Some dependencies are dominant? SF over FS? RRS feed

  • Question

  • Hi...

    In a project, I have to install a bunch of equipment before the actual work can take place. Both the preparatory task (equipment installation) and actual job have to be performed at multiple locations (10 locations).

    The actual work is being done by one team. The installation of the equipment (preparations) is done by another team. 

    It would be easy if I would have 10 assemblies of equipment, and install them well in advance before the actual job takes place. However I want to limit the equipment assemblies to e.g. 3, so the idea is, install the equipment in location A, install the equipment in location B, install the equipment in location C. Once the actual work in A is finished, remove the equipment from location A, then move and install it at location D, etc.... so there is a rotation of equipment on the multiple locations.

    Now in project there are three dependencies. You can only move the team to location A to remove the equipment, once the team has finished preparing location C (DEP1=FS). Second, the preparation team can also only go to location A only once the work at A is finished (DEP2=FS) . Furthermore they have to have the equipment installed in location D, before the actual work in D commences (DEP3=SF).  If there is a gap between finishing preparations in C, and requiring the the job to be finished before operations start in D, microsoft project will give priority to DEP3, and move the task just before the actual job in D should start. In reality however, I would like to be DEP1 and DEP2 be dominant, and start immediately after those...

    Is there a way to do this?

    Sunday, November 20, 2016 8:28 AM

All replies

  • Well, I will have a shot at this. if I read it just once, your description is a bit tangled up. If I read it a few more times I start to see what you might be getting at. However, you might also be over-thinking it. If you build the model, and everything in it is true, then the answer is the answer, whether you like it or nor, and what you might want or "would like" is irrelevant. Or the model may show that what you wanted is not something you can have. That is useful information. You have introduced some concepts here which just don't belong here. You say "microsoft project will give priority to DEP3". No it doesn't. It just does what you tell it to do. You say "In reality".  What does that mean?

    You haven't mentioned the durations of these tasks, and the result of the model depends on both the durations and the predecessor/successor links.

    Please show us a picture. It would help a lot.

    Sunday, November 20, 2016 11:15 AM
  • WhiteSea Matt,

    Like Trevor, my head was spinning trying to follow the "flow" but I've got something you can look at (see screen shot). This assumes the prep team can only work on one equipment install or removal at a time (i.e. if there are 3 people on the team, it takes all 3 to do the install/removal). Also the actual work team can only work on one job at a time. If this is not true then the example schedule will compress.

    So, everything is good up to the point where you want Project to move your tasks around to eliminate any slack. As Trevor said, that just ain't gonna happen, you are going to have to do that yourself.


    Sunday, November 20, 2016 6:39 PM