Adding a Start - finish dependency does not move out the timeline of predecessor

rasmus

HI all,

I am new to smartsheets and is setting up my first project plan.

I have task A and Task B

Task B is depending on Task a finishing

so I have added a finish start depency of task A to task B - Great.

but now I realize I forgot Task C which must start after task A finishes but End before task B starts.

so I added a finish start dependency to task A

and a start finish depencency to task B

Expecting smartsheets moving task B into the future after task C finishes.

But no - it just adds some odd arrows between task B and C not updating the timeline in my Gant chat.

is this a bug?

Find more posts tagged with

Accepted answers

All comments

Paul Newcome

Try making task C a dependent of Task A and then Task B a dependent of Task C.

rasmus

hi Paul - that is really a work around rather than a fix.

think about if I have the same issue - but 10 tasks, and now I need to get a task in between.

then I have to update 9 tasks for the Gantt to be correct. I mean I can do that - but it seems like the function is not doing what it is claiming it should do!

Paul Newcome

It really isn't a work around though. Think about it... If you make Task C a dependent of Task B, then Task B should not adjust. If you want Task B to be dependent on Task C, then you need to set it up that way.

rasmus

ok - I guess.

What you are saying is the order of which you enter the tasks matter, which I think is silly!

The only constraint on B is that is cannot start until A has finished, so when the constraint is added to C to end before B starts - I would only make sense if that constraint propagate to B.

if this is not the case - the "finish - start" option doesn't really add anything.

Bottomline - the tool does not do what I was hoping. thank you for the reply!

Paul Newcome

That's not what I am saying. You can enter tasks in any order you want. But if you want to make a task dependent on another task, then the predecessors should be set up accordingly. Bottom line - The tool works when used properly.

rasmus

HI Paul.

I do appreciate you trying to help, but "using the tool properly" isn't really helpful

But my very first Statement is that I am new - so it is to be expected that I might not use the tool properly. Why would I write on this forum if I had any clue on how to use the tool properly.

in stead of finding a better way explaining your point - you give me banther. which helpes no-one.

you keep talking about making Task B dependent on C - but it isn't dependent on task C in it self.

Task C has a pre-requisite to finish before task B, and there are no conflicting requirements on task B so the tool should in my opinion just move task B out in time. as long as the single dependency to start sometime after task A has finished.

What would be helpful is if you could provide a link to an example of how the "finish-state" is supposed to be used.

Paul Newcome

I explained it a couple of different ways and only used similar verbiage to yours. If you have a problem with the way that I have worded my responses, keep in mind that they are a direct reflection of your response previous.

That said... Yes. I did see that you said you are new. That is why I explained how to use the tool properly and the logic behind it. Why would I answer as many questions as I have over more than 5 years if I didn't have at least some grasp on how to use the tool properly? But instead of accepting that, you decided to keep refusing to even try it. Which helps no one.

If Task B is not a successor to Task C, then why would it move based on Task C? If Task C is a successor to Task B, then Task C will be the one to adjust based on the Task B data.

You are set up as...

Task B must start when Task A ends.

Task C must finish before Task B begins.

Do you see how that is different from...

Task C must start when Task A ends.

Task B must start after Task C ends.

Whatever the "parent" task is, that is the one that is going to determine what happens to the successor tasks. Making Task C Dependent on Task B means that Task B is going to drive Task C.

rasmus

I see the difference, I Read the dependency as task B must start sometime after Task A finishes.

but the tool reads it as "must start immediately after Task A finishes".

so in reality the dependency I am setting up for my Task C to finish before Task B creates a conflict (in the view of the tool)

Do you agree with this statement?

Paul Newcome

I wouldn't say that it creates a "conflict".

I would just say that what you are doing and what you are wanting to do are two different things, but that difference is very much so semantics.

What you want to say:

Task B starts when Task C ends.

What you are saying:

Wedge Task C between Tasks A & B.

Does that make more sense? While they both have the same outcome in that Task B starts when Task C ends, you can see that the start of Task B is dependent on two different things.

You can add lag/lead time to dependencies, so adding lag time to the FS dependency on Task B of Task A can provide a larger gap for Task C to fit in, but that is still a set time where Task B is dependent on Task A and still forces Task C to adjust instead of telling B to start after C.

Sign in to join the conversation!

Quick Links

Component react.discussion.discussions had an error.

ref must be one of: categoryID, siteSectionID, category, category/categoryID, category/name, category/description, category/url, category/allowedDiscussionTypes, locale, siteSection, siteSection/basePath, siteSection/contentLocale, siteSection/sectionGroup, siteSection/sectionID, siteSection/name, siteSection/description, siteSection/apps, siteSection/attributes, layoutViewType, discussionID, commentID, page, sort, discussion, discussion/name, tags, breadcrumbs, discussionApiParams, serverDraftID, serverDraft.