![]() ![]() Claimdigger’s limitations in operability, and lack of a visual interface other than a matrix, are surely some of its shortcomings, and a sign of its inevitable obsolescence. Most end-users will nod after the first 15 or 20 pages. On the downside, typical Claimdigger output may exceed 500 pages for a 1,200 activity project. ![]() ![]() Although Primavera still features the old standby Claimdigger, that API is rather simple, offers little operability, and no relational analysis capability: it just tallies basic DCMA 14 logs, and tabular reports.Ĭlaimdigger generates its reports into html pages that can be exported into pdfs. Thus Schedule analysis and forensics were never one of the strong suits of mid-range CPM programs, such as Primavera, and even less with front-end, such as MS Project. In fact, DCMA has been the mainstay for most scheduling programs since the early 1990’s. Until recently, most third-party tools relied solely on the DCMA 14 Point Schedule Assessment (DCMA-14) rubrics, which substantially comprise most third-party analytical applications. DCMA-14 and Claimdigger, the Old Stand-bys It is becoming necessary for the industry to step-up capabilities in a way that can streamline the process of maintaining a high-level of project schedule verification, and up the ante of reporting services, without conceding an enormous investment. Indeed, most of the higher order analysis and forensics for Primavera 6 schedules must be done manually, which is a tedious, and time consuming process. Finding the Best Way to Optimize Your CPM SchedulesĪs generating forensics and analysis for more complex schedules has become increasingly relevant, the industry still struggles to mainstream the process. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |