Why Does Start & Finish dates Change to Match Actual Start & Finis

[SunBird II]

I have colunms with -Task Name - Start - Finish - Actual Start - Actual
Finish...

When I start off with planned or scheduled data in Start - Finish / I have
N/A in both the Actual Start and Actual Finish.

However once I go into Tracking and update that task with Actual Start and
Actual Finish - in the Tracking Update window - The Planned Start and Planned
Finish now jumps to match the Actual Start and Actual Finish data. Why and if
this is wrong how can I stop is so I can look at the comparison.?

 

[JulieS]

Hi SunBird II,

If you wish to compare "planned" Start and Finish dates with Actual
Start and Finish dates, save a baseline before tracking.

You may add the Baseline Start and Baseline Finish dates to the table to
make the comparison.

You may also want to read through Mike Glen's excellent series of
articles on MS Project, particularly articles 25 & 26. They may be
viewed at:

http://project.mvps.org/mike's_tutorials.htm

I hope this helps. Let us know how you get along.

Julie

 

[Jan De Messemaeker]

I would like to answer the devious "Why" question
Project calculates early/Late start and finish times based on constraints
and predecessors' Starty and Finish times
When the predecessors are complete, do you want the remainder of teh paln to
be calculated based on the original predecessors' times (which are nopw
known to be wrong) or based on the actual times?
The actuals, you'll say.
Well in that case Project can't but putting Start and Finish times equel to
reality..
HTH

 

[SunBird II]

Hi;
Actually Julie answered my question with the tutorial
http://project.mvps.org/mike's_tutorials.htm
Actually forgot some of this however to address your concerns, the quest I
has does relate to planning but actual project review. Plus I'm trying to
consolidate some of the steps where possible. If a manager view the project
plan and see for instance - columns id - Task Name - Start - Finish - Actual
Start - Actual Finish...they have to know that this actual start and actual
finish has to be tied to Baseline data and have some visablity on the
published plan. Does this sound reasonable?
Thanks - SunBird Ii

 

[Steve House [Project MVP]]

No it's not reasonable because you are redefining the fields based on what
you want them to represent rather than what they are designed to represent.
There are 6 fields to be concerned with i an in-progress project - Start,
Finish, Actual Start, Actual Finish, Baseline Start, Baseline Finish. The
plan as originally conceived is stored in the Baseline Start and Baseline
Finish and remain static so you have a benchmark to compare progress
against. The Start and Finish fields represent a: history of actuals for
work that has been done; and also b: forecast of what future work likely to
be, based on the history of what has happened to date. Actual Start and
Actual Finish allow you to enter actual performance because editing the
Start and Finish driectly would mean that you are altering the forecast
values, not posted a record of historical physical fact. When you enter
Actuals, Project changes the plan accordingly so you can predict the impact
on the final plan of actual performance differing from predicted performance
and see how that differs from the plan originally conceived by comparing it
to the saved Baseline.

"Consolidate some steps..." Remember that shortcuts always take you through
uncharted woods where lions, tigers, and bears wait to attack you.

 

[JulieS]

Hi bugman,

Yes, baseline start and baseline finish represent "planned dates"
If your tasks are linked and a predecessor task is extended (running
long) and you just update % complete, Project will assume the Actual
Start was started as projected by the revised predecessor. For tasks
without predecessors (show a projected start of two weeks ago) update
tracking data with the progress on tasks then use the Tools > Tracking >
Update Project command and move all uncompleted work to start on the
next status date.

You may want to take a look at Mike Glen's series of articles on MS
Project, particularly articles 25 through 28. They can be found at:
http://project.mvps.org/mike's_tutorials.htm

I hope this helps. Let us know how you get along.

Julie

 

[SubBird II]

Great Stuff.

New question - Thread
In past on small groups of users have stored project on master sheet. Again
for non- enterprise environment with hopes to later leap to enterprise. Is
Project 2000 Central Server best for housing active projects? Looking at
Central 2000 it seems to provide that function however does it also provide
rollup values for selected fields? Do understand with 2003 Server many
options are available.
Thanks

 

[Steve House [Project MVP]]

Project Central was a freeby and was worth exactly what you paid for it,
IMHO. When they got it working right, it was renamed Project Server and was
no longer free. I wouldn't even consider Project Central - it makes no
sense to rollout a tool that is already 7 years obsolete before you even
start. Go straight to what works, namely, Project Server. However,
carefully evaluate your needs first. Migrating to Server and EPM is
definitely a non-trival project requiring a signifigant commitment in both
time and $$ and with many implications for your business methods,
practices, and project management workflow. In many environments Server is
overkill and simpler methods of collaboration are more effective.

 

[SunBird II]

Makes sense as have never seen it in use and this site has it but not
enabled. In terms of centrally housing active projects as rollup into master
this is doable in none EPM environment. And again with consideration for
committiment in terms of time a money want to ensure I not overlooking
something going forward using this config. EPM the rollup can records each
individual project...vs using master with indivdual proj rollup, master does
not inherit criteria of individual projects....?

Project Central was a freeby and was worth exactly what you paid for it,
IMHO. When they got it working right, it was renamed Project Server and was
no longer free. I wouldn't even consider Project Central - it makes no
sense to rollout a tool that is already 7 years obsolete before you even
start. Go straight to what works, namely, Project Server. However,
carefully evaluate your needs first. Migrating to Server and EPM is
definitely a non-trival project requiring a signifigant commitment in both
time and $$ and with many implications for your business methods,
practices, and project management workflow. In many environments Server is
overkill and simpler methods of collaboration are more effective.
--
Steve House [Project MVP]
MS Project Trainer & Consultant
Visit http://www.mvps.org/project/faqs.htm for the FAQs

Great Stuff.

New question - Thread
In past on small groups of users have stored project on master sheet.
Again
for non- enterprise environment with hopes to later leap to enterprise. Is
Project 2000 Central Server best for housing active projects? Looking at
Central 2000 it seems to provide that function however does it also
provide
rollup values for selected fields? Do understand with 2003 Server many
options are available.
Thanks