none
Inconsistent results on task in Effort Driven & Fixed Duration with two assigned resources? RRS feed

  • Question

  • Hello,

    A task is in Effort Driven and Fixed Duration modes with two assigned resources. The change of the Units seems to give inconsistent results. Could you help me to understand the MS Project 2010 behavior? Is it a bug?

    Please see the following URL (picture) and details at the end of this comment: <Click Me>

    THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT.

    ---
    # SCENARIO #
    * Create 2 resources (max units = 100%)
    * Create a task for a period of five working days, Effort driven and Fixed Duration
    * Assign two resources on this task
    => Result (1): Units are 100% although the initial estimate of 40 hours Work's been spread by resources (20 hours in total each, and 4h/d in 5d).

    QUESTION: Should the resources' Units not be 50% each?

    * Change one of the two resources' Unit manually to 50%
    => Result (2): Nothing happens. No value changes despite F9 (refresh).

    * Change the previous resource's Unit to his initial rate (100%)
    => Result (3): the Work value of the resource is impacted.

    QUESTION: Are the results (1)&(2)&(3) inconsistent?

    Could you help me to understand this behavior? Is it a bug?

    THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT.

    Regards, H.F.

    P.S.: "Body text cannot contain images or links until MS is able to verify this account" :(

    The URL will be added later. It is a picture on picasaweb in MS Project 2010 album, picture _EXO-08_P1​38_

    Tuesday, August 20, 2013 11:39 AM

Answers

  • HF,

    Yes the results are consistent for Project 2010 and up. A change was made to the way Units and Peak Units are calculated in Project 2010. Take a look at the following article:

    http://blogs.msdn.com/b/project/archive/2010/04/29/assignment-units-in-project-2010.aspx

    Hope this helps.

    John

    • Marked as answer by H. Fayol Wednesday, August 21, 2013 12:45 PM
    Tuesday, August 20, 2013 3:40 PM
  • Hi H.F. --

    The 'Assignment Units' field in Project 2010 actually represents the INITIAL assignment units for a task assignment... not the CURRENT assignment units. If I had my way, I would rename the field to be called 'Initial Assignment Units'... because that is what it actually represents.

    The 'Peak Units' field represents something closer to what you would expect... the current assignment units for a task assignment. Expose both fields and watch how they change in the scenario above.

    For a more detailed explanation, read the article that John refers to.

    Good luck!

    -- tz


    Tony Zink | Vice President, EPMA | http://www.epmainc.com | Blog: http://www.epmablog.com | Training: http://www.epmainstitute.com

    • Marked as answer by H. Fayol Wednesday, August 21, 2013 12:45 PM
    Tuesday, August 20, 2013 9:10 PM

All replies

  • HF,

    Yes the results are consistent for Project 2010 and up. A change was made to the way Units and Peak Units are calculated in Project 2010. Take a look at the following article:

    http://blogs.msdn.com/b/project/archive/2010/04/29/assignment-units-in-project-2010.aspx

    Hope this helps.

    John

    • Marked as answer by H. Fayol Wednesday, August 21, 2013 12:45 PM
    Tuesday, August 20, 2013 3:40 PM
  • Hi H.F. --

    The 'Assignment Units' field in Project 2010 actually represents the INITIAL assignment units for a task assignment... not the CURRENT assignment units. If I had my way, I would rename the field to be called 'Initial Assignment Units'... because that is what it actually represents.

    The 'Peak Units' field represents something closer to what you would expect... the current assignment units for a task assignment. Expose both fields and watch how they change in the scenario above.

    For a more detailed explanation, read the article that John refers to.

    Good luck!

    -- tz


    Tony Zink | Vice President, EPMA | http://www.epmainc.com | Blog: http://www.epmablog.com | Training: http://www.epmainstitute.com

    • Marked as answer by H. Fayol Wednesday, August 21, 2013 12:45 PM
    Tuesday, August 20, 2013 9:10 PM
  • Hi John,

    Thank you for taking the time to answer.

    The article is instructive.

    Regards,

    H.F.

    Wednesday, August 21, 2013 12:43 PM
  • Hi JT.Z.,

    Thank you for taking the time to answer.

    Regards,

    H.F.

    Wednesday, August 21, 2013 12:44 PM
  • You're quite welcome, H.F.!

    Good luck --

    -- tz


    Tony Zink | Vice President, EPMA | http://www.epmainc.com | Blog: http://www.epmablog.com | Training: http://www.epmainstitute.com

    Wednesday, August 21, 2013 3:38 PM