Background

It is important to look at the reporting and metrics to be gathered when designing the approach for constructing how P6 will be applied. Often these are provided in the schedule premise; however, there may be cases for deviation.

Often metrics are set for the pre-turnaround (sometimes referred to as front-end loading). More often than not it is not treated as the project that it is. Milestones are identified and activities are performed to meet them but not documented within the plan.

With the need for specific metrics designed to help us prepare for, execute, and conduct post turnaround event analysis drive a different approach to establishing your P6 architecture?

Using an Integrated Multi-Project Approach

Managing readiness requires a project within Primavera but would be better served as a different project than incorporation in to the execution plan itself.

With the power of P6 for cross-project relationships, it is a good solution to create a separate project with cross-activity logic assignments for:

- Pre-Turnaround Project Schedule

- Turnaround Execution Project Schedule

- Post-Turnaround Project Schedule

With all projects opened at the same time, schedulers have the full capability to schedule and evaluate schedule development, cross-project inter-relationships, and view specific metrics designed for each 'phase'.

But What About Capital Project Integration?

When evaluating industry best practices it is often said that the failure to better integrate capital projects into the turnaround preparation and execution. Capital project management teams often use Excel, MS Project, and other scheduling tools outside of the corporate schedule tool standard which is Primavera. This approach prevents visibility, communication, and collaboration which are essential tools to ensure turnaround execution readiness.

Comments on these thoughts and your ideas are welcomed and encouraged!