Is there a better way to do this?

[anovak]

We have a major ERP upgrade going in fairly soon with about 7
sub-plans, each representing a specific module activity.

There are two sibling organizations that will be impacted by the
upgrade - two seperate and distinct sets of user communities that share
the same database.

The plan in the beginning was to have a project lead for each of the 7
sub-plans, a person selected at one of the sibling organizations who
would be coordinating with the other organization and reporting up to
the project manager.

Now, it is desired that there be co-project leads for each sub-plan,
one at each sibling institution.

Therefore, the result will be 14 plans instead of 7, with an individual
project lead in each organization responsible for keeping their project
plan updated. That is, for the Module A plan, there will be an
identical plan for Organization A and Organization B. I'm gathering
the main difference will be some of the resources assigned and
especially the Project Lead responsible for keeping the plan (manually)
updated. There may be some task differences, but I'm not aware of
those as of yet.

The milestones will be identical in both and each are required to reach
the milestones at the same time.

Timesheets will NOT be used. As mentioned earlier, the plans will be
updated manually.

Is there a better approach to this than duplicating the project plan
for each organization?

Thanks,
Andy Novak
University of North Texas

 

[Gary L. Chefetz [MVP]]

Andy:

The answer is a resounding YES. But, it may not be politically possible to
achieve in your organization. I'm certain you're asking because your gut is
giving you the correct answer. Ask yourself if this follows the KISS
principle? Anyway, you knew the answer to this question without having to
ask it.

--


Gary L. Chefetz, MVP
For Project Server Consulting: http://www.msprojectexperts.com
For Project Server FAQS: http://www.projectserverexperts.com
For Project Server Books: http://www.projectserverbooks.com
For Project Server Training: http://www.projectservertraining.com
For Project FAQS: http://www.mvps.org/project

 

[anovak]

Gary,

You are right. My "gut" tells me there has to be an easier way.
Perhaps I'm oversimplifying, but it seems to me you would just take
care of this through the assignments -- i.e., the task ain't done until
resources at both institutions complete their individual assignment.
However, since we aren't configured to do progress reporting via
timesheets and have decided to wait on that activity until we go beyond
the Project Server 2003 prototype (i.e., plans are updated manually by
a PM or PCoord), splitting them all out may be the only way to do it.

Do you concur or is there another option I'm missing here?

Andy

 

[Gary L. Chefetz [MVP]]

Andy:

I've rarely seen a scheme like you're suggesting born from the quest for the
"correct solution," rather they tend to be born from the need for the
"politically correct solution." When politics drives solution design, it's
rarely a good thing. Keep in mind these statements reflect my prejudice
toward simplicity. Time and again, this principle has paid off for me. When
you start using cross plan linking you introduce an manifold increase in
complexity and management overhead. Whether you regard this as lazy or
efficient, results being equal, I'll always take the 5-hour approach over
the 10 hour approach.

I'm an analyst to the core and therefore do not consider solutions until I'm
totally satisfied that I fully understand the problem. Likewise, I place
little value on opinions so casually expressed. I neither take nor give
advice on that basis.

--


Gary L. Chefetz, MVP
For Project Server Consulting: http://www.msprojectexperts.com
For Project Server FAQS: http://www.projectserverexperts.com
For Project Server Books: http://www.projectserverbooks.com
For Project Server Training: http://www.projectservertraining.com
For Project FAQS: http://www.mvps.org/project