Planned % Complete - Enterprise Field in Project Server

[Stelladee]

Sponsored Links

I need to calculate the Planned % Complete to measure that variance between the actual and the planned on the summary level and not the task level.

I found an enterprise field (as I am using EPM - enterprise project server with Microsoft Project 2010) called "Planned % Complete" that calculates that for me. The field was working fine at the beginning: I baselined the project and was able to calculate the delays by using the difference between %Complete and the Planned%Complete.

When I did the next project update a month later, after I baselined the project again (using baseline1), the values seems completely wrong. for example a summary task shows 82% complete when all activities scheduled to start during the period is 100% complete. I changed a bit in the project to test if the field changes (by moving an uncompleted task earlier than the current date with say 10% complete) but no changes to the field.

Am I wrong to assume that Planned %Complete should not relay on the baseline as we should be able to calculate it based on the original start/finish and the %complete only. I saw a formula in one thread that relays on baseline that didn't make sense to me.

If anyone knows the formula, I'd appreciate it as I used weighted average to roll-it up on the summary level but the values seem off.

[JulieS]

I'm not following your question exactly. Are you expecting the planned % complete to be based upon the baseline or the new baseline (baseline1)?

You need to set which baseline you are using for calculation in Project Pro File > Options, Advanced.

Julie

[Stelladee]

I am saying that I should not base in on any baseline but simply measure it based on start-date, the current date, total duration and what "should've been completed" as per today's date

I have an enteprrise version of Microsoft Project that has the field "Planned % Complete" but is not being calculated correctly. I am suspecting that it is because it uses baseline which could be incorrect especially for new added tasks or deleted tasks

[Stelladee]

I am saying that it should not based on any baseline but simply measure it based on start-date, current date, total duration and what "should've been completed" as per today's date. Simple formula that is then rolled up to the summary task level.

I have an enteprrise version of Microsoft Project that has the field "Planned % Complete" but is not being calculated correctly. It calculates it correctly on the task level but when rolling it up at the summary level, it is wrong.

I am suspecting that it is because it uses baseline which could be incorrect especially for new added tasks or deleted tasks.

Is there any formula to calculate the "Planned % Completion" on the summary task level. I am using the following

Summary Task:
Summary task
Task 1 (73 days): START : 4/15/2012 END: 6/28/2012 TODAY 4/15/2012 Planned %Completion 40% (Difference between today and start date / total days)
Task 2 (132 days) : START : 12/19/2011 END: 5/1/2012 TODAY 4/15/2012 Planned %Completion 100% (Difference between today and start date / total days)

so Planned%Completion for summary task is = (0.4* 73 days) + (1* 132) / (73+132) = 78%

Is this a correct formula. I checked the task level against the field in Mircrosoft Project and the values were the same. However, I am not sure about the last forumula which is using the weighted average of the tasks.

[JulieS]

I think we are having a fundamental misunderstanding. Without baseline data, the start dates should be updating based upon the rescheduling of incomplete work -- there should never be any incomplete work in the past.

The summary task % complete is a weighted average in Project - not a direct calculation as you have described.

Unfortunately, the custom formula you show is not possible without some programming as custom formulas can only refer to a single task or in the case of summary tasks either average, sum, min, or max the values from the subtasks.

You may find the following white paper from fellow MVP Jim Askel useful:


Julie