Aashto Cpm Survey 2006

AASHTO CPM SURVEY 2006

Prepared by the

Texas Department of Transportation

Construction Division

INTRODUCTION

In June 2006, the Construction Division of the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) prepared a short survey regarding critical path method (CPM) software and consequent practices supporting construction scheduling requirements of AASHTO members.

This survey was developed to identify the CPM software packages being used throughout the various state department of transportation, along with the scheduling practices applied be each state. Interest in this information arose out of TxDOT’s consideration to move toward a single CPM software brand and version that could be accessed statewide on a centralized server. The overall goal of the survey was to gather feedback about which CPM softwares other states are successfully using and how it is being applied, so that a better informed decision could be made regarding future upgrading of the CPM software at TxDOT.

Currently TxDOT uses several versions of Primavera Project Planner (P3) to review and analyze CPM schedules prepared and submitted by our contractors for use during construction. TxDOT does not mandate a specific work breakdown structure (WBS) to be used by contractors for schedules submitted to us. However, TxDOT has concern that similarly coded schedule data (ex: resources) could be overwritten in a central server database if such a WBS structure, or other coding structure, is not in place. Primavera’s recent E/C and 5.0 versions (enterprise platform versions) utilize such a common database where all of an organizations project schedules are merged in order to provide an “enterprise” level of managing multiple projects.

SURVEY RESULTS

The survey consisted of seven main questions regarding the CPM software and scheduling practices. Twenty-five member states responded to the survey, each providing various levels of detail and insight on the topic.

Overall, the survey indicates that 17 of the 24 states responding use CPM scheduling,
3 states indicate using CPM on a limited basis, and 4 responded as not using CPM. The specific questions posed in the survey are listed below and following each is a summary of the responses received.

1. Which CPM scheduling software program are you currently using?

Responses to this question fell into 10 groups as follows:

ü  No CPM software used – 4

ü  P3(Primavera 3.1 or lower) – 4

ü  Primavera 5.0 – 2

ü  Primavera E/C – 1

ü  Combination of P3 3.1 & Suretrack – 3

ü  Combination of P3 3.1, Suretrack, or Primavera E/C – 3

ü  Suretrack Project Manager – 1

ü  MS Project or Primavera Contractor - 1

ü  MS Project - 2

ü  Open Plan – 1

ü  Software not specified – 3

1. Who prepares and maintains the schedules? DOT, consultants, or contractors?

The responses indicate that contractors develop and maintain the construction schedule in most states. Only one respondent indicated the state preparing and maintaining the schedule.

1. Does your DOT have a formal work breakdown structure (WBS) required for all schedules or do you accept schedules however the preparer develops it?

Five of the states responding indicate having a formal work breakdown structure (WBS) to be used by contractors when preparing their construction schedules. However, the majority of respondents indicate no formal WBS or other coding requirements are required in the schedules they receive from contractors.

1. Does your DOT use a central server platform to provide software access to all of its offices from one server?

Six of the states responding indicate using centralized software programs; two indicate using both stand-alone and centralized programs, the remaining respondents indicate centralized programs not being used.

1. Has your DOT allowed consultants and/or contractors access to use DOT scheduling software via web access?

One state responded that web access is being utilized, while several others indicate they are considering it for future use. Although, the majority of responses show that web access is not be allowed.

1. If you are currently using Primavera’s E/C or 5.0 versions or Microsoft Project 2003 versions, will you please summarize your best and worst experience with these softwares?

The responses to this question were minimal, with few giving specific accounts of either good or bad experiences with either software. But, several respondents did acknowledge their preferential support of Primavera scheduling software over that of Microsoft Project.

1. Has your DOT experienced a data overwriting issue in E/C; if so, how was it addressed and corrected?

The responses to this question, like those of question 6, were minimal. One state responded with similar type issues being experiencing with work calendars, while another state indicates experiencing problems during importing files to E/C. They explain having activity, resource and project codes enter their Enterprise database as GLOBAL codes instead of project level codes. This respondent indicates the resource data entering as part of a project schedule should be contained within the project hierarchy so that the project codes don’t overwrite previous projects and that an adjustment may need to be made to the default import configuration settings used to import project files into the enterprise database. They further suggested that TxDOT consider developing a formal WBS to standardize the coding structure used by contractor in developing their project schedules and restrict the ability to import schedules to only certain users that are well trained.

CONCLUSION

From the information gathered in the survey, most states have not upgraded their CPM software to the recently released enterprise-style of centralized accessible scheduling software. Several states have started considering its potential use and a limited few are, at least for now, exploring with its use on a limited project basis.

Additional Information

Since the time of this survey, Primavera has indicated that modifications are being made to their enterprise software that should alleviate the potential for overwriting project data. They expect this to be offered in their version 7 release. In the mean time, Primavera has indicated that Suretrack will be offered for several more years and support for P3 3.1 will continue to be provided at least through the end of year 2010. For more details, please review Primavera Knowledgebase Solution prim21466 and 20021021704 respectively.

Additionally, on the following pages are condensed responses to each question from the states responding to the CPM survey.

Question #1: Which CPM scheduling software program are you currently using?

Responding State / Condensed Response
Arkansas / Primavera or Suretrack
Delaware / Primavera, Suretrack, or Primavera E/C
Florida / Primavera, Suretrack, or Primavera E/C
Georgia / N/A
Illinois / Not Specified
Indiana / N/A – considering future requirement on projects of certain size.
Iowa / Not Specified
Kansas / N/A – plan to require CPM in upcoming specification revisions.
Maine / Primavera
Michigan / Primavera 5.0
Minnesota / Primavera – no immediate plan to move to 5.0.
Mississippi / Primavera or Suretrack
Nebraska / N/A
New Hampshire / Not Specified - allows Primavera and MS Project and plans to use Primavera 5.0 in the future.
New Jersey / Primavera E/C
New York / Primavera or Suretrack and currently implementing Primavera 5.0.
North Carolina / Primavera
North Dakota / Primavera
Oklahoma / MS Project
Pennsylvania / Open Plan by Welcom
South Carolina / Primavera, Suretrack and P3 E/C – considering future restriction to P3 E/C or Primavera Contractor.
Tennessee / MS Project
Texas / Primavera or Suretrack – considering implementation of Primavera 5.0 on central server with web access
Utah / Primavera 5.0
Vermont / N/A

Question #2: Who prepares and maintains the schedules - DOT, consultants, or contractors?

Responding State / Condensed Response
Arkansas / Contractor
Delaware / Contractor – DOT may assign milestones and some are reviewed by consultants.
Florida / Contractor prepares the schedule – DOT reviews and maintains the schedule during construction.
Georgia / N/A
Illinois / Contractor
Indiana / Contractor
Iowa / Contractor
Kansas / Contractor
Maine / Contractor – in some cases consultants review the schedule.
Michigan / Contractor
Minnesota / Contractor – sometimes consultants are hired to supplement needs and review project time justifications.
Mississippi / Contractor – DOT or consultant reviews the schedules.
Nebraska / Contractor
New Hampshire / No response
New Jersey / DOT
New York / Contractor – DOT considering providing an abbreviated CPM as supplemental information to bidders, as well as looking at joint ownership of the schedule upon approval/acceptance of the initial baseline schedule.
North Carolina / Contractor – consultants review all CPM’s for the DOT.
North Dakota / Contractor
Oklahoma / Contractor
Pennsylvania / Contractor – monitored by both DOT and Contractor.
South Carolina / Contractor – some contractors are using consultants to prepare their schedules.
Tennessee / Contractor
Texas / Contractor
Utah / Contractor
Vermont / Contractor

Question #3: Does your DOT have a formal work breakdown structure (WBS) required for all schedules or do you accept schedules however the preparer develops it?

Responding State / Condensed Response
Arkansas / AHTD has a formal work breakdown structure.
Delaware / No WBS is required, but an activity coding structure is supplied to contractors after bid.
Florida / No
Georgia / No
Illinois / No
Indiana / No
Iowa / No
Kansas / No
Maine / No
Michigan / Yes
Minnesota / Two WBS exist: one for design-build projects and a “suggested” WBS for traditional projects.
Mississippi / No
Nebraska / No
New Hampshire / No response
New Jersey / Yes
New York / Not currently – intend to implement within a schedule template coming with new standard specifications.
North Carolina / No
North Dakota / No
Oklahoma / No
Pennsylvania / No
South Carolina / No – having an issue with resources that are expanding due to having to maintain each contractor’s variations n the system.
Tennessee / No
Texas / No
Utah / Not currently – plan to require use of one in the near future.
Vermont / None for construction – some are used by program development for pre-construction activities.

Question #4: Does your DOT use a central server platform to provide software access to all of it offices from one server?

Responding State / Condensed Response
Arkansas / No
Delaware / P3 E/C is on a central server, other versions are not.
Florida / Some offices utilize a central server.
Georgia / No
Illinois / No
Indiana / No
Iowa / No
Kansas / No
Maine / No
Michigan / No
Minnesota / Several larger projects are running from a central server. Recently tried to accomplish this via Citrix application with successes via a consultant, but yet to work out internal IT configurations.
Mississippi / No
Nebraska / No
New Hampshire / No
New Jersey / Yes
New York / Yes for the main and regional offices. Plan to implement a web server for field personnel access.
North Carolina / No
North Dakota / No
Oklahoma / No
Pennsylvania / Yes
South Carolina / Yes
Tennessee / No
Texas / No
Utah / Not currently but plan to go to a central server when implementing 5.0.
Vermont / Yes

Question #5: Has your DOT allowed consultants and/or contractors access to use DOT scheduling software via web access?

Responding State / Condensed Response
Arkansas / No
Delaware / No
Florida / The production group does, but construction does not.
Georgia / No
Illinois / No
Indiana / No
Iowa / No
Kansas / No
Maine / No
Michigan / No
Minnesota / Yes, but very limited.
Mississippi / No
Nebraska / No
New Hampshire / No
New Jersey / No
New York / No - consideration of future consultant and contractor access to our database through the web is being discussed as part of implementing the upgraded version of Primavera.
North Carolina / No
North Dakota / No
Oklahoma / No
Pennsylvania / No
South Carolina / No
Tennessee / No
Texas / No
Utah / No - consideration of future consultant and contractor access to our database through the web is being discussed as part of implementing the upgraded version of Primavera.
Vermont / No

Question #6: If you are currently using Primavera’s E/C or 5.0 versions or Microsoft Project 2003 versions, will you please summarize your best and worst experiences with the softwares?

Responding State / Condensed Response
Arkansas / N/A
Delaware / The user’s opinion is that E/C is adequate for preconstruction, but not for analyzing construction CPM schedules due to the number of calendars used for construction which aren’t always compatible with the calendar setup in the E/C program.
Florida / N/A
Georgia / N/A
Illinois / N/A
Indiana / N/A
Iowa / N/A
Kansas / N/A
Maine / N/A
Michigan / N/A
Minnesota / N/A
Mississippi / N/A
Nebraska / N/A
New Hampshire / N/A
New Jersey / N/A
New York / The users opinion from beginning implementation of Primavera 5.0 the new softwares ability to maintain schedules in one “enterprise” database along with the OBS structure and security profiles allows true multitasking and rollup of program information that is a huge step forward for the agency.
North Carolina / N/A
North Dakota / N/A
Oklahoma / N/A
Pennsylvania / N/A
South Carolina / MS Project was considered early on, but was later dropped.
Tennessee / N/A
Utah / The user is biased toward Primavera over MS Project.
Texas / Our users recognize a move toward implementing enterprise type software is one needing planning and careful attention so as not to hinder the integrity of schedules submitted to us by our contractors.
Vermont / N/A

Question #7: Has your DOT experienced a data overwriting issue in E/C; if so, how was it addressed and corrected?

Responding State / Condensed Response
Arkansas / N/A
Delaware / The user reiterates the calendar issue with E/C and has not had the opportunity to check out other possible overwrites.
Florida / N/A
Georgia / N/A
Illinois / N/A
Indiana / N/A
Iowa / N/A
Kansas / N/A
Maine / N/A
Michigan / N/A
Minnesota / N/A
Mississippi / N/A
Nebraska / N/A
New Hampshire / N/A
New Jersey / N/A
New York / The user explains the only problem experienced with Primavera 5.0 was during importing P3 files and having codes come in as global codes instead of project codes. Suggests checking the default configuration settings for importing as well as considering providing a schedule template to the contractor with a standard WBS that contains a standard Enterprise coding structure and require the contractor to use those codes. Also suggested was to limit the ability to import schedules to only certain users that have been well trained.
North Carolina / N/A
North Dakota / N/A
Oklahoma / N/A
Pennsylvania / N/A
South Carolina / N/A
Tennessee / N/A
Texas / Our users experienced overwriting of like name resources between competing contractors.
Utah / The user attended training and was explained the problem had been fixed.
Vermont / N/A

1 of 10