Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
From: clouds@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Kathy Strong)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps
Subject: Re: Project Planners
Keywords: project planners,gantt
Message-ID: <42302@ut-emx.uucp>
Date: 9 Jan 91 05:15:28 GMT
References: <1991Jan7.184508.17676@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <954@vtserf.cc.vt.edu>
Sender: news@ut-emx.uucp
Reply-To: clouds@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Kathy Strong)
Lines: 50

In reply to a request by robs@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Rob Schaeffer) for
feedback on project management software (specifically, MacProject II),
In article <954@vtserf.cc.vt.edu> cohill@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Andrew M. Cohill) 
writes:
>Reporting on MacProject II is virtually non-existent; it stinks
>big-time.  I used to teach project management and if you have more than
>5 or 6 people you want to be able to churn out paper status reports (or
>the email equivalent) on a regular basis, sorted by person, showing the
>status of each task assigned to that person.  You can't do that with
>MacProject II.  
>...
>As far as it being popular, all that means is a lot of people bought it;
>my experience is that very few people actually use PM software of any
>kind, unless you are in a very big organization with very large
>projects, where you then have industrial strength PM apps.
>
>The problem most people have with PM is that to use it correctly, you
>have to think a good deal about what you want to do, and few people
>bother with that.  It's much more fun to just start churning out code.

I don't doubt that Andrew's gripes are well-founded; however, without
knowing Rob's requirements in a little more detail, I'd be inclined to
give MacProject a second chance.

Andrew says: The problem is that to use it correctly, you have to think
a good deal about what you want to do.  I say: "Correctly? Hmm..."
In our shop, so many people are working on tasks so diverse that it
would be well-nigh impossible for any one person to bring it all together
in a full-blown computer-tracked PM package--that is, assuming that the
project manager has any other tasks at all in his/her day. Instead, we
find that the best use of PM software is for each individual (or very
small subgroup) to plan their work so as to see what the critical tasks,
times, and resources are for their particular bit of the big picture.
What I'm getting down to is that sometimes simple is better than fancy.
We have at least two "full-blown" PM packages gathering dust on the shelf.
The "low-powered brand" may not have all the bells and whistles, but it's
easy enough that just about anyone can learn it.

In a highly centralized and hierarchical work environment, Andrew's model
of what is "correct" usage of PM software is probably a better one. In a
loosely organized, very distributed environment, I vote for "the one that
anyone in the group can pick up and learn."


-- 
...........................................................................
:   Kathy Strong               :  "Try our Hubble-Rita: just one shot,     :
:  (Clouds moving slowly)      :   and everything's blurry"                :
:   clouds@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu  :                           --El Arroyo     :
:..........................................................................: