Re: Setting up non-working calendars for resources

Tech-Archive recommends: Fix windows errors by optimizing your registry

I wonder if we use "budget" in different ways. It sounds like you're referring to a top-down budget where senior managment allocates XX amount to the project out of the firm's available capital - the budget thus is actually an allocation of projected revenues. "We'll have 1 million Euros available this year for operating improvments so we can spend up to 250 kiloEuros on the new network rollout." I think of the budget, OTOH, as the bottom-up estimate of what it will actully cost us to perform the necessary tasks at the required quality level plus contingencies and management reserve. If we're lucky this will be <= the amount available in the top-down allocation - if it's not, it's virtually certain the project will fail. In any case, it seems fundamental to the job of the PM to insure there's enough money available to achieve the required results, informing senior managment of the projected costs before they decide what funds to commit so they can compute the ROI, etc, before making their decision and then tracking progress to insure we're getting the required work accomplished without exceeding projections, something we can't do without monitoring costs.

I like the idea of the separate "project" for non-working time but it still seems like an unnecessary complication and duplication of effort since the same data has to be tracked in the human resources and payroll accounting systems anyway and they do it with much greater accuracy than is possible in Project.

--
Steve House [MVP]
MS Project Trainer & Consultant
Visit http://www.mvps.org/project/faqs.htm for the FAQs


"Jan De Messemaeker" <jandemes at prom hyphen ade dot be> wrote in message news:Ohh79qqPFHA.2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Hi Steve,

Since my customer is more concerned about the good usage of resources rather
than checking on which project they were spent, the primary objective IS to
count nonworking time as working time.

In practice, they put nonworking time in a separate project (they call it
NPA projects, non productivce activities) that is managed on program manager
level and linked to the same pool as the POP files (Productive Operational
Project).

Do also notice that their budget follow up is rather original (but I do like
the idea): actuals are taken from the time registration program, planned
work from the POP files - That way no integration between the time
registration program and Project is needed. Budget comes from neither, it is
decided op upper management level.

Greetings,


--
Jan De Messemaeker
Microsoft Project Most Valuable Professional
http://users.online.be/prom-ade/
+32-495-300 620
"Steve House [Project MVP]" <sjhouse.remove.this@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
schreef in bericht news:uZEHXVpPFHA.1172@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Was just wondering about that - even if we disregard the currency issue,
the
staff hours spent "working" on non-working tasks should not be included in
the man-months required for the project. In my previous example of two
tasks and a vacation, the project really only requires 80 man-hours but
including the vacation as a task makes it appear to be 160 man-hours,
double 
the real value.  How is that handled?

--
Steve House [MVP]
MS Project Trainer & Consultant
Visit http://www.mvps.org/project/faqs.htm for the FAQs


"Jan De Messemaeker" <jandemes at prom hyphen ade dot be> wrote in message
news:uIDsaboPFHA.2524@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Hi Steve,
>
> First, "budget" is very often measured in men-month so no need for > Euros
> And Earned value as a method is practically unknown here as well.
> Greetings,
>
> --
> Jan De Messemaeker
> Microsoft Project Most Valuable Professional
> http://users.online.be/prom-ade/
> +32-495-300 620
> "Steve House [Project MVP]" <sjhouse.remove.this@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> schreef in bericht news:eQzW4SoPFHA.2520@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> If the project manager is responsible for bringing the project in on
>> schedule and within budget, how is that possible without monitoring
costs
>> and knowing if you're under, on, or over budget? And what about >> earned
>> value as a means of tracking progress - just use an arbitrary unit
cost? 
>>
>> Didn't think about using another cost rate table for the non-working
> tasks -
>> duhhh, another one of those head slapping "of course!" moments <grin>.
>>
>> --
>> Steve House [MVP]
>> MS Project Trainer & Consultant
>> Visit http://www.mvps.org/project/faqs.htm for the FAQs
>>
>> "Jan De Messemaeker" <jandemes at prom hyphen ade dot be> wrote in
>> message
>> news:uS6ozKnPFHA.3880@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > Hi Steve,
>> >
>> > Just about the cost.
>> >
>> > If you read the article I wrote on it, my advice is to use an other
> (zero
>> > cost) cost rate table for nonworking tasks.
>> > OTOH, I never felt this as a big thing because over here practically
>> > nobody
>> > uses Project to calculate costs.
>> > Unless teh customer specifically asks for it I do not even touch it
in
> my
>> > courses.
>> >
>> > Greetings
>> > --
>> > Jan De Messemaeker
>> > Microsoft Project Most Valuable Professional
>> > http://users.online.be/prom-ade/
>> > +32-495-300 620
>> > "Steve House [Project MVP]" >> > <sjhouse.remove.this@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > schreef in bericht news:uEV#PNhPFHA.1528@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> I agree 100% with you about assigning resources 100% as a rule
<grin>. 
>> > But
>> >> I do have some qualms about the idea of showing non-working time as
> tasks
>> >> rather than forcing Project just to avoid scheduling during them by
>> >> designating them non-working time in the resource calendar.  Here's
an
>> >> example of the problem I see. We have Joe Resource who gets $10 >> >> per
> hour
>> >> assigned to Project X which consists of two 5-day tasks A & B. >> >> He's
>> >> going
>> >> on vacation for 2 weeks in between the two tasks. If we represent
his 
>> >> vacation as a task, ---
>> >>
>> >> Task A - 5d - 40 man-hours - $400
>> >> Task Vacation - 10d - 80 man-hours - $800
>> >> Task B - 5d - 40 man-hours - $400
>> >>
>> >> Our schedule is right but our total labour hours and costs are
double 
>> >> what
>> >> they should be.  This example illustrates why I don't like to see
>> >> anything
>> >> in that plan except actual work directed at the project's
>> >> deliverables.
>> > The
>> >> costs and man-hours spent on vacation are actually not part of the
>> >> project
>> >> at all.  Including such time as tasks is fine as far as scheduling
and 
>> >> resource leveling is concerned but throws everything else seriously
>> >> out
>> >> of
>> >> whack.  How do you adjust the budgets so they reflect the real
>> >> marginal
>> >> costs of the project if you do?
>> >>
>> >> When I see a full time resource assignment something like a 1 day
task 
> on
>> >> Tuesday at 50%, my thoughts are not that the resource is going to
work 
>> > from
>> >> 1300-1700 on it.  My thought is he's going to spend 4 hours on that
> task
>> > but
>> >> as long as it's done on Tuesday, I really don't care WHICH 4 hours
it
> is,
>> >> I'll let him sort that one out for himself - as far as the project
>> > schedule
>> >> is concerned it takes all day. OTOH, if the resource is a >> >> part-time
>> > worker
>> >> who is only physically there for 4 hours a day, I'll set up a
resource 
>> >> calendar that shows hours of work for the 4 hours he is actually
>> >> scheduled
>> >> to be on the property and if I need him to do 4 hours on something
on
>> >> Tuesday, spending his full shift, I'll make it a half-day duration
>> >> task
>> > and
>> >> assign him 100% to it.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Steve House [MVP]
>> >> MS Project Trainer & Consultant
>> >> Visit http://www.mvps.org/project/faqs.htm for the FAQs
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Jan De Messemaeker" <jandemes at prom hyphen ade dot be> wrote in
>> >> message
>> >> news:uyRNbHaPFHA.2348@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> > Just a word in from a dissident :-)
>> >> > I never advise to use percentages on resources.
>> >> > 60% for a resource (be it availability or load) is interpreted by
>> > Project,
>> >> > and used in calculations, as 36 seconds per minute.
>> >> > Now this may be a good an approximation as any, to me it is not >> >> > an
>> > ideal.
>> >> > I prefer to think people always work 100%.
>> >> >
>> >> > Moreover, Project Management Theory of Constraints shows that you
>> >> > get
>> > the
>> >> > best delays by having people always first finish what they're
doing 
> and
>> >> > not
>> >> > spread their time over multiple tasks.
>> >> >
>> >> > And yes, representing nonworking time by tasks (my article is now
> also
>> > on
>> >> > the Microsoft website :-)) gives some extra work, but assigning
>> >> > percentages
>> >> > does that as well - I wouldn't pay for the pages of paper  spent
>> > printing
>> >> > the explanations on that one.
>> >> >
>> >> > For instance, yes, when a resource has 60% availability the
default
> for
>> >> > assigning is 60% but it is very easy to assign a precentage >> >> > higher
> that
>> >> > that - which make Resource Leveling unusable.
>> >> >
>> >> > I work for an IT shop with 80 project leaders where these
guidances
> are
>> >> > applied (Only 100%, absence is a task) and that gives the results
> thay
>> >> > want..
>> >> >
>> >> > Greetings,
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Jan De Messemaeker
>> >> > Microsoft Project Most Valuable Professional
>> >> > http://users.online.be/prom-ade/
>> >> > +32-495-300 620
>> >> > "DWeb" <DWeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schreef in bericht
>> >> > news:C3E1E089-2775-4841-9D5F-A7DD11EA9EC2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> >> Thanks for the response, Rod.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The main reason I had for going down the "non-working tasks" >> >> >> path
> was
>> > the
>> >> >> comments I read on MVP Jan de Messemaeker's website discussion
that 
>> > "Load
>> >> >> reports over time such as shown by the Usage views will show the
>> > resource
>> >> > as
>> >> >> underallocated" when using calendars to represent non-working
time. 
>> >> > Showing
>> >> >> resource allocation as accurately as possible is a significant
>> >> >> requirement
>> >> >> for our project management team.  However, we are more than
willing
> to
>> >> >> sacrifice some of that accuracy to avoid any cumbersome >> >> >> practices
>> >> > associated
>> >> >> with using the non-working task approach.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> With regards to your comment about setting max units to 60% for
>> > resources
>> >> >> scheduled to work 3 days a week, will that put too strict a
control
> on
>> >> > their
>> >> >> allocation? What if they are periodically allowed to work 4 >> >> >> days
a 
>> > week
>> >> > or
>> >> >> only 2 days a week?  I still get a bit confused about how unit
>> >> >> settings
>> >> >> affect outcomes.  If someone has max units of 60%, why do I need
to 
>> >> >> assign
>> >> >> them at 60%?  I thought that if I assigned them at 100% it would
>> >> >> assign
>> >> > them
>> >> >> at their maximum unit availability?  Is my understanding
incorrect? 
>> >> >> Also,
>> >> >> what about the case where we have two people planned (in the
>> >> >> budget)
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> be
>> >> >> out a certain period for maternity leave that will be different
>> >> >> than
>> > the
>> >> >> actual timeframe for their absences?  Set resource availability
at
> 0%
>> > for
>> >> >> certain periods and 60% (or whatever applies) for the period >> >> >> when
> they
>> >> > return?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Also, with regards to your suggestion to always use Fixed Units
> tasks
>> >> >> (non
>> >> >> effort-driven), would you suggest doing that for my "Support
>> > Activities"
>> >> >> project that has several support tasks that last the entire
length 
> of
>> > the
>> >> >> contract that are performed by most resources?  I setup these
tasks 
>> > (end
>> >> > user
>> >> >> support, bug fixes, issue management) as fixed duration, non
effort 
>> >> >> driven
>> >> >> and allow work to calculate based upon the assigned resources'
> units.
>> > I
>> >> > was
>> >> >> concerned that any other task type would change the duration.
Any
>> >> > thoughts
>> >> >> on this? I am setting up another "Release Plan" project that >> >> >> has
>> >> >> Fixed
>> >> > work
>> >> >> tasks representing application enhancements being delivered by
>> >> >> these
>> > same
>> >> >> resources (shared via a resource pool), where I need to be able
to 
> see
>> >> > when
>> >> >> these enhancements will complete based upon the assigned
resources
> and
>> >> > their
>> >> >> availability. Would you suggest changing this from Fixed Work >> >> >> to
>> >> >> Fixed
>> >> > Units
>> >> >> as well?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks again for taking the time to respond and offer your
thoughts 
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> suggestions.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Rod Gill" wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > For resources away for a week or more, simplest solution is to
> edit
>> >> > their
>> >> >> > calendar and make the period non-working. Project then
> automatically
>> >> > delays
>> >> >> > all their work.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > For resources working only 60% of a 40 hour week: in the
resource 
>> > ***
>> >> > set
>> >> >> > max units to 60% and only ever assign them to tasks at 60% or
> less.
>> > No
>> >> > need
>> >> >> > to edit calendars at all. Project automatically spreads a
task's
>> >> > duration
>> >> >> > out to get the entered work done.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Adding non-working tasks is a very complicated, manual and >> >> >> > slow
> way
>> > of
>> >> >> > resolving this problem and I don't recommend it.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Simplest settings for all tasks are usually Fixed Units, >> >> >> > Effort
>> > driven
>> >> > off.
>> >> >> > Any other settings I find are slower and create more work and
>> >> >> > confusion.
>> >> >> > --
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Rod Gill
>> >> >> > Project MVP
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "DWeb" <DWeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:9F77FAF2-4CDD-4EB0-AC83-A6DE010903D0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> >> > > Hello! I have read through postings and MVP websites, >> >> >> > > trying
>> >> >> > > to
>> >> > determine
>> >> >> > > the proper approach for setting up my projects to properly
> account
>> >> >> > > for
>> >> >> > > non-working time for my work resources (no material >> >> >> > > resources
>> > used).
>> >> > Now
>> >> >> > > I'm
>> >> >> > > confused about which way to go and would love to get help
from 
> the
>> >> > smart
>> >> >> > > people out there.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > I have resources who have different expected availability,
>> >> >> > > which
>> > has
>> >> > been
>> >> >> > > budgeted - some will be out on maternity leave for 3 months,
>> >> >> > > others
>> >> > are
>> >> >> > > working about 60% of the time, etc., where the specific days
>> >> >> > > may
>> > not
>> >> > be
>> >> >> > > known, as much as the total hours per month that they are
> supposed
>> > to
>> >> > be
>> >> >> > > available to work.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Is there a simple way to handle these scenarios without
having 
> to
>> >> > select
>> >> >> > > specific days in "Change Working Time/<Resource Name>
Calendar" 
>> > that
>> >> >> > > people
>> >> >> > > will be unavailable and marking those days as nonworking
time?. 
>> > I'm
>> >> >> > > afraid
>> >> >> > > that working with assignments and leveling will be off too
much 
> if
>> > I
>> >> > said
>> >> >> > > Joe
>> >> >> > > is not working Mon-Tu, as opposed to working 3 days in a
week. 
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Can I just setup "Non-working" tasks of fixed duration, non
>> >> > effort-driven
>> >> >> > > and assign, for example, the resource available at 60% to
these 
>> >> >> > > non-working
>> >> >> > > tasks at 40% assignment units?
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Thanks in advance!
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>




.

Quantcast