many activities converge with few successors, planning may switch to a pull mode, with predecessor activities and relationships developed backwards from already defined successor activities. As posited and in early implementation cases, GPM was envisioned and has proven to allow activity definition, sequencing and dating to proceed in a push/pull fashion .
Stakeholder-driven v. Software-calculated Dates
GPM provides a scheme of thought that, except for the calculation of gaps, floats and drifts (Glossary), concedes to human judgment where most appropriate. When an activity is first added to the evolving plan and connected, it may be positioned on the early dates the CPM forward pass would yield (“default” case). Once connected to predecessors and successors, however, stakeholders get other opportunities to re-position the activity and/or rethink its duration and even the degree of overlapping so as to achieve a more optimal scenario.
Rather than relying on CPM software heuristics that very few can use or comprehend, provided resources and time/cost trade-off data are associated with the activities as they are positioned or re-positioned. GPM lets users make their own choices as to which activities to move to earlier or later time frames, crash or extend to improve manpower loading and optimize time-dependent costs. GPM suits itself to the users’ own heuristics and thought process developed through years of collective experience doing so with or without CPM .
GPM allows activities to be connected to fixed events or benchmarks. This allows floats to be apportioned by not positioning activities after or before assigned benchmarks. When using push
© 2009 CMAA6