It may be a good point of view.
But as I experienced :
- "extra" work can be negative : calculated left is more than zero but work is done (ok, it's not very often, but it happens)
- it is more difficult for resource to express extra than to estimate remaining to end.
The best way is to request "how much work do you need to finish".
Then possibly we could caculate the "extra" work.
But requesting "extra" work from start will lead to hidden extra work until estimate is overtaken (resource will be somewhat afraid to tell there si some extra).

Requesting for "left" work os psychologicaly more easy to get the good information "as soon as possible", and then correctly plan project

The negative value is not a big deal.

It is similar to the "delay" value in a FS dependency: Sometimes you may want a negative value there also (thus building an overlap). Just as we have not minded such possibility there, we should not mind an occasional negative value, as long as the majority case is nicely addressed.

BTW in accountancy also, if there is a loss, it is still written in the "profit" column, but in parenthesis (they never use a negative sign). Thus each profession has its own convention.

And thanks to Hofstadter's law, most of the time it would be a positive value only! 🙂

*******
@Difficulty in expressing "extra"

Well, first of all, it is very natural for a resource to say that I am left with 5 days, but I need 4 days extra".
It's a simple math that we do in our mind subconsciously: The resource needs 9 days in all.
No big deal.

But the current system hides the fact that there are two Lefts now!

• One Left is the time left according to the original assignment (what the PM takes for granted).
• The second Left is what the resource has decided for himself.

But ProjeQtor shows only the second Left: The original Left is lost!!
Unless the PM keeps saving baselines, he cannot predict when any of the tasks will get extended.
If you look at any views of the projects, such extensions are impossible to spot at a glance.
Practically, the PM loses control on his project.

On the other hand, any value in the "extra" field catches his eye, and these are all delays (99% of the time), cause for concern.

Unless the PM keeps saving baselines, he cannot predict when any of the tasks will get extended.
If you look at any views of the projects, such extensions are impossible to spot at a glance.
Practically, the PM loses control on his project.

I agree that showing extra is a good thing, even though PM has "reasessed" to see difference with assigned.

Well, first of all, it is very natural for a resource to say that I am left with 5 days, but I need 4 days extra".
It's a simple math that we do in our mind subconsciously: The resource needs 9 days in all.
No big deal.

Here, I don't agree.
Psychologically, resource will be scared to enter extra : it points out their weakness.
Changing left is more easy just to reflect reallity.
Mathematically it's the same.
Psychologically it's completely different.
With entering "Extra", resource will postpone as much as possible entering data here, so the side effect is that they won't change it until left is zero, and continue entering real with left to zero.
(after 25 years of Project Management, I can assume that psychology is very important)

So showing extra : Yes
Entering extra : I'm againt it

As regards psychology, please consider the influence of cultural/business constraints.

Take India (strictly as an example).

A typical Indian way is "top-down". Here, resources do not enjoy equality with their bosses.
(see comparison of cultures between between India and France)

India is a global favorite for software development. But to please the global clients (against stiff competition), Indian vendors commit tight deadlines and low margins. They simply cannot afford to let the project get delayed unpredictably.

This prevents them from allowing their resources a free hand to add delays.

If the PM does not want any delays (especially in the MCP tasks), ProjeQtor must not encourage the resources to add delays.

Moreover, ProjeQtor keeps the PM totally unaware of the delays being added without warning. This is a nightmare for the business!

The psychological angle can be handled best if the delay is already negotiated with the boss.
Then the resource can fill that new value without any trepidation.

In fact, no designed feature can override the business compulsion and cultural bounds.

For example, ProjeQtor does not allow anyone to work beyond 8 hours per day. But slow workers would have to work more hours to catch up. And yet they may want to declare the same 8 hours of real work, to hide their own inefficiency. (If they enter the real number of hours they put in, their billing may exceed the budget, which may put their job in jeopardy!)

Thus the resources will cheat with ProjeQtor's auto-leveling feature for self-preservation!

Indian vendors commit tight deadlines and low margins

This is not restricted to india B)

This prevents them from allowing their resources a free hand to add delays.

At one moment, Resource must highlight delays : because they are slow, or because of unpredictable issue, of because of underestimated workload

Moreover, ProjeQtor keeps the PM totally unaware of the delays being added without warning

You can define indicators that will raise alerts !

The psychological angle can be handled best if the delay is already negotiated with the boss.

I completely agree : tool does not remove communication

ProjeQtor does not allow anyone to work beyond 8 hours per day.

ProjeQtOr does not "plan" more that resource capacity, but real work can be entered more.
ProjeQtOr does not block.

Thus the resources will cheat with ProjeQtor's auto-leveling feature for self-preservation!

This is not due to Projeqtor. Resource will do the same whatever the tool.

It is OK to give a psychological advantage to the resource in opening up about the extra time needed.

But it has the following disadvantages:

• It affects the project's timeline without the PM's knowledge/concurrence.
• It may exceed the resource's allocation period to the project.
• It will delay the dependent tasks, thus affecting the allocation period of the OTHER resources to the project.
• The change of allocation period of all resources will lead to delays in OTHER projects as well.

Thus a casually extended task can have three separate domino effects.

In some organizations there is a matrix reporting (resources report to a manager, but get allocated to different projects, sometimes concurrently).

In such cases the extension affects multiple managers: The current PM, the other affected PMs and the resource manager.
All the managers will have to scramble to take corrective measures.

Thus the tool should not allow a junior employee to set off chain of events across the organization.

In such cases the tool cannot leave this to outside communication channels to settle the issue.
The workflow itself must handle the entire issue of extension.

Hi Babynus,

Congratulations on winning the FIFA cup!

If you review the points I made in this thread, you will realize that there are several major advantages of not letting the resources change the Left figure, and several critical advantages for the business if the extension is brought to the attention of the manager.

Could you please bring in any solution that addresses the points I raised?
IMHO an Extra column is the simplest solution.

Request recorded as Ticket #3491
Set at low priority.

Only a yellow card? I expected a red card (immediate elimination from the game!)