Hi, Joe

In Idaho, they do cause West Nile, which can kill you just as dead.

Regards,
Larry Leach

--- In CriticalChain@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Bradley"
<joseph.bradley.26@...> wrote:
>
> Tony wrote:
> Knowledge-work companies have too much work in process, because
they start
> too many entire projects inappropriately early. Starting one or all
the
> feeding chains of a project early contributes to having too much
work in
> process like mosquito-bite contributes to a case of lung cancer.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
> I did not realize that mosquito bites caused lung cancer. I am in
trouble,
> as there are lots of mosquitos here.
>
> Joe
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 6:21 AM, Tony Rizzo <Tony.Rizzo@...>
> wrote:
>
> > >: against: more "work in progress" plus conflict with the
> > >: basic CC model.
> >
> > Knowledge-work companies have too much work in process, because
they start
> > too many entire projects inappropriately early. Starting one or
all the
> > feeding chains of a project early contributes to having too much
work in
> > process like mosquito-bite contributes to a case of lung cancer.
> >
> > Tony Rizzo
> >
> > +1 908 264 8520 desk
> > +1 908 230 5348 mobile
> > * click! The Real Problem With Your Projects
> >
> >
> > >: -----Original Message-----
> > >: From: CriticalChain@yahoogroups.com <CriticalChain%
40yahoogroups.com>
> > >: [mailto:CriticalChain@yahoogroups.com <CriticalChain%
40yahoogroups.com>]
> > On Behalf Of Crispin
> > >: ("Kik") Piney
> > >: Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 6:00 AM
> > >: To: CriticalChain@yahoogroups.com <CriticalChain%
40yahoogroups.com>
> > >: Subject: RE: [CriticalChain] Legs starting before the CC
> > >:
> > >: That discussion about pushing a feeding chain back to start
> > >: before the CC
> > >: does however raise the following question:
> > >:
> > >: what are the tradeoffs to consider with respect to starting
> > >: the CC earlier
> > >: (since the project start date is now prior to the CC start)?
> > >: This would
> > >: entail putting a (heretical!) feeding buffer at the point of
> > >: convergence of
> > >: the CC with the "pushed-back" feeder chain (PBFC), and
> > >: moving the other
> > >: dependent feeding chains (i.e. those which link into the CC
> > >: before the
> > >: connection with the PBFC) back by the same amount
> > >:
> > >: for: the probability of being late at the convergence point
> > >: is reduced AND
> > >: the size of the project buffer can be reduced to allow for
> > >: the earlier start
> > >: of the CC. So the project duration is reduced.
> > >:
> > >: against: more "work in progress" plus conflict with the
> > >: basic CC model.
> > >:
> > >: Discussion?
> > >:
> > >: Kik
> > >:
> > >:
> > >:
> > >: Crispin ("Kik") Piney
> > >:
> > >: kik@... <kik%40PROject-beneFITS.com>
> > >:
> > >: +33 (0) 680 115 777
> > >:
> > >: Register now on www.pmisymposium.lso-intl.com
> > >: <http://www.pmisymposium.lso-intl.com/> for the PMI RiskSIG
> > >: Conference in
> > >: Nice and Monte-Carlo on 3-5 November 2008 and save ^200.-
> > >:
> > >: -----Original Message-----
> >
> > >: From: CriticalChain@yahoogroups.com <CriticalChain%
40yahoogroups.com>
> > >: [mailto:CriticalChain@yahoogroups.com <CriticalChain%
40yahoogroups.com>
> > ]
> > >: On Behalf Of Jim Bowles
> > >: Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 11:36
> > >: To: CriticalChain@yahoogroups.com <CriticalChain%
40yahoogroups.com>
> > >: Subject: RE: [CriticalChain] Legs starting before the CC
> > >:
> > >:
> > >:
> > >: Hi Rajeev
> > >:
> > >: The example I quoted was that of a network when the buffers
> > >: are added: this
> > >: action pushes one or more feeder chains backward so that
> > >: they need to start
> > >: before the critical chain. Folk who are accustomed to the
> > >: common starting
> > >: point of CPM find this confusing and start question whether
> > >: that means that
> > >: the CC has changed. The answer is no - this is the
> > >: subordination step -
> > >: subordinating to the CC to protect it. It is important to
> > >: remember that we
> > >: are focusing on the end date of our project and taking the
> > >: necessary actions
> > >: to ensure that we achieve what we promised. The other
> > >: associated question
> > >: that usually goes with this one is: what about the gaps that
> > >: are created? In
> > >: reality there aren't any gaps because the task duration
> > >: variation is so
> > >: large and our software is only dealing with the discrete
> > >: numbers we use for
> > >: them.
> > >:
> > >: Does this answer your question?
> > >:
> > >: Jim Bowles
> > >:
> > >: Hi Jim,
> > >:
> > >: If I remember it correctly, many months ago, you had
> > >: mentioned an example on
> > >: one of the lists explaining the case for a non-critical path
> > >: to start before
> > >: the CC.
> > >:
> > >: Do you remember it? If yes, would request you to share the
> > >: same again.
> > >:
> > >: Regards,
> > >:
> > >: Rajeev
> > >:
> > >: Share files, take polls, and make new friends - all under
> > >: one roof. Go to
> > >: http://in.promos. <http://in.promos.
> > >: <http://in.promos.yahoo.com/groups/>
> > >: yahoo.com/groups/> yahoo.com/groups/
> > >:
> > >: [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >:
> > >: No virus found in this incoming message.
> > >: Checked by AVG - http://www.avg. <http://www.avg.com> com
> > >: Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.1/1560 - Release
> > >: Date: 18/07/2008
> > >: 06:47
> > >:
> > >: [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >:
> > >:
> > >:
> > >:
> > >:
> > >:
> > >:
> > >: [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >:
> > >:
> > >: ------------------------------------
> > >:
> > >: To unsubscribe from this discussion, send an email to:
> > >: CriticalChain-unsubscribe@egroups.com<CriticalChain-
unsubscribe%40egroups.com>
> > >: Any administrative comments or questions should be sent to:
> > >: CriticalChain-owner@egroups.com <CriticalChain-owner%
40egroups.com>
> > >: Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >:
> > >:
> > >:
> > >:
> > >:
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Joseph M. Bradley
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>