Can we make group of tasks without defining dependencies?

[Jinesh Dalal]

Hi,

I'm currently facing one typical issue and looking for the solution for the
same.

We have a software development project activity. For some portion of the
tasks (like bug resolving etc) it is very difficult to judge the order of the
tasks, means person may have to work on multiple tasks as per the priorities.

For example, For one task, there are 3 sub-tasks - Task A (3 days), Task B
(2 Days) and Task C (2.5 Days). From this we can understand that total time
reqd would be 7.5 days and same resource is working on it. We are not aware
about the order in which he will carry out these tasks.

So if in Project, we will put dependencies, that will not give the real
scenario, same way if we will not do it then it will show that the main task
will be finished in 3 days (which is incorrect).

So is there any mechanism by using which, we can co-releate tasks and
estimate the excate completion date? What are the other options to create
this scenario using MS Project 2003 Server?

Thanking you in anticipation

 

[Gary L. Chefetz [MVP]]

Jinesh:

One way to model this is to place the three tasks below a summary task, and
use resource leveling or artificial task links to represent the ultimate
duration. If you're collecting hours by day, these tasks will ultimately end
up looking like a scatter-chart entry when actual work gets applied. Reality
is much more haphazard than anything we ever plan for.<g>

 

[Jinesh Dalal]

Thanks a lot Gary, for your prompt response.

But if we keep on defining artificial tasks, it may make the original plan
messy. Regarding the summary task, how can we define the start and end for
the highest level task instead of getting it affected by sub-tasks?
--
Regards

Jinesh Dalal

Jinesh:

One way to model this is to place the three tasks below a summary task, and
use resource leveling or artificial task links to represent the ultimate
duration. If you're collecting hours by day, these tasks will ultimately end
up looking like a scatter-chart entry when actual work gets applied. Reality
is much more haphazard than anything we ever plan for.<g>

 

[Gary L. Chefetz [MVP]]

Jinesh:

You need to define "messy." Without knowing your sensibilities about that,
it's difficult to know which of the hundred possible approaches to suggest.
Values in summary tasks are calculated based on their prescribed behavior in
the system. The only thing you should enter into a summary task is a name. I
don't have your plan examples in front of me, but if I did, we'd probably
model different variants of approaches to fit the specific requirement in
each instance.

Thanks a lot Gary, for your prompt response.

But if we keep on defining artificial tasks, it may make the original plan
messy. Regarding the summary task, how can we define the start and end
for
the highest level task instead of getting it affected by sub-tasks?
--
Regards

Jinesh Dalal