|
EDITOR'S NOTES
Railway management tycoon Alfred Edward Perlman said, “After you’ve done a thing the same way for two years, look it over carefully. After five years, look at it with suspicion. And after 10 years, throw it away and start all over” (New York Times, 3 July 1958).
Although Perlman, former president of New York Central, was talking about the rail transit industry, his counsel applies to all industries, and particularly, construction. Ask yourself:
* How long have we been doing business in its current manner?
Are we duplicating work processes? If so, why?
* Which current practices are effective? Which ones are not?
* Do we use technology to help further the business or does it hinder work processes? If it hinders production, what needs to change?
* Are we using old technology, why? Are we afraid to learn new skills? Or, is it an investment issue? Will the newer technology improve business practices?
This month’s issue of Construction Project Controls helps call attention to some of these areas where you could make improvements. And sometimes, the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” philosophy does work best. After all, “All change is not growth, as all movement is not forward,” said Pulitzer Prize novelist Ellen Glasgow.
|
 |
BEST PRACTICES: THE INNER WORKINGS OF THREE PROJECTS
By Lauren Sudbrink
Successful projects come about because of effective communication—that is the conclusion of a study of three Chicago area projects that were under the supervision of Bovis Lend Lease, Inc. The study concludes that technology also plays an important role.
|
 |
P6 CLIENT/SERVER QUICK REVIEW
By Gordon H. Aronson
Primavera’s recently released P6 includes a few updates from P5, but for now, it’s all about the Internet interface. Gordon Aronson reviews some of the new and improved features in the Power Client.
|
|
IT’S THE SIMPLE THINGS
By Gordon H. Aronson
When it comes to scheduling software, schedulers like what feels comfortable. That sometimes comes in the form of older versions of current software. Gordon Aronson gives a somewhat terse review of some of the minor shortcomings of P5/P6 while lamenting some of the bygone features of P3.
|
|
