I like to think of the predecessor as being the "controlling" task while the
successor is the "controlled." Successor doesn't necessarily follow
predecessor in time sequence but rather it is that the timing of the
predecessor that determines the timing of the successor. In a SF
relationship, the start time of the controlling task drives the finish time
of the controlled task. People tend to think the desired timing is what
determines links and they always proceed sequentially but that is really not
true - it is the process logic that drives the links and the links in turn
create the timing.
Here's an example: We are holding a conference with meetings that run
thorugh the morning. After the meeting we'll have lunch. It is the finish
time of the last meeting that determines when we'll start serving lunch.
The last meeting is the predecessor and the lunch is the successor, linked
in a conventional FS relationship - so far so good.
But we also need to set up the banquet room. We want it timed so they just
finish the setup at the time we start lunch - finish too early and the ice
in the water glasses and the butter will melt before the guests get there.
Finish too late and the crew will still be setting up and in the way when
the guests begin to arrive. In other words, the time we *start* serving
lunch needs to control the time by which we need to *finish* setting up the
room. If our meeting gets extended, that delays the serving of lunch and
that, in turn, should delay the time we start setting up the room. So we
link "Serve Lunch" to "Setup Banquet Room" in a SF link with the
predecessor, the controlling task of the pair, being the start of "Serve
Lunch."
HTH
--
Steve House [MVP]
MS Project Trainer & Consultant
Visit
http://www.mvps.org/project/faqs.htm for the FAQs
"maria burried in the oilsands" <maria burried in the
(e-mail address removed)> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
