Anaheim, CA | February 2-5, 2014

Peter KestenholzCEOProjectum

Project Worst Practise – Learning from other people mistakes (PC310)Brian SmithSenior Support EngineerMicrosoft

Ian WhiteArea SpecialistMicrosoft

PC310

• Introduction• Structure• Worst Practises:• Technical• Deployment• Organisational

• Q&A• Other Sessions• Close

AGENDA

Introduction

Photo-graphyWalking

11 years with

Microsoft

Attended every Project Conference

Delivered sessions at almost all

Brian Smith 9+ years

in support

blogs.msdn.com/brismith

ABOUT ME

Microsoft

CEO and Founder

Projectum

11 years with

Microsoft Project

M.A. Innovation and ChangeDegree in Business

Administration

Various executive programsHarvard, USA

Hong Kong University, ChinaCambridge, England

Peter Charquero Kestenholz 50+ PPM

Implementations

ppmblog.org

ABOUT ME

MicrosoftMVP | MCP |

MCTS

uk.linkedin.com/in/ianwhite/

Area Technical

Lead

6 years with

Microsoft Project

Delivered Sessions at SharePoint Conference, Project

Conference & Beyond

From Papertape to Solidstate

Ian White 25 YearsBusiness & IT Consulting

ABOUT ME

MicrosoftWestern Europe

Technical Worse Practises

Technical Worst PracticesDatabase Maintenance – or lack of it…RT*M – or TechNet or books or blogsCustom Fields – How long is a piece of string?Help us to help you – repro steps, logs and timesUn-publishing tasks – use it or lose itPatching – Control the client versions pleasePlanning – should we really need to do any of this?

Database Maintenance – or lack of it…Symptom: Everything is just so SLOOOOOWWWW!Without maintenance, your database does not run as efficiently as it can – it can slow everything in Project Server down

Index DefragmentationIn very active systems we have seen customers benefiting from nightly

maintenance70% fill factor recommended – but not set in our index definitionsWhy does this happen? Index pages get split when adding new dataBut it does get better in 2013!

Updating statisticAsync please

References:http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc973097.aspxhttp://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee662107(v=office.14).aspx

Index fragmentation• Why does it happen?• Inserting new random data tends to lead to split index pages• GUIDs in Project and SharePoint can be somewhat random (more later)

• What can we do?• Set a fill factor when rebuilding indexes (we don’t do this for you…)• Defragment regularly (as required)

• A bit like bookshelves…

GUIDs – changes from 2010 to 2013

RT*M – or TechNet or books or blogsThe worst support cases are those where customers have been struggling for a while before they call us – and the answer was out there all the time…Bookmark TechNet articles, subscribe to blogs, use Bing (other search engines are available)An example from very close to home – an internal e-mail with a subject of “Best Practices on timesheet management on Project Plans” and pretty much asking for guidance paper/blog or article.I gave the subject to Bing…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

Top hit - http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/project-server-help/best-practices-for-submitting-and-reporting-on-actual-work-HA102821971.aspx

Custom Fields – How long is a piece of string?Symptom: Slow save, publish, recalc…We specifically suggest no more than 5 task level formulae CFs, but all additional CFs will slow things down – task and resource level fields usually have more impact than project levelI have a flow diagram for this one…

Do you have lots of custom fields

Perhaps you DB needs some maintenance?

No

Yes Do you need them all?My server is slow

Still slow?

Yes

Yes

Help us to help you – repro steps, logs and times“I’m having a problem with this task?”Pro? PWA? SharePoint? Outlook? Workflow? Or is it an assignment perhaps… or a timesheet line.

The more you can give us – the quicker we can get started helping youWhat makes a good repro?

Detailed steps. Exactly what do you do? Menu? Ribbon? Keyboard shortcut? It can make a difference.Logs (ULS, Application Event, Client-side logs, IIS, SQL as appropriate)For Project Online – Correlation ID, Site Url and time

Un-publishing tasks – use it or lose itSymptom: “I entered some time on this task – but just went to my timesheet and it’s gone!”

See Best practices for submitting and reporting on actual work (Project Server 2010) - http://technet.microsoft.com/en-US/library/hh694531(v=office.14).aspxWhy?

In single entry mode, if you open a timesheet and the task is not in the published DB (Unpublished, resource not committed, plan deleted) then there is an existing timeline for that task – even if it has actual time entered – it will be dropped from the timesheet. Not hidden – but dropped.

Patching – Control the client versions please“All the users who entered time on this project say that their time has disappeared”We have fixed bugs in the client – but if you allow up-patched Project Professional to connect to your Project Server then bad things can happen!

Save for sharing anyone?• 2010 - Server Settings, Additional Server Settings, Project Professional

Versions• 2013 – Central Admin, General Application Settings, PWA Settings,

Manage, (select the right instance), Additional Server Settings, Project Professional Versions

• Project Online – no option for the customer to set thisIn the Cumulative Update release blogs I generally give the versions – be careful with 2013 – this also controls the schedule web part.

Planning – should we really need to do any of this?I think Ian and Peter cover this one…

Deployment Worst Practises

Deployment Worst Practises• Poor User experience• Task constraints everywhere• Master Projects - yes or no?• Poor ODATA performance• Wrong use of RBS*• OLAP cubes – a new game?• Bad client performance• Slow PWA/client performance• Chaos in the client

• The fix• Create an attractive portal• Use simple tools such as PowerPoint• Add “zones” to the images using free tools (http://www.image-maps.com/)

• Deploy to the clean UI to a new PWA front-page• Remember to keep the design in subpages (PDPs, Timesheet etc.)

• Learn more• Watch session webcast [PC261 ]

Problem 1: User experienceSpend the same budget on UI as done with BI

The fix• Milestones and phases

on the same WBS level• Link the phase to the

supporting milestone• Set the phases and

milestones to “Auto Scheduled”• Use baselines to track

changes• Remember to still use

constraints where actually needed

Problem 2: Task constraints everywhereDon’t make the client behave more complex than needed

• The fix• Think of program managers as someone who needs to know what goes

on in specific projects• Not someone who has to change anything in the supporting projects

• Use Project Center to create a temporary master project• Use the new reporting tools to get the insights needed

Problem 3: Master Projects - yes or no?Program Managers think they need a master project

QUICK DEMO

• The fix – Trim your data connection• Use simple tools such as notepad to edit your Odata connection• Add relevant custom and standard fields using simple brackets• Not trimming/using Select* statement pulls all data and slows down refresh performance

dramatically

Blog article from PPMBLOG.ORGhttp://ppmblog.org/2013/05/15/project-online-and-odata-refresh-performance/

Problem 4: It takes minutes before my simple report is refreshed in Online

• The fix• Map you organization hierarchy in your

RBS structure e.g.• Each level is a manager to resource

relationship• Once setup it will show who reports to who• Use a correct RBS to automatically control

access to projects and resources

Blog article (PROJECTSERVEREXPERTS)

• http://www.projectserverexperts.com/ProjectServerFAQKnowledgeBase/rbsprimer.aspx

Problem 5: No control of who can see what The RBS structure is often used to map competencies

Projectum

Denmark

Consulting

Developme

nt

Sweden

Consulting

Developme

nt

• The fix• Enable the OLAP cubes• http://

blogs.msdn.com/b/brismith/archive/2012/11/12/project-server-2013-requirements-to-build-an-olap-cube.aspx

• Understand the 11 standard Project Server cubes• Use department fields to control correct access• Remember that only look-up values are available in the cubes• Deploy to the business through training (Excel Pivot table)

• Blog article from TECHNET• http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff465339.aspx

Problem 6: OLAP cubes – a new game?The business doesn’t know what they are

• The fix• 64-bit Project client needs a minimum of 2 GB ram• Many laptops only have 2 GB ram and a slow processor• Working with big plans (1000 activities+ requires power)• Not having a machine that exceeds minimum requirements will have

you hanging while project does it calculations (client side)

• Blog article from TECHNET• http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee624351.aspx

Problem 7: Bad client performanceDue to bad laptop specifications

• The fix• Upgrade to 2013 (or Online)• If using 2010• Don’t use custom fields to time phase your project level data• Use other financial add-ons such as UMT, Projectum, SharePoint list

• Know your server farm size and play by the rules• E.g. small server farm equals no more than

• Blog article from PPMBLOG• http://ppmblog.org/2012/10/31/project-server-2013-choosing-a-farm-ver

sus-limitations/

Problem 8: Slow PWA/client performanceDue to not knowing about custom field limitations

SEE NEXT SLIDE

2010Entity Description Small Medium Large1 Projects 100 5000 20000

1 Tasks 17125 856250 3425000

1 Average Tasks Per Project

171.25 171.25 171.25

2 Task Transaction History

10 100 1000

1 Assignments 22263 1113125 4500000

1 Average Assignments Per Task

1.3 1.3 1.3

2/3 Approvals 50 600 3000

Users 1000 10000 50000

Custom Fields Project (Formula)

3 20 25

Custom Fields Project (Manual) 2 40 50

Custom Fields Task (Formula) 6 12 15

Custom Fields Task (Manual) 4 8 10

Custom Fields Assignment Rolldown

50% 50% 50%

Custom Fields Resource 10 20 25

Custom Fields Look up Table Custom Fields

2 15 100

1 Timesheets (per year)

52000 780000 8,320,000

1 Timesheet Lines 5 10 10

2013Entity Small Medium LargeProjects 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

Task   Transaction History 10 10 100

Assignments 1625 32500 1625000

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

Average Assignments Per Resource

32.5 32.5 162.5

Users 50 1000 10000

Calendars 3 26 100

Issues 20 400 20000Risks 20 400 20000

Deliverables 20 800 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

Stages Per Workflow 20 40

PDPs 10 100

Custom Fields Per PDP 10 10

Number   of Departments 100

Average Projects Per Department

50

Average   Resources Per Department

100

Timesheets Per Year 2600 52000 780000

Status   Reports Per Year 26000 260000

• The fix• Create views that support your

project model/way of working• Only ask for information that are

relevant for the specific stage• When maturity is low aim for 3

simple views e.g.• Create, Track, Close

Problem 9: When PMs complain about the Project client being to complexIts almost all times due to not using “views”

• Blog article from TECHNEThttp://blogs.technet.com/b/brookswhite/archive/2011/12/13/how-to-create-custom-views-in-project-professional-2007.aspx

Organisational Worst Practise

• Failure to plan• Are we all on the same page• More haste…• Short term gain, long term…• Knowledge does not transfer through

osmosis• If only…• Demarcation – drawing the lines• We have the time and the skills

Organisational Worst Practise

Failure to plan……The cause:

Organisations can often get quite excited by merely making a decision to proceed with PPM

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

Are we all on the same pageThe cause:

The selection of a PPM solution can be quite introverted the budget holders have an iron fist

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

More haste…..The cause:

Unrealistic deployment objectives are set for a PPM 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

Short term gain, long term…The cause:

Quick decisions are made (this is sometimes good)

The symptom's:

Six months into a operational system, performance, functionality, reporting or integration become troublesomeThe effect:

The system needs to be rebuilt, frustration builds up and blame gets thrown around when

Knowledge does not transfer though osmosisThe cause:

Lots of effort has been made in ‘selling’ the new system internally, but insufficient focus on education in process, skills and ‘outliers’ has taken place

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

If Only…The cause:

Lack of planning vision, too much focus on the problem in hand. Blue-sky thinking should always play a part – just in case

The symptom's:

Unexpected problems arise such as not meeting management reporting needs, integration with systems that weren’t foreseenThe effect:

Additional cost to transform the system to allow for integration, unhappy management who thought ‘they could get anything reports’ they wanted.

Demarcation – drawing the linesThe cause:

Ownership is unclear – competing departments demands are not arbitrated - there is no PPM Enterprise Architect.

The symptom's:

Different departments demand incompatible structures, deployment decision are not consistent with any structured plandThe effect:

Deadlines are not met, unnecessary complexities creep into the PPM environment, it all turn a bit ‘ugly’

We have the time and the skillsThe cause:

IT are convinced they should be the prime contractor to build, configure and deploy the PPM environment

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.

Q&A

• PC326: Chalk Talk and Q & A: Running your PMO with Project Web App and Project Professional

• PC206: First Impressions supporting Project Server 2013 and Project Online

• PC209: Troubleshooting Tips for Project and Project Server

• PC325: Chalk Talk and Q & A: Project Server IT-Professional

Other Sessions

Close

MyPC fill out evaluations & win prizes!

Fill out session evaluations by logging into MyPC on your laptop or mobile device.

Evaluation prizes daily! Claim your prize at the Registration Desk on Level 1.

www.msprojectconference.com

After the event, over 100 hours of resources; including all of the PPT decks and session videos will be available.

© 2014 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries.The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.