Best Practice - Milestone Sections RRS feed

  • Question

  • Hi everyone

    Just a quick question, I have inherited a portfolio of non universal project schedules and I am trying to align the reporting aspect to a common method and one of the areas of confusion is proving to be the reporting of milestones.

    My previous colleague, set up the schedules with a section for Key Milestones for each project at the top of each schedule and created a filter for this to represent in a master view.  However, these milestones were linked to the exact same milestones which were incorporated into the schedule logic below.  ie, Development Grouping, end task would be Development Complete as a milestones, this would then be link using a F2S to the milestone section with a Milestones again called Development Complete.

    Hence without 'hammocking' the milestone in the top section, this added a further level of interaction and checks when a body milestone had been marked as complete, but the top section hadnt been.

    In my experience, I have always tagged milestones with an identifier and these are just used in the main body of the schedule and I would create a filter or macro to extract these.  

    In anyones experience, isnt my way the standard (or just have one section with completion milestones at the top linked to the end of the activity and not a separate section which is duplicated?

    Thanks in advance.


    Tuesday, March 14, 2017 10:35 PM


  • This thing that is done where there are selected milestones at the top of the list whose FS0 predecessors are milestones lower in the list is quite common and there appears to be a reason for it, being that the reader doesn't have to read down the list. However, as you say, it is an unnecessary duplication and creates the redundant milestones which have to be always checked against their predecessors and updated.

    I don't like it myself and I don't recommend it. It isn't necessary, because filtering, sorting and grouping are available to extract and report.

    Your question asks "isn't my way the standard". What standard? There is so much generally poor scheduling practice that inept use of MSP would appear to be the "standard". People do what they are taught to do by others who may not be very experienced or very good at it and adopt practices without considering the merits or options, or making any distinction between best and worst practices. Many poor practices are adopted because they seem to address some need or problem but end up being problems or creating worse problems themselves. I don't know what kind of business you are in but a good idea would be to document the ways it should be done and should not be done and keep that for reference so that your firm's project planning methods can tend towards some degree of consistency, rather than each person using whatever whimsical notions they may have acquired.

    Any help?

    • Marked as answer by Sean Pears Wednesday, March 15, 2017 12:52 AM
    Wednesday, March 15, 2017 12:33 AM