I hope when 5.0 rolls out that someone makes a WAY BETTER project plugin. I still see very very little adoption of the project widget. I too am curious to see a useful example of project utilization.
1 person found this helpful
Think of a Checkpoint as a Milestone - a key date to check the progress of the project but they are not assigned to anyone.
Tasks, of course, are an assignment given to a person to be completed by a certain date.
The projects I can share with you have all their tasks completed and don't show up on the calendar any longer. I'm working on a new one for a pilot effort with a vendor and internal departments but it's not populated yet. Just a few Checkpoints, documents (Charter, handouts), but tasks have not been added yet.
Projects are great but there are some problems in the implementation.
One of the biggest problems with a project is it doesn’t have it’s own permissions! Since it inherits the permissions from a space, one often ends up creating both a space and a project if they want to control access to documents while leaving discussions open for project visibility. That creates duplicate document and discussion areas which confuses the users. That’s not good.
Another problem is that we cannot assign a project to more than one person.
When looking at internal collaboration, there is so much potential in projects – most of what we do is collaborate around a project - a point not lost to Microsoft.
Projects have not evolved much since Clearspace 2.0 and they should.
I'd suggest using Jive projects for project collaboration. Projects offer light project management capabilities, but most use them for collaboration and communication, not necessarily management.
But, perhaps others have used them in a different way?
Building on Gia’s point… think of it as Project Lite. Or “project management for the rest of us”. It can be effective at creating much more visibility for your project. You’ve heard the complaint, “they started the project 2 months ago and I have no idea what’s going on.” SBS projects is an easy way of letting your stakeholders know what’s happening, when tasks are due and the overall status of the project. It also gives the project manager a place to Blog updates as part of their communication plan. It’s also a place for stakeholders and post questions, concerns, new issues, etc.
For medium and larger projects, your project manager will actually want to use Project Management tool and an issue tracking system. But those tools are not friendly to your stakeholders who want to know if there is action on the project without going into detailed updates. With this solution they can look in on the project any time they want, view the progress, see who is working on it, and if they like, contact project members. All of the information is available quickly on SBS.
There is a lot of potential in SBS Project container. There are some positive improvements in Tasks in 4.5 - the fact that you can now assign an owner to a project and create sub-tasks. I hope Jive will consider adding membership capability to projects just like membership in groups. This way you could create multiple projects in Groups or Spaces with each project having its own access control. This will be extremely useful. As an example, iIn our organization while we have formal project management tools and a Portal, they lack the usability when it comes to collaboration, knowledge exchange, storing things like meeting minutes, conversations and other artifacts (to name a few) that need not/cannot necessarily be stored in formal project management tools.
Wouldn't it be great if Projects in Jive SBS simply have their own membership, Group style membership, where the project owner can control member access from the front end?
P.S I had posted two ideas regarding Project Tasks and Permissions in Feature Discussions section: Please vote up if they make sense:
I know this is an older thread however the issue around project permissions comes up time and again with our deployment at HP. If we could get projects to have their own permissions we would not need to create separate groups to manage/engage around smaller projects or projects that are more sensitive in nature as it relates to the broader group.