% Complete for a summary bar not matching Planned ?

[Andrew]

I run a macro to get the planned % complete for bars so that I can compare
planned against actual. This works fine except for summary bars. The %
complete planned, works out the Planned % along the bar, ie 5 weeks out of 10
weeks = 50%. The actual % by MSP does not seem to match the planned %. How
does MSP work out the actual % of a summary bar, if the Planned % matches the
actual % of individual bars why is there a discrepancy ?

Andrew

 

[Jim Aksel [MVP]]

I have a white paper on this in my blog. Try http://www.msprojectblog.com
then hit the MSProject Tips and Tricks. It is the first two papers.

Jim Aksel, MVP for Project

 

[Andrew]

Jim

Thankyou for that - I now understand how MSP works this out. My problem is
that although this method is correct to a point, ie it works out the
accumulative work done against the overall accumulative work content and
produces a % complete, which is correct, it then applies the % against a
straight line (summary bar) and marks up the % against this, which makes the
progress bar look more complete than it should be. I have a worked example
which probably explains it better than I have written. For example I have a
summary bar covering 3 acts. of 10, 15 & 7 days duration - the overall
duration is 15 days. all three acts start at the same time. After the first
week they are all on programme ie they had all done 5 days work the %s are
50,33&71. MSPs formula equated to 15/32(workdays done/overall workdays) =
46.8% rounded to 47%, MSp then applied that % to the summary bar =
47%x15(days) = approx 7 days, when it set the progress bar to the summary bar
it coloured up 7 days - ie 2 days ahead. My formula treats each bar
seperately and works from the status bar going backwards, it resulted in the
Planned % for the summary as 33% ie 5 days out of 15. The visual
representation MSP has come up with does not look correct as it applied an
accumaulative % to a straight line, and the project is on programme not ahead
of programme. Hopefully this makes sense - Is there a way to amend the way
MSP works out the % complete for summary bars as both ways work for
individual bars, it is just the summary bars that do not look right and the
obvious conflict between the % complete columns. There I will now pause for a
big breath!!

Many regards

Andrew

 

[Steve House]

Lok at your individul task percent completes ... task 1 is 5/10 or 50%
complete, task 2 is 5/15 or 30% complete, while task 3 is 5/7 or 72%
complete. Project's summary calculation is the weighted average of those
metrics. as you said ~47%. With respect, I think the problem is in your
notion of what the summary ought to be and not in Project's calculation of
what it is. In my mind, the weighted average is a far more reliable
indicator of what is actually going on in the project's universe, in terms
of indicating progress towards the goal.

 

[Andrew]

Steve

I understand your point and completely agree with it. However, I would still
need an option to show the Planned % complete. It is a request from my client
and also I think a good option. The straight line method works for individual
bars as they do not have to take into account the acuumaulative work
days/hours involved. How can I produce a planned % for a summary bar which
would reflect the work pattern for the grouped bars ?

Many Regards

Andrew

 

[Steve House]

You used the term "work pattern." That introduces another complication
because "% Complete" and "% Work Complete" are two entirely different
measurements. So which is it you need - progress in terms of the passage of
time (duration) or progress in terms of man-hours?

Your planned progess on a certain date is should be based on the baseline.

 

[Andrew]

Steve

Right now what I need is a holiday !!!!.

I really need a macro to work out the Planned % complete for a summary bar
the same way as MSP works out the actual % of a summary bar. At the moment my
macro works out the planned % for a summary bar as progress in terms of the
passage of time not man hours. The two just do not compare as they are
measuring against different data.

Many thanks for your input

Andrew

 

[Steve House]

What I think you're really looking for is the sort of metric that the Earned
Value calculations provide. "Planned" is the baseline values. Earned Value
looks at man-hours or work as expressed by the cost of those hours. Let's
say our plan was for the calendar year 2009. When we started work back in
January we saved a baseline (you DID save a baseline, right?) and then began
to enter actuals. It's now June and we want to know where we stand. We'll
set a status date for the "reporting through" date, let's say June 15.
Earned value says our Budgeted Cost of Work Scheduled between 1 Jan and 15
Jun is $XXXX. Our Budget At Completion is $YYYY. Based on our posted
actuals Project also calculates our Budgeted Cost of Work Performed between
1 Jan and 15 Jun as $ZZZZ (the "Earned Value" of the work). Remember that
the budget is paying for man-hours of work. So (BCWS/BAC) * 100 equals the
Planned % Work Complete as of the status date. (BCWP/BAC) * 100 equals the
Actual % Work Complete. (WCSP/BCWS) * 100 equals the Schedule Performance
Index (SPI). If SPI > 1.0 we're ahead of schedule; If SPI < 1.0 we're
behind.

If you're not tracking resource costs, arbitrarily assign a value of $1/hr
as the resource standard rate for all resources and you'll be doing the same
effective calculations with man-hours.

Check out "Earned Value" in help - you may find the metrics you're looking
for are standard equipment if you look in the right place.

 

[Andrew]

Steve

Many thanks for your reply. I will go away and digest what you have said, I
really appreciate your input in this.

Many Regards

Andrew