I do understand. Still, the bottom line is that the work required in a
given task is not driven by the funds available to do it but the amount of
work required to complete the deliverable. The project requires me to build
a walkway that is 100 metres long. It will cost $100 per hour for a crew to
lay the concrete and they can lay 10 feet per hour working at maximum speed.
It's going to require 10 hours to lay that walkway and cost $1000. The
physics of walkway construction is what determines that it will take 10
hours and there is no way it can be done in less. It is absolutely and
totally impossible to lay pavement at a faster rate without increasing the
size of the crew (which increases the cost) or compromising on the quality
of the result. The boss has given us a top-down budget of $500 because he
thinks that's what the firm can afford. So what do we do? Stop when we've
laid 50 metres and spent the $500? Accept a lower quality of the work? Go
to the boss and tell him he's p*****g into the wind?
It is indeed a common issue and one of the reasons that in some industries
such as IT, something on the order of 60% or more of projects are failures
in that they are either abandoned before completion, finish late, or go over
budget. The real problem is political, not software. You can use one of
the user-definable fields to record the apportioned budget for the tasks
versus the computed cost and another to record the difference between the
two but that doesn't give you any useful information to solve the problem of
managing the project, it simply lets you quantify the reasons the project
failed when the boss's boss calls you on the carpet demanding an
explanation. <wry grin>
--
Steve House [MVP]
MS Project Trainer/Consultant
Visit
http://www.mvps.org/project/faqs.htm for the FAQs