Elizabeth HarrinDirector| RebelsGuideToPM.comLondon, England, United Kingdom
With your work breakdown structures, which numbering convention do you use:
1 is the very top level ("the project") so everything on the WBS starts with 1.something.
0 is the very top level, and the first level is 1, 2, 3 etc so the WBS has items called 1.3, 2.5, 3.1 etc.
I have always used the second option, and had 1, 2, 3, as the main components. But our new software tool only lets us use 1.x and now I have some tasks called 1.2.1.1.3 etc. I think it's confusing to have everything starting with 1 - I don't see the point of it, you might as well drop the 1.
A quick Google shows that there are images of WBS using both systems for numbering. Is there a definitive, best practice approach?
This is hard to explain without a graphic, but hopefully you understand what I mean! Saving Changes...
Product Operations Program ManagerBarcelona, Cataluña, Spain
In MS Project, the main root is indeed Project Title, and then I indent work packages under it (WP2, WP3, WP4...). Within every WP, indent activities as see fit. Although some practitioners prefer to have a separate section with milestones, I prefer to embed them within the schedule.
In the assignment of resources to generic activities (i.e. meetings, overhead, etc.), I do add a WP at the end of the schedule to include these. Saving Changes...
Mark WarnerProject Manager| AURATucson, Az, United States
I think both ways are fine, but if your project is part of a larger program of projects, then numbering the single highest level element will often make sense. Saving Changes...
I find it better to use the first one, also. But if the numbering process is under software restrictions, the only way I see is to do what Steve Ratkaj said and control the different Phases on the second level.
For someone used to keep track with the first option, changing to the second is rather strange, but I believe that, after a while, we end up getting used to it Saving Changes...
Community Champion
