Re: Leveling by ID vs. "Standard"
- From: "John Sitka" <johnsitka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 09:03:48 -0500
Project and Server 2003 is a desktop application that has limited exposure as an enterprise product.
There is no enterprise scheduling going on. The scheduling can only happen at the Project
object level when all objects are loaded in memory on a single client.
Thus all Enterprise exposures are snapshots in time.
So an SQL interface exists in it's full implimentation at the query command window. Take your pick, there are many.
There are no server business objects other than simple CRUD procedures that queue up updates to take place
once the core client scheduling engine can utilize them to redefine the state of it's objects; And of course there is an intracate
reporting interface delivered via Sharepoint and OLAP cubes.
In otherwords "no real time scheduling", Which Microsoft couldn't sell anyways because a majority of users of Project
when attempting to handle an enterprise would cry foul. "Project messed up my schedule during the night."
Yep! it sure did. The reason is the playing field changes with every tick of the clock, every report of a resource,
every management decision. Traditionally this is far too dynamic an environment for people who have a lifetime
of personal and business planning experience to tolerate, plus legacy Project management techniques such as critical
path simply do not handle this hybrid situation which contains both single project and line of business concerns.
So what would be the next steps,
I think a major step forward would be resource reporting control panels where the business
of handling updates for those who can not speak for themselves can be handled via single login agency.
The work together constraint, but what is the scope of use of that constraint? Would it not almost immediately
require a multiple "what if" simulation study and cross project overwrite authority or concession between all project managers.
Truely it would be of great modelling value and could lead to more flexible and better plans. But there may be downsides....
Aggressive plans and accelerated delivery may be possible but the calculation is complex and some may look at resource
usage as down in some areas when the net multi plan result is favourable, and those would be viewed as "unbusy" or
excess capacity. Often non busy resources, no matter how stategically valuable, can be the first to go.
"Gary L. Chefetz [MVP]" <gary AT chefetz DOT org> wrote in message news:eO9gI%23sLHHA.960@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jim:
I agree with most of your statements. I think you really need to work with Project Server some, as it's approaching the type of
architecture that you want. In the 2007 version, the evolution toward SOA is quite evident. We now have a functional API and most
of the business logic not contained in stored procedures is now encapsulated as .NET services.
I don't think anyone who gets face time with the Project Product team, has "pushed" the work-together issue more relentlessly than
I have. So much so, in fact, that I think some program managers run when they see me coming. I guess I'm more sensitive to it
because I've worked with a lot of semi-custom manufacturing clients and product development clients who share this need. Now all I
have to do is convince someone in marketing that this is costing market-share.
Oh well, we finally got multi-level undo! It took a few versions, though. I remember one early P12 session at Redmond where a
bunch of partners came to the meeting with placards bearing the words "Multi-level Undo" to hold up in the air every time someone
asked, "If you could add only one feature to the next version, what would it be?" Maybe we'll march and picket the next Microsoft
Project Conference; now there's an idea! Hope to see you there.
--
Gary L. Chefetz, MVP
"We wrote the books on Project Server"
http://www.msprojectexperts.com
For Project Server FAQs visit
http://www.projectserverexperts.com
For Project FAQs visit
http://www.mvps.org/project
"Jim Rodgers" <JimRodgers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:A1DD1016-977F-4390-A850-D06E2923B3F8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Actually, I dont reallyhave a problem with the
leveling tool, per se. In fact, all things considered,
I'm pretty happy with MS Project. Data entry,
data presentation, data manipulation, and THEN...
VBA !!!!!
Microsoft is my hero. Always has been since 1980.
Microsoft Basic running in 4k on my Kim-1 computer
modified to drive an Intel 8080's S-100 bus.
Anyway...
My only really fundamental problem is with the
inability to tie the resources together. I actually am
surprised that a MS product like this with so many
features (and such a big learning curve) can't do
the basic project scenario of a meeting of specific
individuals or a person using a machine or tool.
I think that's surprising. I feel negative about it.
You said "but you can work around this."
Any specific ideas?
Cheers,
Jim
"Gary L. Chefetz [MVP]" wrote:
Jim:
The only thing that Project isn't real good at handling in your scenario is
resource synchrony, as you call it, but you can work around this. I, among
others, have been pushing for the ability to "constrain resources." Maybe in
the next version.<g>
I think you're simply expecting too much from the leveling tool. There are
more holistic approaches to resource leveling. The built-in leveling tool
may or may not be an appropriate part of your leveling procedure and
strategy.
--
Gary L. Chefetz, MVP
"We wrote the books on Project Server"
http://www.msprojectexperts.com
For Project Server FAQs visit
http://www.projectserverexperts.com
For Project FAQs visit
http://www.mvps.org/project
"Jim Rodgers" <JimRodgers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:B95D4943-F3D9-4646-A9F8-A53ADFEA0A2B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Yes. I got it.
I can use this to some benefit, but it is not exactly
what I need. I need to make resource assignments
that MUST be satisfied (i.e., expended). Only if the
man and the machine (or two specific people, etc.)
are assigned TO THE SAME task... only then is there
even a possibility of synchrony among assigned
resources. And I say "even a possibility" because
Work Contours also are possible.
For example, what if I were scheduling judges to
attend talent auditions. Let's say there are some
number of audition rooms, some number of judges,
and a whole bunch of talent auditioning this week.
The one thing I can say at the start is that I need to
get the judge, the talent, and the room all in one place
at the same time in certain particular combinations.
One room has a piano and another an organ, etc. One
of the talent needs more than one audition in more
than one room. Some judges may need to work in
more than one room also.
Now my project involves getting these tasks done by
Friday afternoon, and not having to hire any additional
judges or rent any additional rooms if it can be avoided.
Supposing I have enough judges and rooms to hold
all the required auditions, how would I use MS Project
show this scenario and print out a schedule?
I cannot, however, have the schedule say it plans to
have the room work twice as long or twice as hard
because the judge has a schedule conflict and can't
be there at that time. The work is fixed per resource,
not per task. And the ALL the resources must start
and stop the task ALL AT ONCE.
You know what I am trying to get at?
I'm finding it really hard to believe MS Project can't help
organize a project with such parameters!
Even if MSP really only is for bulk (slave) labor, how
do you assign a supervisor to watch over the ditch
diggers?
There's gotta be a way.
-- Jim
"Steve House" wrote:
Remember links in Project are illustrative of the physical process logic
and
are should not be used solely to create a desired temporal logic. The
time
relationships between tasks are a consequence, not a cause, of the links.
If you flowchart the workflow of your project, the arrow connectors
between
the various process and decision boxes, etc, become your task linkages.
So
a start-to-start link does NOT mean the tasks ought to start together or
will run in parallel, etc. A SS link means that there is some reason
that
the successor task can't start until the predecessor has started. The
successor may or may not start then, the link merely describes the
earliest
that it can possibly start, not WHEN it will start.
--
Steve House [Project MVP]
MS Project Trainer & Consultant
Visit http://www.mvps.org/project/faqs.htm for the FAQs
"Jim Rodgers" <JimRodgers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:A04A8C14-016B-49AF-A5CF-04328014EF90@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Wait a minute...
I said...
"Next I tried using parallel tasks [with a Start/Start Link]."
Then I said...
"As I recall, when I tried that....."
Whenever I say "As I recall..." I know it's BS.
;-{
That should've worked according to the Help.
I'll try that again and let you know.
-- Jim
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Leveling by ID vs. "Standard"
- From: Jim Rodgers
- Re: Leveling by ID vs. "Standard"
- References:
- Re: Leveling by ID vs. "Standard"
- From: Gary L. Chefetz [MVP]
- Re: Leveling by ID vs. "Standard"
- Prev by Date: Re: Custom view with sorts
- Next by Date: Re: Scheduling
- Previous by thread: Re: Leveling by ID vs. "Standard"
- Next by thread: Re: Leveling by ID vs. "Standard"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
