【24h】

Benchmarking As-Built Lags

机译:基于建造滞后的基准

获取原文

摘要

As-built schedules contain more than dates when an activity actually started and finished - they also contain that same information for relationships. Relationships have as-built start and finish dates. This gives rise to a different kind of schedule forensic analysis; As-Built Lag Analysis. When the schedule planner decides that a CPM relationship lag other than zero best describes the intended logical relationship between two activities, how often does that given lag actually result in the planned delay between activities? How often does the standard Finish-to-Start relationship with a 0-day lag actually result in a Finish-to-Start with a negative days lag? Is there a pattern in actual usage? How well are planned versus actual relationship lags managed? No one knows because no one measures them. Hundreds of papers have been written about planned versus actual activity durations. How come no one has thought to measure planned versus actual relationship durations? Now, someone has.
机译:当实际启动并完成活动时,竣工的时间表包含多个日期 - 它们还包含与关系的相同信息。关系有竣工开始和完成日期。这导致了一种不同类型的进度法医分析;竣工滞后分析。当计划计划员决定除零之外的CPM关系滞后最佳描述了两个活动之间的预期逻辑关系,多久给定滞后的频率通常会导致计划之间的计划延迟?与0日滞后的标准完成后的关系频率实际上会导致终止的终止延迟完成?实际使用情况是否有一种模式?计划如何与实际关系滞后进行管理?没有人知道,因为没有人测量它们。已经编写了数百来自计划与实际活动持续时间的论文。如何没有人想衡量计划的与实际关系持续时间?现在,有人有。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号