Episode transcript The transcript is generated automatically by Podscribe, Sonix, Otter and other electronic transcription services.
Hello everybody, welcome to the five minutes PM. Podcast Today. I like to continue discussing the types of links between the tasks. Last week, I discussed the Finish to start, and they started to Start the relationship. And I also discuss the physical record requirements among the links and the strategic requirements, the tasks that you link because it's good for you, your because you have a benefit, not necessarily a physical need. Today, I want to discuss the two left, finished the Finish and the Start to Finish.
What does a finish to finish the relationship, but finish to finish the relationship. It's exactly the same, the opposite of a Start to start a relationship, finish, to finish his, when I need to Finish the predecessor to Finish the successor, most of the time, or at least strategically. Let me give you an example. Let's suppose that you have a task, a predecessor that is selling the apartments. Let's suppose that your project is to build themselves building, OK.
A set of apartments. So you'll have a task selling the apartment. Then you have a successor called advertise the apartments. Then you may decide, OK, I will finish that advertisement. Only when I finished the selling until we're a half, some apartments to South, I need to continue in weight doing the advertisement. So this is one quick assemble if you notice that it's not so common and it's not so easy to find cases where you need to do that.
So let's suppose that you have a predecessor or that is built a house and a successor that is clean the area. You can finish the cleaning of the area when you finish the construction of the house. So this is a good example of the finish-to-finish relationship. The last one is the most uncommon; it's rarely used. It's called start to finish, and it's very strange. Even physically, one needs to start can Finish Sol; the predecessor needs to start So the successor can finish.
So if you look at this graphically, you may think, OK, this is the same off finished to start changing the predecessor to the successor and the successor to the predecessor. Wrong in the drawing is the same. But the concept is very different, if you can know, back to my last week, Podcast when I explain it, that predecessor is the task that has the trouble that you need to focus. If you shifted, he said this to be very, very challenging.
Let me give you an example. Let's suppose that you just bought a new computer and you have your old one. Your old one is working. It's perfect. It's not so fast, but it's perfectly working. And then you need to do the transition. So you may link in two ways, firstly link, you may say, OK, I need to unplug and turn off the old computer so I can start configuring the new one. Then it's quite easy. You just book your own computer from the wall and see what will happen.
And you being troubled because I know, gosh, you will not have a computer until that day, and your one is done, but let's shift this. I want that the new computer is Start working. Dan. I can terminate in Finish the old computer. So look great. When I shifted this to the Start-Finish relationship, my focus is now on that night, your computer, and not on the old one. So every time you need to replace machines, you need to do any kind of replacement.
This is a useful link. To be honest with you, this is a link that I do not use quite often and why we do not use this quite often. It's because if you change the English, if you change the concept in the way you write, you can easily turn start to finish into a finished. We start. So let's suppose the same problem with the computers. OK, but now I, you rewrite the same problem. I will put the first-desk configurator, the new computer, second task test the new computer, third task, turn off the old computer.
If I right and use proper English to do that, what happened? That will transform the start to finish tasks into a finished, to start a task easily, very easy and very smooth. So most of the time, when you are trigger two, this kind of task, I think about ways of rewriting it to transform them into a finished, we start, this is much easier. So, of course, at the end, when you were calculating the critical path, most of the time, you need to understand if it's a physical or a long time relationship, and don't try to complicate your school or do you know you are already has a problem.
It's always a challenge. Don't transform your project into two problems because people need to look at the scattering. Clearly see the problem in try to find a solution. But if they say, look at your schedule, and they cannot see and understand, even what you are saying, then you have, keep it simple. This is what I tell everybody all the time, keep it simple. It's much easier to fix your English or your Portuguese or whatever.
Then try to create a very complex case. I don't recall the last time I used it from start to finish and why I'm explaining this. So you can understand because if someone shows you this kind of relationship, you are aware of how this works, and maybe you can suggest tweaks on that to make it simple, the good and real scandal. It's like the simple ones. This is what makes a real difference. I hope you enjoy this Podcast until next week with another five minutes PM.
Podcast.
