S
STEVO
Hi all,
A high a query which is confusing me somewhat, grateful for any help.
I was always under the impression that for example, if you had 3 tasks
a,b,c and placed finish to start constraints on tasks a,b, & c and also
applied a "finish no later than" constraint on task c, that this would
mean tasks A&B would have to finish in time to honour tasks C's "Finish
no later than" constraint.
This was proved wrong, when i leveled a project recently, to find that
instead of getting a scheduling conflict message, tasks A&C had been
pushed back past tasks C's constraint date, but task C was still
scheduled to finish in time. This doesnt make sense to me as i thought
the whole idea of a predecessor was that it was a task that must
happend before the next???
If my knowledge is wrong, should I be placing "Finish no later than"
constraints on the summary task row, as opposee to the actual task
itself??
thanks
Steve
A high a query which is confusing me somewhat, grateful for any help.
I was always under the impression that for example, if you had 3 tasks
a,b,c and placed finish to start constraints on tasks a,b, & c and also
applied a "finish no later than" constraint on task c, that this would
mean tasks A&B would have to finish in time to honour tasks C's "Finish
no later than" constraint.
This was proved wrong, when i leveled a project recently, to find that
instead of getting a scheduling conflict message, tasks A&C had been
pushed back past tasks C's constraint date, but task C was still
scheduled to finish in time. This doesnt make sense to me as i thought
the whole idea of a predecessor was that it was a task that must
happend before the next???
If my knowledge is wrong, should I be placing "Finish no later than"
constraints on the summary task row, as opposee to the actual task
itself??
thanks
Steve