none
physical % complete not summarizing up RRS feed

  • Question

  • Hi Everyone

    I have a similar issue from those you already discussed previously. Been conducting research on the web, but still not finding a proper solution. Here's the details:

    I have a workplan (MP 2010 pro) with more than 3 thousand lines. This workplan is composed with many summary tasks, some of them have only milestones within, some of them have tasks. Just 1 of the summary tasks (including only tasks and no milestones at all) is summarizing up. I'm not sure if is doing it right, but at least sounds like it does. Example: This summary that is "working" have about 7 subtasks, all of them at 100% planned (%complete) and 75% real (physical % complete). The summary task then shows 100% complete and 75% P%C.

    BUT, right the next summary task, has 5 activities, all of them 100% complete, and 3 of them at 25% P%C. But the summary only shows the 100% Complete and 0% for P%C.

    Here's what I've tried:

    1) I've make sure that none of the subtasks are linked to another summary tasks. Summary tasks don't have any link.

    2) All the subtasks have EVM set to Physical % Complete

    3) All subtasks have resources allocated

    4) All subtasks have Task Mode set to "autoschedule" and so the workplan as well

    5) workplan is configured to autocalculate after each edit

    6) make sure baseline is set

    I read that a possible solution was setting subtasks to P%C and summary tasks to % Complete, but this didn't work out since summary tasks are not open to edit this option (seems that gets the info from its subtasks)

    Regarding my summary tasks that includes only milestones and do not summarize up, I read that for this type of summary tasks this just not work out. I don't know if you may have a different perception.

    Thursday, March 7, 2013 5:10 PM

All replies

  • And all the resources have Costs?

    And the baseline was taken after you set the EVM?

    And the status date is such as to include the tasks in your second summary section?

    Hmmm. Mysterious.

    Thursday, March 7, 2013 8:33 PM
  • Physical % complete isn't meant to roll up. It is purely a manual entry for when % duration complete is not an accurate enough measure for earned value purposes.

    Please always say which version of Project you have and what Service Pack. For example if you have P2007 with no SP, then the answer to most issues is do not use again until SP3 installed!


    Rod Gill

    The one and only Project VBA Book

    Rod Gill Project Management

    Thursday, March 7, 2013 9:04 PM
    Moderator
  • Andrew Lavinsky wrote a cracking article on this explaining how to get it to work.

    Unfortunately, I found that even following the steps in Andrew's post, it was still unreliable and some summary tasks just refused to roll-up.

    I ended up writing a VBA customisation that calculated the rolled-up Phys % Complete  and output this to a custom number field to make sure this worked reliably. Used the same calculation as Andrew L described, except it ignored the EVM.


    Friday, March 8, 2013 11:32 AM
  • Actually, having just realised that you don't need VBA, you could achieve the same outcome with formulas on custom fields.

    If we configured Cost 9 to calculate the nonimal EV (I say nominal, as if your EVMS permits different EVTs, these values might not be accurate) as deteiled below:

    And then configure Number9 to calculate the rolled-up physical % complete:

    Then you'll get the rolled up Physical % Complete in Number9 without needing VBA, EVMs, or the timing of your baseline actions.

    I wish I'd though of that last week when I was writing the VBA customisation...

    Friday, March 8, 2013 12:04 PM
  • I'll interpret "cracking" as good?  FWIW, I couldn't figure out how I'd ever actually use that scenario in a real project.  VBA is definitely the way to go.


    Andrew Lavinsky [MVP] Blog: http://azlav.umtblog.com Twitter: @alavinsky

    Saturday, March 9, 2013 1:55 AM
    Moderator
  • http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/cracking?q=cracking

    That's the meaning I was trying to convey. Thanks, Andrew, all fell into place for me after reading your post.

    Monday, March 11, 2013 9:30 AM