Master Project question on Server 2003

A

Al Biglan

Hello,
I'm piloting Server 2003 in our company and trying to
determine which settings for the server we should be
using. One feature that I liked in Project before using
the Server component was Master Projects and subprojects.
Looking through the help file and the configuration
options for server, MS seems to imply that Master Projects
should not be published or otherwise stored on the server.
I'd like to get more information from people who use
Master Projects and have selected different options for
"Allow master projects to be saved to Microsoft Project
Server" and
"Allow master projects to be published to Microsoft
Project Server"

Since we run large multi-phased projects spanning several
years, I'd like to use Master Projects to contain smaller
(more manageable projects) if possible. Further, the
reporting must usually be both by phase and over the whole
project.

Thanks
-al
 
R

Russ Parker

The reference for my response is Gary's book "Implementing Enterprise
Portfolio Management with Project Server 2002". His argument is, of course,
very valid for your question. If you are going to use Project Server to
manage your portfolio/projects, then the need for master projects
disappears. Having several projects rolled into one makes sense if that is
the only way you have to view them. With Project Server you now have the
ability to view ALL your projects in either a list or in an analytical form
that can provide you with a much greater range of useable information. Also,
updates to master projects can not be managed from the web access in Project
Server.
Just my opinion. My best advice is to get Gary's book and read carefully
through the setup and configuration sections. Much is explained, many
questions answered.
Russ
 
S

Stuart

We use master projects all of the time.
Our organisation works on a top down approach where most
projects take as many as 20 years.
The master projects is purely a set of milestones and has
subprojects updating these milestones via external
linking.
The subprojects also have their own subprojects (in which
case they are just milestones as well) and have external
links to other subprojects.
This all works well and we do not have any problems (all
projects are published).
We do not use anything but milestones in the master
projects and we never allocate resources to master
projects.
 
S

Sarah

Stuart,

The key for master projects working in your case is that you only use
milestones, and you don't assign resources. Most people get into
trouble with master projects on the server because they insert entire
subprojects, resources and all. In this case, the original projects
and resource assignments are published to the server, then you link
them into a master project and publish that (complete with resource
assignments) to the server, in effect, doubling the assignments for
every resource linked into the master plan. As long as resource
assignments only appear in one published plan, master projects are not
a problem.

Sarah
 
A

Al Biglan

Thanks for all of the feedback.

I had heard of the trouble with "double publishing" and
agree that seems to be the biggest downside.

I'm still leaning towards using the Master Projects but
not allowing them to be published. I haven't read Gary
Chefetz' book, but I think there are a few other
advantages to working with a Master Project. For example,
we are planning on using the SharePoint functions (risks,
etc.) It would be nice to be able to promote risks from a
subproject up to the master level. It would be nice to
have a single place to put documents common to all the
subprojects, etc etc.

So it looks like I'm going to buy Gary's book and for now
turn off the publish function for Master Projects (only
allow them to be saved)

Thanks for all of the feedback!
-al
 
Top