Block update

[assaf1978]

Hi,
Is it possible for 2 activities to be connected (using standard FS
connection) and for the predecessor to be updated (finish date changed),
without the succecssor changing at all ?

Thanks,
Assaf.

 

[Dominic]

There are two ways you could achieve your desired outcome. If the successor
task were constrained to start later than the scheduled start date for it
arising from the FS dependency with its predecessor or if you elect to
re-schedule incomplete work on the task from a date that is later than its
current scheduled start date, this will result in a SNET constraint being
applied.

To test the first suggestion link 2 tasks with the FS dependency and then
edit the start date for the successor task to be later than scheduled, you
should get a message from the planning wizard advising that doing so will
result in the link between them not "driving" the later task.

I hope this helps.
--
Dominic Moss

Projectability - Helping People achieve more with Microsoft Project

www.projectability.co.uk

 

[salgud]

Hi,
Is it possible for 2 activities to be connected (using standard FS
connection) and for the predecessor to be updated (finish date changed),
without the succecssor changing at all ?

Thanks,
Assaf.

Yes, as Dominic has instructed, it is possible to create false dependencies
w/ Project. The question would be, why?

 

[Steve House [MVP]]

You can do it but it might defy logic to do so. The FS link says there is
some physical process that makes it mandatory for the predecessor to finish
before the successor is able to begin. The successor may start LATER than
the link allows but it is impossible for it to start earlier. So if you need
to have the sucessor stay in its place when the predeccor finishes earlier
than planned, that's okay and a SNET or FNET constraint on the sucessor will
do that for you. But to not allow it to push the sucessor out if the
predecessor finishes later than planned does not make any sense.

 

[assaf1978]

Thank you all,
A- Predecessor, B - Successor
The logic behind this question is that I would like to have control over the
beginning of task B, I would like to authorize whether the change in task A
really affects task B or it will be absorbed in task B’s schedule.

You can do it but it might defy logic to do so. The FS link says there is
some physical process that makes it mandatory for the predecessor to finish
before the successor is able to begin. The successor may start LATER than
the link allows but it is impossible for it to start earlier. So if you need
to have the sucessor stay in its place when the predeccor finishes earlier
than planned, that's okay and a SNET or FNET constraint on the sucessor will
do that for you. But to not allow it to push the sucessor out if the
predecessor finishes later than planned does not make any sense.

--
Steve House [Project MVP]
MS Project Trainer & Consultant
Visit http://www.mvps.org/project/faqs.htm for the FAQs
MS MVP

Hi,
Is it possible for 2 activities to be connected (using standard FS
connection) and for the predecessor to be updated (finish date changed),
without the succecssor changing at all ?

Thanks,
Assaf.

 

[Steve House [MVP]]

Links in Project are permissive, in that the predecessor controls the
earliest (when scheduling from start forward) that the successor is able to
start. It doesn't mean it WILL start then, only that the preliminaries are
done and it is ABLE to start. You still can start it later than the link
allows by either applying a lag time to the link or adding a SNET to the
sucessor.

Task A should produce a physical deliverable that is needed as an input into
B, while B cannot start on its deliverable until the required components are
present. If it is even an option for the extension in time to be added to
the end of A or the start of B, it sounds like the task breakdown needs to
be examined to verify that it is truly a deliverables-driven process model.
If A's deliverable is complete, then the time should be added to the start
of B. If A's deliverable is NOT complete, then it needs to be added as the
end of A. The physical process itself, not the scheduler's preference,
should drive the decision.
--
Steve House [Project MVP]
MS Project Trainer & Consultant
Visit http://project.mvps.org/faqs.htm for the FAQs

Thank you all,
A- Predecessor, B - Successor
The logic behind this question is that I would like to have control over
the
beginning of task B, I would like to authorize whether the change in task
A
really affects task B or it will be absorbed in task Bâ?Ts schedule.

You can do it but it might defy logic to do so. The FS link says there
is
some physical process that makes it mandatory for the predecessor to
finish
before the successor is able to begin. The successor may start LATER
than
the link allows but it is impossible for it to start earlier. So if you
need
to have the sucessor stay in its place when the predeccor finishes
earlier
than planned, that's okay and a SNET or FNET constraint on the sucessor
will
do that for you. But to not allow it to push the sucessor out if the
predecessor finishes later than planned does not make any sense.

--
Steve House [Project MVP]
MS Project Trainer & Consultant
Visit http://www.mvps.org/project/faqs.htm for the FAQs
MS MVP

Hi,
Is it possible for 2 activities to be connected (using standard FS
connection) and for the predecessor to be updated (finish date
changed),
without the succecssor changing at all ?

Thanks,
Assaf.