Some scheduling professionals express strong preferences for scheduling software, even attributing project success or failure to software selection. Others are more tolerant. A scheduling system that makes sense in one industry may not serve another industry very well at all. Well regarded software may exhibit surprising limitations in some applications. The common man's scheduling software may demonstrate astonishing capacity that others cannot readily match.
Although it was not widely used until the advent of computers, practitioners should keep in mind that the Critical Path Method predates them. By today's standards, the early systems were rudimentary; but they did the job. In some respects, former practices were, in fact, superior. Consider that no prominent scheduling software available at this time supports activity-on-arrow planning. We can accomplish pretty much the same analyses using Precedence Diagramming, but many have difficulty eluding the temptations presented by superfluous software features. Thus, unconventional logic relationships and constraint types abound, disabling the Critical Path capability of any software.
The wise practitioner understands that right thinking is more consequential than algorithms, by orders of magnitude, for project success. It is not the tool, but what one does with it, that matters.
Thank you for visiting Schedulosophy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment