none
How do control resources in MSP 2010 ? RRS feed

  • Question

  • I have a resource R1 which can work for one full day. R1 has to do three tasks T1, T2, T3 in a day. It can work only on one task at a time. So, R1 does these jobs in succession.

    How do I set this constraint in MSP 2010 ?

    <EDIT> I am using a Gantt chart
    Monday, October 29, 2012 1:51 AM

All replies

  • Hi,

    Link those tasks. The FS dependency is created by default when you link two tasks in Project. The order in which you select the tasks treats the first as the predecessor, the second as the successor.

    http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/project-help/linking-project-tasks-RZ001135937.aspx?section=5

    Monday, October 29, 2012 2:50 AM
  • As Krishnp suggested you should link T1, T2 and T3 with FS linking and assign this resource to them. You can change the Start/Finish Date format to include the Date:Time so that you can see when a task is starting in a day and finishing.

    Sapna Shukla

    Monday, October 29, 2012 10:16 AM
    Moderator
  • As Krishnp suggested you should link T1, T2 and T3 with FS linking and assign this resource to them. You can change the Start/Finish Date format to include the Date:Time so that you can see when a task is starting in a day and finishing.

    Sapna Shukla

    Is there some option to set "resource can be used by only X tasks" in the MSP 2010 software ? I think this would make things easier. I can set X to 1 and then MSP could automatically schedule those 3 tasks one after the other instead of all at the same time.

    Thanks.


    King

    Monday, October 29, 2012 5:11 PM
  • Hi King,

    MSP cannot schedule tasks in sequence or parallel by its own, you will have to link them. Secondly, you should avoid assigning the resource on a summary task. You need to tell the tool when and how to link tasks, assign resource it can't do these automatically.


    Sapna Shukla

    Monday, October 29, 2012 6:11 PM
    Moderator
  • Hi,

    Whatever is said here, Microsoft Project CAN do this. My advice is to NOT link these tasks since the sequence is not something absolute but only caused by resources. Instead, simply assign the resource to the tasks he/she has to work on, then on the Resource ribbon (you do have 2010 haven't you) click Level All.

    Which I tfind really remarkable is thet in your description of "the maximum number of concurrent tasks" youactually describe a parameter that does exist in Project - in the Resource Sheet look for "Max. Units", your description fits here.

    And yes, Project could do that automatically all of the time (i.e. without the need for clicking) but only very few users go a far as that - I too prefer to stay in control. However, should you want to try it out, click leveling options then the Automatic radio button.

    Greetings,

    Monday, October 29, 2012 9:42 PM
    Moderator
  • And yes, Project could do that automatically all of the time (i.e. without the need for clicking) but only very few users go a far as that - I too prefer to stay in control. However, should you want to try it out, click leveling options then the Automatic radio button.

    Greetings,

    I want to try it without leveling first. Later, I will do it with leveling. I only want one resource to do one job at a time. Right now, it does 2 or even 3 at a time.

    King

    Monday, October 29, 2012 11:34 PM
  • Hi Jan,

    Did I miss anything in question or misinterpreted it, that my answer conflicts with yours.


    Sapna Shukla

    Tuesday, October 30, 2012 3:47 AM
    Moderator
  • I think that the way King describes his problem indicates that this is a case of resource over-allocation and necessary leveling to delay tasks, not a case of linking the tasks as predecessors/successors. After all, he has not said that the tasks are in any way dependent on or related to each other, except for sharing or competing for the same resource.

    So I agree with Jan.

    This question brings up an interesting topic, the difference between what some people call hard and soft predecessors, recently discussed here. Hard predecessors are the ones I like because they define an absolute, non-negotiable dependence of a task on the start or finish of another task. I avoid and advise against the other kind, but I know that there are people who link tasks as predecessor/successor to perform a kind of "manual leveling", the purpose being to delay the tasks without using the leveling functionality in MSP, and they say that it works and is OK. I think it doesn't work, the software should do the leveling because it is so much better at it, and it is better to consistently use only hard predecessors so that there is not an ambiguous mixture of hard/soft throughout the plan. So, agreeing to disagree.

    Tuesday, October 30, 2012 6:43 AM
  • Thanks Trevor for explaining the context of the question, I really misinterpreted the question, I was not thinking in direction that the user was just looking for aligning tasks and resource leveling.


    Sapna Shukla


    Tuesday, October 30, 2012 10:09 AM
    Moderator
  • Hi,

    Let me explain why I really dislike the "phony predecssors" method: it creates loads of extra work when tracking - I know of people who abandoned Project because of this extra work.

    Suppose you have 4 tasks that compete for one resource. There is no compelling reason to start one before the other. Still, let's admit you link them in any order.

    Now comes tracking. Because there is no compeelling reason to start one befor the other, the resource will choose him/herself what to do first, and let's say he/she does task 3 first. Work for the project leader?

    - Enter Actual start and duration for task 3

    - Unlink task 2 from task 3 (after verifying this is a phony link)

    - Unlink Task 3 from task 4 (id.)

    - Link task 2 to task 4

    - Use reschedule work

    Alternative: level the tasks. Work to be done when tracking?

    - Enter Actual start and duration for task 3

    - Use reschedule work

    - Level again (once wor the whole project, not task by task!)

    Up to you to select wht you prefer. IMHO refusing to use leveling for what it is designed for is masochism.

    Greetings,


    Tuesday, October 30, 2012 12:48 PM
    Moderator

  • Up to you to select wht you prefer. IMHO refusing to use leveling for what it is designed for is masochism.


    I want to be macho ! Will try leveling later.

    King

    Wednesday, October 31, 2012 2:02 AM