assigning more than one parent task to a sub task

[Uri L.]

Hi,

I'd like to share 2 parent tasks for a sub task.
for example:
The sub task is "meet a & b"
currently placed under parent task called "finishing initial plan"

I'd like it also to appear under parent task "meetings" - not as a copy, but as the same task, just with 2 parent references.

How can it be done ?

 

[John]

Uri,
"No man can serve two masters". Hopefully you recognize that as a
Biblical quote but it applies to your question also. A single task can
be a child of two parents as long a one parent is actually a
grandparent. In other words, subtask "meet a & b" is a child of
"finishing initial plan" which is a child of "meetings". However if
"meet a & b" and "meetings" are not related then the only way "meet a &
b" can be a part of both is for "meet a & b" to be a separate task on
its own.

Why do you want to do this? Often there are alternate ways of doing
something that aren't always obvious at first glance.

John

 

[JackD]

Do this.
Insert a text field or outline code.
Define a value for the text field (tools menu / customize / fields / value
list)
Set up the acceptable values and make sure one of them is "meetings"
In task a and b set the value of that field to "meetings"
now go to the "Project" menu / grouping / more groups / create
and create a group based on that field.
Apply that group.
Tasks a and b will show up under meetings.
now when ever you want to see the meetings altogether apply that group. You
can create multiple groups and views based on those groups so that you can
see your project categorized whichever way you want in a click of a button.

-Jack

Hi John,

many thanks for your reply.
the reason I'd like 2 parent references, is because the task "meet a&b" is

contextually related to the "initial plan" process and also to the
"meetings" process.

In other words, It could be great if I could have a linked copy of "meet

a&b" under "meetings", so I can also see there the progress on this task
(instead of remembering to scroll up and look at "initial plan").

I wouldn't want to use a copy, in order not to create unnecessary

redundancy. It's really like using a shortcut or so. Like I'm storing a file
in one folder, and putting a shortcut in another folder, because it's
important to have quick access from that folder to the file.

 

[John]

Uri,
First let me answer the question (i.e. separate task for "meet a & b").
Create the performance task "meet a & b" but do NOT put it as a subtask
to either "meetings" or "initial plan". You want to do this because
there is only one task for "meet a & b".

Since you apparently only want to be able to show the progress of "meet
a & b" simultaneously with the progress of other tasks under each of the
two Summary lines, there are many ways to get there. A link could be
used as you suggest but that is way to complicated for what you need.
Jack's suggestion will get you there very efficiently. I was going to
suggest a similar approach using a spare flag field and filters. Either
approach should get what you want.

John

 

[Steve House]

Adding to the other excellent answers, I suggest you reconsider including
your category of "meetings" at all. The outline structure is supposed to
represent the decomposition of the activities that create the projects
deliverables down to their smallest logical components. "Meeting" would be
certainly be an administrative category for a type of activity but the
aggregate of all the individual meetings put together does not result in the
production of any one project deliverable, indeed, it doesn't describe
deliverables at all. Think of the Project as producing a system. That
system is made up of a number of different functional modules. Each
functional module consists of a number of components. Each component
requires a number of different steps of work performed by the resources to
produce it. Your WBS, the task list in Project, should track in synch with
that hierarchy of deliverables. It is *not* a list of categories of work.
--
Steve House [MVP]
MS Project Trainer/Consultant
Visit http://www.mvps.org/project/faqs.htm for the FAQs

Hi,

I'd like to share 2 parent tasks for a sub task.
for example:
The sub task is "meet a & b"
currently placed under parent task called "finishing initial plan"

I'd like it also to appear under parent task "meetings" - not as a copy,

but as the same task, just with 2 parent references.

 

[John]

Steve,
I hear what you are saying but I take exception to "meetings" not being
relevant to delivering a product. On the surface, meetings held during
the course of a project are generally thought of as administrative but
there are exceptions and Uri didn't detail what subtasks are under
"meeting" in his plan. For example, a design review (preliminary,
critical, final, etc.) are very relevant to ensuring the designed
product meets it specification and to solicit important feedback on the
approach being taken. Those type of "meetings" are often pivotal to
follow on performance tasks in the plan. Perhaps those are the
"meetings" in Uri's plan.

Don't misunderstand, I am not an advocate of meetings in general
however, let me cite something I read recently when I was researching
exactly what "PWA" is. The article (buried somewhere in the Microsoft
pages) talked about the importance of sharing information amongst all
participants on a project and touts PWA as a excellent tool for doing
that. Whether through PWA or not, I think we all cold agree that
Information sharing is a critical element of good project management.
Gee, at least on one level a PDR or CDR (i.e. meetings) sounds like
sharing information to me.

Just my two cents.
John

 

[Uri L.]

John, Jack and Steve,

Many thanks for the tips and clarifications. Indeed I'm quite a beginner in using project, and still need to dig it more to understand its capabilities and methods

The "meetings" summary task was in order to facilitate the presentation of the project, however, I took the advice about re-organizing the tasks hierarchy , and changed it.

The new structure should look like :

Initial Plan
- task 1
- task 2
- meet a&b for specs

Customers
- meet a&b for specs (here it's linked form above)
- research...
- task 3

So now I have 2 parent tasks called "Initial plan" and "Customers" , to which the sub-task "meet a&b" is logically related.
The "meetings" summary was ditched.

Progress-wise, "meet a&b" should be in the "initial plan" summary, as it follows the other tasks there.
Context-wise, I'd like to put a link to it in "Customers", for a full view of all related tasks.

"Customers" and "initial plan" are parallel processes (while moving the initial plan, we are also making some preliminary research for customers).

Again, many thanks for the tip. I'm not sure I fully understood it, but will take the time and tamper with Project a bit to understand values & fields. Will update how it went

Thanks again,
Uri

 

[Steve House]

No no no - didn't say meetings weren't relevant. In many circumstances they
certainly are and a given meeting may (hopefully does) produce a
deliverable. What I'm saying is that "meetings" in the aggregate are not a
phase of the project ending with the production of one particular
deliverable in the same sense as, say when erecting a building, we have
phases of site acquisition, foundation, framing, roofing, interior finish,
exterior finish, move-in, etc, each of which end in a specific deliverable.
Meetings belong in with the other tasks in the project phase /summary task
where they occur so in the site acquisition phase we may have surveyed
several candidates and then one of the tasks in that phase would be to hold
a meeting with senior management to decide which one to purchase. They
should not be broken out as if they were a project phase or summary task in
and of themselves and treated as if the sum of all meetings constitutes a
phase of the project or produces an actual unified deliverable. We
shouldn't have a summary task where all of the meetings, from all of the
project phases or summary activities, are grouped. Not that meetings don't
have deliverables, but we don't have all of the meetings in the project
coming together into a group to produce one specific project deliverable
that is completed when the last meeting is done, in the same sense that all
of the work in the "foundation" phase of our building comes together to
produce a completed foundation ready for the frame when all of its tasks are
finished.

 

[Steve House]

IMHO there's a lot more revising to do. If I've understand your post
correctly, "Customers" should not a sub-project, phase, or summary because
there is no one specific project deliverable created by all of the tasks
that you are putting together under "customers." Indeed, I think it is very
likely that "customers" should not be listed at all in the task heirarchy.
From the top down, tasks, whether they are summaries or work packages,
describe the project's final product at a greater and greater level of
detail. The top level summaries are not time blocks, administrative,
accounting, organizational, or even reporting groupings.

Your "meeting with a & b for specs" should be listed once and only once in
your project plan (unless you have more than one meeting with them of
course). It should be included as a task under the summary that describes
the production of the deliverable that uses those specs and that one meeting
on Tuesday at 3pm should not be listed anywhere else.

In my building example in my reply to John, the final deliverable the
project is intended to produce is a completed home office for our company.
The process of getting there might involve major phases of site acquisition,
laying foundation, erecting frame, installing roof, installing electrical,
installing plumbing, installing HVAC, finish interior, finish exterior,
landscaping, and move-in. These phases would be the top level summary
tasks. Each individual phase has a number of component activities -
foundation may involve dig hole, erect concrete forms, tie rebar, install
embedded piping and ductwork, pour concrete, remove forms. That's the next
level of detail and those tasks may either be individual activities called
"work packages" or summaries themselves that will get broken down farther.
Which they are depends on the nature of the work itself. In "foundation"
we'll probably have one crew tieing rebar and can list that as a single
task. But in "finish interior" we may have 20 rooms to paint and need to
break it out with 20 subtasks of "paint room 1" "paint room 2" ... etc.
Even those may be summary tasks so that "paint room 1" is further broken
down into all the component work packages that have to be performed in order
to produce a completed painted room. But notice - regardless of the level
you're looking at each task or summary ends with the production of a single
specific product, deliverable, or result. The outline structure is driven
by where that output is used. If it is a component of a higher level
deliverable, then the task that produces it is a subtask of the summary that
produces the higher level deliverable. That in turn may be a component of a
still higher level deliverable and so that summary is in turn a sub-task of
the next higher level summary.

I'm using building construction as an example because it's usually easy to
visualize but the notion of the WBS being organized as a hierarchy of
deliverables with the tasks being the packages of work activities that
produce those deliverables applies to all projects regardless of industry or
the nature of the final deliverable.

One trick to help insure that every entry in the task listing, regardless of
the outline level, is appropriate is to begin every entry with an action
verb - lay the foundation, dig the hole, write the module, film scene 3,
etc. If what you have in mind can't be legitimately described as an action
that has a measurable result, it probably shouldn't be included. So as I
suggested, "customers" probably shouldn't be included but on the other hand
"determine customer requirements" might be very appropriate as a summary
task with all of the things you need to do to complete that requirements
document indented as subtasks under it, including the one occurance of the
"meet with A & B to review specs" task we've been talking about.

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

John, Jack and Steve,

Many thanks for the tips and clarifications. Indeed I'm quite a beginner

in using project, and still need to dig it more to understand its
capabilities and methods

The "meetings" summary task was in order to facilitate the presentation of

the project, however, I took the advice about re-organizing the tasks
hierarchy , and changed it.

The new structure should look like :

Initial Plan
- task 1
- task 2
- meet a&b for specs

Customers
- meet a&b for specs (here it's linked form above)
- research...
- task 3

So now I have 2 parent tasks called "Initial plan" and "Customers" , to

which the sub-task "meet a&b" is logically related.

The "meetings" summary was ditched.

Progress-wise, "meet a&b" should be in the "initial plan" summary, as it follows the other tasks there.
Context-wise, I'd like to put a link to it in "Customers", for a full view of all related tasks.

"Customers" and "initial plan" are parallel processes (while moving the

initial plan, we are also making some preliminary research for customers).

Again, many thanks for the tip. I'm not sure I fully understood it, but

will take the time and tamper with Project a bit to understand values &
fields. Will update how it went

 

[John]

Steve,
Agreed.

John

 

[Uri L.]

Steve,

Many thanks for the detailed overview.
Our "Customers" summary task can be called "Prepare customer research" , and
includes tasks such as "research this", "analyse that", and "prepare report".
So I suppose it kinda answers to the definition of deliverable-oriented item.

However, I'd still like to see under "customers" a view of "meet a&b" which
is shceduled under the "initial plan" summary. All I need is a mere link to
that task, in the same sense of a shortcut I described earlier.

I tried what Jack suggested, but obviously it provied a grouping by custom
field rather than a "reflection" or "mirroring" of a task.

Linked tasks in Project are is a specific defnition realting to order. But
is there a way to "point" for a task, in order to represent it in more than
one place (and the reason is -> for a better view).

Thanks,
Uri

 

[Steve House]

You really can't have the same physical event listed as a component to more
than one summary task - project doesn't allow it because the summary task is
NOT a grouping for reporting purposes or merely a view, they are not
arbitrary groupings of convenience. It is the summary of all the activities
that go into producing the one specific deliverable that the summary
represents. Having the same task as a subtask od two summaries is analogus
to having the same engine installed simultaneously in two different
vehicles. <grin> Our meeting is either a part of A or it is part of B or it
is not a specific component of either one. Take your pick.

Consider this problem that could occur if you *could* do what you wish:

In "initial" plan I have Task 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d starting this Monday, each
of which is linked to the next in turn. After 1d we have 1e, "meeting with
A & B," which will take 4 hours, indented as a subtask of initial plan. The
links schedule it to occur next Friday. After the meeting we have 1f, 1g.
etc.

Under "research customer needs" we have task 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2d with 2a also
starting Monday, but each of these takes 5 days, for a total of 4 weeks
duration for the chain. "Meeting with A & B" is linked after 2c and
follwing it is 2e, etc That puts it starting NOT on next Friday but on a
Monday almost a month away.

Our schedule shows the same physical event occuring on two wildly different
dates - when would you tell A & B to show up?

 

[John]

Uri,
Steve's latest reply basically re-iterates what I said in my very first
reply to your original post.

"Reflecting" or "mirroring" of a task says you want to SEE the same task
when viewed from different locations (i.e. when viewing the "customers"
group and when viewing the "initial plan" group). Jack's suggestion for
grouping and/or my suggestion for filtering will do exactly that.
Apparently we don't understand what you are really trying to achieve.

We (Steve, Jack and I) are trying to help find a solution, but
apparently we are not communicating.

John

 

[Steve House]

Just had an idea how you might be able to accomplish a workaround if you're
careful with it...

1: Initial Plan
a
b
meet w/ A&B
c
d
2: Prepare Customer Research
a
b
meet w/ A&B
c
d

At this point they are separate tasks.

Now set links, all are FS except 1meet->2meet in chain 2 which is SS
1st chain: 1a->1b->1meet->1c->1d
2nd chain: 2a->2b->1meet->SS 2meet->2c->2d

No, that's not a typo, task 1meet has 2 predecessors, 1b and 2b, but one FS
successor, 1c and one SS successor, 2meet. Both 1b and 2b drive the start
of 1meet. 1meet's start drives the start of 2meet. Now right click the
finish date cell in 1meet and copy cell. Go to the finish cell of task
2meet, right click and choose paste link. This is similar to the way a
hammock task is set up. If either 1b or 2b is delayed, both meetings will
be delayed to start "in synch" with each other. Further, the finish of 1meet
drives the finish of 2 meet so 2's duration will always equal 1's.

You could also use a link pattern of ...
1st chain: 1a->1b->1meet->1c->1d
2nd chain: 2a->2b->1meet->2c->2d

leaving 2 meet unlinked completely and treating it as a hammock task, using
the copy cell, paste link method above to pick up both the start and finish
dates from 1meet and pasting them into 2meet. Don't know which would give a
clearer picture in your scenario. Try it on a test project in file in MSP
and see which best illustrates your needs.

Fred and Wilma are assigned to attend this meeting with the customer. Now
this meeting session really is a "two'fer." We're actually doing two
meetings concurrently in one session in the same room. One of those
meetings produces a deliverable needed for task 1c and the other one
produces a deliverable needed for 2c. If the meeting isn't producing a
deliverable needed to complete the summary it's under then it really should
not be there at all so I'm assuming it's going to produce two deliverables,
one required for the initial plan and one required for the customer research
(and of course these could be the same deliverable used in two places LOL).
Neither 1c or 2c can take place until their respective meeting is done.
Let's say the meeting runs 4 hours. We could say that, on average, half of
those 4 hours is working on the deliverable produced by meeting 1 and half
on the deliverable from meeting 2. So out of our 4 hour duration we're
spending 50% of our time on each deliverable. In other words, Fred and
Wilma are working 50% on each of the 2 sub-meetings for a total of 100% on
the two together. We could assign resources in 2 ways, depending on which
is clearest for you. You could put Fred and Wilma on each of meeting1 and
meeting2 at 50% each meeting, or you could put them on meeting1 at 100% each
and not assign anyone to meeting 2. This is where you need to be careful -
putting them on each meeting 50% gives a clearer picture of what's going on
but could create some real headaches if you need to do resource leveling.
OTOH, putting them 100% on 1meeting makes resource leveling a little less
tricky but doesn't show who's going to the 2meeting in the project plan.

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