Welcome to DCD, home of the number one construction magazine!
ABOUT DCD    THE MAGAZINE    D4COST    CONTACT    HOME
Welcome to DCD.com!
     

 Current Issue
 Click here to
 read the issue.
Click Here To Access The DCD Archives™
Subscriber Login

Content/Departments
   Current Issue
   Issue Archive
   Specifiers Spotlights
   Building Products Revue
   TradeWinds
   Technical Articles
   Insights
   Case Studies
   DCD Sq. Ft. Cost Guides

   Cost Trends


Advertising
   Media Kit

Subscriptions
   Free Subscription
   Subscribe
   DCD E-News Subscription

D4COST Software



 

WPL Publishing's Construction Scheduling Software Survey Yields Interesting Results
By Paul Levin

WPL Publishing recently conducted a survey to better gauge the extent to which computer-generated schedules are being used in construction projects, and the types of software being used to create these.

Our goal was to find out who was using Critical Path Method (CPM) scheduling, how and why they were using it, and whether their needs were being met by the current state-of-the-art CPM software. With more than 400 responses, we believe we have gathered a representative sampling of the construction industry to meet the objectives of this survey.

The Demographics
Almost half of the respondents represent the contractor side of the construction community and includes contractors, sub/trade contractors, and construction managers. The second largest group of users, at 26 percent, is consultants: project controls, project management, and claims consultants. The third group, at 11 percent, consists of public and private owners. The balance of respondents represents engineers, academics, trainers, software vendors, and one attorney. If we assume half the consultants work for owners and the other half work for contractors, we are left with approximately 75 percent of respondents on the construction side and 25 percent on the owner side.

A good cross-section of industries is represented, with commercial construction at 48 percent of respondents being the largest segment, and energy the lowest at 23 percent. We also got several write-ins for healthcare and residential construction.



Twenty-seven percent of the respondents described themselves as schedule professionals – scheduler, schedule engineer, schedule manager, or schedule consultant. Approximately 42 percent placed themselves as project professionals, including project engineer, project manager, project controls engineer, project controls manager, superintendent, or construction manager. The remaining 21 percent was a mix of job functions, including academics, estimators, and executives. The full survey report lists these titles in detail. As shown later in the survey, most respondents do use schedules and, coupled with the number of those who do not consider themselves “schedule professionals,” underlines the importance of scheduling to the construction process.



As a group, 68 percent of respondents said they have used CPM software for 10 years or more – a very experienced group indeed! Less than 9 percent have never used CPM software, and 21 percent have used CPM between 1 and 10 years. Of the 34 respondents who have never used CPM software, only 14 said they used the output produced by CPM software, such as bar charts, network diagrams, or reports.

Why Use CPM Software?
One of the key reasons for the survey was to find out why people used CPM software in the first place. We are taught that use of CPM software is an important tool for successfully managing projects. However, only 53 percent of respondents used it for actively managing projects. The bulk of the remaining group used CPM software because the Owner required it, for either payment, reporting and/or claims support. It was interesting to learn that at least three people used it for building information modeling (BIM) purposes, and several others used CPM during the design and engineering phase.



CPM Software – Which programs are used? And the winner is…
Eighty-five percent of survey respondents said they had experience with CPM software. Of this group, Microsoft Project, at 81.2 percent, was the software most respondents have used. Close behind were Primavera P6 at 70.9 percent, Primavera P3 at 67.8 percent, Primavera SureTrak at 58.1 percent, and Primavera Contractor at 22.5 percent. Note: multiple answers were allowed, and certainly many P6 users were also current or former P3 users. Clearly, Oracle’s Primavera and SureTrak products were found to be the dominant applications out there. Our next survey will attempt to find out what people prefer and/or use exclusively.

There were 28 other CPM programs that respondents reported using, including 11 listed on the survey, but none with more than 6.8 percent experience rating. Software applications used ranged from programs that run on a mini-computer to home-grown software.

Thirty-six percent of respondents reported having experience with tools that work with CPM software, including schedule data analysis, risk analysis, 4D scheduling, and data integration tools. The product with the highest experience ratings were Schedule Analyzer by Ron Winter Consulting Inc. and Acumen Fuse by Deltek, both in the schedule data analysis category, followed by Synchro and Autodesk’s Navisworks in the 4D scheduling category.

Other Scheduling Methods
Fifty percent of respondents reported they performed their scheduling activities manually, with computer spreadsheets or with desktop software calendar functions. Probably the most novel method we encountered was by a company that reported it uses a whiteboard and camera phone.

The Software Wish List With almost 600 written requests, this was perhaps the most challenging part of our survey. “Simpler,” “easier,” “more intuitive,” and “more user friendly” dominated the response wish list. We also received several specific technical requests related to specific software products, as well as requests for a multitude of functionalities. Several people would like to see Primavera P3 and SureTrak work with newer versions of Windows. Others wrote down requests for solutions that are, in fact, available in some products. For example, a request for model-based scheduling can be found in the 4D scheduling applications. Other general categories on the wish list include improved output graphics, more training, and interfaces to other applications. A few people suggested outlawing Primavera P6, while others suggested outlawing Microsoft Project, which happen to be the two leading CPM applications used! Finally, several people raised concerns about accuracy and data consistency.

Coupled with the fact that there are more than two dozen CPM applications, the large number of wish-list items points to applications and processes comprised of a wide range of needs, capabilities, and experience that are frequently mismatched.

Project Delivery Method and Conclusion
Our objective with this question was to learn specifically how the delivery method influences what scheduling method and software is used on any given project. Respondents did point out that design-build either compels the use of CPM software or greatly benefits from its use, but overall, the responses to this question clearly indicate that either the owner specified the use of CPM software or the size of the project was an important factor. This issue was brought up again in the survey’s user comment section.

There seem to be problems deciding which applications should be used on which projects, as well as issues dealing with the actual persons using the software on various projects. Readers pointed out the software might be too complex for use on smaller projects or that expertise and experience to use the software properly was not in place. There seems to be a need for more training, not merely in using CPM software, but in understanding construction scheduling itself. Indeed, someone may be proficient in using Microsoft Project or Primavera P6, or at least believe they are because they can add activities and produce a report. But these users may not understand the nuances or maintenance functions necessary to ensure the software is updating the schedules properly or even calculating the correct dates.

This author generally concurs with these observations: that the industry can benefit through a combination of improved software, training, and specifications. A schedule can be as simple as several lines on the back of an envelope or as complex as 25,000 activities in a CPM schedule. For more complex projects, however, a significant component in the success of the CPM scheduling effort is going to rely more on the skill and experience of the person creating the schedule, no matter how simple or sophisticated the CPM software. One could say that CPM software, particularly the more sophisticated programs, is intended for use by experienced schedulers. But less than 27 percent of respondents fall into that category, indicating that a large percentage of construction professionals who are using CPM may not have the training or experience level required to match the sophistication of the software.

About the author: Paul Levin is the Founder, Editor and Publisher of WPL. He possesses a degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Maryland and Masters degree in Engineering Administration from George Washington University. Mr. Levin has worked as an arbitrator for the American Arbitration Association and served as a Senior Consultant with Revay & Associates, specializing in scheduling, cost control, dispute resolution, and project management oversight for owners and contractors.


©2015 Copyright DC&D Technologies, Inc. All rights reserved. | DCD Construction Magazine | Email: webmaster@dcd.com