none
Task successors RRS feed

  • Question

  • I have a condition where two tasks, (task1, task2) using different resources are one the successor of the other. My goal is that there is no time among the two activities. I mean that task2 must start at the end of task1. Due to tasks situation in Project, it happens that task2 is delayed. Is it possible to avoid this situation, forcing task2 to start immediately after task1? I tried many ways, with no result.
    Wednesday, April 3, 2013 11:45 AM

Answers

  • Hi,

    So it's a problem about resoruce leveling after all? Can you try 1000 as priority?

    Greetings,

    • Marked as answer by R.Bettin Thursday, April 4, 2013 12:30 PM
    Wednesday, April 3, 2013 4:29 PM
    Moderator

All replies

  • Hi,

    The whole question is, what is "Due to tasks situation in Project," If it's a link, then task 2 CAN NOT start immediately - unless you delete the link. Same with a constraint: is there a good reason for the constraint??

    If it's de to resource leveling, set the priority for task 2 to 999, then level priorit, standard: task 2 will normally no longer be delayed.

    Greetings,

    Wednesday, April 3, 2013 12:48 PM
    Moderator
  • Since dynamics of a project keep changing, so obvious are the changes in Start/Finish. You want to force Task 2 to start immediately after Task1 - you can add Task 1 as predecessor and then add Must Start Constrain on Task 2, Note - Must Start Constrains are hard constrains and not always prefered to have, as it could lead to schedule conflicts.

    So, would suggest just to have FS linking and keep close watch on any change/situations which may push Task2, and adjust the dates/resources accordingly, more of a process oriented thing.  


    Sapna Shukla


    Wednesday, April 3, 2013 12:56 PM
    Moderator
  • Dear Jan, I too tried the solution that you suggest. It is good if the tasks in the some condition you are working with are few. Otherwise it doesn't represent a sure constraint. Starting by my strong ignorance I thought that could exist a more "sure" tool. Or you may grant that necessarily, in spite of overall existing conditions, task2 will always follow immediately task1 in priority of task2 is set to 999?
    Wednesday, April 3, 2013 1:25 PM
  • Dear Sapna, I work with a situation in which this condition is very common. Consider this situation: I level. After levelling I adjust the situation. I must do this action for all the tasks that meet task1 - task2 condition. This may change levelling result in an unpredictable way, so that my adjustments are no more valid, and I must level again. And so on. I'm mistaking? If not, consider that I'm looking for a sure and solid solution, if it exists. Otherwise I must recognize that this problem has no simple solutions in Project.
    Wednesday, April 3, 2013 1:43 PM
  • R, Under normal behavior, your task 2 would start immediately after task 1 if you have a simple Finish to Start relationship - and no other dependencies, constraints, leveling delays, calendars, etc. interfering. Take a look at the set of blog entries at http://blog.projectassistants.com/how-task-dates-are-automatically-set-in-microsoft-project/.

    If you're using anything later than Project 2003, there is a task inspector function which shows you what is influencing the start date of a selected task. What does this tell you about the start date for task 2?
    Another quick check I would do in your case is to look at all task dates and see if any of them coincide with the start date of task 2. Is there any reason why one of these tasks could be influencing the start date of task 2. This check is not foolproof - it will not show up and instances where a dependency lead/lag is involved.

    This is an important topic - all new users of Microsoft Project need to get over the 'how does the scheduling engine work?' comprehension hurdle. You need to gain the confidence that the dates calculated are rational.

    Graham

    Wednesday, April 3, 2013 3:33 PM
  • Hi,

    So it's a problem about resoruce leveling after all? Can you try 1000 as priority?

    Greetings,

    • Marked as answer by R.Bettin Thursday, April 4, 2013 12:30 PM
    Wednesday, April 3, 2013 4:29 PM
    Moderator
  • R.Bettin,

    There are 2 types of dependence according PMI Best Practices and PMBOK: hard and soft dependencies. Hard dependencies are dependencies that have a straight sequence (example: write and print reports). Generally they are finish-to-start.

    Soft dependencies are created in terms of preference. It´s not mandatory but it seems to be the best way. This kind of dependency (soft) are filtered to optimize the schedule. It seems that this is your point.

    1- If your task2 delayed in reaction of the a delay in task1, that's the way it is (dynamic scheduling concepts). That´s why you must have all the activities connected on your schedule (exceptions are start and finish milestones)

    2- You can have another task driving this task to start after the finish date of task1. If you are working with Project 2013, you have the task path feature that helps you to identify the task2 predecessors.

    3- You can have a "no earlier than" contraint type in task2. No earlier contraints are restricted from moving earlier in time. Remove it.

    4- You can have a slippage between the two tasks. You can use the Task usage view and check if there are zero hours appointed at the timesheet and remove this.

    And, you can have the resource levenling option set to automatic. In that way, the project helps you to prevent overalocatted resource moving tasks to start on another day.

    Thanks, 



    Alexandre Paiva, PMP, MCTS, ITIL Project Manager +55 (21) 8887-3645 alexandre.paiva@gerentedeprojeto.net.br www.gerentedeprojeto.net.br

    Wednesday, April 3, 2013 10:13 PM
  • Hi Jan

    I thought a lot about and I concluded that yours is the only suggestion that overcome the levelling problem I'm facing. May be it is not 100% sure, but, at the moment, it represents the only possible choice. Happy for any other better hint.

    Thursday, April 4, 2013 12:36 PM