Cesar FiestasTechnical Project Leader| Intuitive ProjectsNewport Beach, Ca, United States
Experts,
So it seems that at the end ...a task regardless of its type, does have a cost. If you look at it this way, the moment that you add a task, there is already some sort of "time" involved to complete the task, whether is a simple checklist or is a task marked as a travel task. There will be some sort of time involved, now since time is money, then we can now say that money is a cost.
It seems that the difference is on how one, keeps track of total cost of a task. After all, a cost can be added or can be part of the task in multiple ways but there will always be an associated cost to a task.
Experts please correct me if I am wrong.
...
1 reply by Keith Novak
Nov 09, 2018 10:43 AM
Keith Novak
...
Cesar- Even though tasks take time, not all tasks require the same resources so not all time costs the same. For example, you have a construction project which requires soil compaction. That involves making a big heavy pile of dirt and letting it sit on the job site for a few months to compress the ground. You're not burning labor hours while the dirt pile is just sitting there, but the task takes significant time to complete and must be accounted for. The materials and equipment cost might be much more significant than the time cost.
You are absolutely correct that there is a difference in how one keeps track of the total cost of a task. Some of that is finance related such as how capital goods expenditures are treated differently than labor. Some of it is also how you apportion costs to tasks, where some of the resources are actually spread across multiple tasks, such as equipment that is used at different times for different tasks. To reflect when the tool must be used, you might relate it to individual tasks for scheduling availability. The cost of the tool itself on the other hand might be accounted for in a different bucket of money so that you're not "double dipping" your capital equipment costs for each place it's used. This is where internal finance standards can be very important.
You could associate contingency reserve costs at the task level if there are risks requiring reserves to be established which can be directly tied to a task.
Kiron
Keith -
In practice, you are correct that contingency reserves are often pooled at the overall project level, but the benefit of linking them directly where possible to tasks or at least milestones is that it optimizes reserve usage by shifting unused reserves from projects where risks haven't been realized to those where greater impacts were felt.
So it seems that at the end ...a task regardless of its type, does have a cost. If you look at it this way, the moment that you add a task, there is already some sort of "time" involved to complete the task, whether is a simple checklist or is a task marked as a travel task. There will be some sort of time involved, now since time is money, then we can now say that money is a cost.
It seems that the difference is on how one, keeps track of total cost of a task. After all, a cost can be added or can be part of the task in multiple ways but there will always be an associated cost to a task.
Experts please correct me if I am wrong.
Cesar- Even though tasks take time, not all tasks require the same resources so not all time costs the same. For example, you have a construction project which requires soil compaction. That involves making a big heavy pile of dirt and letting it sit on the job site for a few months to compress the ground. You're not burning labor hours while the dirt pile is just sitting there, but the task takes significant time to complete and must be accounted for. The materials and equipment cost might be much more significant than the time cost.
You are absolutely correct that there is a difference in how one keeps track of the total cost of a task. Some of that is finance related such as how capital goods expenditures are treated differently than labor. Some of it is also how you apportion costs to tasks, where some of the resources are actually spread across multiple tasks, such as equipment that is used at different times for different tasks. To reflect when the tool must be used, you might relate it to individual tasks for scheduling availability. The cost of the tool itself on the other hand might be accounted for in a different bucket of money so that you're not "double dipping" your capital equipment costs for each place it's used. This is where internal finance standards can be very important.
...
1 reply by Cesar Fiestas
Nov 15, 2018 8:13 AM
Cesar Fiestas
...
Keith,
First of all thank you for your time. You have mentioned a good example of a task, on the example you mentioned then;
-The people making the big heavy pile of dirt are "resources" assigned to the task "Make pile of dirt. Then it seems that there is another task,
-The task "let pile of dirt sit on job site"...now how would this tasks should be classfied as ? Since no labor hours are consumed or human resources are assigned to it?
furthermore most likely there are a lot of tasks that depend on this one being completed before they can start.
I guess my point is how, does a company keep tracks of this task, and would it be any cost associated with this task at all?
Once again thanks for your time
Saving Changes...
Cesar FiestasTechnical Project Leader| Intuitive ProjectsNewport Beach, Ca, United States
Nov 09, 2018 10:43 AM
Replying to Keith Novak
...
Cesar- Even though tasks take time, not all tasks require the same resources so not all time costs the same. For example, you have a construction project which requires soil compaction. That involves making a big heavy pile of dirt and letting it sit on the job site for a few months to compress the ground. You're not burning labor hours while the dirt pile is just sitting there, but the task takes significant time to complete and must be accounted for. The materials and equipment cost might be much more significant than the time cost.
You are absolutely correct that there is a difference in how one keeps track of the total cost of a task. Some of that is finance related such as how capital goods expenditures are treated differently than labor. Some of it is also how you apportion costs to tasks, where some of the resources are actually spread across multiple tasks, such as equipment that is used at different times for different tasks. To reflect when the tool must be used, you might relate it to individual tasks for scheduling availability. The cost of the tool itself on the other hand might be accounted for in a different bucket of money so that you're not "double dipping" your capital equipment costs for each place it's used. This is where internal finance standards can be very important.
Keith,
First of all thank you for your time. You have mentioned a good example of a task, on the example you mentioned then;
-The people making the big heavy pile of dirt are "resources" assigned to the task "Make pile of dirt. Then it seems that there is another task,
-The task "let pile of dirt sit on job site"...now how would this tasks should be classfied as ? Since no labor hours are consumed or human resources are assigned to it?
furthermore most likely there are a lot of tasks that depend on this one being completed before they can start.
I guess my point is how, does a company keep tracks of this task, and would it be any cost associated with this task at all?
As others have said, you could schedule it as a lag, following the "make pile of dirt" task. I find that causes a loss of visibility which is problematic when many subsequent tasks depend on the completion. Maintaining the visibility of "let dirt sit" as a long duration task shows the importance of "make pile of dirt" on time, or the whole schedule is in jeopardy. In fact I would probably put program milestones at both the start and finish.
With some tools, you can put this as a task in your plan, complete with predecessors and successors and simply not assign hours or performers. I have "tricked" systems that require input such as by entering "hours = 1" and creating a fictional performer such as "Not Applicable" and the planning system will accept it. That way it still goes on your master schedule/plan as an important constraint for other tasks. In this case there would be no cost associated that I can see, but for other similar tasks (e.g something has to sit in a climate controlled chamber for a long time) there may actually be costs associated. Saving Changes...
