The Right Stuff for the Project

Microsoft Project 2002 compared to Primavera Project Planner (P3)

Prepared By Thomas Frey, CCC, PMP

Presentation Outline
Introduction Market Statistics Software Tools Baseline Comparison Progress Comparison Other Issues Conclusion References

Sept 2003, Page 2

By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP

Introduction
My Background. Focus of the Presentation. Topic Definition

Sept 2003, Page 3

By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP

Speaker Background
Thomas L. Frey, CCC, PMP Experience : 13 Yrs. Work Experience in Project Control Systems. Education : BS Degree Project Mgmt. Purdue University at West Lafayette, IN. Present : Working in Greater Los Angeles Area as an Independent Contractor. Comments : TLFrey@httib.com ; www.httib.com
Sept 2003, Page 4 By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP 4

Focus of Presentation
The Focus IS to present.
Why MS Project is not a true CPM tool. Why Primavera Project Planner is a true CPM tool. Why a true CPM tool is a better choice
Sept 2003, Page 5 By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP 5

Focus of Presentation
The Focus IS NOT .
to suggest that tools are what makes a successful project. to imply that Primavera Project Planner is the only true CPM tool. to conclude that MS Project is never associated with successful projects.

Sept 2003, Page 6

By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP

Topic Definition
TOPIC compare (km-pr)
compared, comparing, compares To consider or describe as similar, equal, or analogous; liken. To examine in order to note the similarities or differences of. Grammar. To form the positive, comparative, or superlative degree of (an adjective or adverb).

Sept 2003, Page 7

By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP

Market Statistics
Who Uses the Tools? Success Rates! What Tool Will You Choose?

Sept 2003, Page 8

By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP

Market Statistics
Who Uses the Tools?
Market stats indicate that MS Project is the dominant Project Management tool.
This market dominance is due to the prominent adaptation by the IT industry. According to market surveys by GartnerGroup, MS Project market share is 80%.
See reference on slide 47.

Sept 2003, Page 9

By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP

Market Statistics
Who Uses the Tools?
Market stats indicate that Primavera Project Planner / OpenPlan are the dominant products in the AEC / Petrol-Chemical industries.
The dominant product for the Aero-Space industry is Artemis. There are other honorable mentions in the remaining market share as well. According to market surveys by Gartner, this market share is the remaining 20%.
See reference on slide 47

Sept 2003, Page 10

By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP

10

Market Statistics
Success Rates!
Market stats indicate the following for the IT Industry:
Odds for Success (GartnerGroup, The Standish Group)
~70% of IT projects are late, over budget, lack essential functionality, or are never delivered. ~20% of IT projects just flat fail. ~30% of IT projects are successful.

Leading causes for project failure (GartnerGroup)

poor project planning failure to manage scope and change failure to manage risk

Sept 2003, Page 11

By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP

11

Market Statistics
What Tool Will YOU Choose?
Project Management teams that speak from a perspective of success.
Choose Primavera Project Planner (P3).
Proven time and again in the court of law. The tool is not challenged, only the claims of the parties are at issue. See case law reference on slide 47.
Sept 2003, Page 12 By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP 12

Market Statistics
What Tool Will YOU Choose?
Ultimately the choice is yours.
Who would you rather be?

Sept 2003, Page 13

By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP

13

Software Tools
Primavera Project Planner 3.1 MS Project 2002 The Bench Mark

Sept 2003, Page 14

By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP

14

Software Tools
Primavera Project Planner 3.1
Extensive activity coding and WBS Handles Cost Accounts, Cost Categories, and Resource Pooling Built in Import and Export (Spreadsheet or Database) Primavera Post Office applet allows remote, two-way activity review and updating Complete customization of display and output Central Database Earned Value Calculations Multiple Baselines Visit at www.primavera.com
Sept 2003, Page 15 By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP 15

Software Tools
Microsoft Project 2002 Standard
Integration with Office, Excel, and Outlook Wizards for Projects, Calendars, and Tracking Text fields available for activity coding and WBS Earned Value Calculation Multiple Baselines Resource Pooling Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) Visit at www.microsoft.com
Sept 2003, Page 16 By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP 16

Software Tools
Microsoft Project 2002 Standard
NOTE: MS Project 2003 is due for release on Oct. 21, 2003. Per the MS Project website FAQ,
What is the difference between Microsoft Project Standard 2002 and Microsoft Project Professional 2002? Microsoft Project Standard is still the project management program for project managers, business managers, and planner who want to plan and manage projects from their personal computer. Microsoft Project Professional is the project management program you can use with Microsoft Project Server 2002 (along with Microsoft Project Server CALs) as part of the Enterprise Project Management solution. Microsoft Project Professional provides all the core tools in Microsoft Project Standard, plus powerful enterprise project management capabilities.

Sept 2003, Page 17

By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP

17

Software Tools
The Bench Mark
Due to the fact that P3 has been used, and referenced in case law, for the purpose of this comparison, P3 is the benchmark.

Sept 2003, Page 18

By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP

18

Baseline Comparison
We will cover the following..
The test project
Schedule / Calc setup

Total Float (Slack) calculation Constraints as related to date calculation Summary of issues
Sept 2003, Page 19 By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP 19

Baseline Comparison
The Test Project(s)
Setup options are intended to be most compatible with a large complex project. Consists of 4 subprojects.
Management Used to track top level milestones and tasks. Sub-System 1 Sub-System 2 Integration of sub-systems 1 and 2.
Sept 2003, Page 20 By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP 20

Baseline Comparison
The Test Project(s)
MS Project Calculation Settings / Schedule Settings.

Sept 2003, Page 21

By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP

21

Baseline Comparison
The Test Project(s)
Primavera Calculation Settings / Schedule Settings.

Sept 2003, Page 22

By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP

22

Baseline Comparison
The next 2 slides show the following
MS Project with a zero float baseline with critical path. Primavera Project Planner with a zero float baseline with critical path. NOTE: In this first comparison there are no project constraints.

Sept 2003, Page 23

By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP

23

Sept 2003, Page 24

By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP

24

Sept 2003, Page 25

By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP

25

Baseline Comparison
Note the following differences..
The fabrication milestone has no constraint. In P3 it has float, and in MS Project it does not. The task Integration Oversight is an open end and also should have float. The correct calculation
Open ends, on the backward pass, get a late start equal to the projects latest finish.

Sept 2003, Page 26

By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP

26

Baseline Comparison

The late finish should be Jan. 14, 2005 for both cases, resulting in 150 and 40 days of float.
Sept 2003, Page 27 By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP 27

Baseline Comparison
The next 2 slides show the following
MS Project with a negative float baseline with critical path. Primavera Project Planner with a negative float baseline with critical path. NOTE: In this second comparison we have added a project finish constraint of Finish No Later Than, Dec. 3, 2004.
Sept 2003, Page 28 By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP 28

Sept 2003, Page 29

By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP

29

Sept 2003, Page 30

By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP

30

Baseline Comparison
Note the following differences..
The project finish milestone in MS Project does not reflect the correct early date. The correct calculation
On the forward pass, the project finish milestone should get an early finish equal to the original baseline forward pass, Jan. 14, 2005. On the backward pass, the project finish milestone should get a late finish equal to the constraint date, Dec. 3, 2004.
Sept 2003, Page 31 By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP 31

Baseline Comparison

The early finish should be Jan. 14, 2005, and the late finish should be Dec. 3, 2004.
Sept 2003, Page 32 By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP 32

Baseline Comparison
Summary
MS Project does not handle open ends correctly. MS Project does not handle constraints correctly. The analysis of float and constraints is critical to understanding the performance and status of a project plan.
Sept 2003, Page 33 By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP 33

Progress Comparison
We will cover the following..
The test project Total Float (Slack) calculation Remaining Duration Constraints as related to date calculation Summary of issues

Sept 2003, Page 34

By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP

34

Progress Comparison
The Test Project
Consists of 4 subprojects, with progress data.
Management Used to track top level milestones and tasks. Sub-System 1 Sub-System 2 Integration of sub-systems 1 and 2.

Sept 2003, Page 35

By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP

35

Progress Comparison
The next 2 slides show the following
Primavera Project Planner with project status as of Jan. 15, 2004. MS Project with project status as of Jan. 15, 2004. Made one logic change. Sub-system 2 Installation is now (FF) with Integration Commissioning. NOTE: In this comparison the project finish milestone is constrained with Finish No Later Than Jan. 14, 2005.
Sept 2003, Page 36 By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP 36

Sept 2003, Page 37

By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP

37

Sept 2003, Page 38

By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP

38

Sept 2003, Page 39

By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP

39

Progress Comparison
Note the following differences..
The project finish milestone in MS Project does not reflect the correct early date. Sub-System 1 Fabrication has 133 remaining days and MS Project retains the original early finish. Sub-System 2 Procurement has 10 days remaining and MS Project retains the original early finish. The correct calculation
The forward pass, in a progress situation, determines the early finish by adding the remaining duration to the data date. For Sub-System 1 Fabrication this is 133 days plus Jan. 15, 2004, or, July 19, 2004. For Sub-System 2 Procurement this is 10 days plus Jan. 15, 2004, or, Jan. 28, 2004.

Sept 2003, Page 40

By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP

40

Progress Comparison
Test Project No. 2
Test project 2 as an example of the inconsistent functionality of MS Project. We created a much simpler model and used the exact same setup. All setup options and activity types are exactly the same.

Sept 2003, Page 41

By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP

41

In this test case MS Project has automatically split the critical task and calculates the critical path correctly.

Sept 2003, Page 42

By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP

42

In this case I used the MS Project splitting tool to manually change test project 1. This results in incorrect and inflated durations.
Sept 2003, Page 43 By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP 43

Progress Comparison
Summary
MS Project does not handle the calculation of remaining duration correctly. MS Project does not calculate early finishes correctly based upon remaining duration. Two test projects built with the exact same setup, and different results.
Sept 2003, Page 44 By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP 44

Other Issues for Large Projects

MS Project does not handle the following:
Cost Accounts Cost Categories Activity types of Hammock, WBS, Flags, and meetings. Intelligent activity coding / numbering.

Sept 2003, Page 45

By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP

45

Conclusion
Ultimately the choice is yours.
Who would you rather be?

Sept 2003, Page 46

By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP

46

References
GartnerGroup Inc., 2002 Project/Resource Management Magic Quadrant, Market Analysis, July 24, 2002. GartnerGroup Inc., The Project Office: Teams, Processes and Tools, Strategic Analysis Report, August 1, 2000. itWorld Canada.com, Are You Ready For A Project Office?, By William Elkins, March 1, 2002 http://www.itworldcanada.com/index.cfm/ci_id/25141.htm CFO Magazine, To build better IT projects, start by building a better project manager, by Peter Krass, March 17, 2003. http://www.cfo.com/article/1,5309,9320|||3,00.html BALDI BROS. CONSTRUCTORS, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.; No. 98-326C , UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS; 50 Fed. Cl. 74; 2001 U.S. Claims LEXIS 143, July 30, 2001, Filed

Sept 2003, Page 47

By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP

47

References
Lewis, James P.: Project Planning Schedule and Control. Irvin Professional Publishing, 1995. ISBN 1-55738-869-5 Lewis, James P.: Fundamentals of Project Management. AMACOM Publishing, 1995. ISBN 0-8144-7835-2 Kenneth K. Humphreys, PE CCE; Jelens Cost and Optimization Engineering, Third Edition, McGraw Hill, Inc., 1991. Skills & Knowledge of Cost Engineering, Third Edition, Revised, AACE International. PMI Body of Knowledge 2000, PMI Standards Committee.

Sept 2003, Page 48

By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP

48

The Right Stuff for the Project

THE END

Sept 2003, Page 49

By T.L. Frey, CCC, PMP

49