How can I display link lines for rolled up tasks?

[bari_sax]

If I choose Format > Layout > "Always roll up Gantt bars" and "Hide rollup
bars when summary expanded," the link lines disappear when the task is rolled
up. I can bring them back by unchecking "Hide rollup bars when summary
expanded," but this results in too much clutter on the screen (i.e. the
duplicate bars get a big confusing).

Is there any way I can either (a) display the link lines for rolled up tasks
while still hiding the rollup bars when the summary is expanded or (b) modify
the formatting of how rolled up bars appear when their summary is expanded
(e.g. making it look just like a standard summary task)?

 

[John]

Hmm. Sounds like I'm supposed to change how I work to accommodate the
software.

Really, if I have a process that goes Process 1 > Process 2 > Process 3,
where you have to finish Process 1 before going on to Process 2, and each of
these processes have some subtasks, I'm supposed to link the last subtask in
Process 1 to the first subtask of Process 2 instead of just linking the
Process 1 summary task to the Process 2 summary task? How is this "better
practice" again? Now I can't see the link lines unless I open ALL the
subtasks, which can fill multiple screens.

Guess I'll just keep doing what I'm doing and tinker with bar formatting.
Maybe a feature for the next release...

bari_sax,
No, I (and the FAQ) are only trying to warn you about the potential
consequences of linking summary lines. It you truly only link summary
lines as you suggest, you should have no problem. The problem comes when
users then also link subtasks between summary lines and/or re-structure
(indent/outdent) tasks. If you feel confident in linking summary lines,
then by all means go ahead and do it, the software is capable of
supporting it.

John
Project MVP

 

[bari_sax]

I would like the link lines of a set of rolled up tasks to operate the same
as those for a summary task. I.e. I have Tasks 1, 2, 3, and 4, which are a
linked set of predecessors/successors. Each of these has subtasks a, b, c,
and d. If I do not use rolled up tasks at all, the summary tasks 1-4 always
show the link lines between them, whether or not they are collapsed.

If instead I use rolled up tasks, and choose "Always roll up Gantt bars" (to
get more information out of collapsed tasks) and "Hide rollup bars when
summary expanded" (to reduce clutter) the link lines disappear when I
collapse the tasks, so I don't know what my dependencies are.

Note that I'm NOT interested in seeing any dependencies between the subtasks
when the top level tasks are collapsed. That would indeed be a mess.

 

[bari_sax]

Hmm. Sounds like I'm supposed to change how I work to accommodate the
software.

Really, if I have a process that goes Process 1 > Process 2 > Process 3,
where you have to finish Process 1 before going on to Process 2, and each of
these processes have some subtasks, I'm supposed to link the last subtask in
Process 1 to the first subtask of Process 2 instead of just linking the
Process 1 summary task to the Process 2 summary task? How is this "better
practice" again? Now I can't see the link lines unless I open ALL the
subtasks, which can fill multiple screens.

Guess I'll just keep doing what I'm doing and tinker with bar formatting.
Maybe a feature for the next release...

 

[John]

Yes, like in Excel, you have to follow the Order of Operations, you
can't change the rules of math to be what you want them to be. Same
thing with Project. It's following a set of rules, or trying to, called
Critical Path Method Scheduling.

If you just want a Gantt Chart and no rules, there are a number of much
lower priced, much easier to learn packages out there that just to bars
on a Gantt anyway you want them. You don't have to learn any rules. Of
course, it won't help you to prioritize between tasks very much, or
help with resource assignments, or do EVA, show you what is really
happening as your project progresses, or give you a more or less
"objective" look at your schedule, or do a hundred other things you can
do with CPM. If you don't want sophistication, you don't have to have
it. There is scheduling software for beginners out there.

To paraphrase Lewis in "Project Planning, Scheduling and Control",
"Giving a person a powerful scheduling software program, when he knows
nothing about Project Management, just allows him to document his
failures with great precision!"



It's taken MS a long time to "get" CPM and really incorporate it into
Project. I doubt they're planning to take some huge steps backward at
this point, but I guess you can hope!

Hope this helps in your world.

Dave,
Just for reference, I think you missed the point of the poster's
question. He/she is asking about the graphical presentation, not CPM,
earned value nor any other schedule analysis subjects.

John

 

[davegb]

Hmm. Sounds like I'm supposed to change how I work to accommodate the
software.

Yes, like in Excel, you have to follow the Order of Operations, you
can't change the rules of math to be what you want them to be. Same
thing with Project. It's following a set of rules, or trying to, called
Critical Path Method Scheduling.

If you just want a Gantt Chart and no rules, there are a number of much
lower priced, much easier to learn packages out there that just to bars
on a Gantt anyway you want them. You don't have to learn any rules. Of
course, it won't help you to prioritize between tasks very much, or
help with resource assignments, or do EVA, show you what is really
happening as your project progresses, or give you a more or less
"objective" look at your schedule, or do a hundred other things you can
do with CPM. If you don't want sophistication, you don't have to have
it. There is scheduling software for beginners out there.

To paraphrase Lewis in "Project Planning, Scheduling and Control",
"Giving a person a powerful scheduling software program, when he knows
nothing about Project Management, just allows him to document his
failures with great precision!"

Really, if I have a process that goes Process 1 > Process 2 > Process 3,
where you have to finish Process 1 before going on to Process 2, and each of
these processes have some subtasks, I'm supposed to link the last subtask in
Process 1 to the first subtask of Process 2 instead of just linking the
Process 1 summary task to the Process 2 summary task? How is this "better
practice" again? Now I can't see the link lines unless I open ALL the
subtasks, which can fill multiple screens.

Guess I'll just keep doing what I'm doing and tinker with bar formatting.
Maybe a feature for the next release...

It's taken MS a long time to "get" CPM and really incorporate it into
Project. I doubt they're planning to take some huge steps backward at
this point, but I guess you can hope!

Hope this helps in your world.

 

[davegb]

Dave,
Just for reference, I think you missed the point of the poster's
question. He/she is asking about the graphical presentation, not CPM,
earned value nor any other schedule analysis subjects.

John

Thanks for the feedback. I didn't miss that at all, John. He states
that he doesn't like some advice he's been given about good scheduling
practices, doesn't understand scheduling, and simply wants to represent
his project in a certain way. I think this is much more easily done
with non-CPM software that does Gantts anyway you like. I also
cautioned him of the downside of going that way. I felt it might help
him to know why some of those good scheduling practices exist and why
it's difficult to get Project do some of the things he's requesting. I
simply gave him some additional information to help him make the best
choice in his situation.

I made a decision many years ago that when I see people in this forum
trying to re-invent scheduling and ignore 100 years of evolution of
this discipline to let them know that others have figured out a pretty
good way of scheduling projects and that if they go their own way, they
lose a lot of advantages and end up in conflict with the software. I
like to think I've helped a few to realize this isn't just a graphics
program, but a much more sophisticated tool than they had even
imagined.