Jan
Fri Jul 09 05:34:42 CDT 2004
Hi,
Allow me to add my 2 cents worth - I am a fan of leveling :-)
- It is definitely feasible, I have seen far bigger calculations (it won't
always be done in a millisecond though)
- There is no problem to give the same priority to different tasks, Project
will then look at ither priority items to decide which goes first. So there
is no limit of 1000
- Speaking about Project's calculation, it calculates an aggregated number
in which the priority you indicate is only one term; itis possible that a
task with a priority of 449 will be scheduled after a tak with priority 451
for instance.
HTH
--
Jan De Messemaeker
Microsoft Project Most Valuable Professional
http://users.online.be/prom-ade/index.htm
32-495-300 620
"Deluth" <Deluth@discussions.microsoft.com> schreef in bericht
news:0CAE7A72-E1E4-427E-986C-C3E9870453E7@microsoft.com...
> Steve,
>
> Thanks. I never knew that Project can do this.
>
> Would you expand on "used very sparingly"? I manage a very large team of
SW engineers and they are all on this schedule. Managing the dependencies
has been a nightmare - it doesn't help when they switch tasks around all the
time. However, with this method, it seems that I just tell Project to
"level" the whole project (2000+ tasks) each time I receive status from the
engineers and everything would just calculate - right? Since Project allows
up to 1000 priorities, it seems to me that I can prioritize 1000 tasks per
resource in any given project, right? BTW, I am currently using MSP2003.
>
> If this Priority/Leveling method is not feasible for such a large
implementation, would you recommend another method? Thanks!
>
> "Steve House" wrote:
>
> > There are such things as "discressionary links" which is what you are
> > describing but IMO they are should be used very sparingly. Take this
> > example of an alternate approach. I have programmer Jim who needs to
work
> > on several 5 day long tasks A, B, C, and D. Each will require his
undivided
> > attention so he can't work on them concurrently. The preferred sequence
for
> > the first 3 is A-B-C but it is not mandatory that they be done in this
> > order, they are essentially independent of each other and there's no
> > mandatory process reason one must be done before the other. All three,
> > OTOH, must be done before task D - the program rollout perhaps - can be
> > started. The whole thing kicks off next Monday so that's the Project
start
> > date. My initial project plan would show tasks A, B, and C all starting
> > next Monday and running concurrently through the week. None of them are
> > linked to each other, but all three have links FS as predecessors to
task D
> > so D would start the following Monday, giving a total project timeline
at
> > this point in the planning cycle of 2 weeks. Now I assign Jim to all 4
> > tasks. Because he's assigned 100% of his workday to each of A, B, and
C,
> > he's overallocated to the tune of 300% all next week. Resource
levelling
> > will fix that but first I want to look at the desired sequence the tasks
> > should be performed if they can't be done all at once and I decide I'd
like
> > A to go first, then B, then C. Of course if they *could* be done
together
> > I'd go that route since the overall planning objective is to finish the
> > project in the shortest possible time consistent with staying in budget.
So
> > before levelling, I designate A as a high priority task, B somewhat
lower,
> > and C a bit lower still. Now when we level, Project delays work to
resolve
> > the overallocation, pushing out C first, then B. So we end up with a
> > Project schedule running 4 weeks, in the sequence A-B-C-D *without* any
> > links between A, B, and C. Now we find another fellow available in the
2nd
> > week that can do similar work. I substitute him for Jim on task B, C
jumps
> > forward a week with Jim still on it and our schedule immediately revises
> > showing B & C running concurrently in the 2nd week, and the overall
schedule
> > shortens by one week.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Steve House [MVP]
> > MS Project Trainer/Consultant
> > Visit
http://www.mvps.org/project/faqs.htm for the FAQs
> >
> >
> > "Deluth" <Deluth@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:67BD0ADF-BF58-4691-8721-7C6EF1FD83E3@microsoft.com...
> > > Steve,
> > >
> > > Perhaps I am using Project incorrectly. I am managing a software
team. I
> > set precedences for the tasks in order to try to set the sequential
order of
> > tasks to be completed by any given resource - this is how the resource
knows
> > what to tackle next. There are linkages in there that are strict, by
this I
> > mean that the preceeding tasks absolutely need to complete before the
> > succeeding tasks can occur. However, most of the tasks are linked to
> > determine the sequence of events to occur. The linkage also allows me
to
> > figure out when the project would complete. using this method, the
resource
> > can easily move around on the tasks since they're weakly linked. If the
> > resource feels that they want to complete the tasks out of order, I just
> > re-order it the way they need to get it done. This is almost as if you
> > would start working on assembling the roof while you wait for more woods
to
> > arrive for the completion of the wall, once you complete the wall, you
can
> > finish up on the roof and assemble the house... :-)
> > >
> > > If you can suggest how I can make sure the resources are utilized
> > correctly without linking sequential tasks, please let me know. I am
> > anxious to learn any new concepts.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > "Steve House" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Alarm bells are going off here. You say "a later task is being done
> > before
> > > > the earlier task." That may be the proximate cause of the splits
you
> > are
> > > > getting but it should not be happening. Predecessor/successor links
> > mean
> > > > there is a real physical reason that the later task cannot, under
any
> > > > circumstances, start until the predecessor has finished (assuming a
> > > > finish-start link for simplicity). Putting on the roof is not a
> > successor
> > > > to erecting the walls because that's the order we want to do it in.
It
> > is a
> > > > successor because the law of gravity doesn't give us the option of
> > building
> > > > the roof in midair and stuffing the walls in later <grin>. If it
> > possible
> > > > for that later task to start before the earlier one (and it
obviously
> > is, or
> > > > else your resources would not have been able to do what they're
> > reporting to
> > > > you that they did), you should not have the link there in the first
> > place.
> > > > I'd strongly suggest you review the dependencies in your project
plan to
> > > > make sure they are valid, serving the function of making the plan a
real
> > > > engineering model of the physical process of creating the project's
> > > > deliverables and are not in there to force the plan into some
> > pre-conceived
> > > > idea of the way the work "should" progress.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Steve House [MVP]
> > > > MS Project Trainer/Consultant
> > > > Visit
http://www.mvps.org/project/faqs.htm for the FAQs
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Deluth" <Deluth@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:0DA0AC89-EE27-4261-A4EA-80AA0CE6C54A@microsoft.com...
> > > > > I would like to know when and how Project does its calculations.
My
> > > > resources sometimes change the order of the tasks they're doing.
> > Sometimes,
> > > > a later task starts before the earlier task. When this occurs, I
enter
> > the
> > > > percent complete into the later task. When I open up the project
again,
> > the
> > > > end date seemed to have been recalculated based on the percent
completed
> > and
> > > > the remaining duration. Unfortunately, when I try to repeat this to
see
> > how
> > > > Project calculates, it doesn't. As if it only calculates when
there's
> > been
> > > > some time passed since the last time the project was opened.
> > > > >
> > > > > I know that Project calculates when the acutal finish (or 100%
> > complete)
> > > > has been entered. But I am seeing that it sometime calculates on
> > > > percentages as well. I would like to know when does it do this and
how
> > does
> > > > it calculate, as well as, why sometimes and not others...
> > > > >
> > > > > Thannks in advance for any help...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >