Ylva Espling
Ylva Espling

Ylva Espling

Level
0
Score
0
Team

We consider the parent activities to be only containers of work to be done, including aggregations of this work. Keeping this strategy makes it logical to keep as it is and to only allow cards to be attached to activities on the lowest level.

Comments (4)

Hi Henning,
thanks for your feedback! As we see it there are two different alternatives how to look at the parent activities. Either they are "work" themselves or they are simply containers where you can put in "work" and see aggregations for this "work". We have choosen the latter way of looking at parent activities which means that the parent activities can not be linked to cards themselves, because they are only containers of the work to be done.

When the situation you describe above occur, our tip is to first create the new container activity and add the existing activity (that includes the cards) as an sub-activity to this one. This minimize any extra work needed when redoing the plan.

Regards
Ylva

Ylva Espling
Ylva Espling

Ylva Espling

Level
0
Score
0
Team

We consider the parent activities to be only containers of work to be done, including aggregations of this work. Keeping this strategy makes it logical to keep as it is and to only allow cards to be attached to activities on the lowest level.

Henning Kern
Henning Kern

Henning Kern

Level
1
Score
280

I see your point - but I still disagree.

IMHO it would be beneficial to make existing activities to "parents" - the container activities just add another needless level to the plan...
Less complexity in the plan leads to higher acceptance in the team.

BTW: If you want to be consistent on the "logical side", it shouldn't be possible to report times on the "container-dummy-parent" activities (No work = no time, right?)

DIMELO - SocialCRM software editor