Prevent users from adding resources

[robgr]

Can someone offer advice on how to prevent users from adding resources to a
project? I discovered the ProjectBeforeResourceNew event, but am at a loss
from this point on.

 

[John]

Can someone offer advice on how to prevent users from adding resources to a
project? I discovered the ProjectBeforeResourceNew event, but am at a loss
from this point on.

robgr,
You could try a covert approach with an event or other macro but there
is actually a better way to address the problem. The best approach by
far is to train the users. If you don't already have a corporate set of
rules for Project users, develop one and then insure every user is
trained. Fostering communication and teamwork is much better than
"police action". For the occasional times when a user may inadvertently
or knowingly violate the rules, you can create code to do a quick check
of file integrity.

We used the above approach at my company and it was very effective. When
you really get down to it, most people want to be good cooperative
employees. Those that don't aren't going to last long anyway (other
issues).

That's my opinion.
John
Project MVP

 

[robgr]

Hi John,

Thanks for your feedback. I completely agree with the training aspect. Let
me just tell you what I'm trying to do. This organization is going to begin
to use an enterprise portfolio project management application (Clarity) which
allows integration from MS Project. In order to properly integrate with
Clarity, all resources must be entered either through Clarity or through a
macro designed by Clarity's developer.

Unfortunately this macro is not too helpful when it comes to explaining to
the user what they did wrong. When Clarity's rules are violated, the user
receives a warning and the save does not occur. The problem is that there are
many things that you can do in MS Project that won't work with Clarity--the
resource issue is only one of them. Another example is that in Clarity,
summary level activities cannot have dependencies.

Now, it's possible that a PM will be using MS Project to generage standalone
projects, or he/she will be using MS Project in conjunction with Clarity. My
intent was to create a solution that would provide the user with the choice
to "Turn on Clarity Mode" which would warn the user whenever they did
something (and there are a lot of these 'somethings') that would not work
with Clarity.

I still think you're right that training is a way to tackle this, but from
what I've heard from many organizations in similar environments is that this
is an ongoing headache that I believe could easily be solved by something
such as this "Turn on Clarity Mode" macro.

Sorry for the long-winded explanation.

I'm still open to any other thoughts.

-Rob

 

[Jan De Messemaeker]

Hi Rob,

I'm afraid you're right.
I had this customer trying to use Business Engine (also had such a set of
rules) and I was asked to write the sort of macro you describe.
Just gave it to the PMs and they knew that if they wanted to avoid bad
temper from the big boss they better run it every now and then.
And in such a macro you can make the messages as explicit as you want.
You can even delete resources that do not belong to a central pool, etc.
But mind you, if the presure from management is big enough, the corrections
will be done allright.
HTH

 

[John]

Hi John,

Thanks for your feedback. I completely agree with the training aspect. Let
me just tell you what I'm trying to do. This organization is going to begin
to use an enterprise portfolio project management application (Clarity) which
allows integration from MS Project. In order to properly integrate with
Clarity, all resources must be entered either through Clarity or through a
macro designed by Clarity's developer.

Unfortunately this macro is not too helpful when it comes to explaining to
the user what they did wrong. When Clarity's rules are violated, the user
receives a warning and the save does not occur. The problem is that there are
many things that you can do in MS Project that won't work with Clarity--the
resource issue is only one of them. Another example is that in Clarity,
summary level activities cannot have dependencies.

Now, it's possible that a PM will be using MS Project to generage standalone
projects, or he/she will be using MS Project in conjunction with Clarity. My
intent was to create a solution that would provide the user with the choice
to "Turn on Clarity Mode" which would warn the user whenever they did
something (and there are a lot of these 'somethings') that would not work
with Clarity.

I still think you're right that training is a way to tackle this, but from
what I've heard from many organizations in similar environments is that this
is an ongoing headache that I believe could easily be solved by something
such as this "Turn on Clarity Mode" macro.

Sorry for the long-winded explanation.

I'm still open to any other thoughts.

-Rob

Rob,
Never heard of Clarity but then I don't keep up with a lot of things.
However, from the way you describe it, it sounds like Project Server
would be just what you need with a whole lot fewer interface problems. I
realize it is probably too late since your management has probably
already committed to Clarity . . . but.

My personal experience is very similar to Jan's. At the company where I
worked, we used Project for schedule planning and tracking but other
applications were used for earned value and financial information. With
each of these there were required translations and as in your case, if
some particular part of Project's data wasn't "up to snuff" the
translator threw up all over us. In order to prevent/minimize that, in
addition to training our users on the rules, we also developed a series
of macros that ran file checks prior to initiating a translation. It
worked very well and we were able to cut down the number of errors
significantly. The nice thing about writing your own check routines is,
as Jan said, you can make the user interface as detailed as necessary so
the issues can be quickly spotted and fixed.

I don't know if this helps a lot, but you only asked for more thoughts.

John
Project MVP