Priority is ignored if a predecessor is set

[robert.hoelzl]

I created a test file in MS project 2000 with the following projects,
priorities and resources:
* Project A; Priority 3; Resource X
* Project B; Priority 2; Resource X
* Project C; Priority 1; Resource X

Since all projects use the same resource, MS project orders them
sequencially.
That means the projects have to be done in the order A, B, C
(according to their priority).

Now I define project B as predecessor of Project C (I hope predecessor
is the correct
english term; in my german ms project it is called "vorgaenger"). I
would expect ms project
to reorder the project to A, C, B (A is most important due to the
priority 3 followed by C,
which has to be done before B).

But actually ms project reorders the projects to C, B, A, although A
is the most important project.
Anyone a hint about this problem? thanks a lot...

 

[Jan De Messemaeker]

Hi,

In the "Standard" priority of MS project the fact that C is a predecessor
has more weight in the priority than the Priority field itself.
Also, if the duration is the same, C is on the critical path and A is not.
Change the Leveling Order to Priority, Standard toiget teh result you want.

 

[Steve House]

If B is a predecessor to C, that means that B will always come before C, at
least with the normal Finish-to-Start or FS link. So the order A C B cannot
occur since existence of the link between B and C essentially says that it
is a physical impossiblity for C to precede B regardless of what your
priorities are. Reverse the direction of your link, make B the SUCCESSOR
and C the PREDECESSOR and it will work.

Just FYI, most of the time I like to think of predecessor/successor links as
illustrating process dependencies rather than time sequences. Sequencing
comes from the link but a desired sequence should not be the reason to
insert links, if you get my meaning. If you had infinite resources and
there was no process that required something to come first - you can't build
a roof in mid-air and add the walls in under it later, the process requires
you do the walls first and then the roof - there'd be no need for sequencing
at all - you could do everything at once and git 'er done. Properly
speaking, links are permissive - that is, something happens in the
predecessor task that must take place in order to permit the successor task
to itself take place.