projectified

EPMU Developer Course Offering

http://www.msepmu.com/developer.htm

4 Day course with hands on labs and solid coverage of developing around Project Server

Project Server “Infrastructure Update” Client Version Numbers

After you install the Infrastructure Update for Project Server these are the versions you will see on the client.

In IE you will see these two ActiveX controls:

Control                 Version                                ID

PJ12ENUC           12,0,4518,1014                  {D5B680E5-9C5F-45E0-A97C-521D4F281173}

PJAdoInfo4         12,0,6320,5000                  {E3089160-E8AD-4C5B-B47C-ADDF3DF660DD}

In the Project Professional version in Help | About: 12.0.6318.5000  SP1 MSO (12.0.6218.1000)

New Disaster Recovery Info on TechNet

If you deploy or manage a deployment of Project Server 2007 you should read this new content:

No Thanks, I’ll Be Having the Crow

File this under reason 467 why I don’t make my living as a full time developer.

Yesterday I posted some code for parsing out a comma delimited text field, such as a multi-value enterprise field in Project Server 2007.

Today a real developer pointed out that there is a function that does the same thing as my code. DOH!

So here is the new code, most of which is just there to display the results of the function.

Sub Doh()
Dim count As Long

Dim Values As Variant

Values = Split(ActiveProject.Tasks(1).Text1, ",")

'just for display
For count = 0 To UBound(Values)
    Debug.Print Trim(Values(count))
Next count
'----------------
End Sub

Deployment Practices: Configuration >< Process

It is easy for users new to a system like Project Server to see the configuration of fields, views, reports and security as the whole picture of doing a deployment of Project Server. It is also easy to see why there might be this confusion. On the surface it makes sense. You look at the processes in an organization and then you look at security, reports, views, and fields, etc and then configure the tool to match. Easy, right? Not so much.

Doing a deployment of project management software well is not that simple. You need to examine how the tool will be used, how projects get managed, how tasks get estimated by PMs and how resources are assigned. If several PMs define their tasks very tightly (short durations with high resource units) while others define theirs more loosely (longer durations with low resource units) it has an impact on how the data can be analyzed across projects. With the tighter scheduling there can be higher risk of slip but with the looser scheduling the data provides less certainty about where you can put new tasks or projects into the system. I’m not passing judgement on either method there are pros and cons to both. My point here is that this is an example of how the way the tool will be used needs to be taken into account when helping the customer understand how other areas of the tool can be used to make decisions about things like resource allocations or the adding of new projects to the mix. A good configuration is about more than just a few fields and setting up AD sync. It is about having the tool match how the organization works.

This brings up the even bigger part: what if how they do it now is not how they want to be doing it (or even harder, how they want to be doing it but not how they SHOULD be doing it?) Now comes the rough job of helping them understand where changes can be made and how those changes can be broken down into small, more easily digestible changes and road-mapped. More later…

VBA Code For Parsing a MultiValue Text Field

If you are in Project Server 2007 you can have an Enterprise Text using a lookup table that can contain more than one value. If you then need to work with that field data in code (VBA or VSTO) you can use the GetField function to get the value of that field. The catch is that it is returned as a comma delimited string with all the values in it. So if your field had three values selected (Value1, Value19 and Value26) it gets returned as “Value1, Value19, Value26”.

The code below shows how to parse this into an array where it will be easier to work with in code.

As always, take this code and make it your own. This includes doing testing to make sure it does what it is supposed to do. It worked for me on a very limited set of test data. Don’t just throw this into production. ;-)

Sub Parse_Comma_Delimited_Field_Into_Array()

Dim Char As Integer
'Char is used to hold each character in the string to see if it is a comma

Dim WholeField As String
'Wholefield is a string that holds the entire value of the field to be parsed

Dim Values() As String
'Values is the string array that will contain the parsed values

Dim NumberofValues As Integer
'NumberofValues holds the number of values in the 'wholefield'
'so that the 'Values' array can be redim'd

Dim StartofLastValue As Integer
'holds the number of characters from the left of the string where the last
'word started so the value can be pulled from the wholefield string and
'placed into the array

StartofLastValue = 1
NumberofValues = 0

'---Setting value of WholeField to be parsed
WholeField = ActiveProject.Tasks(1).Text1
'---
If Len(WholeField) > 0 Then
    For Char = 1 To Len(WholeField)
        If Mid$(String:=WholeField, Start:=Char, Length:=1) = "," _
        Or Char = Len(WholeField) Then
            NumberofValues = NumberofValues + 1
            ReDim Preserve Values(1, NumberofValues)
            If Char < Len(WholeField) Then
                Values(1, NumberofValues) = Trim(Mid$(String:=WholeField, _
                Start:=StartofLastValue, Length:=Char - StartofLastValue))
            Else
                Values(1, NumberofValues) = Trim(Mid$(String:=WholeField, _
                Start:=StartofLastValue, Length:=Char - (StartofLastValue - 1)))
            End If
            StartofLastValue = Char + 1
        End If
    Next Char
    '-------------------------
        'this section just loops through and shows that the array
        'contains the correct data.
        'Remove after you are finished testing
        Dim count As Integer
        For count = 1 To NumberofValues
            Debug.Print Values(1, count)
        Next count
    '-------------------------

End If
End Sub

Project Server Infrastructure Update

<This is a reposting of content from the Official Project Blog but since it is a pretty important item I am reposting completely.>

Introduction

On July 15th, 2008 Microsoft announced the availability of the Infrastructure Update for Office Servers. The Infrastructure Update for Office Servers is a set of updates to improve platform performance and contain several customer driven fixes.  The updates are applicable to Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007, Windows SharePoint Services 3.0, Microsoft Search Server 2008 & Microsoft Search Server 2008 Express, Microsoft Office Project Server 2007 and Microsoft Office Project 2007.

There are several noteworthy new features and fixes shipped in these updates for Project Server 2007 and Project 2007; specifically:

Project Server

• Timesheets and My Tasks stability and usability improvements
• Queue Management user interface improvements
• Logging Tracing improvements
• Project Server performance improvements
• Project Server 2003 to Project Server 2007 migration fixes
• Database performance improvements to enhance the cube building process and Project Professional Save/Publish scenarios

Project Professional

• Cost Resources calculation fixes
• Improved Custom Fields stability
• Improved local Project Cache stability
• Fixed Excel Import problem

Please read Project 2007 Infrastructure Update Release for Server and Client to learn about its content in detail.

The Infrastructure Updates are available as free downloads to customers via the download center on http://www.microsoft.com/download.

Before you install the Infrastructure Update there are some very important things to understand.  In this post we'll try to provide you with the resources you need to be successful in your updates.  It is essential that you understand the appropriate links, and thoroughly read the guidance and test out the patch in a separate environment prior to a production rollout.

Full installation instructions and guidance is provided in the Knowledge Base articles linked from the download pages for each update along with existing TechNet guidance for patching Office Servers.  The links are also included further on in this Q&A, but for reference, the following products require the following updates to be applied.

• If you are running SharePoint Server 2007 you should install the Infrastructure Update for Windows SharePoint Services 3.0 (KB951695) first and the Infrastructure Update for Microsoft Office Servers (KB951297) second.
• If you are running Project Server 2007 you should install the Infrastructure Update for Windows SharePoint Services 3.0 (KB951695) first and the Infrastructure Update for Microsoft Office Servers (KB951297) second.  You should also then install the Infrastructure Update for Microsoft Office Project 2007 (KB951547) on all Project 2007 client PC’s.

Read more about the new SharePoint features here

Read more about the new Search features here

Read more about the Content Deployment updates here

Knowledge Base Articles

Infrastructure Update for Windows SharePoint Services 3.0

KB951695 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/951695

Infrastructure Update for Microsoft Office Servers

KB951297 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/951297

Infrastructure Update for Microsoft Office Project 2007

KB951547 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/951547

List of Fixes

Infrastructure Update for Microsoft Office Project 2007

KB953751 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/953751

Infrastructure Update for Windows SharePoint Services 3.0

KB953749 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/953749

Installation Instructions

It is strongly recommended that you install Windows SharePoint Services 3.0 Service Pack 1 and Office Servers Service Pack 1 before installing the Infrastructure Update for Microsoft Office Servers (KB951297) and the Infrastructure Update for Windows SharePoint Services 3.0 (KB951695).

The installation process will incur server and farm downtime that you will need to plan for – the updates should be installed on all servers in a farm.

• Deploy Software Updates for Windows SharePoint Services 3.0
• Deploy Software Updates for Office SharePoint Server 2007 - This article also applies to Project Server 2007, SharePoint Server 2007, Search Server 2008 and Search Server 2008 Express.
• Install the Infrastructure Update for Microsoft Office Servers (Office SharePoint Server 2007)
• Install the Infrastructure Update for Microsoft Office Servers (Search Server 2008)

Downloads

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Is Office Servers Service Pack 1 (SP1) a prerequisite or installed as part of this fix?
A: No.  Our supportability commitments to customers include providing the ability to install hotfixes on the two most recent versions of a product, in this case RTM and SP1.  So installing these updates directly onto an RTM server is not blocked and will install some of the fixes shipped in Office Servers Service Pack 1, but only those that are contained in files that are changed by the Infrastructure updates.

Q: Can I uninstall the server updates?
A: No.  The Infrastructure Update for Microsoft Office Servers (KB951297) and the Infrastructure Update for Windows SharePoint Services 3.0 (KB951695) cannot be uninstalled.  Both updates make database schema changes.

Q: Can I install the “Infrastructure Update for Microsoft Office Project 2007 (KB951547)” Project 2007 client update without installing the “Infrastructure Update for Microsoft Office Servers (KB951297)” on the server?
A: Yes, the “Infrastructure Update for Microsoft Office Project 2007 (KB951547)” includes fixes for both client/server communication and local client features, so if you don’t have Office Project Server 2007 but use Office Project 2007 client this update can be safely installed and you will be able to take advantage of all the client updates.

Q: Where can I find information on Service Pack 1 for Project Server and Project Professional 2007?

A: Please check the following: http://blogs.msdn.com/chrisfie/archive/2007/12/12/announcing-the-release-of-epm-2007-service-pack-1.aspx

Q: What if I have an issue that isn’t addressed by this update?
A: If your customer has a specific issue that these updates do not address you should follow the Microsoft Support process to log the issue and request a hotfix.

Shot at Visualizing an “SBS”

Clearly a single strategy can be served by many projects and a single project can serve many strategies. The discussions I have had both in the comments of my previous strategy breakdown structure posts and in the emails I have received have brought up some very interesting points. I have gone from liking the idea of linking strategy directly to "elements" within a single project to thinking it was unnecessary and cumbersome and now back to liking the idea again!

I think there could be some really cool outcomes not only for the Organizational Strategy side of the house or the Portfolio Alignment side of house but also for the "PM or team member that just wants to have a better picture of where their hard work fits into the big picture" side of the house as well.

Strategy "Down" to Project Visualization

Linkages from Strategy "Down"

This would provide the organization with a more detailed picture of how strategies are being made to come true via projects and the deliverables of those projects. Linking specific deliverables to the strategy instead of the traditional method of linking whole projects requires a more detailed thought process to be involved. Whole projects would not be just dropped in the "Strategy A" bucket. Instead finite parts of the project would need to be analyzed as to how they support a strategy.

Project "Up" to Strategy

Linkages from the Project "UP"

This way of looking at the relationships offers a different perspective. This diagram would be useful for PMs and team members to more easily visualize how their project and even their particular part of a project supports the overall organizational strategy.

The other thing it would do would be to provide an interesting 'scope check' early in the project. Notice that the deliverables are not only numbered but they are numbered within a set of 4. Where is Deliverable 2? The question would be..."If Deliverable 2 does not directly support a strategy why is it there?" Certainly there are valid answers to this question. This is not to say that just because it does not have a direct strategy link that it should be removed but there is value in the question and value in the process required to adequately answer the question. Answering these kinds of questions and making these kinds of links might force us and managers and planners to think about individual parts of our project in a different way. It might make us examine our scope and our deliverables and the usage of our teams in a different ways. On the 'other side' of this same coin it might make us think about our strategies in different ways as well.

I very much want your thoughts on this. Please email me with your thoughts. I will NEVER share your name or contact info with anyone without first getting your specific approval.No details about your company, your name or your clients will ever be posted here without your specific approval.

Possible problems with the approach that need to be addressed

Nothing is perfect. There are issues with this approach

1. Breaking deliverables up and linking them directly may hide the fact that a project is not generally a disconnected set of unrelated deliverables. Tracking any one deliverable as being 'the' part of the project that supports a given strategy may not be effective in communicating the importance of the other deliverables. It would be important to ensure that this approach (of linking deliverables to strategies) was used with the right caveats and within a context of understanding the importance of the whole.
2. It requires a project organization methodology that contains "deliverables". In my opinion this is the ONLY way to organize a project but there are those that disagree. This approach would only work if your project was organized into chunks that could be linked 'UP'.
3. It implies Big Up Front Planning (maybe). This approach could be seen as being supportive only of "traditional" PM methods, which is to say it could be seen as NOT supporting the more "Agile" methods.
4. Any More? Email me PLEASE. I want to know what is wrong just as much as I want to know what is right! :-)

SBS Taxonomy

2nd old Strategy Breakdown Structure post…

OK so I will take a first shot at what the levels of the SBS would look like.

Strategic Initiative
        Objective
                Program
                        Project
                                WBS

Just a shot into the thin air. How do you all (all 18 of you LOL) see this working? How would you like to see these levels broken down?

Do you see this kind of expansion of the strategic alignment idea as being useful? Is there value in breaking a strategic initiative down into chunks smaller than the initiative itself but yet still larger than the projects that support that initiative?

Reposting: Strategy Breakdown Structure

This is a repost of an old post from the original Projectified site. Hoping it can bring about some new discussion

Strategy Breakdown Structure?

I was reading Demian's blog over on the ITToolbox family of blogs and he was talking about what he called WBS 2.0 and it's interplay with project portfolio management. It got me thinking last night about how strategy is (should be) connected to a new, broader idea of Work Breakdown Structure. Since the top level of a work breakdown structure (within it's currently held definition) is the project I was thinking about how the broader definition would necessarily change the W in WBS to something else. SBS came to mine initially for Strategy Breakdown Structure. If we start with organizational strategy as the driving force behind the management and alignment of the portfolio of projects then it makes sense that to get a decomposition of all the work that feeds up to those strategic goals that we would start with the strategy and work down.

So we start with the Strategy as "Level 0" in the SBS. What is the next level? Do we jump right to individual projects? Is there one or two intermediate levels between the strategy and the project level? What would those look like? What would we call them?

The more I think about this the more I like it as a way to help organizations do a better job of aligning projects to specific strategic initiatives particularly if there is one or two intermediate levels between the strategy itself and the project. I have found in many cases that the very broad nature of the strategy level being the buckets into which projects are placed that it is overly easy to put a project into a bucket without much analysis of why that project belongs in that bucket. It seems as if the strategy was broken down into smaller parts it would require some more thought about which one of the sub areas of that strategy the project supports.

So help me out with your thoughts on this. Email me at brianken@microsoft.com with your ideas on this subject. I will compile them and share the findings here.

New Home for Projectified

I have moved Projectified to the following address:

http://blogs.technet.com/projectified/

The same FeedBurner RSS feed  (http://feeds.feedburner.com/Projectified) still works as I changed its settings to point to the TechNet blog.

The existing www.projectified.com site will stay up for a long time or until I can figure out how to bulk export the posts from here and import them into the TechNet blog.