Linked tasks - LOST LEVELS!!!

[hsn]

running project 2k;

I have 2 sub-projects: John & Mary;

Mary has the following tasks:
New product (level 1)
Components (level 2)
labeling (level 3)

There are other tasks in level's 1 & 2; but labeling is the ONLY task I
want linked in John's sub-project.

Now - I don't just want john to have a task with no outline headers,
so I copy/paste+link "new product" into John's S.P.
I do the same for "components" & labeling.

When all is said & linked - ALL THESE TASKS ARE AT LEVEL 1 in John's
outline, and they CAN NOT be indented!!!!!

I AM INCLUDING THE OUTLINE LEVEL column/field in the copy/paste+link;
but it DOES NOT WORK!!!

Any clues as to why it seems this program behaves so irrationally,
would be greatly appreciated!!!!

tia - Ned

 

[John]

running project 2k;

I have 2 sub-projects: John & Mary;

Mary has the following tasks:
New product (level 1)
Components (level 2)
labeling (level 3)

There are other tasks in level's 1 & 2; but labeling is the ONLY task I
want linked in John's sub-project.

Now - I don't just want john to have a task with no outline headers,
so I copy/paste+link "new product" into John's S.P.
I do the same for "components" & labeling.

When all is said & linked - ALL THESE TASKS ARE AT LEVEL 1 in John's
outline, and they CAN NOT be indented!!!!!

I AM INCLUDING THE OUTLINE LEVEL column/field in the copy/paste+link;
but it DOES NOT WORK!!!

Any clues as to why it seems this program behaves so irrationally,
would be greatly appreciated!!!!

tia - Ned

Ned,
Before I can answer you question, I need to ask a couple of questions.
First, you use the term "sub-projects". That implies John and Mary are
part of a master file, so why do you need to copy and paste anything?
Second, you use the terms "copy/paste+link". That implies you are using
Paste Links which are not very robust. What exactly are you trying to
link?

By the way, a simple copy and paste of the three indenture levels from
one file to a new file WILL preserve the outline levels. I suspect the
problem lies in the "subproject" or "+link" part of your process.

Hope this helps.
John
Project MVP

 

[hsn]

hi John;
appreciate your reply - some good questions; I should have explained
better.

John & Mary ARE sub-projects - part of a master project (along w/ many
others).
However, John participates in some of Mary's tasks, even though Mary
owns & drives them. The reverse is also true. Basically John is
dependant on SOME of Mary's tasks, and those tasks are made
predecessors to John's.

I want those tasks to be linked from Mary into John, so that when Mary
updates her tasks, John can be apprised.

John is NOT dependant on some of these tasks, so using a predecessor
doesn't really work (since John doesn't have a task that depends on
Mary's).

Just doing a copy paste (without the link) doesn't work, because John's
sub-project isn't updated when Mary changes those tasks.

So the copy paste/link, seems to be my only answer; and it doesn't seem
to behave well.

I'm open to any alternate solutions!
TIA - Ned

 

[John]

hi John;
appreciate your reply - some good questions; I should have explained
better.

John & Mary ARE sub-projects - part of a master project (along w/ many
others).
However, John participates in some of Mary's tasks, even though Mary
owns & drives them. The reverse is also true. Basically John is
dependant on SOME of Mary's tasks, and those tasks are made
predecessors to John's.

I want those tasks to be linked from Mary into John, so that when Mary
updates her tasks, John can be apprised.

John is NOT dependant on some of these tasks, so using a predecessor
doesn't really work (since John doesn't have a task that depends on
Mary's).

Just doing a copy paste (without the link) doesn't work, because John's
sub-project isn't updated when Mary changes those tasks.

So the copy paste/link, seems to be my only answer; and it doesn't seem
to behave well.

I'm open to any alternate solutions!
TIA - Ned

Ned,
Thanks for the more thorough explanation but I'm still confused. You say
that John and Mary are subprojects. I guess it is possible (but highly
irregular) to use a person's name for the file name (maybe it's a code
name or something). However reading further, your post talks about John
participating in some of Mary's tasks. How can a file (subproject)
participate in anything? I suspect that John and Mary are the CAMs (cost
account managers) for two of the subprojects in your master file. In
addition John and Mary may be resources assigned to one or more tasks
within the file along with other resources.

People manage or perform tasks. Subprojects and files are collection of
tasks describing the effort necessary to achieve an overall plan or
goal. Tasks are the detail effort, ideally expressed with action verbs,
to accomplish the plan. Resources (labor or material) are assigned to
tasks to actually perform (or be used in) the tasks.

Now with regard to links between subproject tasks in a master file.
External links should be used between tasks in different subproject
files when there is indeed a true dependency. Through the link,
dependent tasks within one file will update information to the other
file. That is all pretty straightforward.

What I don't understand is why any kind of copy/paste is necessary.
Something is getting lost in translation. If a task in John (or Mary's)
file is NOT linked to a task in the other file, why would you expect an
update in one file to change something in the other file? There is no
interaction!

I'd be glad to offer alternate solutions if I fully understood the file
structure and had a good idea of what you are really trying to do. Until
then, I'm lost.

John
Project MVP

 

[hsn]

John,

Once again, I'm most appreciative for your assistance.

I confused the issue with the file names. I guess this is one of those
situations, where you have the map from A to C planned, and on the way
to C you end up going thru D, B, T, etc....

Let me start with the big picture, and it will hopefully become clear
how I ended up here.

I have a HUGE project, involving many people, with many tasks effecting
multiple people. I'm working with the "master project manager" (his
name is Bob) to help organize things. I should mention that Bob also
has his own SP in this mess.

I'll over simplify here for brievity. Bob started with 1 single project
file, and began organizing the various tasks by department. I wanted to
see this broken into sub-projects, with each SP containing ONLY the
tasks that that SP manager would directly "own"; but also show them the
other tasks they're involved with (these would be links). My thinking
was with 1 file, only 1 person can edit. With SP's broken out by
manager, everyone can edit @ same time. To make this easy for the
managers (who are NOT good project users [not that I am either,
apparently :-] ), I decided to name each project file by their first
name.
Then when they needed to link to another manager's file, they just
typed in a name & task # (ie: john\7 ). Having SP's also helps
confusion, as the manager's would not see tasks they had NO involvement
(or dependancy) with.

Bob wanted to try organizing the whole project chronologically, so when
the gantt chart is viewed, it would (mostly) stair step down & to the
right. That way all tasks in play in a certain date range would be
grouped close to one another. I realize most of this could be handled
with filters and sorts; but I'm trying to keep it REALLY simple for the
SP managers, who at the mention of a filter would retrieve a coffee
filter .

So here's a sample of the ideal (single file) outline:
TASK/SUBTASKS RESOURCE(S) PREDECESSOR

1 Product design ( John heads this area)
2 >components
3 -plastic case
4 # spec mold John, mary
john is mostly doing this, but Mary is
helping a little
5 # design mold John 4
6 # test prototype John 5
7 >box
8 # exterior design Gary 4
9 # compare vendors Andy

10 IT ( Ned heads this area)
11 >software
12 # write other softwr Ned 4,23
13 >components
14 -plastic case (this is the same as #3)
15 # design labeling Ned, mary
16 # lot track sftwr

17 Sales & Mktg ( Mary heads this area)
18 >components
19 -plastic case (same as #3)
20 # spec mold (same as john #4) Mary only needs to see her
part of this;
so the other plastic
case/tasks are not repeated.
21 # test prototype John Mary has nothing to do with this,
but wants to monitor progress.
22 >case labeling
23 # design labeling Ned, mary (this is THE SAME TASK as #15,
but this is how
mary wants it organized in her
area)


So - you can see different people, personalities, styles of
organization, etc...

Here's what I want - separate SubProjects (SP's) for each manager:

john.mpp: (sub-project title matches manager's name)
1 Product design
2 >components
3 -plastic case
4 # spec mold John, mary
5 # design mold John 4
6 # test prototype John 5
7 >box
8 # exterior design Gary 4
9 # compare vendors Andy

ned.mpp: (sub-project title matches manager's name)
1 IT
2 >software
3 # write other softwr Ned john\4, mary\7
4 >components
5 -plastic case
6 # design labeling Ned, mary
7 # lot track sftwr

mary.mpp (sub-project title matches manager's name)
1 Sales & Mktg
2 >components
3 -plastic case
4 # spec mold Mary only needs to see her part of this (same
as john #4)
5 # test prototype John
Mary has nothing to do with this, but wants
to monitor progress.
(it may indirectly effect some of her tasks)
This item is copy/paste/linked to john.mpp so
when john updates,
mary is current.
6 >case labeling
7 # design labeling Ned, mary (this is THE SAME TASK as ned
#6, but this is how
mary wants it organized in her
file)

MASTER.mpp (has all SP's linked into it)
1 john
10 ned
18 mary
x Bob
y etc....

in a perfect world, the manager names would not appear on the master,
but I understand that can't be changed (that is - the title will always
show with the inserted SP).

in a really perfect world, we would not have the duplications of "test
prototype". I've tried to deal with this by using copy/paste/link's.

Believe it or not, I've really tried to keep this short & simple; I
hope I've done a better job of getting across the nuances that we're
facing... Please don't look too close at the logic of this example; I'm
really just trying to illustrate some of the "cross-over's" that we
have.

Of course, it would make BOOKOO sense to have a "real" project manager
handle all of this (and impose a single structure for all), but that's
a luxury we can't afford.

John - TX again IA !!
Ned

 

[John]

John,

Once again, I'm most appreciative for your assistance.

I confused the issue with the file names. I guess this is one of those
situations, where you have the map from A to C planned, and on the way
to C you end up going thru D, B, T, etc....

Let me start with the big picture, and it will hopefully become clear
how I ended up here.

I have a HUGE project, involving many people, with many tasks effecting
multiple people. I'm working with the "master project manager" (his
name is Bob) to help organize things. I should mention that Bob also
has his own SP in this mess.

I'll over simplify here for brievity. Bob started with 1 single project
file, and began organizing the various tasks by department. I wanted to
see this broken into sub-projects, with each SP containing ONLY the
tasks that that SP manager would directly "own"; but also show them the
other tasks they're involved with (these would be links). My thinking
was with 1 file, only 1 person can edit. With SP's broken out by
manager, everyone can edit @ same time. To make this easy for the
managers (who are NOT good project users [not that I am either,
apparently :-] ), I decided to name each project file by their first
name.
Then when they needed to link to another manager's file, they just
typed in a name & task # (ie: john\7 ). Having SP's also helps
confusion, as the manager's would not see tasks they had NO involvement
(or dependancy) with.

Bob wanted to try organizing the whole project chronologically, so when
the gantt chart is viewed, it would (mostly) stair step down & to the
right. That way all tasks in play in a certain date range would be
grouped close to one another. I realize most of this could be handled
with filters and sorts; but I'm trying to keep it REALLY simple for the
SP managers, who at the mention of a filter would retrieve a coffee
filter .

So here's a sample of the ideal (single file) outline:
TASK/SUBTASKS RESOURCE(S) PREDECESSOR

1 Product design ( John heads this area)
2 >components
3 -plastic case
4 # spec mold John, mary
john is mostly doing this, but Mary is
helping a little
5 # design mold John 4
6 # test prototype John 5
7 >box
8 # exterior design Gary 4
9 # compare vendors Andy

10 IT ( Ned heads this area)
11 >software
12 # write other softwr Ned 4,23
13 >components
14 -plastic case (this is the same as #3)
15 # design labeling Ned, mary
16 # lot track sftwr

17 Sales & Mktg ( Mary heads this area)
18 >components
19 -plastic case (same as #3)
20 # spec mold (same as john #4) Mary only needs to see her
part of this;
so the other plastic
case/tasks are not repeated.
21 # test prototype John Mary has nothing to do with this,
but wants to monitor progress.
22 >case labeling
23 # design labeling Ned, mary (this is THE SAME TASK as #15,
but this is how
mary wants it organized in her
area)


So - you can see different people, personalities, styles of
organization, etc...

Here's what I want - separate SubProjects (SP's) for each manager:

john.mpp: (sub-project title matches manager's name)
1 Product design
2 >components
3 -plastic case
4 # spec mold John, mary
5 # design mold John 4
6 # test prototype John 5
7 >box
8 # exterior design Gary 4
9 # compare vendors Andy

ned.mpp: (sub-project title matches manager's name)
1 IT
2 >software
3 # write other softwr Ned john\4, mary\7
4 >components
5 -plastic case
6 # design labeling Ned, mary
7 # lot track sftwr

mary.mpp (sub-project title matches manager's name)
1 Sales & Mktg
2 >components
3 -plastic case
4 # spec mold Mary only needs to see her part of this (same
as john #4)
5 # test prototype John
Mary has nothing to do with this, but wants
to monitor progress.
(it may indirectly effect some of her tasks)
This item is copy/paste/linked to john.mpp so
when john updates,
mary is current.
6 >case labeling
7 # design labeling Ned, mary (this is THE SAME TASK as ned
#6, but this is how
mary wants it organized in her
file)

MASTER.mpp (has all SP's linked into it)
1 john
10 ned
18 mary
x Bob
y etc....

in a perfect world, the manager names would not appear on the master,
but I understand that can't be changed (that is - the title will always
show with the inserted SP).

in a really perfect world, we would not have the duplications of "test
prototype". I've tried to deal with this by using copy/paste/link's.

Believe it or not, I've really tried to keep this short & simple; I
hope I've done a better job of getting across the nuances that we're
facing... Please don't look too close at the logic of this example; I'm
really just trying to illustrate some of the "cross-over's" that we
have.

Of course, it would make BOOKOO sense to have a "real" project manager
handle all of this (and impose a single structure for all), but that's
a luxury we can't afford.

John - TX again IA !!
Ned

Ned,
I have only myself to blame . . .

Believe it or not I read you whole post. I even skipped lunch and dinner
so I could read it all. Here are my observations/comments/suggestions.
1. This is a nit, but in a post this long it was an aggravation
initially. It took me several minutes to figure out what "SP" was. Ok,
so maybe I'm slow but in the future please define abbreviations before
using them (unless the abbreviation is universally understood).
2. I don't understand the thinking behind just typing in a name and task
number to "link" to another file. On the surface, that is not a link and
below the surface, you are asking for a very convolved and confusing
mess. Linking between tasks in different subproject should be done
through External Predecessors. There are a few different ways to set up
those type of links in a master file. If you don't know how, check the
help file.
3. As far as one manager wanting to see tasks linked to or from someone
else's file, go to Tools/Options/View tab and check the "show external
predecessors" and "show external successors" options. A ghost task
representing the driving predecessor or receiving successor will appear.
You can also do a split screen and show a relationship diagram in the
lower pane. If one manager wants to see more than just the single
external link task the only effective way to do that is to look at the
master perhaps with a filter (drip grind).
4. Organizing the work flow in chronological order is, in my opinion,
always desirable however, it isn't always possible. The best method is
to use a sort by Start Date perhaps in conjunction with a Critical Path.
Filters! Sorting! If those relatively simple techniques are beyond the
capability of your co-workers then they probably shouldn't be working
with Project at all. [I can tell I'm not going to be a popular guy at
your company.]
5. Any given task only shows up once unless the task is a repeating
task. Someone is ultimately responsible for that task and whoever that
person is, the task should show in their file and only their file. If a
task is shared, put it in the master (i.e. not in any subproject) and
the overall Project Manager becomes responsible. Do NOT copy a task from
one person's file to another just so they can see it. It may seem like a
good idea but it isn't. A much better approach is to set up customized
views or reports to show what you need - we can help with that.
6. Why do the manager names have to appear on the master - perfect world
or not? Normally the file name relates to the description of what the
file represents. For example, if John is responsible for product design
then give his subproject that name. Similarly if Ned is responsible for
IT, give his subproject that name. Two names apply. The actual filename
is how the file is saved and identified by Windows. The Title
(File/Properties) is the subproject name that will show in the master
file. You can also identify the subproject owner as the "Manager" entry
in the File Properties/Summary tab window.
7. Someone in your organization has got to be the Project Manager. If
that person does not have the training to set up an effective,
consistent plan in Project, then get them trained. Project is not an
application that someone can start using right out of the box especially
if they are trying to set up a large complex plan. It either takes
formal training or years of painful learning. If several people in the
organization are going to use Project, they all need to be trained. And
consistency in the file structure is not a luxury - it's required or you
will have a royal mess. Take my word for it, once a good, consistent
file structure is set up, everyone will be happier.

Ok, so I can be verbose also. Hopefully I have provided some assistance.
If you still have questions, please post again.

John
Project MVP

 

[hsn]

John -
wow - LOL; I skipped my dinner to read your reply!!

Sounds like I owe you a dinner (and a drink for reading the whole
thing)!

1. good point, my apologies.

2. I've actually RTFM'd quite a bit (Read The Fine Manual - I also
never post without a search of previous posts. I know what a pain
seeing the same thing posted again & again can be.... I found the
online help file lacking, particularily keyword searching.
unfortunately someone lost our hard manual - if there was one... (all
before my time).

3,4. I guess I'll just have to drill filtering & sorting into them -
or setup a few for them...

5. I understand your suggestion, but I'll use my example; if I move
"design labeling" to the master project, it won't appear under the
proper outline areas under "Ned" & "mary". And let's say that this
task doesn't have any predecessors, or sucessors. Would this be an
appropriate time to use the copy/paste+link?

6. The original thought was to attempt to break out tasks by manager -
without the use of filters. It's clear that's the only real way to do
this, so the manager names are no longer needed.

7. Not as verbose as me, but I read it all too!!! This of course
makes perfect sense, but time is our biggest enemy. The whole project
needs to be done yesterday, and no one wants to take the time to do a
proper training class, nor spend the money to bring in a pro.... So...
I'm trying to step in and put SOME limits in place, but needless to
say, I've only done small projects and am learning myself to deal with
the big stuff....

1 TB TX for all your help and time!!! (terabyte)

Ned

 

[John]

Ned,
My comments are shown below yours

John -
wow - LOL; I skipped my dinner to read your reply!!

Sounds like I owe you a dinner (and a drink for reading the whole
thing)!

1. good point, my apologies.

Except you missed it again - LOL? Universal Ned, universal. A good test
- would your Mom know what it means? If not, don't use it or define it.
If it needs to be defined here is the right way to do it. On first use:
"Our company uses Cost Account Managers (CAMs) to maintain their own
project files". Sorry, I'm a detail structured kind of guy.

2. I've actually RTFM'd quite a bit (Read The Fine Manual - I also
never post without a search of previous posts. I know what a pain
seeing the same thing posted again & again can be.... I found the
online help file lacking, particularily keyword searching.
unfortunately someone lost our hard manual - if there was one... (all
before my time).

You lost me. What has this got to do with my comment on a name and task
number not being a link?

3,4. I guess I'll just have to drill filtering & sorting into them -
or setup a few for them... Sound like a plan.

5. I understand your suggestion, but I'll use my example; if I move
"design labeling" to the master project, it won't appear under the
proper outline areas under "Ned" & "mary". And let's say that this
task doesn't have any predecessors, or sucessors. Would this be an
appropriate time to use the copy/paste+link?

The only reason to move "design labeling" to the master is because it
doesn't BELONG in either Ned or Mary's subproject files. Exception -
does Ned have a design labeling task unique to IT and Mary have a
separate design labeling task unique to Sales and Marketing? If so then
yes, put a design labeling task in each subproject but they should NOT
have the same task title because they are not the same task.

Let me try this one more time. From what I understand you mean by
copy/paste+link it will NEVER be appropriate to use that scheme. One
more time: "A given task only shows up once (unless it is a repeating
task)". I sense I'm just not getting though on this.

6. The original thought was to attempt to break out tasks by manager -
without the use of filters. It's clear that's the only real way to do
this, so the manager names are no longer needed.

So it sounds like the bulb came on for this item.

7. Not as verbose as me, but I read it all too!!! This of course
makes perfect sense, but time is our biggest enemy. The whole project
needs to be done yesterday, and no one wants to take the time to do a
proper training class, nor spend the money to bring in a pro.... So...
I'm trying to step in and put SOME limits in place, but needless to
say, I've only done small projects and am learning myself to deal with
the big stuff....

Isn't time always the problem? But I think we both know, (or at least I
hope you do), that more time will be spent (wasted) trying to work a
lousy plan than the time to get some help in formulating a good plan.

From our conversation the theme seems to center around two things.
First, breaking out the work into logical functional (organizational) or
financial (WBS) pieces is an issue. The type of breakout depends on how
your company is used to working - along functional lines or per a WBS
structure. Second, it appears that a very unusual convoluted complex
structure is being considered in lieu of setting up customized views and
reports which is something that can readily be done with Project.

You need to decide which type work breakout scheme works best for your
organization. Once that is done, we can help set up the necessary views
and reports that the users and management need to see how the plan is
progressing and manage it effectively. With regard to the latter, let me
make a suggestion. Sit down with everyone involved and find out what
exactly they want to see in terms of tasks, workflow, reports, etc.
Challenge them as to why they want certain things. Then put together a
mock up that summarizes those wants. Note: what you showed in your
previous long post was a proposed method, not a desired outcome. In
other words, instead of trying to describe the "how", describe the
"what". Then we have a much better chance of helping you.

John

 

[Steve House [MVP]]

John and Mary are subprojects???? They sound more like resources to me.
Projects are groups of physical activity leading to a deliverable - dig the
hole, write the program, paint the wall, etc. Summary tasks are a group of
activities that lead to a major deliverable that is in turn a component of
the final deliverable and should not represent a grouping based on the
resources assigned, department responsible, time period where the tasks are
to be performed, or other possible groupings. John and Mary would be
resources in a resource pool, assets you deploy to get the work of the
activities done. While Mary might be the only resource assigned to the
tasks in a project or two, that doesn't mean that the group of tasks she
works on become a Project Mary. (Not to say you can't report on all of
Mary's tasks whenever you like for administrative purposes.) It seems like a
nit picky philosophical thing I know, but organizing your projects by
deliverable to be achieved and decomposing it down into tasks defining the
work to achieve those objectives rather than using what I think of as an
"organization structure breakdown" defining "projects" as the set of tasks
assigned to people or departments will go a long way in resolving these
scheduling issues you're encountering. If the boss wants to see the overall
organization's work across multiple projects and grouped by the person doing
it, you can always print reports that show it that that way.

 

[Steve House [MVP]]

Jumping in briefly, as I said in my other post (that's what I get for not
reading the entire thread before replying <grin>) things went wrong when Bob
began organizing tasks by department. Task need to be organized by
deliverable they create NOT by organizational division (department, person,
or whatever) that creates it.

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

John,

Once again, I'm most appreciative for your assistance.

I confused the issue with the file names. I guess this is one of those
situations, where you have the map from A to C planned, and on the way
to C you end up going thru D, B, T, etc....

Let me start with the big picture, and it will hopefully become clear
how I ended up here.

I have a HUGE project, involving many people, with many tasks effecting
multiple people. I'm working with the "master project manager" (his
name is Bob) to help organize things. I should mention that Bob also
has his own SP in this mess.

I'll over simplify here for brievity. Bob started with 1 single project
file, and began organizing the various tasks by department. I wanted to
see this broken into sub-projects, with each SP containing ONLY the
tasks that that SP manager would directly "own"; but also show them the
other tasks they're involved with (these would be links). My thinking
was with 1 file, only 1 person can edit. With SP's broken out by
manager, everyone can edit @ same time. To make this easy for the
managers (who are NOT good project users [not that I am either,
apparently :-] ), I decided to name each project file by their first
name.
Then when they needed to link to another manager's file, they just
typed in a name & task # (ie: john\7 ). Having SP's also helps
confusion, as the manager's would not see tasks they had NO involvement
(or dependancy) with.

Bob wanted to try organizing the whole project chronologically, so when
the gantt chart is viewed, it would (mostly) stair step down & to the
right. That way all tasks in play in a certain date range would be
grouped close to one another. I realize most of this could be handled
with filters and sorts; but I'm trying to keep it REALLY simple for the
SP managers, who at the mention of a filter would retrieve a coffee
filter .

So here's a sample of the ideal (single file) outline:
TASK/SUBTASKS RESOURCE(S) PREDECESSOR

1 Product design ( John heads this area)
2 >components
3 -plastic case
4 # spec mold John, mary
john is mostly doing this, but Mary is
helping a little
5 # design mold John 4
6 # test prototype John 5
7 >box
8 # exterior design Gary 4
9 # compare vendors Andy

10 IT ( Ned heads this area)
11 >software
12 # write other softwr Ned 4,23
13 >components
14 -plastic case (this is the same as #3)
15 # design labeling Ned, mary
16 # lot track sftwr

17 Sales & Mktg ( Mary heads this area)
18 >components
19 -plastic case (same as #3)
20 # spec mold (same as john #4) Mary only needs to see her
part of this;
so the other plastic
case/tasks are not repeated.
21 # test prototype John Mary has nothing to do with this,
but wants to monitor progress.
22 >case labeling
23 # design labeling Ned, mary (this is THE SAME TASK as #15,
but this is how
mary wants it organized in her
area)


So - you can see different people, personalities, styles of
organization, etc...

Here's what I want - separate SubProjects (SP's) for each manager:

john.mpp: (sub-project title matches manager's name)
1 Product design
2 >components
3 -plastic case
4 # spec mold John, mary
5 # design mold John 4
6 # test prototype John 5
7 >box
8 # exterior design Gary 4
9 # compare vendors Andy

ned.mpp: (sub-project title matches manager's name)
1 IT
2 >software
3 # write other softwr Ned john\4, mary\7
4 >components
5 -plastic case
6 # design labeling Ned, mary
7 # lot track sftwr

mary.mpp (sub-project title matches manager's name)
1 Sales & Mktg
2 >components
3 -plastic case
4 # spec mold Mary only needs to see her part of this (same
as john #4)
5 # test prototype John
Mary has nothing to do with this, but wants
to monitor progress.
(it may indirectly effect some of her tasks)
This item is copy/paste/linked to john.mpp so
when john updates,
mary is current.
6 >case labeling
7 # design labeling Ned, mary (this is THE SAME TASK as ned
#6, but this is how
mary wants it organized in her
file)

MASTER.mpp (has all SP's linked into it)
1 john
10 ned
18 mary
x Bob
y etc....

in a perfect world, the manager names would not appear on the master,
but I understand that can't be changed (that is - the title will always
show with the inserted SP).

in a really perfect world, we would not have the duplications of "test
prototype". I've tried to deal with this by using copy/paste/link's.

Believe it or not, I've really tried to keep this short & simple; I
hope I've done a better job of getting across the nuances that we're
facing... Please don't look too close at the logic of this example; I'm
really just trying to illustrate some of the "cross-over's" that we
have.

Of course, it would make BOOKOO sense to have a "real" project manager
handle all of this (and impose a single structure for all), but that's
a luxury we can't afford.

John - TX again IA !!
Ned

 

[John]

Jumping in briefly, as I said in my other post (that's what I get for not
reading the entire thread before replying <grin>) things went wrong when Bob
began organizing tasks by department. Task need to be organized by
deliverable they create NOT by organizational division (department, person,
or whatever) that creates it.

Steve,
Yeah, are you really sure you even want to jump in on this one? As you
can tell, even taking time to read the discussions requires a
significant investment in time.

Just to comment on your comment. In most organizations I'm familiar
with, a department is dedicated to a deliverable. That "deliverable"
might be a piece of hardware, a piece of software, a test station, a
support service, etc. In that regard, a plan organized by department is,
for practical purposes, organized by deliverable and it is a convenient
way to track departmental labor and cost.

John

 

[Steve House [MVP]]

Certainly one can report structured by the administrative organization and
the delegation of the work, but I strongly prefer to see the actual work
plan to be structured by the physical activities and groups thereof that go
into the project. Borrowing from the old journalism maxim, one needs to
answer Who, What, When, Where, and How. The WBS and its outline structure
deals exclusively with the "What" parameter. The links address the issue of
"How" because they describe the process logic. Then resource assignments
add the "Who" parameter. When those attributes have been defined, the
"When" drops out as the output of the whole process.
--
Steve House [MVP]
MS Project Trainer & Consultant
Visit http://www.mvps.org/project/faqs.htm for the FAQs

 

[hsn]

#1 revisited; Actually, I thought LOL was universal (believe it or not
my mom does know that one). Having said that - your point is again well
taken, I should never have assumed.

#2 (2nd try); yep; long day, I went astray. What I was trying to do
was to make it REALLY easy for people to type in their predecessors.
Ie: if Ned wants to indicate his sucssessor task #5 is dependant on
Mary's task #32, Ned would simply enter "mary\32" for his tasks'
predecessor.

#5 (by the way- the task in question IS the exact task that both
people participate in. They do not have pre-defined actions that can be
separated). I do believe you're getting thru; but I guess I'm asking
[not so obivously] 2 questions. I think you've set me straight here,
that using the copy/paste+link is NOT a good way to illustrate
information from one sub-project in another. Then I guess my second
question would be - just what WOULD be an application for using
copy/paste+link?

Your last paragraph is on the point. We really need to come to a more
"global agreement" as to the organization of the project.

I think I need to do a bit more reading/research, to better develop a
"GOOD" layout for the overall project. Then I can ask about little
specific questions I run into. I think probably the best thing I got
from all this, is to go back to the drawing board, and do things
"right".

Again, John, I'm VERY appreciative for your time, patience, and
knowledge sharing....

Ned

 

[hsn]

Steve,

Thank you for jumping in; I think that pretty well sums up what we need
to do (and to keep front of mind), as we reorganize the project...

TX - Ned.

 

[hsn]

(Laughing again),

I agree, Steve is a brave man!!

Our situation is a little different from the "norm", in that we're a
very small company, and people were many "hats". So even though there
are the "traditional" departments, many pieces of the company's
activities cross many borders.

Ned.

 

[hsn]

Steve - Wow that was fast!

I hear what you're saying. We setup John & Mary both as resources, AND
attempted to break those resource-assigned tasks into separate
projects.

The primary reason for wanting to do this, was, if we setup ALL the
tasks, in the same project file; only 1 person can make revisions at a
time. I was thinking, break out the "resource-specific" tasks into
sub-projects, and the managers that own them can then all edit their
sub-projects at the same time.

I'm no longer sure that this can be accomplished AT ALL. I'm no longer
sure if project can maintain the links between predessors & sucessors,
if people are editing their files simultaneously.


In a nut shell, my "1 project manager, small projects" experience seems
vastly underpowered for this multi-manager, multi-aspect, HUGE project.


Ned

 

[John]

Ned,
See my comments below.

#1 revisited; Actually, I thought LOL was universal (believe it or not
my mom does know that one). Having said that - your point is again well
taken, I should never have assumed.

Ok, if your Mom really know what LOL is then it must be "Lots of Love".
That's kinda what I figured but I couldn't see how that related to the
discussion in any way. Therefore, my comment.

#2 (2nd try); yep; long day, I went astray. What I was trying to do
was to make it REALLY easy for people to type in their predecessors.
Ie: if Ned wants to indicate his sucssessor task #5 is dependant on
Mary's task #32, Ned would simply enter "mary\32" for his tasks'
predecessor.

"REALLY easy" can be a relative thing. In a single file, entering
predecessor IDs is very easy but with a master file, external links
require a little more work. There are several ways to do it, one of
which could work just like you describe, but... to do so requires some
VBA. Now from my viewpoint, VBA code is "easy", but most users (and the
majority of my fellow MVPs) feel differently.

#5 (by the way- the task in question IS the exact task that both
people participate in. They do not have pre-defined actions that can be
separated). I do believe you're getting thru; but I guess I'm asking
[not so obivously] 2 questions. I think you've set me straight here,
that using the copy/paste+link is NOT a good way to illustrate
information from one sub-project in another. Then I guess my second
question would be - just what WOULD be an application for using
copy/paste+link?

If the task in question is a single task shared by more than one
manager, you have two basic options as I suggested before. Put the task
in one of the files and show both Ned and Mary (or whoever) as
resources. Or, put the task in the master itself. It is kind of a matter
of preference.

Some people do use Paste Links to link information between Project files
or with other applications. It was the only way we had to create a
master with linked subproject tasks before external links were
introduced in Project 98 and I did a lot of paste linking. The problem
with Paste Links is that they are fragile and subject to corruption.
However, if the user is really careful, disciplined, and experienced
Paste Links can work fine. Generally though, there are much better and
more suitable methods for linking information now.

Again, John, I'm VERY appreciative for your time, patience, and
knowledge sharing....

You're welcome. That's why we are here.

John

 

[Steve House [MVP]]

A reference I suggest to my students that they absolutely and positively
MUST have is a copy of the "Guide to the PMBOK" from the Project Management
Institute (www.pmi.org). You can get it directly from PMI or thru Amazon or
other major booksellers (though likely a special order from your
neighborhood bookstore). It's the best $35 you can spend.

 

[Steve House [MVP]]

I'm a big believer in the right person to do the job and the Project Manager
is the one responsible for the organization of the project work. He
certainly does the scheduling in conjunction with the functional managers.
He doesn't try to micro-manage but the bottom line is since it's his neck on
the line to bring the projects in on time and in budget, he has to have the
final say - the buck stops with him. As such, he or she or his delegate is
the ONLY one that should ever update the plan itself except for posting
actual progress.

 

[Haris Rashid]

hi,

Use the Links Between Projects dialog box to review information about tasks
linked to and from other projects. You can also use this dialog box to
update or delete links. There are two tabs on this dialog box: External
Predecessors and External Successors. External dependency is a relationship
in which the start or finish date of a task depends on a task in another
project. (On the Tools menu, click Links Between Projects.)

Regards,

Haris