blogs.msdn.com/brismith
ppmblog.org
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc973097.aspx
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee662107(v=office.14).aspx
• Why does it happen?
• What can we do?
• A bit like bookshelves…
http://www.bing.com/search?q=Best+Practices+on+timesheet+management+on+Project+Plans&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=best+
practices+on+timesheet+management+on+project+plans&sc=0-4&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=22329eb211fc4161befd0ed65e96c9c3
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/project-server-help/best-practices-for-submitting-and-reporting-on-actual-workHA102821971.aspx
My server is slow
Do you have lots of
custom fields
Yes
Do you need them all?
Yes
No
Yes
Perhaps you DB needs some
maintenance?
Still slow?
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-US/library/hh694531(v=office.14).aspx
Spend the same budget on UI as done with BI
Don’t make the client behave more complex than needed
Program Managers think they need a master project
QUICK
DEMO
http://ppmblog.org/2013/05/15/project-online-and-odata-refresh-performance/
The RBS structure is often used to map competencies
Projectum
Denmark
Consulting
http://www.projectserverexperts.com/ProjectServerFAQKnowled
geBase/rbsprimer.aspx
Development
Sweden
Consulting
Development
The business doesn’t know what they are
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/brismith/archive/2012/11/12/project-server-2013requirements-to-build-an-olap-cube.aspx
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff465339.aspx
Due to bad laptop specifications
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee624351.aspx
Due to not knowing about custom field limitations
SEE NEXT
SLIDE
http://ppmblog.org/2012/10/31/project-server-2013-choosing-a-farm-versuslimitations/
Entity
Small
Medium
Large
Projects
20
100
5000
Project Sites
20
100
5000
% Projects in Managed
Mode
0%
10%
80%
Tasks
1250
25000
1250000
Average Tasks Per Project
62.5
250
250
Entity
Description Small
Medium
Large
Task Transaction History
10
10
100
1
Projects
5000
20000
Assignments
1625
32500
1625000
856250
3425000
Average Assignments Per
Task
1.3
1.3
1.3
Average Tasks per My Site
User
50
250
5000
Approvals
5
50
600
Resources
50
1000
10000
Average Resources Per
Project
2.5
10
2
100
1
Tasks
17125
1
Average Tasks Per 171.25
Project
171.25
171.25
2
Task Transaction
History
100
1000
10
1
Assignments
22263
1113125
4500000
Average Assignments Per
Resource
32.5
32.5
162.5
1
Average
Assignments Per
Task
1.3
1.3
1.3
Users
50
1000
10000
Calendars
3
26
100
Approvals
50
600
3000
Issues
Risks
20
20
400
400
20000
20000
Users
1000
10000
50000
Deliverables
20
2/3
Custom Fields
Project (Formula) 3
20
25
Custom Fields
Project (Manual)
2
40
50
Custom Fields
Task (Formula)
6
12
15
800
40000
Enterprise Project Types
5
50
Workflows
2
30
Average Projects Per
Workflow
50
167
Phases
5
50
Phases Per Enterprise
Project Type
20
20
Stages
15
150
Custom Fields
Task (Manual)
4
8
10
Stages Per Workflow
20
40
Custom Fields
Assignment
Rolldown
50%
50%
50%
PDPs
10
100
Custom Fields
Resource
10
20
25
Custom Fields Per PDP
10
10
Custom Fields
Look up Table
Custom Fields
2
15
100
Number of Departments
100
1
Timesheets (per
year)
52000
780000
8,320,000
Average Projects Per
Department
50
Average Resources Per
Department
100
1
Timesheet Lines
5
10
10
Timesheets Per Year
Status Reports Per Year
2600
52000
780000
26000
260000
Its almost all times due to not using “views”
http://blogs.technet.com/b/brookswhite/archive/2011/12/13/how-to-create-custom-views-in-projectprofessional-2007.aspx
The symptom's:
PPM deployment projects
suffer some of the poorest
Project Charters and resource
allocation
The effect:
Leads to confusion, lack of a clear set of goals and often poor
technology choices. Focus often shifts to minor issues with a loss of
sight to the big issues
The symptom's:
Other key stakeholders are
not engaged
The effect:
Frustration and turf wars and often loss of access the skilled people
who could add leverage to a successful deployment
The symptom's:
Focus is often on delivery
dates without the
corresponding functional
mapping completed
The effect:
Morale can be impacted as the realisation of an inability to
complete on time becomes clear, often bad news is held back to
avoid confrontation
The symptom's:
Six months into a operational
system, performance,
functionality, reporting or
integration become
troublesome
The effect:
The system needs to be rebuilt, frustration builds up and blame gets
thrown around when
The symptom's:
Colleagues are not adopting
the new environment, old
habits (Excel, free-standing
plans) are re-emerging
The effect:
The new systems lose accuracy, management lose faith, even ‘good’
citizens revert to the old ways
The symptom's:
Unexpected problems arise
such as not meeting
management reporting needs,
integration with systems that
weren’t foreseen
The effect:
Additional cost to transform the system to allow for integration,
unhappy management who thought ‘they could get anything
reports’ they wanted.
The symptom's:
Different departments
demand incompatible
structures, deployment
decision are not consistent
with any structured pland
The effect:
Deadlines are not met, unnecessary complexities creep into the
PPM environment, it all turn a bit ‘ugly’
The symptom's:
Six(?) months after an
adoption decision has been
taken little or no progress is
visible
The effect:
IT can be reticent in bringing in Process, Technical and other
external SME’s, losing impetus and frustrating the business.
MyPC fill out
evaluations
& win prizes!
www.msprojectconference.com