Comments on: Depending on Dependencies

By: Bruce P. Henry

Bruce P. Henry — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:18:12 +0000

Using dependencies to model stuff like “developer can’t start until designer is done” is a perfect use of dependencies. Just don’t go crazy making everything dependent upon the thing in front of it. Try to limit your use of dependencies to where big sequences of work go from one person to another.

Now the developer might not be able to start on the user interface until the database work is done. But if both the UI and DB work are assigned to the same developer just put them in priority order rather than building a dependency.

Dependencies are kinda like absolute references, they make a schedule very brittle. Move a couple of things around and all of the sudden you’re left trying to figure out why your schedule looks so wacky.

By: Caroline Meeks

Caroline Meeks — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:09:48 +0000

I had the same question as John. The client can’t review the page until the development is done. Isn’t that a dependency? How else would I model that in your system?

By: John Quillen

John Quillen — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 03:04:14 +0000

I hear you about dependencies. Two situations that I need dependencies for are:
- sequencing roles (e.g. designer, developer, tester) The developer can’t start until the designer is done…
- outsource components; controlling delivery has been a challenge. When my local deveopers are waiting and I adjust delivery of a component they’re waiting on that dependency causes some other piece of work to naturally fall ahead in the schedule (hopefully that’s clear)

Any suggestions for how to tackle these without dependencies?

I _love_ LiquidPlanner!! Thanks!