In Microsoft Project, suppose you have a large project with numerous tasks, and you want to focus in and optimize those tasks that are contributing the most to your schedule duration, i.e. Critical path. The longest duration critical tasks, most likely, provide the best opportunity for gaining crucial time on a schedule. Microsoft Excel doesn't have a component that can help you identify the critical path of your project. However, with a little customization you can use Microsoft Excel to identify the critical path for small projects. For larger projects, you should consider purchasing project management software, such as Microsoft Project.

1. Longest Time Critical Path In Microsoft Project 2016 Free Download Full Version Product Key
2. Microsoft Project Highlight Critical Path
3. Longest Time Critical Path In Microsoft Project 2016 Standard

The most recent build of BPC Logic Filter includes improved calculation of relative floats for tasks whose Resource Calendars are substantially different from the effective Task and Project Calendars. While reviewing those improvements, I compiled this summary of the three different Calendar types used in Microsoft Project (MSP) schedules – with particular attention to their use in logic-driven scheduling and Slack calculation. The summary moves from the simplest (Project Calendar only) to the most complex (combined Task and Resource calendars) case. The conclusions are based on my own (imperfect) testing in MSP Professional 2010 and 2016 environments, and I’d welcome any corrections.Dale Howard of Sensei Project Solutions has provided an excellent of Calendars in Microsoft Project. It may prove useful to review his post before proceeding.

Project Calendar. The Project Calendar is used to schedule all tasks in a project IN THE ABSENCE OF OTHER CALENDARS. When present, Task Calendars supersede all of the Project Calendar’s functions, and Resource Calendars supersede some – but not all – of the Project Calendar’s functions.

Without Task or Resource Calendars, each task’s early start date occurs when all logic constraints have been satisfied and the Project Calendar makes work time available. Unfortunately, the “Critical” activity flags in modern project schedules often do not correctly identify the true Critical Paths. Blind acceptance of such “Critical” flags to identify the Critical Path inhibits proper understanding, communication, and management of project schedule performance – and gives CPM a bad rap. Basic CPM Concepts (in General):The “Critical Path Method” (CPM) – a 60-year-old algorithm of fairly straightforward arithmetic – lies at the core of most modern project scheduling tools, and most project managers worthy of the name have been exposed to at least the basic CPM concepts. Any discussion of the Critical Path must address the underlying conceptual basis:.

A CPM project schedule is comprised of all the activities necessary to complete the project’s scope of work. Activity durations are estimated, and required/planned sequential restraints between activities are identified: e.g. Predecessor task “A” must finish before Successor task “B” can start, and Predecessor task “C” must finish before Successor task “D” can start. The combination of activities and relationships forms a schedule logic network. Below is a diagram of a simple schedule logic network, with activities as nodes (blocks) and relationships as arrows.

Logic Relationships. A logic relationship represents a simple (i.e.

One-sided) schedule constraint that is imposed on the successor by the predecessor. Thus, a finish-to-start (FS) relationship between activities A and B dictates only that the start of activity B may NOT occur before the finish of activity A. (It does not REQUIRE that B start immediately after A finishes.) Other relationship types – SS, FF, SF, which were added as part of the Precedence Diagramming Method (PDM) extension of traditional CPM – are similarly interpreted. A–(SS)–B dictates only that the start of B may not occur before the start of A. Activities with multiple predecessor relationships must be scheduled to satisfy ALL of them.

Logic Paths. A continuous route through the activities and relationships of the network – connecting an earlier activity to a later one – is called a “logic path.” Logic paths can be displayed – together or in isolation – to show the sequential plans for executing selected portions of the project.

The simple network shown has only two logic paths between the start and finish milestones: Path 1 = (StartProject) (FinishProject); and Path 2 = (StartProject) (FinishProject). Experimenting with some shorthand logic notation: “” = logic connection to activity’s Finish. Schedule Calculations. Schedule dates are calculated using three essential steps:. During the Forward Pass, the earliest possible start and finish dates of each activity are computed by considering the aggregated durations of its predecessor paths, beginning from the project start milestone and working forward in time. Assuming an implicit requirement to finish the project as soon as possible, the early finish of the project completion milestone is adopted as its latest allowable finish date.

This can be called the Finish Reflection. (Most CPM summaries ignore this step. I include it because it is the basis for important concepts and complications to be introduced later.). During the Backward Pass, the latest allowable start and finish dates of each activity are computed by considering the aggregated durations of its successor paths, beginning from the project completion milestone and working backward in time.

Driving and Non-Driving Logic. A logic relationship may be categorized as “Driving” or “Non-Driving” depending on its influence over the Early dates of the successor activity – as calculated during the Forward Pass. A Driving relationship controls the Early start/finish of the successor; a Non-Driving relationship does not. In other words, a “Driving” relationship prevents the successor activity from being scheduled any sooner than it is. A logic path (or path segment) may be categorized as “Driving” (to its terminal activity) when all of its relationships are Driving. Such a path is sometimes called a “String.”. Total Float.

In simplified terms, the difference between the early start/finish and late start/finish of each activity is termed the activity’s “Total Float” (or “Total Slack”). A positive value denotes a finite range of time over which the activity may be allowed to slip without delaying “the project.” A zero value (i.e. TF=0) indicates that the activity’s early dates and late dates are exactly equal, and any delay from the early dates may delay “the project.” It is important to remember that Total Float/Slack is nominally computed as a property of each individual activity, not of a particular logic path nor of the project schedule as a whole. While computed individually for each activity, the float is not possessed solely by that activity and is in fact shared among all the activities within a driving logic path.

In the absence of certain complicating factors, it is common to refer to a shared float value as a property of that path. Critical Path. A project’s Critical Path is the path (i.e. The unique sequence of logically-connected activities and relationships) that determines the earliest possible completion of “the project.” I prefer to call this the “driving path to project completion.” Other logic paths through the schedule are considered “Near-Critical Paths” if they are at risk of becoming the Critical Path – possibly extending the project – at some time during project execution. In our simple project shown below, the Critical Path is Path 1, whose total duration of 4 weeks (20 days on a standard 5dx8h calendar) controls the Early Finish of the completion milestone.In unconstrained schedule models incorporating only a single calendar (and without other complicating factors), the Finish Reflection causes the activities on the Critical Path to have Late dates equal to their Early dates; i.e. Total Float = 0. Consequently, any delay of a Critical-path activity cascades directly to delay of the project completion.

The Near-Critical Paths are then defined as those paths whose activities have Total Float more than zero but less than some threshold. In traditional “Critical Path Management,” activities that are NOT on or near the Critical Path may be allowed to slip, while management attention and resources are devoted to protecting those activities that are on or near the Critical Path. More importantly, acceleration of the project completion (or recovery from a prior delay) may only be accomplished by first addressing the activities and relationships on the Critical Path.Note: The definition of “Critical Path” has evolved with the introduction of new concepts and scheduling methods over the years. The earliest definitions – based on robust schedule networks containing only finish-to-start relationships, with no constraints, no lags, and no calendars – were characterized by the following common elements:.

It contained those activities whose durations determined the overall duration of the project (i.e. The “driving path to project completion.”). It contained those activities that, if allowed to slip, would extend the duration of the project (hence the word “Critical”.). Its activities comprised the “longest path” through the schedule network. That is, the arithmetic sum of their durations was greater than the corresponding sum for any other path in the network. After completion of the forward and backward passes, its activities could be readily identified by a shared Total Float value of zero.

Thus TF=0 became the primary criterion for identifying the Critical Path.With the incorporation of non-FS relationships, early and late constraints, lags, and calendars in modern project scheduling software, these observations are no longer consistent with each other nor sometimes with a single logic path. Some of these inconsistencies are addressed later in this article.

Only the first of these defining elements (“driving path to project completion”) has been generally retained in recent scheduling standards and guidance publications, though implied equivalence of the others continues to persist among some professionals. Software – the Critical Activities / Critical Tasks:The basic element of modern project schedules is the activity or task. In most scheduling tools, logic paths are not explicitly defined. Nevertheless, the obvious importance of the Critical Path dictates that software packages attempt to identify it – indirectly– by marking activities that meet certain criteria with the “Critical” flag.

Activities with the “Critical” flag are called “Critical Activities” (or “Critical Tasks”) and are typically highlighted red in network and bar-chart graphics. Applying Critical Flags using Default Total Float CriteriaThe simplest criterion for flagging a task as “Critical” is TF=0. This is the primary method that most new schedulers seem familiar with, and it is the default criterion for some software packages. As noted earlier, this criterion is applicable to schedules with no constraints and only a single calendar.

In Microsoft Project (MSP) and Oracle Primavera P6 (P6), the default “Critical” flag criterion is TF0 (and less than the specified offset);. Are NOT on the driving path to project completion but have TF less than the specified offset. These are False Positives. For these activities, Total Float could be controlled either by the Finish Reflection (TF=0) or by some other constraint.Critical Flags and Critical PathsUnfortunately, applying the “Critical” flag as noted for most of these considerations has one consistent result: the continuous sequence of activities and relationships constituting a “Critical Path” often remains obscured. It is disappointing that the majority of project schedulers – using MSP or P6 – continue to issue filtered lists of “Critical” activities as “The Critical Path.” Much of the time – especially in MSP – they are not. Even among expert schedulers, there is a persistent habit of declaring Total Float as the sole attribute that defines the Critical Path rather than as a conditional indicator of an activity’s presence on that path.When an activity is automatically marked “Critical” based on Total Float/Slack, the primary conclusion to be drawn is simply, “this activity has Total Float/Slack that is at or below the threshold value. We developed BPC Logic Filter – our Add-In for Microsoft Project – primarily for our own use, and we continue to make modifications mainly when we see the need.

This entry is intended to highlight several recent improvements that have been specifically made to serve the needs of other users. Region and Language Adaptability (Jan’18)As its name implies, creates special views of the project schedule that rely on unique filters and formatting to highlight important, logic-related information. Until recently, these unique filters and formatting were unavailable to Microsoft Project users with non-English display languages. In response to specific requests from French-language users of the software, we made substantial changes to the underlying code and settings to account for the ways that filters, views, and Gantt bars work in different languages. Subsequently, we systematically incorporated several other European languages. As a result, BPC Logic Filter works without limitations in the default French, German, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese (Brazilian) languages in addition to English. Mar’19 Edit: While the program interface is restricted to English, the group of usable language packs has been expanded to nine, including Russian and Hebrew.

Other Unicode-compliant language packs can be added if requested by specific users. User-Selectable Fields in Task Logic Inspector (Feb’18)As shown in a, the Task Logic Inspector provides a rich table of information concerning predecessor and successor tasks; including dates, progress, slack, calendar, and resources. The default fields are shown below. (The resources of the current task are highlighted because the task has been delayed by resource leveling.)While task calendars and resources can be important for determining the basis of a task’s current schedule dates, they are not present in all schedules.

In most schedules, they provide no value in the table.Recent versions of BPC Logic Filter have made these last two columns available as user-selectable, optional fields. Thus, in cases where the Task Calendar or Resources are not important, the user may display other information from the related tasks. Users can select the two option fields using the pull-down lists in the General Settings. To keep things compact, the pull-down lists are restricted to the fields contained in the current task table.Here, the Text3 field (used for a Responsibility code) and the task Work field have been selected. Typically, this information may be useful for the analyst to evaluate the details of the relationship – or to guide further navigation through the network using the Jump button.Jumping through Sub-Projects with Task Logic Inspector (Feb’18)Unlike logic tracing within a standalone project schedule, logic tracing through inter-project links is problematic. BPC Logic Filter was developed to trace such links as long as the connected projects are linked together in a master-subproject structure.The vast majority of Microsoft Project schedules encountered in the world – including most projects that we work with from day to day – are in fact standalone, and the Task Logic Inspector was initially developed to meet that need.

When used within linked master-subproject structures, the initial release of Task Logic Inspector would correctly report the logical relationships, but the Jump button did not work across inter-project links.Some users make extensive use of very large linked master-subproject structures, so recent releases have removed this limitation. The Jump button now works as intended, selecting and activating the selected predecessor or successor (as long as it is visible in the current view). Jumping across inter-project links can involve more number-crunching, however, especially if the two related tasks are many rows apart.The example below is taken from the linked master-subproject structure described in the Introduction to BPC Logic Filter on our website.Posted on Categories. This entry describes the basis for hammock-type summary tasks and introduces an alternate method (and UpdateHammocks macro) for creating and maintaining such tasks in Microsoft Project (MSP) schedules. Hammocks and LOE Tasks“Hammock”. and “Level of Effort” (LOE) tasks in project schedules provide two similar approaches to summarizing and reporting the overall time consumed by a collection of other tasks.

Typically, hammock or LOE tasks are used to represent the indirect management and other support activities associated with the primary tasks, and they are often loaded with management and other indirect resources. Hammock and LOE tasks are essentially the same, though minor differences exist in the implementation by different software.

Since hammocks and LOE tasks do not possess any driving logic, they should be excluded from any formal definition of the Critical Path for the project. The “hammock” name refers to the simple method of suspending a sleeping net or cloth (i.e.

The hammock) between two trees. When first described in hand-drawn activity-on-arrow (AOA) network diagrams, the time-summarizing activity took the shape of a simple curved line slung between two nodes – i.e. Hammocks in PrimaveraPrimavera scheduling tools have long provided explicit activity types for specifying hammock or LOE activities. Primavera Project Planner (P3) and Primavera SureTrak Project Manager, for example, both included specific hammock activity types that would be specially treated in the schedule calculations. The start dates for a hammock were defined by its Start-Start predecessors; finish dates came from its Finish-Finish successors; the same activity could not be included in both groups. Oracle’s Primavera P6, a newer application, allows for LOE activities that inherit their dates from the primary tasks that are included in their “predecessors” and “successors” lists. They are substantially more flexible than P3’s hammocks.

In most respects the scheduling aspects of these LOE activities are similar to the scheduling of summary bars in P6 schedules (and summary tasks in MSP), with the key difference being that there is no need for common hierarchical structure or activity coding of the related primary activities. Hammocks in Other ToolsMost other major project scheduling tools also have special-purpose hammock task types. For example, Phoenix Project Manager, Spider Project, and Deltek Open Plan all provide traditional hammock activity types, whose start and finish are defined by specific logical relationships.

Asta PowerProject also includes a “hammock” task whose construction is more like that of an independent summary activity. That is, it is not necessary to indicate start/finish relationships.

In general, the number of activities being summarized by the hammocks (or LOEs in P6) are not practically limited. OLE Hammocks in MSPMSP has never included an explicit Hammock or LOE task type, and since summary tasks do not provide the needed solution in many cases, a subtle method for constructing simple hammock tasks was created. As described, the method involves copying the start/finish dates from two primary tasks and using a paste-special command to link these dates to the dates of the “hammock” task. The resulting “links” – based on common Windows OLE (object linking and embedding) technology rather than explicit logical schedule relationships – remain essentially hidden and cannot be easily described or audited in an MSP schedule.MSP’s response to changes in the linked dates is similar to its response when dates are entered manually: i.e. It sets an early constraint (SNET or FNET) and adjusts the task duration so that the task spans between the two linked dates.

Unfortunately, even if the links remain stable and updated (which is not guaranteed), the sources of these adjustments remain hidden. MSP OLE Hammock IssuesIn addition to the absence of auditable schedule information, regular users of linked hammocks may have noticed the following issues, which are present in MSP Professional 2010 and later releases:. OLE hammocks are limited to summarizing only two tasks, one task providing the start date and the other providing the finish.

Longest Time Critical Path In Microsoft Project 2016 Free Download Full Version Product Key

This limitation seems most consistent with the original description of hammocks in AOA networks, but it doesn’t exist in other modern software. Often the activities being summarized are potentially concurrent, and it is preferred to allow the software to select dates from the group. MSP does not prevent the assignment of additional logical links or other constraints that may conflict with the OLE links. Creating new linked hammocks by copying and modifying existing linked hammocks – say as part of a fragnet replication – doesn’t work well. The resulting links may be subject to corruption and won’t update reliably.

The only reliable way to create such links is to copy and paste-link them one-at-a-time. Even “automatic” updating of links sometimes fails, with repeated pounding of the F9 key having no affect. In these cases, it’s useful to open the Links window, select all the links, and force an update.

(To open the window, the “Edit Links” command needs to be available on one of the ribbons. It can be added through the “customize the ribbon” dialog.) This tool is absolutely necessary to make OLE hammocks even slightly bearable. Resource leveling of linked hammocks can result in unintended consequences. Although most of these can be corrected by a forced update of the links, some changes require that the hammock task be reconstructed.

Removing leveling splits. The safest course is to assign a priority of 1000 to all linked hammock tasks, thereby exempting them from any leveling actions.MSP Alternate HammocksAn alternate approach to hammocks in MSP involves the following steps:. Create the proposed hammock task as either a Fixed Units or Fixed Work task, depending on the nature of the resource loading required. Specify two predecessors to the proposed hammock task: one Start-to-Start and one Finish-to-Finish, without lags. (These are the same tasks that would otherwise be the sources of the Start and Finish paste-links. Here they are visible and auditable. Do Not paste links.).

Avoid specifying any successors to the hammock. Create a custom flag field named “Hammock,” and assign a value of “Yes” to the Hammock flag for this task. Adjust the duration of the task such that it spans between the associated start and finish predecessor dates. (This is done automatically with the macro code below.). Ensure that the task is assigned a Priority of 1000, which prevents it from being resource-leveled. (This is done automatically with the macro code below.). Load indirect resources to the task as appropriate.This alternate approach has the key benefit of presenting an explicit logical basis for the hammock task’s schedule dates, which can be easily checked and modified if necessary.

It also supports the use of Fixed-Work hammocks for allocation of fixed contract costs. While this alternate approach is no more robust than OLE hammocks when summarizing tasks with potential concurrency, it is far easier to review, modify, and update the associated hammock links when the controlling activities change.The macro/vba code below is intended to automatically update the durations of all hammock tasks in the active project.

It also automatically removes constraints on hammocks and assigns a priority of 1000 to prevent resource leveling.This macro/vba code comprises a subroutine and a custom function that should be pasted together into a single module in the Visual Basic Editor. The “UpdateHammocks” macro may then be assigned to a “hotkey” or ribbon command as appropriate.Edit March 2018. Our MSP add-in, excludes Hammocks constructed using this method from Longest-Path and Near-Longest-Path reports. This satisfies the requirement that such tasks not be included in any calculations of the project’s Critical Path. Since some users have reported inadvertent introduction of splits into hammock tasks during cost updating, I added a little mini-procedure to close all such splits that are 100% in the future, prior to updating the hammock duration. I also updated the duration calculator to accommodate an assigned resource with a non-standard calendar. Sub UpdateHammocks'15Sep'17 coded by TM Boyle, PSP.'

A code to routinely update the Durations of unlinked, user-managed 'hammock' tasks in Microsoft Project.' A 'hammock' task is an indirect/support task that may be resource loaded. Its schedule'depends solely on the tasks that it supports/summarizes.' For this code to work:' - All hammock tasks are coded using a custom Flag field (named 'Hammock'); Alternately Flag1 is assumed.' - Each hammock task has exactly one or two predecessors:' - The 'Start' predecessor has a Start-to-Start relationship with no lag' - The 'Finish' predecessor has a Finish-to-Finish relationship with no lag' - If there is only one predecessor, then both start and finish of the hammock will come from it.' - Each hammock should have NO successors, although this condition is not enforced.'

- Successors on the hammock can synthetically lengthen the backward path to its 'Start' predecessor,' thereby reducing Total Slack in that predecessor and its driving chain.' 21Mar'18 added code to remove splits in hammocks.' 22Mar'18 added code for hammock scheduling using a single resource calendar.Dim t As TaskDim d As TaskDependencyDim StartH As DateDim FinishH As DateDim i As Integer 'Added 21Mar'18If Not HammockFieldExists ThenMsgBox ('Couldn't find a Hammock Flag.

In complex project schedules, multiple critical paths can exist between the project’s start and finish milestones. Additionally, integrated projects with multiple phased scopes of delivery often have several distinct, contractually-mandated deliverables and corresponding delivery dates. Each possesses its own critical/driving path.Note to searchers: This article has a slight mention of Microsoft Project’s Advanced Calculation Option – “Calculate Multiple Critical Paths.” It’s near the end, in the section called A Note About Open Ends.A key tenet of the original Critical Path Method (CPM) of project scheduling is that each project has one and only one “Critical Path” (CP) that extends continuously from the project start milestone to the project finish milestone.

The CP is defined by the collection of activities that determine the finish date of the project, such that a delay of any one of them will delay the project. Traditional methods identify the CP based on Total Slack/Float. Note: in many cases, the from the software. Single Finish Milestone w/ Parallel DriversIt is possible for the “critical path” between the start milestone and the finish milestone to have several parallel branches of equivalent length. These can be described as “multiple critical paths.”Depending on the details of the schedule model, it is not uncommon to have at least a few activities that are both concurrent and critical. That is, they comprise parallel branches of a common logic path that drives the completion of the project.

For example, the construction schedule for a residential building may include one activity for “plumbing rough-ins” and another activity for “electrical rough-ins” (where “rough-in” is another term for “first fix” work.) The two activities have the same driving predecessors (e.g. Structural framing) and driven successors (e.g. Wall finishes), and they take the same amount of time to complete. If the wall finishes are on the driving path to project completion, then the two rough-in activities form parallel branches of the “Critical Path” for the project. Such parallel branches might be repeated for each floor of a multi-story building.

BPC Logic Filter – an add-in for Microsoft Project (desktop) – includes an advanced Logic Inspector feature to greatly simplify the examination and navigation of resource-leveled, logic-driven schedule activities.The resource leveling feature in Microsoft Project (MSP) offers an effective method for management of resource-constrained projects, but most project managers don’t appreciate its impact on Total Slack, the Critical flag, and the resulting “critical path.” Specifically, all of those terms become unreliable or misleading in the presence of resource leveling. I first wrote about those issuesWith some improvements to – we were able to identify resource-driving links and include them in and in other logical path analyses.Analyzing logical paths in schedules requires detailed examination of each task’s dependencies and (for leveled schedules) resource assignments.

It’s helpful to have the results of such examinations at hand while reviewing (and confirming) the logical path analyses, so recent versions include a task Logic Inspector for.Logic Inspector also includes inferred resource-driving links if desired by the user. Consider this simple resource-leveled schedule from the earlier articles.With resource-checking disabled (and no calendars or constraints to confuse things), BPC Logic Filter computes relative float and identifies driving predecessors in a way that is consistent with MSP’s calculation of total slack. For the A2 Structures task (ID 11), this means that the driving predecessor is the only predecessor — ID10: A2 Civil — even though it finishes two weeks before A2 Structures starts.

It also means that A2 Structures is logically driving all three of its successors.While this method is useful for understanding how MSP computes slack in resource leveled schedules, it does not help in understanding the actual resource limitations that drive the schedule of a task. To gain that understanding, we first visit the Tracing Preferences tab in the Settings and ensure that Resource Checking is enabled.Now Logic Inspector shows us the true picture of the schedule of the A2 Structures task. A new predecessor — the true driving predecessor for the task — is identified: the A1 Structures task in Area 1 must finish (and release its resources) before the A2 Structures task can start. The only explicit logical predecessor of the A2 Structures task — ID10: A2 Civil — has 10 days of relative float.

That is, it could slip two weeks according to the standard calendar before THIS RELATIONSHIP starts to drive the A2 Structures task.2. A new “driven successor” is identified in that the A3 Structures task may not start until the structural resources are finished with A2 Structures.3. The A2 Electrical Change Order 1 task is actually 40 days (8 weeks) away from being driven by its relationship to the current task. (It is in fact driven by other resource constraints.)The JUMP button — which allows on-the-fly exploration of the schedule through logic links — treats the (implicit) resource driving links the same as explicit logical relationships. Consequently, it is just as easy to hop through the logic of most resource-leveled schedules as it is to hop through one with no resources at all. Posted on Categories, Tags. Mandatory waiting times between certain tasks are a common feature of many project schedules.

In construction, the typical example is concrete curing time. That is the time interval (typically under a week) after a batch of concrete is placed but before it gains sufficient strength to remove/strip the formwork and continue working. Similar wait times can be required in non-construction projects. Common features of such waiting times are:. The waiting time is not associated with productive work;. The waiting time is independent of any Project, Task, or Resource calendar. That is, it takes place around the clock, independent of weekends and holidays.For a 5-day curing time in a Microsoft Project (MSP) schedule – between concrete placement and form stripping – there are four obvious modeling techniques:.

Create a “cure” task with a “5-day” duration and assign a 7-day x 24-hour calendar to the task. Create a “cure” task and assign a duration of 5 “elapsed” days. Don’t create a “cure” task. Instead model the curing time as a 5-elapsed-day lag between the “place concrete” and “strip forms” tasks.

Create a “cure” task with a 5-day duration and assign a modified 7-day weekly calendar to the task.As shown in the figures, all four techniques can be used to generate the same (early) schedule dates for the project. Which technique to use depends on a few factors. Within MSP, a “day” is fundamentally defined according to the “hours per day” setting for the project, and any “day” entries are automatically converted to minutes using that setting. With default settings, one “day” is 8 hours (i.e. 480 minutes).

This can lead to confusion when calendars are changed or assigned without taking the setting into account. For example, when a 24-hour calendar is assigned to a 3-day-duration task in a project with default (i.e. 8 hours/day) settings, then the task will finish in 24 hours (i.e. 1 calendar day).

Under the same conditions, a curing time of 5 calendar days (i.e. 120 hours) would require a specified task “duration” of 120/8 = 15 days. To minimize such confusion, it is a good practice to specify durations in hours when 24-hour calendars are applied, as shown in the figure. For most purposes, assigning an “elapsed days” duration is functionally equivalent to applying a 24-hour calendar to the task and making the necessary duration adjustments. This can reduce confusion associated with the hours per day setting. The two techniques yield identical results in the example.

Using an elapsed-lag instead of a dedicated task is functionally simple to implement, and many project schedulers routinely use this approach. Nevertheless, lags are generally discouraged or prohibited by some scheduling specifications and recommended practices for good reasons. Chiefly, lags can substantially affect schedule dates while remaining relatively invisible on typical schedule documents – this makes them easy to abuse for date-manipulation.

Microsoft Project Highlight Critical Path

In addition, unlike tasks, lags are not easily incorporated into external algorithms for evaluation or manipulation of project schedules – e.g. For risk simulation. This can substantially degrade the value of such algorithms. Total Slack calculations are substantially complicated by the impacts of multiple calendars (including the use of elapsed durations). Since MSP relies solely on Total Slack to identify “Critical” tasks, the true Critical Path for the project can be inadequately described for any of these techniques. For example, when the curing time finishes at the end of a workday in the middle of the work week, the “cure” task (on a 24-hour calendar) possesses 15 hours of Total Slack – MSP therefore excludes it from the Critical Path.

If instead of a 24-hour calendar, a modified (i.e. 7d x 8h, no-weekend) calendar is applied to the curing task, then the positive Total Slack is eliminated in this case, and the Critical Path is correct. (This is shown at the top of the figure below.) Unfortunately, the modified calendar is no better than the others if the curing time finishes on the weekend. The 1 day of Total Slack causes the Critical Path to be truncated. (See the lower half of the figure below.)Unfortunately, the only out-of-the-box method to ensure that the entire critical path is captured is to raise the Total Slack threshold from the default value (zero) to some number that is judged high enough to capture all the truly critical tasks. I have found such an approach unsatisfactory for a variety of reasons. In any case, the true Critical Path – i.e.

Longest Time Critical Path In Microsoft Project 2016 Standard

The driving logical path to project completion – remains obscured.Fortunately, the Longest Path algorithm in is indifferent to which modeling approach is used. As shown in the figure below, the driving logical paths are correctly identified for each case. (The number to the right of each bar is the task’s path relative float with respect to the project completion task – zero for the longest path. BPC Logic Filter typically depicts logical driving paths with a dark red bar.)Posted on Categories, Posts navigation.

Defining the Critical Path in Microsoft ProjectThe critical path is the longest path through the network, based on task duration, which defines the shortest amount of time in which the project can be completed. Tasks not on the critical path have slack, while tasks on the critical path have zero slack. Slack is the amount of time that a task can be delayed without impacting the project end date.A project activity network looks like this:There are a couple of other terms you may have seen used to refer to the critical path. This includes CPM, which is simply an acronym for the Critical Path Method. Also PERT (Program Evaluation and Review Technique), which is a process in which a probable outcome is evaluated based on three scenarios: a best-case, expected-case, and worst-case scenario. The outcome in question may be the duration of a task, its start date, or its finish date.Calculating the critical path is nothing more than an estimate. Analysis of the critical path requires several assumptions, including the following:◆ All tasks are known: If you forget to add some tasks and add them later, the original critical path may change. Most project plans are missing tasks when they are initially built.◆ All links are accurate: A complicated plan with hundreds of tasks is likely to have some incorrect task dependencies defined.◆ All estimates are accurate: Inaccurate estimates can cause the original critical path to change.◆ Other non-critical paths may have small amounts of slack: A complicated activity path can have multiple noncritical paths. A change in any one of these paths can cause the original critical path to change.Given the amount of assumptions we rely on in our analysis, the only time you know the actual critical path is after the project is finished.Despite these potential problems, the critical path method gives the project manager a good indication of where to focus attention.

The most important application of CPM is to realize a late task on the critical path will cause the project end date to change.The following shows an example of calculating the critical path.PathLength of PathLongest?1-3-4-6-109 daysNo1-2-5-7-10.12 daysYes.1-8-9-1011 daysNoNote that tasks 3, 4, or 6 can be up to 3 days late without changing the critical path. These tasks each have three days of slack.Also note that the tasks on the 1-2-5-7-10 path are on the critical path and have zero days of slack.

If any task on the critical path is late, the project end date will be later.◆ What would happen if Task 2 consumed five days instead of three days?◆ What would the length of the 1-2-5-7-10 path become?◆In this case would the 1-2-5-7-10 path still be critical? Identifying the Critical Path Using Microsoft ProjectThe critical path is constantly calculated by Microsoft Project and can change as tasks are modified or updated. The Tracking Gantt Chart, described later in this chapter, includes the critical path by default.You can also modify the standard Gantt Chart view to see which tasks are on the critical path in a project. The following exercise demonstrates how to do this. Go to File:Options to view the Project Options dialog, and then click Advanced in the sidebar. Scroll to the bottom and note the Tasks are critical if slack is less than or equal to option.

Ensure that this is set to 0 days and click OK.Figure 3 The Project Options dialog box. Apply the Schedule table to see the total slack for the tasks in this project. To do so, from View:Data click the Tables dropdown list and select Schedule. Note that the last column shows the total slack for each task. From View:Data select Critical from the Filter dropdown list. Only critical tasks in your project will now appear.

Note: Look at the ID numbers of these tasks to see that not all tasks are displayed.Figure 5 Only critical tasks (0 slack) appear. The Network Diagram view displays a node for tasks, along with schedule information and connecting arrows to show the relationship and sequence of activities. To see this view, from View:Task Views click the Network Diagram icon. Your screen will resemble the following:Figure 6 Network Diagram view. Critical tasks can also be identified in the Gantt Chart. Reapply the Gantt Chart view, remove the Critical filter (so you again see all tasks in the project), and from Format: Bar Styles select the Critical Tasks checkbox.Your screen will resemble the following:Figure 7 Critical tasks identified in red in the Gantt ChartUsing an example project, you can link different tasks to each other to see how it affects the total slack of each task.