As late as Possible or reverse predecessors?
In the Open Standard
Craig AdamsMember for 20 years
- Created
- 6
- 3
0
Hello Planners,
Am working on a template schedule to be used for property developments.
Want to compartmentalise each section/division and be able to expand and put more detail as the schedule is deployed for each project.
Have a couple of tasks that divisional heads can’t give me a specific predecssor for and would prefer these sections driven backwacks from events in the overall process that I do have proper links for.
Tried changing sections to “As late as possible” in front of a tasks that are properly linked – however in this case these tasks are sales related and can go on till the last day of the project. End result is section goes back to the last day.
Then changed all the tasks in the sales office construction to have their successor tasks as the predecessor with a start to finish relationship – in front of the one good task, this works but I’m not sure what the implications are for the actual running of the project – would I change everything back to normal once the sales office works were actually started?
Is it OK to manipulate like this just to make schedules do what you want or is this breaking planning taboos?
Am working on a template schedule to be used for property developments.
Want to compartmentalise each section/division and be able to expand and put more detail as the schedule is deployed for each project.
Have a couple of tasks that divisional heads can’t give me a specific predecssor for and would prefer these sections driven backwacks from events in the overall process that I do have proper links for.
Tried changing sections to “As late as possible” in front of a tasks that are properly linked – however in this case these tasks are sales related and can go on till the last day of the project. End result is section goes back to the last day.
Then changed all the tasks in the sales office construction to have their successor tasks as the predecessor with a start to finish relationship – in front of the one good task, this works but I’m not sure what the implications are for the actual running of the project – would I change everything back to normal once the sales office works were actually started?
Is it OK to manipulate like this just to make schedules do what you want or is this breaking planning taboos?
6 replies
Oldest first- 0Mike Testro ·Hi Craig
Sometimes it is better not to link tasks that have no relevance to linked tasks.
Operations such as "Sales" can be set up as a hammock task covering the programme tasks that are relevant.
A hammock can be set up by placing milestones in a section of the chart and linking them ASAP to the relevant tasks and then indenting them into a summary.
The Sales hammock will then shadow the the programme.
Best regards
Mike Testro - 0Craig Adams ·Alexandre,
These tasks are under therir own summary, and the schedule works for the planning stage am thinking to change the links once the work starts and have ithem driven the normal way then.
Can send you the file if you would be kind enough to review and give me comment.
Kind regards,
Craig Adams - 0Trevor Rabey ·MSP only does one thing with ALAP and that is that it sucks all of the float out of the entire path that the task is on. This is a bit unexpected since usually people expect to see it go only as late as for it to use up only its own float. But ALAP is not a "zero free float" constraint as in P3. ALAP makes sense but is rarely used except in special situations because:
It is too strong for what is usually intended.
It is not consistent with the critical path method.
Log in or join to reply
ProjectControls.com is free to join. Members can post questions, reply, vote and follow discussions.
Existing members: your original username and password still work. Forgot password?