Resource allocation in increments of 50% in MSP 2000

[Richard]

Hi - I am trying to make use of the resource allocation (max units) to
reflect that I have more than 1 person available, but it does not work as
expected.

I created 1 resource called "Resource 1" and set it's max units to 100%. I
then created 3 tasks as Fixed Unit, Effort Driven tasks and allocated this
resource to each task with 40 hours effort (1 working week) and 100% units.

These are the results that I get.......

With the max units for "Resource 1" set to 100%, the 3 tasks happen one in
each week. This is regardless of leveling day-by-day or week-by-week.

With the max units for "Resource 1" set to 200%, 2 tasks happen week 1 and
the 3rd task happens in week 2, as expected. Again, this is regardless of
leveling day-by-day or week-by-week.

With the max units for "Resource 1" set to 150%, with Day-By-Day leveling
the tasks each happen in weeks 1 to 3 with no overlap (as though only 100% of
the resource is available). However, when Week-by-Week levelling is used,
the tasks do overlap, but too much resource is allocated in each week - there
is an extra 50% of a person too much in each week - ie. days 1 and 2 of the
first week have 100% allocated, and days 3, 4 and 5 of the first week have
200% allocated. In week 2 there is days 1, 2 and 3 with 200% and days 4 and 5
with 100%. MSP is telling me that all this work can happen in 2 weeks, when
infact it will also take the 1st day of week 3 to complete.

Is this a calculation error in MSP when not using whole 100% increments in
the available resource allocation, or is there some interesting explanation
for this?

Appreciate any help and advice available.

Thanks

Richard

 

[John]

Richard,
I'm going to give you the classic, "it works fine for me". I replicated
your scenario and the results are exactly as you describe and it is all
correct. Why? Let's analyze what is happening.

With the max units for "Resource 1" set to 150%, with Day-By-Day leveling
the tasks each happen in weeks 1 to 3 with no overlap (as though only 100% of
the resource is available).

No that's not what it says. Max Units for the resource is 150% (i.e. 12
hours of availability per day) but the resource is only assigned at 100%
because the work content is 40 hours per week so leveling day-by-day
will only show 8 hours per day, not the available 12 hours per day.

However, when Week-by-Week levelling is used,

the tasks do overlap, but too much resource is allocated in each week - there
is an extra 50% of a person too much in each week - ie. days 1 and 2 of the
first week have 100% allocated, and days 3, 4 and 5 of the first week have
200% allocated. In week 2 there is days 1, 2 and 3 with 200% and days 4 and 5
with 100%. MSP is telling me that all this work can happen in 2 weeks, when
infact it will also take the 1st day of week 3 to complete.

Again, no there isn't too much of the resource allocated. Look at it
this way, when leveling week-by-week the result cannot be validly
analyzed on a day-by-day basis. Tasks 1 has a work content of 40 hours.
One hundred and fifty percent (the resource availability) of that is 60
hours. Therefore the week-by-week leveling algorithm can allow up to 60
hours of work to be performed by the resource in any single week and
that's exactly what it does. All of task 1 is completed and half of task
2 is completed. Then in week 2, the remainder of task 2 is completed
along with all of task 3.

Is this a calculation error in MSP when not using whole 100% increments in
the available resource allocation, or is there some interesting explanation
for this?

There is no error on Project's part. It's just a matter of being able to
interpret what is happening.

Hope this helps.
John
Project MVP

 

[Richard]

John thanks for the explanation. I did not think to look at the hours per
week and was going by the resource graph. Now I've understood that, I have a
direct related question to this....which was driving my previous question.

I have a project where I have a list of resources as Roles...not
individuals....as I am at the bid stage of the project. I have allocated the
resources to all the tasks at 100% allocation with the allocated effort for
each against the tasks. Initially I have assumed 100% resource availability
for all resources.

Having done this the timeframe is too long so I speak to the test manager to
see if they can provide me with more than 1 tester and they tell me that from
20th March, I can have another 50% of a tester for the remainder of the
project. So I go to the Resource Information tab and update the Resource
Availability as follows:

06 Feb 2006 - 19 March 2006 150%
20 Mar 2006 - 31 Dec 2006 = 150%

I then resource level the plan and I was expecting the Tasks that had a
tester to reduce in time due to there now being 150% of that resource
available after 20 March, however, it did not. I had to go to the tasks that
had the tester resource being used after the 20 March and up the allocation
on each task to 150% and then resource level. Is this the only way to do it,
or is there a way to say that the resource availability is now 150% from a
certain point and MSP take this into account, without having to go to all the
tasks after that availabilty date?

Thanks

Richard

 

[Richard]

John - sorry my previous post should say

06 Feb 2006 - 19 March 2006 = 100%
20 Mar 2006 - 31 Dec 2006 = 150%

Richard

 

[John]

John thanks for the explanation. I did not think to look at the hours per
week and was going by the resource graph. Now I've understood that, I have a
direct related question to this....which was driving my previous question.

I have a project where I have a list of resources as Roles...not
individuals....as I am at the bid stage of the project. I have allocated the
resources to all the tasks at 100% allocation with the allocated effort for
each against the tasks. Initially I have assumed 100% resource availability
for all resources.

Having done this the timeframe is too long so I speak to the test manager to
see if they can provide me with more than 1 tester and they tell me that from
20th March, I can have another 50% of a tester for the remainder of the
project. So I go to the Resource Information tab and update the Resource
Availability as follows:

06 Feb 2006 - 19 March 2006 150%
20 Mar 2006 - 31 Dec 2006 = 150%

I then resource level the plan and I was expecting the Tasks that had a
tester to reduce in time due to there now being 150% of that resource
available after 20 March, however, it did not. I had to go to the tasks that
had the tester resource being used after the 20 March and up the allocation
on each task to 150% and then resource level. Is this the only way to do it,
or is there a way to say that the resource availability is now 150% from a
certain point and MSP take this into account, without having to go to all the
tasks after that availabilty date?

Thanks

Richard

Richard,
First, you're welcome. I often find that people who post "disguise"
their real issue with a lead-in question, and it looks like that's where
you are

To be honest, I personally have never used leveling - it may be a useful
tool but for my schedules I needed more hands on control (i.e. me). Like
any special feature, Project's leveling algorithm is a compromise - it
isn't perfect and it must be used with caution.

There are undoubtedly various ways to handle your scenario. I would
probably use the following approach. Break the testing task into two (or
more) sections with one break at 20 March. Assign the additional 50%
tester to the task parts from March 20 on. Of course you will have to
input the assignment level - that's part of creating the plan. It can be
made a little easier by filtering test tasks from 20 March and assigning
them all at once. Then level.

Hope this helps.
John
Project MVP

 

[Richard]

John, thanks again for such as speedy response. My lead in question was more
a question 1 of 2. I was not 100% sure if the levelling was working as I was
expecting it to, so the answer to my first question would determine whether
the second question was necessary and if so, what form it would take.

I have thought about what you have said and have identified a different
approach that I think is preferrable to the way I would like to work.
Splitting the task at 20th March and assigning the extra 50% to that portion
obviously will work, but if the schedule slips a little while I am finalising
the plan, and that split task moves to the left or right a little, the plan
would no-longer reflect accurately the date the extra 50% resource is
available. So I came up with the following alternative, that again is not
perfect for every situation, but ensures that the 20th March remains constant
for the extra resource availability....

I create a second test resource (Tester 2) and state in the Resource
Information Tab that this resource has zero availability until 20th March. I
then look at the hours assigned to Tester 1 for the test task and see that
160 hours are allocated. I then can see how much effort is required from
20th March for Tester 1 and allocate the right proportion to Tester 2 at 50%
availability, thereby reducing tester 1's hours for the task.

At this point I have achieved the same result as yourself. The subtle
difference is that I still have a single task and if that tasks was to move
to the left or right a little, the 50% extra resource remains fixed at 20th
March instead of moving with the task. The only thing I need to check at the
end of my planning exercise is that the amount of effort allocated to Tester
2 is representative of that effort remaining for testing from 20th March
onwards. I tried this out in a simple example in MSP 2000 and it worked well.

As you say it is a compromise - your approach means that the hours will
adjust automatically for the task with a single tester resource, but I have
to watch the date, whereas my approach means I don't have to watch the date,
but need to check the hours assigned to a second tester 2. The two key
advantages for me are as follows:

1. I can never produce a resource plan for issue to the test manager that
shows testing resource at 150% starting earlier than 20th March - which could
be embarrasing if he has told me 20th March and I forget to check the date.

2. When the project receives its funding and I need to put names to the
resource, it will be easier to do this if I have already 2 test resources in
the plan, instead of 1 - ie. I can replace Tester 1 and Tester 2 with the
appropriate names.

Unless you tell me that I have missed an important key element in my
approach, I will adopt this approach for all resource situations where
resource availability changes overtime like this.

Thanks again for your fast and helpful response.

Richard

 

[John]

John, thanks again for such as speedy response. My lead in question was more
a question 1 of 2. I was not 100% sure if the levelling was working as I was
expecting it to, so the answer to my first question would determine whether
the second question was necessary and if so, what form it would take.

I have thought about what you have said and have identified a different
approach that I think is preferrable to the way I would like to work.
Splitting the task at 20th March and assigning the extra 50% to that portion
obviously will work, but if the schedule slips a little while I am finalising
the plan, and that split task moves to the left or right a little, the plan
would no-longer reflect accurately the date the extra 50% resource is
available. So I came up with the following alternative, that again is not
perfect for every situation, but ensures that the 20th March remains constant
for the extra resource availability....

I create a second test resource (Tester 2) and state in the Resource
Information Tab that this resource has zero availability until 20th March. I
then look at the hours assigned to Tester 1 for the test task and see that
160 hours are allocated. I then can see how much effort is required from
20th March for Tester 1 and allocate the right proportion to Tester 2 at 50%
availability, thereby reducing tester 1's hours for the task.

At this point I have achieved the same result as yourself. The subtle
difference is that I still have a single task and if that tasks was to move
to the left or right a little, the 50% extra resource remains fixed at 20th
March instead of moving with the task. The only thing I need to check at the
end of my planning exercise is that the amount of effort allocated to Tester
2 is representative of that effort remaining for testing from 20th March
onwards. I tried this out in a simple example in MSP 2000 and it worked well.

As you say it is a compromise - your approach means that the hours will
adjust automatically for the task with a single tester resource, but I have
to watch the date, whereas my approach means I don't have to watch the date,
but need to check the hours assigned to a second tester 2. The two key
advantages for me are as follows:

1. I can never produce a resource plan for issue to the test manager that
shows testing resource at 150% starting earlier than 20th March - which could
be embarrasing if he has told me 20th March and I forget to check the date.

2. When the project receives its funding and I need to put names to the
resource, it will be easier to do this if I have already 2 test resources in
the plan, instead of 1 - ie. I can replace Tester 1 and Tester 2 with the
appropriate names.

Unless you tell me that I have missed an important key element in my
approach, I will adopt this approach for all resource situations where
resource availability changes overtime like this.

Thanks again for your fast and helpful response.

Richard

Richard,
As I said, there are generally many ways to approach a problem and you
have found one that works for you. Without going through further testing
with a variety of scenarios I couldn't say if there are latent problems
with your approach but it sounds like you have already tried it and it
does what you want. I'd go for it.

John
Project MVP