% complete ,% work complete and physical % complete

can we compare all these three things to get more effective result? In the
begining all have 0 value and at the end all have 100% value.If everything
goes smoothly and we plot a graph then it will be a straight line for each
one and they will overlap perfectly.
If suppose I plan to complete a task in 10 days with 8 working hours a
day and total work to be done is 80 units.If everything goes smoothly at the
end of 2nd day my 2 days would have been completed,16 hours of work would
have been done and 16 units would have been executed.so my all % completion
would have same value i.e. 20%.If everything further goes smoothly each of
these will have the same value and everyone will attain 100% at the same time.
Now if my % complete is 20% ,% work complete is 15% it means some thing is
wrong I need to make a little extra provision of resources.If my % complete
is 20% ,% work complete is 20% but my physical % complete is 15 % then I can
say that my labours are not giving the same out put that I had planned
earlier.
Now my only concern is that I am not getting consolidated physical %
complete even after changing the EV method.
--
Amey B. Vidvans,
Planning Engineer
Vidvans_amey@rediffmail.com

Hello Amey,

As you know, the Physical % Complete field is used to calculate the BCWP.
Its consolidation doesn't mean any tangible concept.
Nevertheless, you could built its sum with a number(x) custom field with a
simple formula: [Physical % Complete]
In the Calculation for task and group summary rows section, select Rollup
and in the pick list select Sum.
Hope this help.
May be others have better ideas.

Gérard Ducouret


"Amey" <Amey@discussions.microsoft.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
6038D548-CA77-4CA1-BBC3-448A87203D3D@microsoft.com...
> can we compare all these three things to get more effective result? In the
> begining all have 0 value and at the end all have 100% value.If everything
> goes smoothly and we plot a graph then it will be a straight line for each
> one and they will overlap perfectly.
> If suppose I plan to complete a task in 10 days with 8 working hours
> a
> day and total work to be done is 80 units.If everything goes smoothly at
> the
> end of 2nd day my 2 days would have been completed,16 hours of work would
> have been done and 16 units would have been executed.so my all %
> completion
> would have same value i.e. 20%.If everything further goes smoothly each of
> these will have the same value and everyone will attain 100% at the same
> time.
> Now if my % complete is 20% ,% work complete is 15% it means some thing
> is
> wrong I need to make a little extra provision of resources.If my %
> complete
> is 20% ,% work complete is 20% but my physical % complete is 15 % then I
> can
> say that my labours are not giving the same out put that I had planned
> earlier.
> Now my only concern is that I am not getting consolidated physical %
> complete even after changing the EV method.
> --
> Amey B. Vidvans,
> Planning Engineer
> Vidvans_amey@rediffmail.com

Hi - I have a lengthy white paper on the subject, please see my blog link
below. Once there, click the MS Project Tips and Tricks link.
--
If this post was helpful, please consider rating it.

Jim Aksel, MVP

Check out my blog for more information:
http://www.msprojectblog.com



"Amey" wrote:

> can we compare all these three things to get more effective result? In the
> begining all have 0 value and at the end all have 100% value.If everything
> goes smoothly and we plot a graph then it will be a straight line for each
> one and they will overlap perfectly.
> If suppose I plan to complete a task in 10 days with 8 working hours a
> day and total work to be done is 80 units.If everything goes smoothly at the
> end of 2nd day my 2 days would have been completed,16 hours of work would
> have been done and 16 units would have been executed.so my all % completion
> would have same value i.e. 20%.If everything further goes smoothly each of
> these will have the same value and everyone will attain 100% at the same time.
> Now if my % complete is 20% ,% work complete is 15% it means some thing is
> wrong I need to make a little extra provision of resources.If my % complete
> is 20% ,% work complete is 20% but my physical % complete is 15 % then I can
> say that my labours are not giving the same out put that I had planned
> earlier.
> Now my only concern is that I am not getting consolidated physical %
> complete even after changing the EV method.
> --
> Amey B. Vidvans,
> Planning Engineer
> Vidvans_amey@rediffmail.com

But work does not always progress at a uniform rate over time. In such a
contoured task, the percent work complete can be quite different from the
percent complete at a particular point in time. A favourite example I use
to illustrate ... we are painting a room. The painter begins work on Monday
at 8am and does a couple of hours applying a first primer coat which must
dry overnight. Tuesday he returns and does a second primer, also taking two
hours and drying overnight. Wednesday he returns and does a first colour
coat, similar 2 hours to apply and overnight to dry. Thursday we do the
second colour coat. Friday he will come in and spend the entire day doing
fine detail, touchup, and cleanup. The task duration is 40 hours, 8am Mon
to 5pm Fri. Total work required is 16 man-hours. Our status date is
Thurday, 5pm. He has passed over 32 of the 40 hours of duration so the task
is 80% complete, by definition. He has performed 8 of the total of 16
man-hours of work required so the task is 50% Work Complete. Neither number
has any implication for the Physical % Complete because we must physically
estimate the amount of paint that has been applied, etc. Duration time and
man-hours of work can actually be measured objectively, the physical percent
progress toward the deliverable's creation is almost always subjective.
IMHO Physical % Complete is extremely unreliable because it is so
subjective -- if the task is "Design Engine" just what observable metric
would define 50% physical complete ... half the systems? half the drawings?
crankcase done but still working on the cylinder head? You might as well
flip a coin.
--
Steve House
MS Project Trainer & Consultant


"Amey" <Amey@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6038D548-CA77-4CA1-BBC3-448A87203D3D@microsoft.com...
> can we compare all these three things to get more effective result? In the
> begining all have 0 value and at the end all have 100% value.If everything
> goes smoothly and we plot a graph then it will be a straight line for each
> one and they will overlap perfectly.
> If suppose I plan to complete a task in 10 days with 8 working hours
> a
> day and total work to be done is 80 units.If everything goes smoothly at
> the
> end of 2nd day my 2 days would have been completed,16 hours of work would
> have been done and 16 units would have been executed.so my all %
> completion
> would have same value i.e. 20%.If everything further goes smoothly each of
> these will have the same value and everyone will attain 100% at the same
> time.
> Now if my % complete is 20% ,% work complete is 15% it means some thing
> is
> wrong I need to make a little extra provision of resources.If my %
> complete
> is 20% ,% work complete is 20% but my physical % complete is 15 % then I
> can
> say that my labours are not giving the same out put that I had planned
> earlier.
> Now my only concern is that I am not getting consolidated physical %
> complete even after changing the EV method.
> --
> Amey B. Vidvans,
> Planning Engineer
> Vidvans_amey@rediffmail.com

Steve, although I concurr that sometimea Physical%Complete is a wild guess,
there are many times that it is truly appropriate. To use P%C correctly
requires a lot of granularity in the estimate so things can be counted and
measured. Since it is off topic to this post, I'll just give a brief
example.

In "Design Engine" you might create a "Drawing Tree" to get us to
Preliminary Design Review. Since you now have a list of drawings that need
to be completed, the complexity of each drawing can be estimated and hours
assigned. You can use %Drawings complete as a measure of P%C since it is
objective ... the drawing has been released or it has not. It requires
specific rules for when credit will be granted. It becomes a matter of
testing how well your baseline estimate matches reality.

Anyway we're off topic...

--
If this post was helpful, please consider rating it.

Jim Aksel, MVP

Check out my blog for more information:
http://www.msprojectblog.com



"Steve House" wrote:

> But work does not always progress at a uniform rate over time. In such a
> contoured task, the percent work complete can be quite different from the
> percent complete at a particular point in time. A favourite example I use
> to illustrate ... we are painting a room. The painter begins work on Monday
> at 8am and does a couple of hours applying a first primer coat which must
> dry overnight. Tuesday he returns and does a second primer, also taking two
> hours and drying overnight. Wednesday he returns and does a first colour
> coat, similar 2 hours to apply and overnight to dry. Thursday we do the
> second colour coat. Friday he will come in and spend the entire day doing
> fine detail, touchup, and cleanup. The task duration is 40 hours, 8am Mon
> to 5pm Fri. Total work required is 16 man-hours. Our status date is
> Thurday, 5pm. He has passed over 32 of the 40 hours of duration so the task
> is 80% complete, by definition. He has performed 8 of the total of 16
> man-hours of work required so the task is 50% Work Complete. Neither number
> has any implication for the Physical % Complete because we must physically
> estimate the amount of paint that has been applied, etc. Duration time and
> man-hours of work can actually be measured objectively, the physical percent
> progress toward the deliverable's creation is almost always subjective.
> IMHO Physical % Complete is extremely unreliable because it is so
> subjective -- if the task is "Design Engine" just what observable metric
> would define 50% physical complete ... half the systems? half the drawings?
> crankcase done but still working on the cylinder head? You might as well
> flip a coin.
> --
> Steve House
> MS Project Trainer & Consultant
>
>
> "Amey" <Amey@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6038D548-CA77-4CA1-BBC3-448A87203D3D@microsoft.com...
> > can we compare all these three things to get more effective result? In the
> > begining all have 0 value and at the end all have 100% value.If everything
> > goes smoothly and we plot a graph then it will be a straight line for each
> > one and they will overlap perfectly.
> > If suppose I plan to complete a task in 10 days with 8 working hours
> > a
> > day and total work to be done is 80 units.If everything goes smoothly at
> > the
> > end of 2nd day my 2 days would have been completed,16 hours of work would
> > have been done and 16 units would have been executed.so my all %
> > completion
> > would have same value i.e. 20%.If everything further goes smoothly each of
> > these will have the same value and everyone will attain 100% at the same
> > time.
> > Now if my % complete is 20% ,% work complete is 15% it means some thing
> > is
> > wrong I need to make a little extra provision of resources.If my %
> > complete
> > is 20% ,% work complete is 20% but my physical % complete is 15 % then I
> > can
> > say that my labours are not giving the same out put that I had planned
> > earlier.
> > Now my only concern is that I am not getting consolidated physical %
> > complete even after changing the EV method.
> > --
> > Amey B. Vidvans,
> > Planning Engineer
> > Vidvans_amey@rediffmail.com
>
> .
>