PPT animation helps me a lot and also I ask my participants to calculate ES, LS, EF, LF for a simple network diagram using both the methods.Īs you see: Both of these calculations will lead you to the correct answer. Somehow they find it simple as no subtraction is needed. My participants once assured that it doesn't make a difference tend to use the "zero" method. This path has a float of two based which we calculate LS and LF. I choose a part of a network diagram with four sequential activities which sum up to a duration of 10. I use a PowerPoint presentation with animations to prove that no matter what method you follow, the result is same. Neelesh Pandey, PMP (who is a PMP trainer) has told us the following about his teaching experience with these formulas: (Remember that next to the 2 options shown above you could also calculate a network path starting on a specific calendar date in hours instead of days, making calculations even more complex). We have discussed this with a number of PMP trainer colleagues and they agree that the Project Management Institute (PMI) ® does not "support" a specific method of calculating a network diagram. Of course, this often leads to confusion for students taking the Project Management Professional (PMP) ® exam and they ask which formula should we use on the exam? That is why there is a slight difference between the calculations (you have to add/subtract 1 from the results in the 2nd approach). You schedule your project based on a calendar start date and not "on day 0". This is also the way that all modern scheduling tools seem to work. In the PM Exam Formula Study Guide, we use the second approach, because when your sponsor tells you, that your project starts on the first day of September, then that is September 1 and not September 0. Second approach: You calculate the network diagram starting on day 1.First approach: You calculate the network diagram starting on day 0.Combination therapy with a cephalosporin and aminoglycoside in conjunction with surgery in selected cases is the treatment of choice for K. pneumoniae septicemia, 32% (18/57), compared with 88% (21/24) in patients who were not treated appropriately (p less than 0.001). The use of one or more antibiotics, which included at least one cephalosporin, with in vitro activity against the corresponding isolate, with adequate dosage and an appropriate route of administration significantly reduced deaths directly attributed to K. Cephalosporins and aminoglycosides were the most active antibiotics. Poor prognostic factors included inappropriate antibiotic therapy, respiratory tract as a portal of entry and the presence of shock. The course of one (1%) patient, who was diabetic and had a liver abscess, was complicated by metastatic septic endophthalmitis and meningitis. The most frequent clinical findings were fever (89%) and leukocytosis (60%), followed by thrombocytopenia (27%), jaundice secondary to bacteremia (22%) and shock (21%). Diabetes mellitus, which was found in 25 (28%) patients, was the most common underlying disease, followed by malignancies in 13 (14%), biliary tract abnormalities in 9 (10%), and cirrhosis of the liver in 8 (9%). Portals of entry, in decreasing order of frequency, were hepatobiliary (24%), respiratory (20%), and urinary tract (19%). Medical records of 90 episodes were available and were analyzed. The disease was community acquired in 58% and nosocomially acquired in 42% unimicrobial in 86% and part of a polymicrobial bacteremia in 14%. In 1985, 100 episodes of klebsiella pneumoniae bacteremia in 98 patients were treated at the Veterans General Hospital-Taipei.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |