Should we task down to the resource?

[Kevin Slane]

We're trying to decide what we *should* do here.

On one hand we have a desire, naturally, to task all the way down to the
individual resource as that will give us the best, most accurate picture of
the health and status of our projects.

On the other hand, we have many resources who, for various reasons, will
likely never access Project Server "My Tasks" to status their tasks.

Is there a way a task can be assigned to a resource, but that resource's
supervisor be the one to status the task? Would we be better off assigning
the task to the supervisor instead? That way the supervisor is responsible
for the task statusing? I can see pros and cons to both. For example, if I
assign to the supervisor, I don't have a clear picture of my resource
leveling since he won't actually be doing the work. Second, my cost data
gets a little out of whack because the supervisor is at a differrent rate
than his employees.

Just looking for advice.

 

[Andrew Lavinsky]

That's an easy fix. Go into the Resource Center, and modify the Default
Assignment Owner for the resource to the supervisor. The tasks will show
up on the Supervisor's timesheet, but the specified resource will be attached
to the task.

- Andrew Lavinsky
Blog: http://blogs.catapultsystems.com/epm

 

[Gary L. Chefetz]

Kevin:

If resource management is on the list of goals, you want to put the resource
that's doing the work on the task, and then use the assignment owner field
to put these tasks on other people's tasks pages.

 

[Kevin Slane]

THANK YOU! Exactly what I was looking for. You've probably relayed that to
me before, but I appreciate it all the same.