This content has been marked as final. Show 7 replies
i suggest you reconsider using WBS summeries and/or LOE's for resource assignments, when the way they were intended to work defeats your purpose. that is, when you need the gaps in your schedule to reflect in your usage profiles.
in fact, it is not that much more difficult to assign any number of resources to any number of activities at once_ instead of using a single WBS summary or LOE activity. simply select all activities in WBS and use the "Assign resource(s)" button in the command button bar on the right to select all relevant resources to assign to each activity in the WBS, for the individual durations of the activities and not inbetween.
more relevant activity selections can be made manually (Ctrl/Shift + click) or using filters and filtering criteria such as Activity codes or even Activity Names containing certain strings.
even if you do not properly select which individual resource works on each individual activity, you still avoid the problem you described by this simple many to many assignment.
best of luck,
I can think of 3 workarounds to solve the issue.
Try to make the activities as close as possible by splitting down the WBS.
Then assign the Calendar to WBS Summary task same as activities under WBS.
Use specific calendar for a WBS Summary bar that has non working days as required.
Assign resource curves or go for future bucket planning to get desired resource usage.
Novo Rail, Sydney
i agree the methods you mentioned are good general advice when it comes to sound planning. but they are considerably more time consuming than proper
"who does what" resource assignment to tasks. further more #2 and #3, may need even more manual work to accomodate changes into the project schedule or scope or when dealing with conflicting requirements.
proper resource loading of your schedule is preferable, even using conventional default settings such as:
- linear distribution of effort (units/ costs). no curve or future bucket planning which IMO, depending on required level of detail, can prove to be overkill;
- activity driven resource dates. whenever possible, it is much simpler to "split" activities or better yet create as many as you need in the first place, so that resource allocation start/finish dates coincide with activity start/finish dates for all resources assigned to the activity, rather than having resource lags, non-linear curves or future buckets;
- no artificial constraints on activities, but proper relationships of required type and lag;
- no fixed artificial non-working periods set in activity and/or resource calendars (other than legal/ organisation/ project standards dictate or are so set by technical, workflow, environment or availability reasons that may apply).
especially since calendars are likely to have different requirements, when existing calendars are reused within project and especially in other projects (global calendars).
Thanks Jawad & Tibi,
Actually i got a full project portfolio, in which I have multiple projects working near by, so in this case it will be better if I will assign resources activity by activity. Actually in primavera they should have a option to select resources at WBS or Project level so it can reduce the work and I am sure if all the relationships is good then it can work better. Even if they are providing fill down option with resources it could make life easier.
Anyway we can hope to get it in future.
If anybody founds any method which can make resources part easier, please share with newbies like me ........Thank you very much
I have the same problem, but I am using the WBS summary for EV. I hope that you don’t mind me tacking my issue to your resource problem… I just want to know if primaveras consider this as a bug, and if it will be addressed in a future service pack? In other post sort of related, I’ve seen responses that the software works as intended. However, if we use the WBS summary to report EV at a high level instead of the activity level, the EV gives the wrong % of what the contractor/consultant has earned. I had to add another step to correct the problem as I perceive it using a global change but I feel that I should have to add additional steps to my process so that the information is correct…