RAGNARØKR;2507770 said:What a strange term for a simple and easily understood concept. Why do management people do this?
What would you suggest instead of Control Period?
RAGNARØKR;2507770 said:What a strange term for a simple and easily understood concept. Why do management people do this?
What would you suggest instead of Control Period?
RAGNARØKR;2507770 said:Cost benefit analysis is a nonsense because it rests on too many shaky assumptions.
However, there is a way of measuring benefits after the project has been built, and that is by working out the aggregate land value uplift. When the Jubilee Line extension was built, it was found to be three times the construction cost.
There is a lot of data on land values (hidden in house prices), and journey times from city centres such as Central London. The technique needs to be refined but it could potentially provide useful forecasts on the value of any infrastructure project.
It also points to a means for paying for these projects by clawing back, through the tax system, some of the land value which they generate. There is nothing new in that idea - it was the Metropolitan Railway's financial model.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
What a strange term for a simple and easily understood concept. Why do management people do this?
Investment period [dates]? Spending period? Investment plan? Planned investment?What would you suggest instead of Control Period?
RAGNARØKR;2508731 said:Investment period [dates]? Spending period? Investment plan? Planned investment?
Anything that does not need explaining. When people are on 6-figure salaries they ought to be able to come up with something so that the taxpayers who pay their salaries know what they are doing.
Q1/2/3/4 are the quarters of the year, although you can never be 100% sure whether it's calendar year or financial year (starting in April) they are talking about.
The entire commercial, financial and project management world works by these things, and reporting against them affects things like share price movements.
Track the thread back. It was a railway employee asked the question. It is still an odd term to apply, whenever it came into use, obscuring rather than enlightening and informing.The financial planning periods have been known as Control Periods since Railtrack was set up. The term has been in use for 20 years. Where have you been?
Being a bit, but not too, picky this is not true. I have worked for a large multinational that rarely looked at annual budgets etc... but just if a project was good and deserving of investment or not. If it was it got the investment, of not it didn't. Cost control was of course expected and managers whose costs were not in control could not expect to gain responsibility for future projects. I'm not too sure rail projects really fall into a 5 year cycle, and I certainly don't think they should - they should be brought forward as and when ready with an expectation of a continual such process with a good balance of expansion, cost reduction, renewal etc... projects. I suspect in reality this more or less happens.
RAGNARØKR;2509459 said:Track the thread back. It was a railway employee asked the question. It is still an odd term to apply, whenever it came into use, obscuring rather than enlightening and informing.
Perhaps it says something about the mindset inside the late and unlamented Railtrack.
To me, a milestone is a stone erected on a road to indicate mileage, and nothing more. I get more irritated by terms like that than Control Periods.if we're playing anecdote, my last job was with a large multinational. In research targets, milestones etc were all Quarterly based.
To me, a milestone is a stone erected on a road to indicate mileage, and nothing more. I get more irritated by terms like that than Control Periods.
To me, a milestone is a stone erected on a road to indicate mileage, and nothing more. I get more irritated by terms like that than Control Periods.
I don't understand this obsession that some people have with eliminating all jargon. Sometimes it isn't needed, but in many cases it saves a lot of writing and potential mistakes. "In CP5" is a lot shorter, simpler and less likely to cause mistakes than "between April 1st 2014 and March 31st 2019".A 'control period' on the other hand is not a common phrase in everyday English, and it's meaning is unclear unless the definition is looked up. Business jargon at its worst.
A 'control period' on the other hand is not a common phrase in everyday English, and it's meaning is unclear unless the definition is looked up. Business jargon at its worst.
I don't understand this obsession that some people have with eliminating all jargon. Sometimes it isn't needed, but in many cases it saves a lot of writing and potential mistakes. "In CP5" is a lot shorter, simpler and less likely to cause mistakes than "between April 1st 2014 and March 31st 2019".
It's not a common phrase in everyday English because it's a rail industry term, the people who need to know these acronyms know these acronyms.
I know where you are coming from, but there comes a point where we have to shift responsibility for learning the jargon to the reader. If someone is going to get involved in technical discussions of an arcane topic like railway electrification then they can't really expect to be spoon-fed the basics.I'm not arguing against jargon per se... ...but would not use a term like CP5 when posting without careful consideration, particularly bearing in mind forum rules about use of rail jargon.
What a strange term for a simple and easily understood concept. Why do management people do this?Since you asked so nicely.
Network Rails delivery plans are broken into 5 year chunks (known as Control Periods). We are in CP5 at the moment which runs from April 2014-2019, CP6 runs from April 2019-2024 etc.
I'm a mere signalman so I expect someone like PHILIP PHLOPP can explain to far better than I!