« The PPC Blues | Main | "Waterfall" is a Bad Way to Refer to Non-Iterative Projects »

Thursday, August 19, 2004


This is the very essence of the concept of having single categories. It *sounds* as if your PM2 is a memeber of a category that gives him permissions to edit projects that are assigned to resources he manages. If this is the case then this category is giving it's people too many permissions. It allows them to SEE these projects AND to edit them. It should let them see all these projects read only and then a 2nd category should allow them to see and EDIT a smaller number of projects (the ones they manage).

I will contact you offline to discuss this further.

Brian K

My frustration with project server is that it doesn't seem to work well with a cross matrixed organization like mine. For example, pm1 (1.1) creates a project with resources (1.1.1) and also adds a resource from (1.2.1) now PM2 (1.2) comes along and he can now edit and save the project pm1 created.

I have tried several ways to work this out with custom groups and views and I haven't found a way around this. I really want to avoid directly assigning projects to categories.


I totally agree on your comments but I think that it is not always possible.

When a PMO initializes a project plan and publish it to the project server, it is automatically considered as the project manager of the plan.
But when the PMO does not want to play that role but ask one of the resource assigned to this project plan to be the project manager, this resource can not manage the project.
Two reasons:
- As a team member he has no rights to manage the project plan,
- project server does not consider him as a project manager because he has not publish the project plan.

So I am obliged to check both boxes in the Project Category for example.

This is how we solved this problem but maybe there is another way to do it and to respect the single purpose rule of the category

The comments to this entry are closed.