A Project Scheduler once spent two weeks developing the BEST schedule activity numbering scheme. He tried several combinations and two weeks later, he finally picked one.
That kind of thinking leads to wasted time and resources. The same can happen with developing a WBS. Since the lower levels can cover minute details, a detailed WBS on a large and complex Project can lead to thousands of items.
- On the one hand, this seems good - you can track every dollar (and penny) and you can schedule every detailed work item.
- On the other hand, this is not good from a practical viewpoint. Theoretically, not everything has to be practical. However, Projects do not typically live in theory.
If the only activity involved in Project work concerning a WBS was the development and definition, it could be as long and detailed as possible. But, once the WBS is defined, one of its functions is to provide a tracking mechanism. The tracking of complex details leads to some practical things to consider:
- A usable CPM schedule includes links between activities (WBS items) and relationship definitions. The more detailed the WBS, the more possible relationships and links. This means both more work is establishing the schedule and much more work in maintaining it.
- A usable cost-tracking system should be accurate. But, as an extreme example, if I break down the labor activities on a Project into 15 minute increments, I both create a tracking nightmare (and a loss of productivity because of the level of tracking required) and an accuracy issue. This would be so detailed that it takes too much time to track, leads to gross inaccuracy, and has no value.
- Similar for a productivity system - too much detail will lead to inaccuracy which will lead to meaningless metrics.
No comments:
Post a Comment