexpected delays I see this as a positive sign.

There is another benefit to the Finish-to-Start relationship. It is more likely our resources will not become over-allocated. Older schedulers like myself used logic to limit the number of resources required because the scheduling software was too primitive to do this. We called this type of logic “crew restraints” and I still use this technique today. The resource leveling feature in Primavera P6 is not always the best option for controlling the allocation of resources. And besides, if the schedule is not resource loaded then leveling is not an option.

My attitude often comes down to this: prove to me you can get ahead of my schedule and I will modify the logic accordingly. Until then, my logic assumes a more linear progression of the work and is therefore more forgiving. And everyone will feel better because the project end date does not keep slipping. What could be better than that?

Spring is in the air, which means another release of Primavera P6 Professional Project Management (PPM) and Primavera P6 Enterprise Project Portfolio Management (EPPM).

The list of changes to Primavera P6 Professional is short, but sweet. First, after years of begging, Oracle has finally introduced a feature that has long been part of Microsoft Project: the ability to show the relationship type and lag in the Activity Table. Yes! Previously, this information was only available in a tabular Report or by exporting to Microsoft Excel. Now we can finally show this level of detail in a graphical setting. These are new columns called Predecessor Details and Successor Details, as seen below:

Primavera Scheduling

Second, Claim Digger has been moved to Visualizer and is now called Schedule Comparison. I suspect this was done to avoid the problem of running Claim Digger with the SQLite database. This type of database does not support third-party applications like Claim Digger, which is an important tool for many Primavera users. Rather than wait for SQLite to change its spots, Oracle apparently decided to take a more proactive stance.

Quite a few enhancements have been added to Primavera P6 EPPM to improve performance and to bring it more into line with Primavera P6 Professional:

  • Advanced HTML5 Activity and EPS Views
  • Basic HTML5 Resource Assignment View
  • Additional copy project options
  • Daily Timescale in Team Usage View
  • Additional Global Search & Replace functionality
  • Streamlined installation and management of the P6 Pro application with the removal of JRE

One of the new copy project options is the ability to copy projects that are linked to other projects but not copy those (external) relationships. Previously, we could only choose to not copy external relationships when copying one or more activities. Now this option can be applied to the entire project.

HTML5 pages load faster than the Java-based applets that were originally used in Primavera P6 EPPM and do not require plugins. The HTML5-based pages are referred to as Basic View, but users have the option of viewing the Java-based pages in Classic View.

Relationship types and lags can also be shown in the Activity Table in Primavera P6 EPPM.

Additional information regarding these enhancements can be found here. In addition, Oracle has created a very nifty app called the Cumulative Feature Overview Tool. It is sort of like Claim Digger for analyzing different versions of Primavera P6. You input which version you are currently using and the tool will tell you what features have been added since then, and when the changes were introduced. Click here to access the Cumulative Feature Overview Tool.



My Least Favorite Activity Type

Categories: Activity Types, Level of Effort, P6 EPPM, P6 Professional, WBS Summary
Comments Off on My Least Favorite Activity Type

Primavera SchedulingWhile I consider my self pretty adventurous when it comes to Primavera P6, I admittedly have little use for one particular activity type, the WBS Summary. To review, the WBS Summary calculates its Start and Finish date (and therefore, duration) from all other activities that have the same WBS code. On the surface, this seems like a great idea because logic is not required. The WBS Summary is the only activity type in Primavera P6 that works sans logic. And this is what I do not like about it.

I always check the Schedule Log before I publish a schedule. As you should know, the Schedule Log has a topic called “Warnings” that discusses, among other concerns, the number of activities that are missing predecessors or successors. The correct number of “open ends” would of course be two; the first activity will not have a predecessor and the last one will not have a successor. No other answer is acceptable. Owners will also be checking the Schedule Logs during their reviews. Open ends are an easy way to get a schedule rejected.

Because the WBS Summary does not want or need logic, it creates what appears to be a de facto mistake in the schedule. If the person reviewing the schedule figures out that the open ends are due to this particular activity type, then perhaps they would accept the schedule regardless. But it has been my experience that owners do not want to hear any excuses as to why some activities have logic and others do not. Open ends are an unnecessary distraction from other items (sequences, durations, coding, etc.) that need to be checked.

It is possible to add relationships to a WBS Summary to make the open ends disappear, but this basically defeats the purpose of having them in the schedule in the first place. Why not use the Level of Effort instead? The Level of Effort also calculates its dates and duration automatically, but requires logic. Therefore, the Level of Effort does not create any concerns in the Schedule Log. Both of these activity types can also have resources assigned, so nothing is lost by switching to the Level of Effort.

Logic can be added to a WBS Summary without affecting the way it calculates its dates and duration, but again, why not use the Level of Effort instead? While they may seem interchangeable, the Level of Effort demands logic, and therefore forces us to add proper relationships. The WBS Summary is a little too accommodating. I want my activity types to enforce good habits!

Better still, the Level of Effort can transcend more than one WBS code which makes it far more flexible than the WBS summary. If I really need to see the dates and durations for WBS codes I can Group by WBS and choose to Show Group Totals. This saves me the trouble of adding a bunch of WBS Summary activities to my schedule for no other purpose than seeing summary dates and durations.

In the screenshot below, the WBS Summary activity is purple. Yes, this activity tells me the Foundations start on May 17 and finish on June 28, 2016 and have an overall duration of 30 days. Yet the same information appears in the Group Totals:

Primavera Scheduling
So there is no additional benefit to adding the WBS Summary activity if the only information being provided are the summary dates and duration.

I know some users are adding WBS Summary activities as a simplified way of cost loading a schedule from the top down. They put all of the costs in the WBS Summary activities rather than the actual work tasks. But Primavera P6 has a tool called Top Down Estimation that is better suited for that purpose. While it is possible to specify a non-linear distribution curve for resources, the reality is that you are still treating every day as having the same value. That is simply unrealistic.

A Primavera P6 compatriot did mention to me a reason why he uses the WBS Summary activity on a temporary basis. When Microsoft Project schedules are imported into Primavera P6, the summary bars are imported as activities. He uses the Microsoft Project summaries as temporary placeholders for checking logic and durations. Similarly, I will use the descriptions of the Microsoft Project summary activities to build my WBS codes before deleting these superfluous tasks,