Re: Schedule Validation
From: Steve House [MVP] (sjhouse.remove.this_at_to.send.hotmail.com)
Date: 02/19/05
- Next message: Steve House [MVP]: "Re: Resource Availability Setting vs. Leveling"
- Previous message: Mykl: "Monday to Friday default working hours?"
- In reply to: Nancy: "Re: Schedule Validation"
- Next in thread: JackD: "Re: Schedule Validation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 10:46:21 -0500
Sounds like you're well aware of how a program SHOULD be designed and have
the problem of selling that to more senior managment that's more used to
seat-of-the-pants methods - not an enviable position. <smile>
Validation, in your case, seems like a process of taking what you have and
seeing if it's close enough to what it should be to be workable. I think an
approach to investigate would be to take the information you have on the
task breakdown, duration estimates and linkages, and resource availability
and create a new schedule as it should have been done. Meanwhile, enter the
schedule for those same tasks that you have been given into one of the
interim plan slots. Now you can easily customize views in the Gantt chart
to display the schedule as you developed it and the schedule as you
inherited it on the same view and go from there to compare the two.
-- Steve House [MVP] MS Project Trainer & Consultant Visit http://www.mvps.org/project/faqs.htm for the FAQs "Nancy" <nancy@byrge.com> wrote in message news:uRJyHxoFFHA.3368@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > Thanks Steve and JackD for your responses. > > You've both highlighted some of the many challenges a project manager > faces > in developing and managing master program schedules. Unfortunately, I > was > handed this one and am attempting to validate what I have. > > The optimum way that this should have been developed was to have the > project > manager provide the strategic goals to the organization, including any > critical event-driven milestones that had to be met. Each functional > manager would then develop an initial schedule to meet the end > milestone/goal(s). Cross-functional support should be used in the > development of the initial schedule so that correct predecessor/successor > task links are included. Those individual schedules would then be > integrated together and a cross-functional review of the draft schedule > would be conducted to provide a "logic" check of the events. This would > include an assessment of the timespan of events that are on or near the > critical path, verifying predecessor/successor task links, ensuring > resource > loading for critical activities, and assessing links to critical test > assets > and deliverables (integration labs, test equipment, technical manuals, > training, etc.) to determine whether the schedule is sound enough to meet > strategic goals. The organization should also have a policy that any > event > that runs for over a specific number of days (e.g. 60) has to be > automatically re-evaluated. > > Once this assessment is completed, a summary level schedule would be > presented to senior management for their approval. Upon receipt of > approval, the project manager would be held accountable for the execution > of > the schedule. How the PM holds the functional managers accountable is > organization dependent. > > Having said that, the schedule I inherited was not developed this way, I > searching for suggestions for validating what I have. If we ultimately > determine through this validation that the schedule is incorrect, it could > adversely affect our program budget. Any recommendations on how to do > this? > > Thanks again, Nancy > >
- Next message: Steve House [MVP]: "Re: Resource Availability Setting vs. Leveling"
- Previous message: Mykl: "Monday to Friday default working hours?"
- In reply to: Nancy: "Re: Schedule Validation"
- Next in thread: JackD: "Re: Schedule Validation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
