Consolidation issues between MSP2007 and MSP2003

I

IanB

I operate a plan as part of a large programme, where many plans such as mine
are consolidated for milestone reporting to senior levels. The consolidators
all use MSP2003, as do most of the component plans. I have just started
using MSP2007, but saving files in 2003 format for compatibility.

I am being told that issues can emerge on consoildation in this scenario,
involving loss of data in custom fields - which the programme makes extensive
use of.

Can anyone confirm whether this is the case, and if so, just how and in what
specific conditions it manifests itself?

Unfortuantely I don't know if the projects are consolidated dynamically or
statically.

Any help much appreciated!

Regards,
Ian
 
R

Rod Gill

Firstly, make sure you have Service Pack 2 for Project 2007 installed and
SP3 for Project 2003.

Secondly, make sure that if consolidations are linked, that they are linked
to copies of master files or that no one ever over-writes, renames or moves
any of the sub projects (or the master file). If this is done, then you roll
the corruption dice. Corruption will occur: it's just a matter of when.

Your license allows you to install Project 2003 instead of 2007 if issues
continue.

--

Rod Gill
Microsoft MVP for Project - http://www.project-systems.co.nz

Author of the only book on Project VBA, see: http://www.projectvbabook.com




IanB said:
I operate a plan as part of a large programme, where many plans such as
mine
are consolidated for milestone reporting to senior levels. The
consolidators
all use MSP2003, as do most of the component plans. I have just started
using MSP2007, but saving files in 2003 format for compatibility.

I am being told that issues can emerge on consoildation in this scenario,
involving loss of data in custom fields - which the programme makes
extensive
use of.

Can anyone confirm whether this is the case, and if so, just how and in
what
specific conditions it manifests itself?

Unfortuantely I don't know if the projects are consolidated dynamically or
statically.

Any help much appreciated!

Regards,
Ian

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
signature database 4786 (20100119) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com
Click to expand...

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4786 (20100119) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com
 
I

IanB

Thanks for the reply. I can confirm we're on the right versions (this is a
BIG organisation), but I'm afraid I don't know the precise mechanics of how
the consolidations are done. It sounds from what you're saying that it's not
specifically a 2007-versus-2003 question, more one of how the consolidation
is structured?

Do you have any pointers to just what kinds of corruption will occur, please?

If need be I can regress - our IT provision people just roll it out using
Tivoli, but I'm loth to lose access to that excellent little facility that
highlights the downstream impact of any change you make - particularly to
durations/dates!

Thanks,
Ian
 
R

Rob Schneider

Before we go much further in this discussion, are you *actually* having
any problems? Have the people who have advised you about "issues"
actually been able to demonstrate these issue to you?

Have you discovered how to use master/subprojects and link the
subprojects? This all covered pretty well in help.

What Rod is referring to ... and different people have different
experience with this phenomena ... sometimes the master (and
subprojects?) get "corrupted" ... can't open them, bloated, whatever.
It's never (knock on wood) happened to me; but I am firm in making sure
we we set up the infrastructure so that
: the files don't move around,
: don't get renamed and relinked,
: don't get touched by people who don't know how to drive Project,
: etc.

We also store the files in SharePoint so that we have easy access to
previous versions. We often make mistakes in the MPP files that make us
want to go back a version or two, so revision control is great. Should
a file get corrupted, then we just go back a version; so it's no big
deal if a file does get corrupted.

--rms

www.rmschneider.com
 
I

IanB

Thanks for the contribution. This is the text from an email from the bod at
the top of our consolidation structure:
"...there are problems with 2007. If saving in 2003 format and then adding
the 2003 format saved file to a consolidation you can lose data. It seems to
manifest itself in the loss of data in the custom fields (which we use). Also
passwords’…. DON’T’ USE PASSWORDS WITH 2007 !! Again you can lose
data as 2007 uses encryption which uses some of the data contained within its
source file. You will then have problems opening the file in 2003" (I'm not
bothered by the passwords bit - we don't use those on the plans themselves,
only on a zip file when sending externally in that form).

As I mentioned in my previous posts, sadly I don't know how 'them up there'
do their consolidations (there are at least two levels of consolidation
involved, at successively senior points in the organisation). I personally
have done consolidations in the past at other organisations, but am not
involved in these here other than as a component plan provider.

I don't know where they reference the component parts from; we certainly
also make use of SharePoint, but mimicking a standard directory structure and
not using its native versioning (we achieve that with date-specific
directories and filenames); presumably they must rename the plans we submit
each week and copy them to a standard location with a standard name to make
the consolidation work.

I'm particularly intrigued by the 'custom fields' comment my bod makes. Any
thoughts, please?

Thanks,
Ian
 
R

Rob Schneider

Humm. I don't see all the postings here on this newsgroup, but I don't
recall reading about or working these sorts of problems (problems with
2007, losing data, encryption problems, custom fields, etc.).

I think linking to date specific directories and filenames, and
presumably changing those and linking, can only be asking for trouble
(unless the upward consolidation is freshly created each time ... but
that defeats the ability to have linked files with auto updates that you
wish.

For what it's worth. Maybe others have seen this or know of them. You'd
think of they were ubiquitious it would be repeatedly asked about
here... Dunno.

--rms

www.rmschneider.com
 
Top