W16_Reginald Nwachukwu_Comparing Schedule Types Using Force Field Analysis

1. Problem Definition or Opportunity Statement:

To compare basic scheduling tools using Force Field Analysis tool

Following Dr. PDG comments and instructions on my weekly blog post:

http://bistro12.blogspot.com/2013/03/w12reginald-nwachukwuscheduling-270m.html ; it is required to compare these basic scheduling tools using Force Field Analysis. The focus is to identify a schedule that will meet desire visibility into project activities, durations, relationships, float and critical path nuances.

2. Development of Feasible Alternatives:

The feasible alternatives that may be generated for this analysis are the basic scheduling tools themselves. These scheduling tools are identified and subjected to Force Field Analysis to establish their unique features that make them fiendly to schedulers and project planners. these basic tools include:

(i) Bar/Gantt Chart

(ii) Milestone Chart

(iii) Line of Balance (LOB)

(iv) Network Diagrams

3. Development of the Outcome for Each Alternative:

The Force Field Analytical tool was used to evaluate each alternative to identify their positive and negative strength to scheduling work activities, their durations, floats, early and late dates and most important the identification of critical activities necessary to complete a project. These features were used as the basis for evaluating the individual scheduling tools as shown below:

Figure 1  Force Field Analysis of  Bar/Gantt Chart

Figure 2  Force Field Analysis of Line Of Balance (LOB)

Figure 3  Force Field Analysis of  Milestones Chart

Figure 4  Force Field Analysis of Network Diagrams

4. Selection of Acceptable Criteria:

The criteria used to select a schedule type suitable for development of a schedule will be such that the schedule type will show more visibility into the various activities, their durations, early and late dates, floats and identification of critical path.

5. Analysis and Comparison of Each Alternative:

Analyzing the various outcomes of each alternative developed in step 3 above, it is obvious the network diagram is the most suitable and advance schedule tool that will show more VISIBILITY into project activities, their durations, early and late date, floats and identification of the critical path.
To this end, NETWORK DIAGRAMS (ADM & PDM) is the preferred option for scheduling the 27.0m length precast box culvert.

6. Selection of Preferred Alternative:

Based on the outcome of each alternative and the comparison as stated above, the network diagram is the preferred alternative that can be suitable develop to meet the schedule needs.

7. Performance Monitoring and Evaluation of Results:

Performance will be monitored through continuous updates and review of the various schedule types and effort will be made to focus on their specific features that makes them friendly to project schedulers. Here, results obtained will be evaluated and compared to establish the relevance to present day scheduling tools.

References:

1. AACE International (2012) Skills and Knowledge of Cost Engineering (5th Edition Revised) pp. 28.3-28.7  AACE International Morgantown W.V. 

2. Brassard, M. & Ritter, D.(2010). The Memory Jogger 2: Tools for Continuous Improvement and Effective Planning, pp.86-90

3. AACE International (2008) Planning and Scheduling Professional certification Guide (First Edition Revised) pp. 143-145  AACE International Morgantown W.V.