leveling ignores priority & when to manually level

[gac]

I used the leveling engine to spread out the work across resources. I went
to verify the results of leveling by filtering tasks in Gantt view for a
specific resource. I know what sequence the tasks will be addressed in for
the given resource. I've intentionally NOT used predecessors to indicate
this sequence, but rather the priority field. I made sure the tasks which
should be accomplished sooner, were assigned a higher priority than others.
However, it still keeps putting some priority 200 tasks before some priority
900 tasks. Please explain the mechanism used to schedule work.

Also, if I want to manually schedule a task, how should I do so. If I
affect the leveling delay field manually, it will get overridden upon the
next leveling activity. How/when should I manually level the plan? Consider
after my initial baseline, that I'm tracking actuals and ETCs on weekly
basis, after a few weeks, all best laid plans are shot! So to report to
management how far the project has slipped, don't I need to perform another
manual levelization in order to calculate the new finish date?

 

[Jan De Messemaeker]

Hi,

Did you set the leveling order to priority, standard?
Did you assign the prirorities directlly to the tasks - not to the summary
tasks?

HTH

 

[John Sitka]

I know what sequence the tasks will be addressed in for

the given resource. I've intentionally NOT used predecessors to indicate
this sequence, but rather the priority field. I made sure the tasks which
should be accomplished sooner, were assigned a higher priority than others.
However, it still keeps putting some priority 200 tasks before some priority
900 tasks.

Interesting, why no links?

But in any case to accomplish the same thing. You can get rid of the priority (set back to 500 for all tasks)
and level by ID. then just drag and drop the tasks in sequence top to bottom down.
I'd still maintain links though, The universe is ordered, something always comes after something else,
even if it totally obvious and not worth mentioning, I'd still tell Project about it.

So to report to
management how far the project has slipped, don't I need to perform another
manual levelization in order to calculate the new finish date?

I'd say yeah because I like manual leveling.

 

[gac]

The tasks are not necessarily related to each other. In other words, the 1st
task doesn't necessarily produce an artifact to be consumed by the 2nd task.

 

[gac]

I set the priorities at task level, not at the summary. I had failed to set
the leveling order to "priority,standard". I thought I had already done
that, but apparently never hit save before. Thanks, this helped
immensly...however, there is still one single lower-priority task still
sneaking ahead of all the other higher priority ones....but I'm much better
off now and can live with that single one. I hope nobody asks me why that
one is being treated differently. I even tried setting the priority for all
the summary tasks also to see if this affected outcome.

 

[Jan De Messemaeker]

Hi,

I like to use a software when i have it installed rather than calculate by
hand..
IMHO, Manual leveling is a negation of the use of Project, and in a large
file, occupation therapy.
And there are very good reasons NOT to enter phony links (a bit long to
explain here, though, sorry)
HTH
--
Jan De Messemaeker
Microsoft Project Most Valuable Professional
http://users.online.be/prom-ade/
+32-495-300 620

Interesting, why no links?

But in any case to accomplish the same thing. You can get rid of the

priority (set back to 500 for all tasks)

 

[Jan De Messemaeker]

Good!

Priority of sulmmary tasks is ignored when they don't have resouces
attached.

 

[John Sitka]

Manual leveling is a good way to go in multi project environment with high resource contention.
(I'd present EVERY project occurs in a multi project environment with resource contention.
It is a the trivial case as a Project Manager to demonstrate perfect planning in isolation)
Otherwise the onslought of overallocations can be overwhelming. People then post here about "why" project
is moving their tasks and they don't understand. Then they apply contraints that aren't. If they step through the usage of
leveliing you empower then with the understanding of a system. And I said nothing of phoney links.
The recommendation of order over the maintenance of priority numbering is a good one.
I present to you what means "priority" if something shouldn't happen before something else.
There must be some goal intended if the notion of priority is considered in the first place.

 

[Jan De Messemaeker]

Hi,

Maybe there is a misunderstanding on what was meant by "manual" leveling
I support what Project calls "Manual" on the resource leveling box (Project
does the calculations, the PM decides when the calculations should be done).

Replacing priorities by links is nice in a perfect, very disciplined world.
In real world people often reverse their priorities and when you introduce
links that are not dictated by the deliverables but only by priorities
(which I call phony links) tracking becomes a nightmare.

The major problem people ghave woith leveling is that they do half
themselves (splittying the poor resource into percentage pieces, entering
unnecessary loinks) then try to have Project do the other half and then are
surprised the results aren't always logical.

I know that opinion isn't shared by all.. but when the method is applied
fully, people are very satisfied about the results.

Greetings,
--
Jan De Messemaeker
Microsoft Project Most Valuable Professional
http://users.online.be/prom-ade/
+32-495-300 620

Manual leveling is a good way to go in multi project environment with high resource contention.
(I'd present EVERY project occurs in a multi project environment with resource contention.
It is a the trivial case as a Project Manager to demonstrate perfect planning in isolation)
Otherwise the onslought of overallocations can be overwhelming. People

then post here about "why" project

is moving their tasks and they don't understand. Then they apply

contraints that aren't. If they step through the usage of

 

[Jan De Messemaeker]

Hi,

Maybe there is a misunderstanding on what was meant by "manual" leveling
I support what Project calls "Manual" on the resource leveling box (Project
does the calculations, the PM decides when the calculations should be done).

Replacing priorities by links is nice in a perfect, very disciplined world.
In real world people often reverse their priorities and when you introduce
links that are not dictated by the deliverables but only by priorities
(which I call phony links) tracking becomes a nightmare.

The major problem people ghave woith leveling is that they do half
themselves (splittying the poor resource into percentage pieces, entering
unnecessary loinks) then try to have Project do the other half and then are
surprised the results aren't always logical.

I know that opinion isn't shared by all.. but when the method is applied
fully, people are very satisfied about the results.

Greetings,
--
Jan De Messemaeker
Microsoft Project Most Valuable Professional
http://users.online.be/prom-ade/
+32-495-300 620

Manual leveling is a good way to go in multi project environment with high resource contention.
(I'd present EVERY project occurs in a multi project environment with resource contention.
It is a the trivial case as a Project Manager to demonstrate perfect planning in isolation)
Otherwise the onslought of overallocations can be overwhelming. People

then post here about "why" project

is moving their tasks and they don't understand. Then they apply

contraints that aren't. If they step through the usage of

 

[John Sitka]

Maybe there is a misunderstanding on what was meant by "manual" leveling

I support what Project calls "Manual" on the resource leveling box (Project
does the calculations, the PM decides when the calculations should be done).

Oh, yeah that's what I meant to. Dealt with so many folks saying
"Levelling dosen't work,"
"Why"
"Becasue it messed up my dates?"
"It has to, your desire to get something done is not the driving factor here"

This meets almost always with. Well Project is no good for me!
The truth is No, your tought process is no good for you! I don't say that obviously, but I do hope that
folks will understand the difference of wanting something to happen is different
that the reality of when it will get done. Everybody understand this but when it is exposed they run the
other way like some doom is about to befall them and that if they ignore it for now and present a good picture
to the stakeholders early. It will be fine by the time things are underway. Classic 'Ostrich Technique'. I wouldn't
mind if not for the devestating effects this has on a complex system, and on each individual who now falls victim
to storms of urgency rushing through their task at hand.

tracking becomes a nightmare.

Not in all cases, depends on reported values and how they are entered, frequency, discipline

In real world people often reverse their priorities and when you introduce
links that are not dictated by the deliverables but only by priorities

I don't advocate that either. It just escapes me that the original poster can have no links.
If that is indeed the case there is leveling by ID which gives the best control and visual
representation in this situation. Drag and drop/ level/ bang done, Real world WHIMSY is best handled like this.
Not by resetting priorities 510 520 530 540 550 560 570 to 510 520 530 540 545 550 570

The task has a priority WHY?
Because someone feels it should get done sooner rather than later?
-move it up in the list what could possibly be more natural.
Note: this is the most extreme case of emotional influence over a Project
the "Just because" case. Handled easily.


The task has a priority WHY?
Because we are going to lose a resource?
-move it up in the list, level by ID so the task will be performed befor the resource is gone.
Note this is the most extreme case of conflict based on a physical reality. If this task is not done
sooner it will never get done. Handled easily.

I know that opinion isn't shared by all.. but when the method is applied
fully, people are very satisfied about the results.

Becomes

I know the above opinion isn't shared by all. but when the method is applied
fully, you may have a whole lot more time for other things

 

[Jan De Messemaeker]

Hi,

I think we agree on 99% of the issue.
I think however that having the simulation done by the software (especially
on multi-project) gives me time for other things: Project levels 100 times
faster than me by hand.
Greetings,

--
Jan De Messemaeker
Microsoft Project Most Valuable Professional
http://users.online.be/prom-ade/
+32-495-300 620

done).

Oh, yeah that's what I meant to. Dealt with so many folks saying
"Levelling dosen't work,"
"Why"
"Becasue it messed up my dates?"
"It has to, your desire to get something done is not the driving factor here"

This meets almost always with. Well Project is no good for me!
The truth is No, your tought process is no good for you! I don't say that obviously, but I do hope that
folks will understand the difference of wanting something to happen is different
that the reality of when it will get done. Everybody understand this but

when it is exposed they run the

other way like some doom is about to befall them and that if they ignore

it for now and present a good picture

to the stakeholders early. It will be fine by the time things are

underway. Classic 'Ostrich Technique'. I wouldn't

mind if not for the devestating effects this has on a complex system, and

on each individual who now falls victim

to storms of urgency rushing through their task at hand.

Not in all cases, depends on reported values and how they are entered, frequency, discipline


I don't advocate that either. It just escapes me that the original poster can have no links.
If that is indeed the case there is leveling by ID which gives the best control and visual
representation in this situation. Drag and drop/ level/ bang done, Real

world WHIMSY is best handled like this.

Not by resetting priorities 510 520 530 540 550 560 570 to 510 520 530 540 545 550 570

The task has a priority WHY?
Because someone feels it should get done sooner rather than later?
-move it up in the list what could possibly be more natural.
Note: this is the most extreme case of emotional influence over a Project
the "Just because" case. Handled easily.


The task has a priority WHY?
Because we are going to lose a resource?
-move it up in the list, level by ID so the task will be performed befor the resource is gone.
Note this is the most extreme case of conflict based on a physical

reality. If this task is not done