none
Why Physical % Complete updates due to Status Date changes? RRS feed

  • Question

  • Hi!

     

    I'm using EVM with Earned Value method = "Physical % Complete".

    Everything is working fine but now I found a strange behaviour. When I change Status Date I'm able to see automatic changes in "Physical % Complete" which I do not understand why it happens.

    If I were using Earned Value method = "% Complete" I would expect that behaviour because its calculation is based on Actual Work which has an underlying information regarding when the work was performed (through the resource assignments).

    However, as the "Physical % Complete" is a manual field assigned by myself, I thought that Status Date should not have any influence in it...

    Does anyone know why Status Date influences Physical % Complete and it what sense?

     

    Thanks


    Sunday, May 1, 2011 7:16 PM

Answers

  • Hi RicardoFerreira,

    I assume you are talking about BCWP being updated when you change the Status Date, and not the Physical % Complete field itself?

    I did some tests and I can reproduce this strange behavior. If I enter 50% Physical % Complete for a task with a cost of, let's say, $8000, BCWP is calculated as $4000. If I modify the Status Date, BCWP gets updated. But if I change Physical % Complete again (e.g. to 40%), the Status Date is ignored again until I enter a different status date.

    I could reproduce the issue in both Project 2010 (with April CU) and 2007.

    This might be a bug and you might need to contact Microsoft Support for this.

    I hope this helps,
    Hans


    My EPM blog: Projectopolis
    Monday, May 2, 2011 12:30 PM
    Moderator

All replies

  • Hi RicardoFerreira,

    I assume you are talking about BCWP being updated when you change the Status Date, and not the Physical % Complete field itself?

    I did some tests and I can reproduce this strange behavior. If I enter 50% Physical % Complete for a task with a cost of, let's say, $8000, BCWP is calculated as $4000. If I modify the Status Date, BCWP gets updated. But if I change Physical % Complete again (e.g. to 40%), the Status Date is ignored again until I enter a different status date.

    I could reproduce the issue in both Project 2010 (with April CU) and 2007.

    This might be a bug and you might need to contact Microsoft Support for this.

    I hope this helps,
    Hans


    My EPM blog: Projectopolis
    Monday, May 2, 2011 12:30 PM
    Moderator
  • I too agree with Hans, seems there is something missing in the calculation while using Physical % when combined with Status Date and impact on BCWP.

    Say, I had a task T1 1d with R1 with 1$/hr rate and baselined the plan. EV changed to Physical %.

    Now for first time I updated T1 as 50% values were calculated correctly as expected, but then I reduced the 50% of Physical % to 45% with change in Status Date and then again make it 50% value doesn't change consistently.


    Sapna S
    Monday, May 2, 2011 1:05 PM
    Moderator
  • I assume you are talking about BCWP being updated when you change the Status Date, and not the Physical % Complete field itself?

    No, unfortunately, I was referring to Physical % Complete being changed when I change Status Date. Then, as "Physical % Complete" changes BCWP will change as well.

    BTW, do you know how I can report this bug to Microsoft? I've never report a bug...

    I have found another one also related to "Physical % Complete" (sometimes when changing it it gives BCWP = 0 when it shouldn't) that I'd like to report as well.

    Now I have no doubt that due to the bugs/glitches this tool still has, I do not recommend no one to use EVM on MS Project with the current available versions. 

    I'm using it but a lot of calculations are held/supported by Excel and I'm creating additional columns to replicate the calculations that should be done by MS Project so that I can detect errors or have alternatives when I found strange behaviours.

     

    In case anyone know how to workaround these bugs (for instance, by forcing a re-calc) please share with us.

     

    Regards,

    Ricardo


    Monday, May 2, 2011 8:28 PM