Using Predecessor Task to prevent Resource Overallocation

[PJR]

I'm involved in a software project where to prevent Resource Over Allocation
multiple Predecessor Task relationships have been setup based upon Resource
Assignment. I've communicated to the Program Manager that Resource Leveling
should be used to prevent Over Allocation of Resources. The major drawback
I've tried to communicate is; the Critical Path based upon functionality of
the system (i.e. different screen designs, database table design) can't be
shown. Currently the Critical Path will show an individual name across many
of the different desired (but often un-related) functionality of the software.

Any ideas on how to communicate why using the Resource Leveling feature is
preferred over setting up Predecessor Tasks based upon Resource Assignment?

Note: Normal work stream to bring about software functionality is Business
Group will describe how something should look or work. Business Analyst from
IT will capture information and provide it to the developers to write the
code. Once the code is written then it will go through testing. Normally I
would expect a work stream or several work stream dependant upon each other
to be the critical path, not the same resource working on un-related work
streams (functionality) to show up as the critical path.

 

[Jan De Messemaeker]

Hi,

The reason why I strongly advise against using dependencies to avoid
resource overallocation is as follows.
People will most of the time not execute the (potentially simultaneous
tasks) in the exact order of the dependcencies introduced.
When then you set the tasks really done to 100% your schedule is a mess.
Project show future tasks as done and past tasks as to be done, and to
correct this you have to unlink the dependencies and toi create new ones...
that is why Project sometimes gets a bad reputation of "eating up so much
time".
OTOH, the facility of Clear leveling and leveling again will allow you to
re-create a new plan in seconds..

HTH

 

[Jim Aksel]

Using predecessors driven by resource assignments is not a best practice.
Nowhere is it endorsed or recommended.

If you schedule this way, you will have to relink all your relationships if
a resource assignment changes. What happens if additional resources can be
added, or if a task loses a resource due to unforseen circumstances? Are you
prepared to relink your shcedule when this happens? If resource assignments
are static, they should drive task duration - not linkages. Using a logic
driven approach, you will quickly see where you need to concentrate your
resource peaks and skill sets to get the project to finish on time.

Using the resource driven approach, you are not able to see the benefit that
can be gained by proper manloading of your schedule.

I suppose the only thing you gain on a resource driven schedule is the name
of the person whi is most likely is your critical resource. Treat this
person well.
--
If this post was helpful, please consider rating it.

Jim

Visit http://project.mvps.org/ for FAQs and more information
about Microsoft Project