Re: Proper Leveling Techniques - Rescheduling to start later
From: Steve House [MVP] (sjhouse.remove.this_at_to.send.hotmail.com)
Date: 01/01/05
- Previous message: Steve House [MVP]: "Re: Microsoft Office Specialist Certification for Microsoft Project questions"
- In reply to: John Sitka: "Re: Proper Leveling Techniques - Rescheduling to start later"
- Next in thread: John Sitka: "Re: Proper Leveling Techniques - Rescheduling to start later"
- Reply: John Sitka: "Re: Proper Leveling Techniques - Rescheduling to start later"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 13:02:33 -0500
Thanks for your kind comments, John. I see by your return email addy we
share the same ISP. I'm located in Hamilton. Are we by chance neighbors?
-- Steve House [MVP] MS Project Trainer & Consultant Visit http://www.mvps.org/project/faqs.htm for the FAQs "John Sitka" <johnsitka@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:cEABd.14368$Y_4.1229093@read2.cgocable.net... > Way to end the New Year Steve, > Your comments are extremely valuable > and have helped me more than any other > source. > >>It's job is to tell YOU the schedule you can have that gives you the >>optimum project timeline >>and budget. You don't tell it the schedule, it tells YOU the schedule. > > Thanks to you and all the others on the Project > groups, that have changed the way I "think" about > scheduling. > > > > > > > > "Steve House [MVP]" <sjhouse.remove.this@to.send.hotmail.com> wrote in > message news:uJioKl07EHA.1260@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... >> There is no such tool as "Change Actual Start Date." If there's an >> actual start, then by definition it should never change unless you've >> made a typo and entered the wrong date when you put it in. If it's a >> real Actual Start Date that is describing a historical event - Joe was >> supposed to fidget the widget last Monday and that's when he did it - and >> the entry in the project file should always reflect that reality. If no >> work has been done on task, the there is not and should not be an Actual >> Start entry. I hope you're not putting in fictitious Actual Start entries >> in order to kludge the schedule into looking like what you think it ought >> to look like are you? >> >> I need to verify here that you are aware that there are three sets of >> start and finish fields - Start, Baseline Start, Actual Start, Finish, >> Baseline Finish, and Actual Finish. Start and Finish are what your >> schedule calls for - your plan. Baseline Start and Finish are your >> original starting plan before work was done - what you thought you would >> be able to do. Actual Start and Finish are what you really DID do. Once >> work begins, the planned dates (Start and Finish fields) reflect what >> you've done - history - and what you still plan to do - forecast. When >> you enter a date in the Start field it does NOT establish an actual >> start - instead it establishes a planned start with an SNET constraint. >> You only get an actual start when you enter a date in the Actual Start >> field. The Start and Actual Start do interact but only in one direction. >> If I type "30 Dec" in the Start field it just goes that one place while >> setting a constraint. But if I enter "30 Dec" in the Actual Start field >> it ends up BOTH the Start and Actual Start fields >> >> It is NEVER appropriate to use leveling delays to bring forward work or >> otherwise to force the tasks to end up on certain dates - leveling has >> nothing to do with that. The only time leveling delays should be >> anything except blank is when the resource leveling tool has introduced >> them to resolve resource overallocations. Likewise, setting the default >> scheduling option to "New Tasks Start on Current Date" doesn't have >> anything to do with rescheduling existing tasks either. That setting is >> just what it says- where should tasks being ADDED to the plan be placed? >> Surely you're not deleting a delayed task and re-entering it as a new new >> task are you? >> >> I don't know why you're so adament againt using SNET constraints in any >> situation. I'm one here who criticizes what I consider to be the overuse >> of constraints of all types all the time but that's only because people >> frequently are trying to use them to force an arbitrary schedule onto >> their plan and by so doing forcing an end run around Project's intended >> purpose. But if there's a legitimate reason for them, by all means use >> them. If a vendor won't deliver needed parts before 15 Jan, a SNET of 15 >> Jan on the task that requires them makes perfect sense. Likewise, in the >> case of moving a task that was supposed to be done last week but wasn't >> worked on for some reason, moving the undone work forward to next week by >> letting the Update Project tool apply an SNET constraint is perfectly >> ok - that's what constraints are for. In general the purpose of a >> constraint is to control the placement of tasks when something external >> to the project instead of the task's logical predecessor relationships >> and the availability of resources controls the task's dates. Since new >> tasks added now that the project is underway can't be worked on in the >> past (assumption being that work on a task never takes place before it is >> entered in the plan) even if they could have been according to their >> predecessors, a SNET of the next work day on a newly added task is >> perfectly appropriate. Work on planned tasks that SHOULD have been done >> last week but wasn't, likewise, can only take place in the future, thus a >> SNET of the first day work could now be done is also perfectly in order. >> >> You should never be "shuffling tasks" as you put it. Revising the >> schedule, certainly. But the function of Project is not to illustrate a >> schedule you have come up with by hand. It's job is to tell YOU the >> schedule you can have that gives you the optimum project timeline and >> budget. You don't tell it the schedule, it tells YOU the schedule. >> -- >> Steve House [MVP] >> MS Project Trainer & Consultant >> Visit http://www.mvps.org/project/faqs.htm for the FAQs >> >> >> >> >> "BAndrews" <bandrews@trendinfluence.com> wrote in message >> news:OlvvSUz7EHA.1260@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... >>>I guess what I was looking for here is that it is OK to use >>> Tools->Tracking->Update Project->Reschedule Unfinished work rather that >>> Tools->Update Tasks->Change Actual Start Date. >>> >>> The reason i am trying to clarify is because the first option creates >>> constraints "Do Not Start Until" whereas changing the Actual start date >>> does >>> not add constraints. >>> >>> Really just trying to understand when its appropriate to allow a "Do Not >>> Start Before" constraint to be added.... rather than working with some >>> other >>> method such as leveling delays or actual start dates to shuffle these >>> tasks >>> around. The concern being that i may actually want to use different >>> constraints on these tasks and how would that affect me in the long run. >>> >>> So I will take this as: It's perfectly acceptable to use "do not start >>> before" constraints to move tasks around? I guess this means setting the >>> default Scheduling option to schedule new tasks "Start on Current Date"? >>> >>> I do understand btw what you are articulating below with respect to >>> leveling... >>> >>> >>> "Steve House [MVP]" <sjhouse.remove.this@to.send.hotmail.com> wrote in >>> message news:OjyAw8n7EHA.2156@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... >>>> Actually what I've been saying is you SHOULD be using the Tools, >>>> Tracking, >>>> Reschedule Uncompleted Work and NOT using Leveling to try to bring the >>> tasks >>>> to the current date or the future. Leveling will never move tasks - >>>> past, >>>> present, or future - unless a specific condition exists. That is, the >>>> resource doing that task is also booked on other, higher priority, >>>> tasks >>>> that are scheduled at the same time so that the total work he must do >>>> in >>>> that time frame exceeds the time allowed to do it. If Joe is scheduled >>>> to >>>> be on task A 100% for 8 hours on Monday and ALSO scheduled for task B >>>> 100% >>>> for 8 hours on Monday, he's booked to be in two different places at >>>> once >>> and >>>> is expected to somehow magically produce 16 man-hours of work during a >>>> single 8-hour time period, a physical impossibility. Leveling will >>>> move >>> one >>>> of those tasks to Tuesday if he's free then. That's all leveling ever >>> does. >>>> >>>> Try this little experiment... >>>> >>>> 1: Create a new project plan with a start date of 01 Dec. Default >>> standard >>>> calendars and automatic leveling turned OFF. >>>> 2: Enter 6 tasks A (3d), B (4d), C (5d), D (6d), E (5d), F (4d), no >>>> constraints on any of them. >>>> 3: Link those tasks A->B, B->D, A->C, C->D, D->E->F (note B and C are >>> both >>>> successors to A and predecessors to D so they go in parallel for a few >>>> days). >>>> 4: Create resource Fred and assign him to all tasks 100%. This >>>> results >>> in >>>> Fred being overallocated for the 4 days he's expected to work on both >>> tasks >>>> B and C. >>>> 5: Level resources. Task B moves out to the following week because >>>> that >>>> (instead of moving C) results in the least pushback of the finish date. >>> All >>>> the later tasks also move driven by their links. >>>> 6: Using the tracking toolbar for simplicity, show task A 100% >>>> complete >>> and >>>> task C 50% complete. >>>> 7: Use the Reschedule Uncompleted Work tool with work resuming after >>>> tomorrow, 31 Dec 04. The project was interupted and work resumes >>>> Monday >>> 03 >>>> Jan 05. All of task B and the unworked portion of C get pushed to next >>> week >>>> and the rest of the project gets pushed out to later in January. B, D, >>> and >>>> E automatically get SNET constraints of 31 Dec 04 set by the reschedule >>>> tool. >>>> 8: Fred is again overallocated because B and the unworked part of C >>>> are >>>> once again happening at the same time. >>>> 9: Resource level once again. C doesn't move and the unworked part of >>>> C >>>> will be scheduled next Mon and Tue. B *does* move and gets pushed to >>>> next >>>> Wed, Thur, Fri, and Mon. The rest of the task's D, E, and F also get >>>> adjusted to a few days later in Jan because of their links. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Steve House [MVP] >>>> MS Project Trainer & Consultant >>>> Visit http://www.mvps.org/project/faqs.htm for the FAQs >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "BAndrews" <bandrews@trendinfluence.com> wrote in message >>>> news:elkq8An7EHA.2124@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... >>>> > The nature of our business is as such that we have service based >>>> > project >>>> > work, internal development that happens many times around the project >>>> > work, >>>> > internal project work (sales support, etc) as well as ongoing >>>> > services >>>> > that >>>> > we are trying to fit into an overall management plan... and we are a >>> small >>>> > company. >>>> > >>>> > We may have to stop certain tasks to engage other tasks. While this >>>> > may >>>> > not >>>> > sound like a perfect world scenario, it is reality in many >>>> > situations. >>> It >>>> > is our goal to be able to show the impact of moving resources to >>>> > other >>>> > tasks >>>> > and to have accurate revised schedules. >>>> > >>>> > So if a task has been "backburnered" say for 30 days (and no work has >>>> > begun >>>> > on these tasks), and there are gaps in the resources time for >>>> > whatever >>>> > reason - this will prevent leveling from helping to reschedule those >>>> > old >>>> > tasks (or so it seems -- leveling will not bring unschduled tasks >>>> > current). >>>> > Should we use Tracking -> Update Tasks and change the actual start >>>> > date >>> to >>>> > the current date to get these tasks back in the current leveling >>> "playing >>>> > field"? Is there ever a time that we should be using "Tracking -> >>>> > Update >>>> > Project-> Reschedule Unfinished Work"? >>>> > >>>> > Thanks for the thoughts! >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > "Steve House [MVP]" <sjhouse.remove.this@to.send.hotmail.com> wrote >>>> > in >>>> > message news:u6A9gKb7EHA.824@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... >>>> >> As for links being often misused, my opinion is yes. All too often >>> links >>>> >> are used to force a specific timeframe onto the project. That to my >>> way >>>> > of >>>> >> thinking is putting the cart before the horse. Links are basically >>>> >> to >>> be >>>> >> used to model the logic of the process the project uses to create >>>> >> the >>>> >> deliverables. Erecting the walls of a building is a predecessor to >>>> > putting >>>> >> on the roof because Nature and gravity doesn't give us the option of >>>> >> building the roof in midair and then tucking the walls in under it >>> later. >>>> > A >>>> >> link indicates a mandatory sequence, not simply a desired sequence. >>>> >> The >>>> > the >>>> >> timeframe is a product of the process model, not the other way >>>> >> around. >>>> >> >>>> >> Your "leveling dependencies" can be achieved indirectly throught the >>> use >>>> > of >>>> >> task priorities. Joe Resource is assigned to three tasks A, B, & C >>> that >>>> > can >>>> >> be done in any order. You'd like him to work on them in order of B, >>>> >> C, >>>> > and >>>> >> A. So you assign B a high priority, C a mid-level priority, and A a >>> low >>>> >> priority. When you level, if they are in conflict A will be the >>>> >> first >>> to >>>> >> get delayed, then C, with B staying put. >>>> >> >>>> >> Why do you need to make sure that the leveling order is not changed? >>> In >>>> >> many cases if delays etc require the plan be modified the leveling >>> order >>>> > for >>>> >> non-dependent tasks SHOULD change! When the sequence actually >>>> >> matters, >>>> > use >>>> >> predecessor links to model it. Remember that leveling ONLY has any >>> effect >>>> > at >>>> >> all when one or more of a group of tasks has to be delayed because >>>> >> the >>>> >> resources assigned to them are booked to do more work in a given >>>> >> time >>>> >> than >>>> >> they are actually able to do. Joe was going to work on task A, B, & >>>> >> C >>>> > (each >>>> >> 3-day duration) whose order doesn't matter and we presently >>>> >> arbitrarily >>>> > have >>>> >> him doing them in that order in our project. B is also a successor >>>> >> to >>>> > task >>>> >> X that is done by someone else that happens to be ending just about >>>> >> the >>>> > time >>>> >> A ends. So Joe's tasks start out with the sequence ABC. But X gets >>>> > delayed >>>> >> a couple of days so now B is pushed while A & C stay in place ending >>>> >> up >>>> > with >>>> >> B pushed to the same days as C, Joe now being double booked those >>>> >> days >>>> >> and >>>> >> left idle for the 3 days he originally was scheduled to work on B. >>>> >> What's >>>> >> wrong with you letting Joe know that now he should work on his tasks >>>> >> in >>>> >> order of ACB, working on C while he's waiting for X to end to allow >>>> >> B >>> to >>>> > be >>>> >> able to start? >>>> >> >>>> >> If you need to retain the original plan for comparison purposes, >>>> >> that's >>>> > what >>>> >> the Interim Plan slots are for, storing the task's original start >>>> >> and >>>> > finish >>>> >> so you can see what it was like before changes were introduced. The >>>> >> Leveling Gantt view shows preleveling and post leveling schedules as >>>> >> well. >>>> >> >>>> >> I was using actuals in my example for completeness but the principle >>>> >> of >>>> >> rescheduling the incomplete work applies whether or not the tasks in >>>> >> question have actually started. If it is a common occurance that >>>> >> tasks >>>> >> aren't being worked according to plan you have an even bigger >>>> >> issue - >>>> > you're >>>> >> going to a lot of trouble and spending a lot of money developing a >>>> >> plan >>>> > that >>>> >> establishes when work must take place in order to meet the business >>>> >> objectives that gave rise to the project. You came up with a plan >>>> >> that >>>> >> is >>>> >> the optimal strategy to bring the project in on-time and in-budget. >>> Your >>>> >> project depends on the resources doing what they've been told to do >>>> >> in >>>> >> the >>>> >> sequence and in the time frame they been directed to work on it. So >>> why >>>> >> aren't your resources doing what they've bloody well been told to do >>> and >>>> >> working the plan you published? It's inevitable that it's going to >>>> >> happen >>>> >> every once in a while but if it's the norm something is seriously >>>> >> wrong >>>> > with >>>> >> your project communications and responsibility matrix. >>>> >> -- >>>> >> Steve House [MVP] >>>> >> MS Project Trainer & Consultant >>>> >> Visit http://www.mvps.org/project/faqs.htm for the FAQs >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> "Bryan Andrews" <bandrews@trendinfluence.com> wrote in message >>>> >> news:eRdPLvZ7EHA.2600@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... >>>> >> > Thanks Steve, >>>> >> > >>>> >> > What if those tasks have not even begun yet and have no actuals? >>>> >> > >>>> >> > I really wish there was a way to create "leveling dependencies". >>>> >> > Do >>> you >>>> >> > think this would be possible with a "Project Addin"? :) I say this >>>> > because >>>> >> > it would really give some piece of mind when you are pushing >>> schedules >>>> >> > around. In the scenario you created, once i relevel - it is >>>> >> > extremely >>>> > hard >>>> >> > for me to track all of the changes and be sure that the leveling >>> order >>>> > has >>>> >> > not changed... perhaps they have not, but when the project gets to >>>> >> > about >>>> >> > 1000 tasks it gets rather difficult. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > Seriously though i am starting to see that task dependencies are >>>> > probably >>>> >> > misused by many just for ease of use... does this sound accurate? >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > "Steve House [MVP]" <sjhouse.remove.this@to.send.hotmail.com> >>>> >> > wrote >>> in >>>> >> > message news:uLQgulS7EHA.824@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... >>>> >> >> You're on the right track with the Tools, Tracking, Reschedule >>>> >> >> Uncompleted Work tool. First enter in actual progress showing >>>> >> >> what >>>> > work >>>> >> >> was done when. For simplicity let's ignore that this is a holiday >>>> > period. >>>> >> >> Today is the 28th. Let's say task Fidget which is expected to >>>> >> >> take >>> 2 >>>> >> >> weeks was supposed to start last week on Monday the 20th. >>>> >> >> Duration >>> = >>>> > 10 >>>> >> >> days, start 20 Dec, finish 31 Dec. It actually started one day >>> late, >>>> > on >>>> >> >> the 21st. We worked on it all day the 21st, 22nd and 23rd and >>>> >> >> then >>> it >>>> >> >> got interrupted. We should have worked on the 24th, the 27th, and >>>> >> >> today >>>> >> >> but for some reason we didn't. So the first step is to post to >>>> >> >> the >>>> >> >> schedule what we actually did. Display the tracking table and >>>> >> >> enter >>>> >> >> in >>>> >> >> Actual Start of 21 Dec and Actual Duration of 3 days. Note that >>>> >> >> you >>>> > must >>>> >> >> enter this into the "Actual Start" and "Actual Duration" fields, >>>> >> >> NOT >>>> > the >>>> >> >> plain "Start" and "Duration" fields in the Entry table. Project >>>> >> >> now >>>> >> >> calculate the task is 30% done (3 done/10 to do) and shows a new >>>> > forecast >>>> >> >> Finish date of 03 Jan, one work day later than originally planned >>> due >>>> > to >>>> >> >> the one day late start. BUT there's work we should have done in >>>> >> >> the >>>> > past >>>> >> >> that we didn't do. We don't have a time machine that lets us go >>> back >>>> > to >>>> >> >> do the work we missed so the only thing we can do with it is move >>>> >> >> it >>>> >> >> to >>>> >> >> the first time that we CAN get back to it, namely the first >>>> >> >> workday >>> in >>>> >> >> the future (assuming here we can get back to work on it then). >>>> >> >> So >>>> >> >> here >>>> >> >> it is the evening of the 28th - we use the Tools, Tracking, >>>> >> >> RescheduleUncompletedWork after 28 Dec tool to move the unworked >>> part >>>> > of >>>> >> >> that task to begin anew tomorrow the 29th. Now it will show Start >>>> >> >> of >>>> >> >> 21 >>>> >> >> Dec, Duration of 10 days, Actual Duration covering the 21st, >>>> >> >> 22nd, >>> and >>>> >> >> 23rd. Then there's a split with the dotted line covering the >>>> >> >> 24th, >>>> >> >> 27th, and 28th. The work resumes the 29th and the new Finish is >>>> >> >> now >>>> >> >> projected to be at the end of 06 Jan. Any tasks dependent on >>>> >> >> this >>> one >>>> >> >> will also be pushed out accordingly by their links. If resources >>>> > working >>>> >> >> on this task were already assigned elsewhere on the new dates >>>> >> >> this >>> now >>>> >> >> takes place, namely the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th and those tasks >>>> >> >> were >>>> >> >> not >>>> >> >> linked to this one so they would already have been moved by their >>>> > links, >>>> >> >> thus creating overallocations on those days, you'll need to >>>> >> >> re-level >>>> >> >> those resources accordingly. >>>> >> >> -- >>>> >> >> Steve House [MVP] >>>> >> >> MS Project Trainer & Consultant >>>> >> >> Visit http://www.mvps.org/project/faqs.htm for the FAQs >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> "BAndrews" <bandrews@trendinfluence.com> wrote in message >>>> >> >> news:%23zdqZ2R7EHA.128@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... >>>> >> >>> OK, so following this thread and the assumptions that my >>> organization >>>> >> >>> would >>>> >> >>> like to use project in "one of many proper methods" -- which is >>>> >> >>> to >>>> >> >>> use >>>> >> >>> priorities and delays to properly schedule tasks... what is the >>>> >> >>> proper >>>> >> >>> way >>>> >> >>> to push out tasks that did not begin on schedule? >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> For example, i got my project plan created and levelled >>>> >> >>> perfectly >>>> >> >>> with >>>> >> >>> the >>>> >> >>> first task to start on 12/1 of this year. We pushed forward >>>> >> >>> through >>>> >> >>> tasks >>>> >> >>> until the 10th at which time the project was put on hold for >>> another >>>> >> >>> project >>>> >> >>> (that was not in Project Server). A week later we come back and >>>> >> >>> try >>>> >> >>> to >>>> >> >>> pick >>>> >> >>> up where we left off.... >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> What is the best way to move the tasks that have not been >>>> >> >>> completed >>>> >> >>> to >>>> >> >>> the >>>> >> >>> current day and not change any of the leveling? >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> I know you can use Tools->Tracking->Update Project to >>>> >> >>> "reschedule >>>> >> >>> uncompleted tasks to start after" but this seems to put "do not >>> start >>>> >> >>> until" >>>> >> >>> constraints on the tasks. I can use Tools->Tracking->Update >>>> >> >>> Tasks >>> and >>>> >> >>> update >>>> >> >>> the actual start date, but this doesn't seem correct (after >>> glancing >>>> > at >>>> >> >>> it). >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> It really would be cool to have some sort of "leveling >>> dependencies" >>>> >> >>> that >>>> >> >>> would allow you to keep the order of tasks in tact (and move >>>> >> >>> them >>>> >> >>> around) >>>> >> >>> without misusing real dependencies. >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> Thanks for any thoughts on strategies here. >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> "Bryan Andrews" <bandrews@trendinfluence.com> wrote in message >>>> >> >>> news:OD2eoQd4EHA.2016@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... >>>> >> >>>> To work from an earlier example: >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> We have 10 illustrations to create and we have them broken out >>>> >> >>>> into separate tasks. These should not be assigned finish to >>>> >> >>>> start >>>> >> >>>> because >>>> >> >>>> theoretically i can assign them to 10 different designers which >>>> >> >>>> would >>>> >> >>> allow >>>> >> >>>> me to complete them in an hour -- and there is nothing about >>>> >> >>>> the >>>> > first >>>> >> >>>> illustration that must be completed before i can start the >>>> >> >>>> second >>>> >> >>>> illustration. >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> I happen to have 1 designer available so i will assign him to >>>> >> >>>> all. >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> Since these are all set to start at the same time, the second i >>>> > assign >>>> >> >>>> the >>>> >> >>>> second task (and third and forth, etc) the resource is >>>> >> >>>> overallocated. >>>> >> >>>> What >>>> >> >>>> is the preferred leveling method for people. I understand that >>>> >> >>>> you >>>> > can >>>> >> >>> click >>>> >> >>>> Level or have Automatic Leveling, but is this what most people >>> use? >>>> > Or >>>> >> >>>> do >>>> >> >>>> people jsut adjust schedules in resource usage as suggested >>> earlier? >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> If adjusting the schedule is one way, how do you effectively >>> adjust >>>> >> >>>> task >>>> >> >>>> schedules for without creating constraints on the tasks? Which >>> view >>>> > is >>>> >> >>>> actually used to effectively achieve this? >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> If you are manually leveling, are you just adjusting delays? Is >>>> >> >>>> there >>>> > a >>>> >> >>> more >>>> >> >>>> intuitive or graphical way to do this? I would think there >>>> >> >>>> would >>> be >>>> > an >>>> >> >>> easy >>>> >> >>>> way to control priorities as well by dragging tasks around... >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> Thanks for any thoughts. >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>> >>> >> > >
- Previous message: Steve House [MVP]: "Re: Microsoft Office Specialist Certification for Microsoft Project questions"
- In reply to: John Sitka: "Re: Proper Leveling Techniques - Rescheduling to start later"
- Next in thread: John Sitka: "Re: Proper Leveling Techniques - Rescheduling to start later"
- Reply: John Sitka: "Re: Proper Leveling Techniques - Rescheduling to start later"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
