Re: Predecessors!

From: Steve House (sjhouse.remove.this_at_to.send.hotmail.com)
Date: 08/28/04 

Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 17:51:57 -0400

LOL Ain't it the truth! Last night I dreamt about that problem (have to
stop with the pizza and salami just before bedtime) trying to figure out
where linking the summary tasks might have a clear advantage and I came up
with one. Imagine a project with 3 phases A, B, and C. The three phases are
such that all of A needs to be completed before B starts and all of B
completed before C starts. A & C have several, say 5, subtasks under them
that are linked within the phase FS. BUT phase B consists of 10 1 day tasks
that are completely arbitrary in the order in which they're done. Thus
links to sequence them are superfluous and in fact in the scenario I'm
developing they would be a negative. There is no predefined order of tasks
in B and no single task can be identified as the "first task" or the "last
task" (yes I could put milestones in as subtasks as well and have one as a
predecessor to all 10 activities and another as a successor to all 10 but
that results in a spaghetti bowl of links). I assign resource Barney to all
the tasks in B. Resource leveling sequences out the tasks in B to set its
duration. But how best to model its relationship to phases A & C? This is
one case where I think I'd use a link from Summary A to B and another link
from B to summary C. One reason is that it does indeed preserve the
arbitrary nature of the task sequencing in B as part of the model. We don't
care at all which subtask is done first, we 'll leave that to the
resource(s) to decide for themselves. At that matters to us from a
scheduling standpoint is how long it will take them to get all 10 done. If
we now acquire additional resource Fred who is also capable of doing those B
subtasks, we can substitute him for Barney on half of those tasks and when
we re-level the duration of phase B and the start of phase C automatically
adjusts without us having to worry about WHICH B level subtask each resource
is on or how we should rearrange the links. B gets done sooner so C can
start earlier and that's all we need to deal with. 

-- 
Steve House [MVP]
MS Project Trainer/Consultant
Visit http://www.mvps.org/project/faqs.htm for the FAQs
"Mark Durrenberger" <durrenm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e2JdylSjEHA.2932@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> "It depends" is the classic consultant answer :-)
>
> Mark
>
>
> -- 
> _________________________________________________________
> Mark Durrenberger, PMP
> Principal, Oak Associates, Inc, www.oakinc.com
> "Advancing the Theory and Practice of Project Management"
> ________________________________________________________
>
> The nicest thing about NOT planning is that failure
> comes as a complete surprise and is not preceded by
> a period of worry and depression.
>
> - Sir John Harvey-Jones
> "Steve House" <sjhouse.remove.this@to.send.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OvcBRFGjEHA.1776@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > Some people will argue to never link summary tasks while others will say
> > it's ok.  I'd say, it depends <grin> - how's that for precise and
> > definitive?).  If Summary task A with all it's subtasks must be finished
> in
> > it's entirety before any part of Summary task B begins AND if you know
for
> > sure which subtask in A will be the last one done and can identify the
one
> > task in B that will always be first, then you can link from the last sub
> in
> > A to the first sub in B.  If A and B have several parallel chains of
tasks
> > in each and you don't necessarily know in advance which task in A will
end
> > being the last one or whoch in B will end up being the first one, you
> could
> > link the two summaries.  I've seem perfectly workable project plans
using
> > both methids, indeed, even using both methods in different parts of the
> same
> > plan.  The bottom line is what gives you the most readily understood
> > schedule that serves as a valid predictive model of the project work
> itself.
> >
> > -- 
> > Steve House [MVP]
> > MS Project Trainer/Consultant
> > Visit http://www.mvps.org/project/faqs.htm for the FAQs
> >
> > "ak" <ak@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:9E64AEB9-9820-409B-BBB3-CAE8052F7D96@microsoft.com...
> > > Hello,
> > > My question is:  Is it preferable to use summary tasks as predecessor,
> and
> > > if not why?
> >
> >
>
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Lever Resources
    ... Is the EAS Handbook Design a summary task? ... the summary and subtasks ... ... remove all your resources from your summary tasks and you should be fine. ... I see in the Resource Allocation view that I have 16 total hours ...
    (microsoft.public.project)
  • Re: Updating Summary Tasks
    ... Subtasks are not just informational detail, ... summary tasks and the project plan could still be worked to a successful ... deleting the subtasks leaving only the ... All activity associated with creating the schedule and ...
    (microsoft.public.project)
  • 3 strange errors.
    ... I use a large schedule that has about 15 summary tasks that are ... number is the % complete and duration fields (baseline duration, ... duration, remaining duration, etc.) until I open all of its subtasks. ...
    (microsoft.public.project)
  • Re: 3 strange errors.
    ... I use a large schedule that has about 15 summary tasks ... to 40 subtasks that are imbedded project files. ... number is the % complete and duration fields (baseline duration, ...
    (microsoft.public.project)
  • RE: Summary task not updating when subtasks updated
    ... drop me the file jeaksel yahoo com and I may be able ... The exception is milestones. ... several summary tasks with a handful of subtasks under them. ...
    (microsoft.public.project)
Loading