Discontinued features in Microsoft Project Server 2010

Project Portfolio Server changes

If you are familiar with previous versions of Microsoft Project Server, the
following sections describe features and functionality that have been
discontinued or changed in Microsoft Project Server 2010.

Project Portfolio Server changes

Project Server and Project Portfolio Server are no longer two separate
products. Relevant portfolio functionality from Project Portfolio Server has
been merged into Project Server 2010. The following Project Portfolio Server
2007 features and functionality were discontinued or changed for Project Server

  • Application portfolio management   This includes
    tracking and managing applications.
  • Audit Trail   Workflow activity was previously made
    available from the Audit Trail link in the Workflow module. In Project Server 2010, this information is
    available in the Workflow History list, which can be accessed
    from the Additional Workflow Data link in the All Workflow Stages section.
  • Benefits estimating   This includes estimating and
    tracking financial and non-financial benefits.
  • Organizational hierarchy and aggregates   This
    includes a security-based hierarchical data grouping and aggregation. In Project
    Server 2010, departments have been added to enable hierarchical data grouping
    based on organizational structure.
  • Dynamic charting   This includes the Chart Wizard,
    which allows for ad-hoc interactive chart creation, including bubble chart
    modeling. In Project Server 2010, Excel Services support has been added,
    providing a new method of dynamic reporting.
  • Financial management   This includes time-phased
    budget, actual, and forecast cost tracking. In Project Server 2010, use custom
    fields and Excel Services to enable cost functionality for simple estimation,
    tracking, and forecasting costs. Solutions for more complex estimating,
    tracking, and forecasting costs are offered by Microsoft partners.
  • Insight analysis   This enabled users to get specific
    details into the factors that impact a specific portfolio selection.
  • Decision dashboard   This enabled users to make
    selection decisions supported by a rich dashboard with live grouping and
  • Sensitivity analysis   This enabled users to take a
    portfolio selection through various what-if scenarios and figure out how close a
    project was to being selected.
  • Snapshotting and versioning   This enabled users to
    create cost, resource, and benefit snapshots at any given point in time. In
    Project Server 2010, reporting and baselining can be used to capture data
  • Surveys   This includes flexible, user-definable
    survey forms, on subjects related to risk, architectural fit, and operational

For more referance

Posted in 2010 | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Project Management Conference at Intel, Microsoft EPM 2010 Solution showcase by e2e Projects

Posted in Events & Seminars | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Session on Microsoft EPM 2010 Solution by e2e Projects

Posted in Events & Seminars, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

e2e Projects in Project Management Conference Mumbai, India 19 – 21 November 2010

Posted in Events & Seminars | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Earned Value Management

Earned Value Management (EVM) helps project managers to measure project performance. It is a systematic project management process used to find variances in projects based on the comparison of worked performed and work planned. EVM is used on the cost and schedule control and can be very useful in project forecasting. The project baseline is an essential component of EVM and serves as a reference point for all EVM related activities. EVM provides quantitative data for project decision making

EVM Measures

EVM consists of the following primary and derived data elements. Each data point value is based on the time or date an EVM measure is performed on the project.

Primary Data Points

  • Budget At Completion (BAC)
    Total cost of the project.
  • Budgeted Cost for Work Scheduled (BCWS) / Planned Value (PV)
    The amount expressed in Pounds (or hours) of work to be performed as per the schedule plan.
    PV = BAC * % of planned work.
  • Budgeted Cost for Work Performed (BCWP) / Earned Value (EV)
    The amount expressed in Pounds (or hours) on the actual worked performed.
    EV = BAC * % of Actual work
  • Actual Cost of Work Performed (ACWP) / Actual Cost (AC)
    The sum of all costs (in Pounds) actually accrued for a task to date

Cost Forecasting:

  • Estimate At Completion (EAC)
  • The expected TOTAL cost required to finish complete work.
  • EAC= BAC / CPI
    • = AC + ETC
    • = AC + ((BAC – EV) / CPI) (typical case)
    • = AC + (BAC – EV) (atypical case)

Typical means it is assumed that similar variances will not occur in the future.

  • Estimate to complete (ETC)
  • The expected cost required to finish all the REMAINING work.
  • ETC = EAC – AC
    = (BAC / CPI) – (EV/CPI)
    = (BAC – EV) / CPI

EVM Benefits

  • Preventing scope creep
  • Improving communication and visibility with stakeholders
  • Reducing risk
  • Profitability analysis
  • Project forecasting
  • Better accountability
  • Performance tracking
Posted in Project Management | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Project Server FAQ

Need Help with Project Sever Forums?

Project 2010

Posted in FAQ | 1 Comment

Difference between ‘Crashing’ and ‘Fast Tracking’

I have been trying to understand the difference between Crashing and Fast tracking.

Fast Tracking means that you look at activities that are normally done in sequence and assign them instead partially in parallel. If you were fast-tracking, you would start constructing the solution in areas where you felt the design was pretty solid without waiting for the entire design to be completed. Major impact on Schedule
“Crashing” the schedule means to throw additional resources to the critical path without necessarily getting the highest level of efficiency. For instance, let’s say one person was working on a ten-day activity on the critical path. If you were really desperate to shorten this timeframe, you might add a second resource to this activity. Major impact on Cost

 Similarities are:

  1. Both the approaches are aimed at reducing the schedule
  2. Both the approaches require addition of resources to achieve the goal
  3. Even though fast tracking doesn’t mention the term Critical Path, it’s obvious that the Critical Path tasks need to be done in parallel to reduce the schedule. So, both the approaches involve changes to Critical Path activities schedule.
Posted in Project Management | Leave a comment