J
J Burford Fields
....in groups, categories, and permission to be effective? Are they not
fairly immediate?
J
fairly immediate?
J
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
G
Gary L. Chefetz [MVP]
They're immediate, but sometimes you need to start a new session before they
take. Don't ask me why, but it's not consistent across the board.
take. Don't ask me why, but it's not consistent across the board.
J
J Burford Fields
Thanks Gary.
Well, then it's a puzzle.
I have a project leader who cannot see her resources, and we get the
message that either she has no resources assigned to her or no rights
to view them, see administrator (me, a new hire sorting out an existing
install). Her groups, categories, and permissions were equal to her
peers who were (and are last time I checked) doing fine.
The RBS has her resources under her.
She belongs to a project managers' group that has rights to see all
projects.
Seems to me that somebody must have republished the project in which
she had tasks. So, I ask her to open the project, thinking that she
just needs to republish the tasks she is managing. I find that she
can't even see the parent project in the MS Project 2003 open dialog
box. There are others projects she can see, and other project leaders
can see the task that she cannot.
Somewhere I had read that the order that an account is set up matters.
That new accounts need to be created in the Global Resource Pool and
given a RBS setting before they are added to groups, and then
categories. At least, once I fixed an account that had no RBS and
didn't work once I gave it its RBS until I removed it from groups and
categories, saved it, and then put it back into groups and categories.
Enlighten me, please if that is hooey.
Anyway, I did this, for her, and matters got worse. Now she sees no
projects at all. Not that she had a role in the others and any need of
them, but I'm naturally feeling a bit flumoxed.
My presumption, from sifting through this newsgroup, is that there
might be a deeper problem in how her account was set up? Perhaps it
was created in PWA, first, instead of in the Global Resources?
Now, if that were the case, I don't want to delete her account and
re-create it in the Global Resource Pool because there are tasks that
she has been assigned to by other project managers and I really do not
want to have to ask them all to assign her again and republish. So, my
question is, can I create a new account in the Global Resource Pool
then merge it with her existing account and expect to do any good?
Sorry for being long winded.
J
Well, then it's a puzzle.
I have a project leader who cannot see her resources, and we get the
message that either she has no resources assigned to her or no rights
to view them, see administrator (me, a new hire sorting out an existing
install). Her groups, categories, and permissions were equal to her
peers who were (and are last time I checked) doing fine.
The RBS has her resources under her.
She belongs to a project managers' group that has rights to see all
projects.
Seems to me that somebody must have republished the project in which
she had tasks. So, I ask her to open the project, thinking that she
just needs to republish the tasks she is managing. I find that she
can't even see the parent project in the MS Project 2003 open dialog
box. There are others projects she can see, and other project leaders
can see the task that she cannot.
Somewhere I had read that the order that an account is set up matters.
That new accounts need to be created in the Global Resource Pool and
given a RBS setting before they are added to groups, and then
categories. At least, once I fixed an account that had no RBS and
didn't work once I gave it its RBS until I removed it from groups and
categories, saved it, and then put it back into groups and categories.
Enlighten me, please if that is hooey.
Anyway, I did this, for her, and matters got worse. Now she sees no
projects at all. Not that she had a role in the others and any need of
them, but I'm naturally feeling a bit flumoxed.
My presumption, from sifting through this newsgroup, is that there
might be a deeper problem in how her account was set up? Perhaps it
was created in PWA, first, instead of in the Global Resources?
Now, if that were the case, I don't want to delete her account and
re-create it in the Global Resource Pool because there are tasks that
she has been assigned to by other project managers and I really do not
want to have to ask them all to assign her again and republish. So, my
question is, can I create a new account in the Global Resource Pool
then merge it with her existing account and expect to do any good?
Sorry for being long winded.
J
G
Gary L. Chefetz [MVP]
One cause of this type of behavior is over-doing the group and category
assignments. Best practice dictates that users belong to groups only, and
the groups are then assigned to categories. Is this how your system is
configured? Does this user have direct assignments to categories? What
categories and groups does she belong to?
assignments. Best practice dictates that users belong to groups only, and
the groups are then assigned to categories. Is this how your system is
configured? Does this user have direct assignments to categories? What
categories and groups does she belong to?
J
J Burford Fields
Ah, yes! I remember reading that in your book some time ago. In fact,
it is something I remember citing in the job interview. Figures I
would forget what I take for granted and be barking up a more
complicated tree.
She belongs to several groups, one for project managers, one for team
members, one for all contractor project managers, and two team groups.
Categories include My Tasks, then three categories that are unique to
the contractor group she is in and the part of the organization she
manages: companyX project managers, companyX resources, and CompanyX
help desk resources.
I need to fully document groups and categories.
I take it you would suggest that even creating additional groups
associated with each category, then putting her into those groups and
them into the specialized categories would improve things?
Many thanks.
J
it is something I remember citing in the job interview. Figures I
would forget what I take for granted and be barking up a more
complicated tree.
She belongs to several groups, one for project managers, one for team
members, one for all contractor project managers, and two team groups.
Categories include My Tasks, then three categories that are unique to
the contractor group she is in and the part of the organization she
manages: companyX project managers, companyX resources, and CompanyX
help desk resources.
I need to fully document groups and categories.
I take it you would suggest that even creating additional groups
associated with each category, then putting her into those groups and
them into the specialized categories would improve things?
Many thanks.
J
G
Gary L. Chefetz [MVP]
I'm thinking that your security schema is AFU. It's difficult for me to
believe that there would ever be a need for a person to be a member of this
many groups. One group membership per person should be enough. My suggestion
is to rethink the entire approach.
believe that there would ever be a need for a person to be a member of this
many groups. One group membership per person should be enough. My suggestion
is to rethink the entire approach.
J
J Burford Fields
A replacement is agreed upon. Just want to keep them moving, for now.
Numerous organizations, competitors, with resource pricing
sensitivities collaborating on different aspects of different projects
on the same server. I can understand how it got this way, and will
have to do some thinking as to how I can propose an improvement.
Thanks again.
Numerous organizations, competitors, with resource pricing
sensitivities collaborating on different aspects of different projects
on the same server. I can understand how it got this way, and will
have to do some thinking as to how I can propose an improvement.
Thanks again.
G
Gary L. Chefetz [MVP]
It takes time to simplify this stuff
J Burford Fields said:A replacement is agreed upon. Just want to keep them moving, for now.
Numerous organizations, competitors, with resource pricing
sensitivities collaborating on different aspects of different projects
on the same server. I can understand how it got this way, and will
have to do some thinking as to how I can propose an improvement.
Thanks again.
J
J Burford Fields
Yes, and it is an enormous relief to have a resource like this
newsgroup so close at hand. I will gladly take you to the best place I
can manage for dinner next time you visit the DC area.
Just to confirm what you suspected, I took a look at the Project
Managers group and find that it is only in the "My Tasks" category...
newsgroup so close at hand. I will gladly take you to the best place I
can manage for dinner next time you visit the DC area.
Just to confirm what you suspected, I took a look at the Project
Managers group and find that it is only in the "My Tasks" category...
G
Gary L. Chefetz [MVP]
Well that certainly qualifies as AFU!!! Glad you found the worst of it, I
hope it buys you enough time to get it all sorted out. I'll be in your
neighborhood this weekend, but I've already got dinner plans.<g> I'll take a
raincheck, though.
hope it buys you enough time to get it all sorted out. I'll be in your
neighborhood this weekend, but I've already got dinner plans.<g> I'll take a
raincheck, though.
J
J Burford Fields
Must say I'm a bit reticent about criticising folks who went before me.
This is the biggest implimentation I've worked on, and more
complicated than anything I've ever heard of. I'm not yet confident
that I can see how things should have been done, given the requirements
of the business environment.
They are managing a number of large systems with sub-systems. CM is
improving.
A number of projects roll up in to a master project. Actual time and
resource costs need to be tracked by top management, but sub-contracted
project leaders and task leaders cannot be made privy to cost
information of their competitor's resources. They can see work hours
for their own resources under them in the RBS, but the cost sensitivity
limits who can have access to the Global Resource Pool for team
building on new projects. The result is that the jobs of creating new
resources, new tasks and staffing them becomes an administrative task
that burdens people who do not want to be that technical and therefore
finds its way to the administrator. One project that rolls-up is used
for tracking O&M hours (I know that O&M isn't what Project Server is
cut out to manage). Of course, O&M has tasks for each supported
application and different teams that manage them -- something that can
be improved with linked projects.
Next, actual hours against tasks need to be approved by company
management, not the subcontractor project manager, this is used as a
check against billings. So, you have higher-level managers owning
tasks so they can get worker time updates.
Target delivery date is two months.
Needless to say, I'm hoping that a lot of the current layout can be
brought across then just straightened out a bit. Set the settings for
groups and categories back to the defaults, then add special groups and
categories as needed. I think they are more open-minded that some
other global operations if process or cultural changes are needed.
One thing that is not employed in the current solution is the out of
the box Team Lead feature.
It's definitely an interesting challenge for the product and a great
learning experience.
J
This is the biggest implimentation I've worked on, and more
complicated than anything I've ever heard of. I'm not yet confident
that I can see how things should have been done, given the requirements
of the business environment.
They are managing a number of large systems with sub-systems. CM is
improving.
A number of projects roll up in to a master project. Actual time and
resource costs need to be tracked by top management, but sub-contracted
project leaders and task leaders cannot be made privy to cost
information of their competitor's resources. They can see work hours
for their own resources under them in the RBS, but the cost sensitivity
limits who can have access to the Global Resource Pool for team
building on new projects. The result is that the jobs of creating new
resources, new tasks and staffing them becomes an administrative task
that burdens people who do not want to be that technical and therefore
finds its way to the administrator. One project that rolls-up is used
for tracking O&M hours (I know that O&M isn't what Project Server is
cut out to manage). Of course, O&M has tasks for each supported
application and different teams that manage them -- something that can
be improved with linked projects.
Next, actual hours against tasks need to be approved by company
management, not the subcontractor project manager, this is used as a
check against billings. So, you have higher-level managers owning
tasks so they can get worker time updates.
Target delivery date is two months.
Needless to say, I'm hoping that a lot of the current layout can be
brought across then just straightened out a bit. Set the settings for
groups and categories back to the defaults, then add special groups and
categories as needed. I think they are more open-minded that some
other global operations if process or cultural changes are needed.
One thing that is not employed in the current solution is the out of
the box Team Lead feature.
It's definitely an interesting challenge for the product and a great
learning experience.
J
G
Gary L. Chefetz [MVP]
JB:
I'm quite certain that the mess is largely due to the hidden cost
requirements. If it were up to me, I'd remove the resource rates from the
system and set everyone to one dollar per hour and convert to actual cost
using a process external to Project server. It's easy enough to handle it
this way and removes the hideous burden of working around the limitation in
PS2003. By the time the final version of PS2007 is released, this
functionality should be baked in.
I'm quite certain that the mess is largely due to the hidden cost
requirements. If it were up to me, I'd remove the resource rates from the
system and set everyone to one dollar per hour and convert to actual cost
using a process external to Project server. It's easy enough to handle it
this way and removes the hideous burden of working around the limitation in
PS2003. By the time the final version of PS2007 is released, this
functionality should be baked in.
J
J Burford Fields
Dang, Gary, I was chewing on the same idea, but thinking of using a
variety of rates based on industry norms for various skills,
multiplying them by their reciprocal and then externally factoring in
the different labor rates for entitled consumers. I was thinking that
I would still want different rates for different skills to be able to
gauge the labor-cost consequences of abreviated analysis-investments
across projects, for example. That said, I was at a loss for how I
would do it and sell it and had completely forgotten the line of
thinking by the time I got to my doctor's appointment.
Now that I hear such things from you, I'm thinking, "Wow! It must have
been a good idea after all!"
You've also prompted another notion: using Battelle's "information
safe" as a secure intermediary and repository for agreed rate
information. Somebody ask Josh Jonah if he's doing anything with that
product.
Good news that something like that is coming in the 2007 version. I've
pitched the new version once, already. Very tempting to build with the
beta product, hearing this. Of course, the fact that they call it
2007... given Microsoft's record (and I would rather have a delay with
quality than the tummy ache of the green apple any day) it's hard to
say how long it would be before beta becomes a legitimate product. If
North Korea nukes Seattle, maybe never (a remote but almost infinitely
costly risk).
On another subject (and there's something else I read you saying that
I've been meaning to ask about but danged if I can ever remember what
it was when I'm writing, here--part of the reason I'm seeing the
doctor)... The comment about limiting people to one group, if possible.
Wow! The role based security model is a stumbling block to many, but
I've always sold it as an evolultionary step forward as a security
model, improving upon the descretionary access control methods to which
all Windows techies become familiar. The notion of limiting group
membership to one group, or nearly so, well suddenly we are back to all
the pain of Unix security limitations in a very complicated application
environment?
Certainly not trying to pick a fight, but the mess I find, in my mind
is as much a consequence of the product's limitations as it is the
customer's skill. They've simply tried to take it where it looked like
it should be able to go. (Won't tell you some of the places I've
ridden my BMW cruiser motorcycle)
It seems to me that this customer is smarter than the average bear, and
that problematic implimentations are all too familiar. Am I just
spoiled? Hard to believe that a Microsoft product should require a
consultant's expertise when so many are use to Window's ease of use.
Fair to say that lots of people are going to like the 2007 version, and
that my billing rates will fall, just as they did for training, once
things became easier to pick up and run with.
Thanks for not poking fun at the two-month deadline. I really would
like to see this get done.
J
variety of rates based on industry norms for various skills,
multiplying them by their reciprocal and then externally factoring in
the different labor rates for entitled consumers. I was thinking that
I would still want different rates for different skills to be able to
gauge the labor-cost consequences of abreviated analysis-investments
across projects, for example. That said, I was at a loss for how I
would do it and sell it and had completely forgotten the line of
thinking by the time I got to my doctor's appointment.
Now that I hear such things from you, I'm thinking, "Wow! It must have
been a good idea after all!"
You've also prompted another notion: using Battelle's "information
safe" as a secure intermediary and repository for agreed rate
information. Somebody ask Josh Jonah if he's doing anything with that
product.
Good news that something like that is coming in the 2007 version. I've
pitched the new version once, already. Very tempting to build with the
beta product, hearing this. Of course, the fact that they call it
2007... given Microsoft's record (and I would rather have a delay with
quality than the tummy ache of the green apple any day) it's hard to
say how long it would be before beta becomes a legitimate product. If
North Korea nukes Seattle, maybe never (a remote but almost infinitely
costly risk).
On another subject (and there's something else I read you saying that
I've been meaning to ask about but danged if I can ever remember what
it was when I'm writing, here--part of the reason I'm seeing the
doctor)... The comment about limiting people to one group, if possible.
Wow! The role based security model is a stumbling block to many, but
I've always sold it as an evolultionary step forward as a security
model, improving upon the descretionary access control methods to which
all Windows techies become familiar. The notion of limiting group
membership to one group, or nearly so, well suddenly we are back to all
the pain of Unix security limitations in a very complicated application
environment?
Certainly not trying to pick a fight, but the mess I find, in my mind
is as much a consequence of the product's limitations as it is the
customer's skill. They've simply tried to take it where it looked like
it should be able to go. (Won't tell you some of the places I've
ridden my BMW cruiser motorcycle)
It seems to me that this customer is smarter than the average bear, and
that problematic implimentations are all too familiar. Am I just
spoiled? Hard to believe that a Microsoft product should require a
consultant's expertise when so many are use to Window's ease of use.
Fair to say that lots of people are going to like the 2007 version, and
that my billing rates will fall, just as they did for training, once
things became easier to pick up and run with.
Thanks for not poking fun at the two-month deadline. I really would
like to see this get done.
J
G
Gary L. Chefetz [MVP]
JB:
The field-level security feature seems a bit flaky in the beta, but promises
to be part of a much better solution. Understand that I'm not suggesting
that the system can't handle multiple group memberships, rather it's Project
Server application administrators that can't. For the most part, these are
non-technical people. IMO simpler is always better. If I can track a project
using 1000 tasks rather than 1500, I'm going for the 1000 line mode. It
takes a lot more time to get systems working with simple configurations than
it takes to simply get systems working. Inevitably, the latter approach
results in the symptoms you describe.
The field-level security feature seems a bit flaky in the beta, but promises
to be part of a much better solution. Understand that I'm not suggesting
that the system can't handle multiple group memberships, rather it's Project
Server application administrators that can't. For the most part, these are
non-technical people. IMO simpler is always better. If I can track a project
using 1000 tasks rather than 1500, I'm going for the 1000 line mode. It
takes a lot more time to get systems working with simple configurations than
it takes to simply get systems working. Inevitably, the latter approach
results in the symptoms you describe.
J
J Burford Fields
Appreciate the clarification. Thanks.
Latest bugaboo: Resource assignment, choose view has views by
contractor that use to narrow down the "Available Resources" field to
whatever view one chose and now the filter does not work. I've not
touched views nor changed much of anything else.
I'm waiting to gain access to the server to view the application log.
Latest bugaboo: Resource assignment, choose view has views by
contractor that use to narrow down the "Available Resources" field to
whatever view one chose and now the filter does not work. I've not
touched views nor changed much of anything else.
I'm waiting to gain access to the server to view the application log.
G
Gary L. Chefetz [MVP]
Did you recently upgrade to SP2a? If so, it may be that you need to revise
your views to explicitly include all of the fields used in the filter. Prior
to SP2a, you could filter on fields not included in the view. It also loaded
a significantly larger dataset.
your views to explicitly include all of the fields used in the filter. Prior
to SP2a, you could filter on fields not included in the view. It also loaded
a significantly larger dataset.
J
J Burford Fields
Well, I didn't. Maybe it was something that was in the pipe and
somebody finally got to it. I saw this working during week-one. This
is week three.
I didn't know you could filter for assignment views, thought that was
determined purely by category membership. I might be missing
something, there.
Thanks again & have a great weekend. Hope your visit, here, includes
some pleasure.
J
somebody finally got to it. I saw this working during week-one. This
is week three.
I didn't know you could filter for assignment views, thought that was
determined purely by category membership. I might be missing
something, there.
Thanks again & have a great weekend. Hope your visit, here, includes
some pleasure.
J
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.