The mystery of assignment units

[Stu Futrill]

I know this subject has been discussed, I have read the posts. But I
have additional observations to add.

The msytery can set up as follows...

Plan a 5 day fixed units not effort driven task.
Create a resource (lets say 100% max units).
Assign this resource on the task at 100% assignment units.
This will create the profile of 5 days each with 8 hours work
equalling a total of 40 hours work.

Now go to a task usage view and enter 16 hours of actual work for day
1 of this task.
This has changed the work for that day to 16 hours and reduced the
duration to 4 days. As we would expect.
But what also happens is the assignment units changes to 200% !!!

I know other people (Jan) experience the same thing, and I sort of
accept that this is how Project works, although I don't quite
understand why.

My additional observations are the effects of repeating this task and
assignment, but updating the actual work via a Web Access timesheet.

When we do this with 16 hours of actual work on day 1 of the task, the
assignment units remain at 100%.

Can anyone explain this me please, why does a plan handle actual work
updates differently if they come via Web Access?

Thanks

Stuart.

 

[Steve House]

I haven't used Web Access so I'll let someone else field that part of your
question but perhaps I can help on the assignment percentage. The effort is
the percentage of the resource's workday that has been filled with work. If
he works 8 hours per day and is assigned 100% it means he's devoting all of
his time during that period to useful work. But by posting 16 hours work on
Monday you've said he has somehow managed to accomplish 16 man-hours worth
of work between the hours of 8am and 5pm. You've gotten a twofer, a
miracle! For each minute he physically worked he accomplished two minutes
of output! It's as if he was two people, so Project acknowledges that feat
and adjusts the assignment to 200%. Now, what *really* has happened of
course is that he worked did 8 hours worth of work during the 8 hours that
his calendar says he works and he did another 8 hours of work either before
or after his regular workday. That is what Project calls "overtime work"
whether he gets paid a premium overtime rate or not. You'll find that if
you post 8 hours regular work and 8 hours ot on Monday, for a total of 16
hours accomplished, the percentage effort remains at 100% because the effort
only refers to the work done "on the calendar."

Try your example adding the rows of Overtime Work and Actual Overtime Work
to your resource usage view. Then enter the time for Monday as 8 hours
actual work and 8 hours actual overtime work. You'll see the effort now
remains at 100%. But be careful, the order of entry makes a difference so
let Project do the summing. If you enter 16 hours work and 8 hours overtime
instead of 8 and 8, you'll get 24 hours work on Monday

 

[Jan De Messemaeker]

Hi Stu,

Yes I am very cross about this.
Actuals should not change units, full stop.
I don't look for a why any more.

Greetings,

--
Jan De Messemaeker
Microsoft Project Most Valuable Professional
Project Management Consultancy
Prom+ade BVBA
32-495-300 620

 

[Stu Futrill]

Hi Steve

Thanks for your detailed reply. I have read similar posts before,
maybe from you. I agree with your logic, that these 16 hours could
easily be classed as 8 hours normal and 8 hours overtime work. There
are still 2 things that concern me though.

1) I don't believe MS Project should make the assumption for us that
there are now 2 resources working on the assignment. In our case we
plan a 'type' of resource for some assignments. This 'type' for
example a 'designer' is set 100% max units, even though there may be
more than 1 designer available. So we plan a resource at 100% and if
2 designers worked on the assignment for only the 1st day of a 5 day
assignment the remaining 3 days (5th day work adjusted) show that we
have planned a designer at 200%, which is not correct.

2) As I mentioned repeating this example through a web access
timesheet creates a different result on the plan. Using Web Access
the assignment units are not adjusted to 200% for 16 hours actual work
on the 1st day.

Jan mentioned that he has given up asking why. I can see why he says
that, but I ask why does the same project plan react differently to
actual work updates direct into the plan compared with actual work
updates from Web Access?

I hope someone can shed some light on this,

Regards

Stuart.

 

[Steve House]

It *didn't* make the assumption that two resources are on the task. It
calculated that you somehow got the amount of work accomplished that
normally would have required two resources, something quite different. The
project/resource calendar says that all the work was done over an 8 hour
time period yet somehow 16 man-hours worth of output was achieved. That may
have been 2 resources, true, but it could also have been one resource
working at a super-human pace, ie 200% of his normal rated output (in
engineering terms - you've heard shuttle launch tapes where they say engines
are running at 120% of rated power haven't you <g>). "Regular Work" is by
definition activity performed during the working time hours that are stated
in the calendar. Any work done outside of those hours is Overtime Work
regardless of whether it receives special OT compensation or not or even any
compensation at all. If on a date you say 16 hours of work were done and
you don't distribute some of it to overtime, there is the assumtion that the
equivalent output of two persons was somehow achieved in 8 working hours.

Remember that there are a number of views available where you can assign
multiple resources to a task and not all of them have to work on the task
for its full duration. In fact, one of the examples I use in my class is a
resource assigned to a 5 day task 100% doing 40 man-hours of work and a
second resource assigned 100% doing 8 man-hours of work. Interpretation?
The second resource comes in on the first day, helps get things underway
with the first resource, maybe training him, and then leaves the first guy
to continue on his own. OR guy two is assigned 8 man-hours at 20% effort.
Interpretation? He comes in an hour a day on each of the 5 days to check up
on the first guy and see how he's doing, supervising and monitoring the
first guy's work and progress. And you can just as easily show guy 2 as
100% / 8 man-hours with a delay of 4 days, indicating guy 1 starts on Monday
and works by himself until Friday when guy 2 comes in to help him all day
wrap up the final phase of whatever the task might be.

Why does updating the project on the desktop give different results from
updating it on Server in Web Access? They are two different products. Why
does a triangle have 3 sides? God, in consultation with Bill Gates, made it
that way <grin>.

 

[Stu Futrill]

Hi Steve

Thanks for your detailed reply.

I have spent a few days now on this issue. We now have to
re-educate our programme and project managers on
assignment units.

The confusing thing for us is when you look at a resource
in a gantt view and it has 200% after its name, we assume
this to be 16 hours of planned work. But we now see that
this is not always the case. In fact we should not use
the gantt view to 'assume' a flat profile of planned
hours. We have only really used Project as a planning
tool, and have never previously returned hours/costs to
the plan, hence the confusion in 'new' features.

We are testing Project Server 2002, and will go live with
it soon. A big disappointment is when Web Access updates
a plan it is not going to handle the assignment units in
the same way. It is not going to use the peak units value
for assignment units in the gannt/assignment views.

You jest they are two different products. Agreed, but
although they may use different development technologies,
is it too much to ask that when doing identical things we
achieve identical results. What planning tool did God and
Bill use when they created these products? ;-)

Stu.