|
|
|
Some
bad and ugly things about
Microsoft Project 2003 Server and 2007 Project
Server (EPM)
Interaction effect of product switches creates
situations that are very time consuming to
figure out.
For example the cornerstone of this system is
resource management. It is one of the primary
objectives of most people who deploy Microsoft Project
2003 Server and 2007 Project Server.
To do resource management, a project manager
creates a WBS in Microsoft Project, builds their
team from the enterprise, and then assigns those
resources to detail task records in the WBS.
POW! That is when it starts to get
complicated. The problem is there are too many
switches (options) for how a task might behave
when you add resources, remove resources, adjust
resource assignments, change calendars, and
process the updated assignments from resources
in PWA. Sure, you can sort of figure it out just
like you can figure out how to hook up your
stereo system, reformat your computer, or sail
around the world, but who has the time these
days?
Believe us, we are grateful for this being
complicated because it brings in revenue but
that isn't going to make it any easier for you
to implement this system! :)
With an enterprise system you need to think
about what the "aggregate" needs to learn and
do. We are not thinking the desktop anymore we
are thinking enterprise. Are your people going
to have the time, or be willing to make time to
learn software these days that is overly
complicated? Let's say you have 50 project
managers and you need them to learn this tool
well enough for you to get a handle on resource
management and capacity planning. Half of them won't want to do resource
management in the first place, they are all very
busy, and when they sit down to work with the
tool they will face what will seem like an
endless array of reactions to entering data.
The project management idea driving the
development of this system is simple. A project manager needs to
manage the constraints (time, money,
performance, and resource availability) on a
project. The idea is to breakdown the project to
the detail level with each detail has having
it's own constraints of time, cost, and work.
Manage those detail task constraints and you
manage the constraints of the project. It is the
answer to the question, "How do you eat an
elephant?" "One bite at a time."
So all a project manager needs to do, wants
to do, is enter in their estimates of time,
work, and costs to detail tasks. Microsoft,
bless their hearts, has just given users so many
option in doing this that very few people today
have the time to figure out what is going on.
And in all honesty, some of us just can't quite
get it for some reason.
Just to provide a perspective on this, these are some
of the switches related to how a detail task
might behave (reacts or change) based on
resource assignments and updates:
-
The project calendar
-
The task calendar
-
The calendars of all of the resources
assigned to the task
-
Whether or not the task is effort driven
-
The
Task Type selection (fixed duration, fixed units,
fixed work
-
Timing constraints (ASAP, ALAP, SNLT, SNST,
FNLT, FNST, MSO, MFO)
-
Dependencies
-
Enterprise tracking method selected, such as
"per time period" or "% complete" or
"actuals"
-
Whether it is the first time a resource has
ever been assigned to that task if it the
Effort Driven switch is Yes
-
The actual update from a resource
-
Several different selections in Options
related to just that particular project
-
Whether an adjustment is made to the units
assigned, or the work assigned, or to the
task's duration or to the task's work, etc.
There are more, and these switches are not all
On/Off switches like the lighting panel you
might see back stage. They interact with each
other and some are sort of hidden.
We know you can figure this out and we work
hard to teach people how this works, but do you
want to deal with this? Will your project
managers? If you are going to do resource
management in the enterprise they have to know
this stuff thoroughly which means that if you
want to reach the objective of resource
management or capacity planning in the
enterprise it isn't going to happen according to
most deployment plans people are following
these days.
This "Ugly Reality" needs to be faced directly
by anyone wanting to eventually obtain the value
of managing resources well across the
enterprise.
The value is high, but so are the costs.
|
