Yeah would always recommend working with one programme so that everything stays integrated. You can make best use of whatever scheduling software you’re using to apply codes and WBS to be able to filter, summarise or present different views of that programme for any purpose.
Hi Sachin, good question. There's a long answer to this, and there are others on here that are more qualified than me to answer, but I'll outline some thoughts.
In our experience as 4D modellers, it's best to use the same schedule you'd use normally. A seperate schedule is not required and can cause problems updating and progress monitoring. The 4D model should be linked to the 'real' schedule in a way that is consistent and aligned.
It's sometimes a good idea to section off parts of the schedule / model / works for use in 4D planning workshops. This can be a temporary section that gets plugged back in later, or can remain attached to the master schedule and managed like that. This allows for testing ideas, schedule development, and collaborative planning on focussed tasks in a quick, iterative way. Others like Chris (Needham) and David-John (Gibbs) on here may provide some good views on this.
In terms of 4D model content, we always recommend representing as much as possible. As many tasks as possible, and as many logistics, access and other activities as possible. Ideally, nearly everything that is worth seeing in a schedule should be worth seeing in 4D. Of course this requires an investment in modelling time, skills, and can impact model performance without good model and file management.
It's certainly an aspiration for us to aim towards. Though there is plenty of value in starting 4D with just the basic, key activities.
Yeah would always recommend working with one programme so that everything stays integrated. You can make best use of whatever scheduling software you’re using to apply codes and WBS to be able to filter, summarise or present different views of that programme for any purpose.
Hi Sachin, good question. There's a long answer to this, and there are others on here that are more qualified than me to answer, but I'll outline some thoughts.
In our experience as 4D modellers, it's best to use the same schedule you'd use normally. A seperate schedule is not required and can cause problems updating and progress monitoring. The 4D model should be linked to the 'real' schedule in a way that is consistent and aligned.
It's sometimes a good idea to section off parts of the schedule / model / works for use in 4D planning workshops. This can be a temporary section that gets plugged back in later, or can remain attached to the master schedule and managed like that. This allows for testing ideas, schedule development, and collaborative planning on focussed tasks in a quick, iterative way. Others like Chris (Needham) and David-John (Gibbs) on here may provide some good views on this.
In terms of 4D model content, we always recommend representing as much as possible. As many tasks as possible, and as many logistics, access and other activities as possible. Ideally, nearly everything that is worth seeing in a schedule should be worth seeing in 4D. Of course this requires an investment in modelling time, skills, and can impact model performance without good model and file management.
It's certainly an aspiration for us to aim towards. Though there is plenty of value in starting 4D with just the basic, key activities.