Skip to main content
Question

Requirements Profiling after Schedule Finish Date adjustment

  • September 24, 2025
  • 3 replies
  • 28 views

Forum|alt.badge.img

Hi Community, I have a question about best practices for planning and profiling requirements/assignments. PMs very often profile requirements in our projects. However, it sometimes happens that activities need to be extended. In such a situation, extending the activity by changing the Schedule Finish or directly extending the Duration causes the profiling set by the PM to be completely disrupted, as the system itself tries to adjust the data to the new end date. The PM would like it to remain as originally set and to be able to profile additional days/months manually. Is there any functionality that I am not aware of that allows this? 

3 replies

partha.saha
Planview Falcons
Forum|alt.badge.img+3
  • Planview Falcons
  • 38 replies
  • October 10, 2025

@swka Hi, As far as I know, There’s no direct way to extend an activity without affecting the existing profile, but you could try setting the effort or utilization to zero, saving, and then reapplying the original effort. In some cases, this helps reset the spread.


Forum|alt.badge.img+2
  • Gold Innovator
  • 18 replies
  • November 11, 2025

Hi ​@swka, I’m afraid this is a fundamental constraint of the Fixed Effort planning model which I’m aware a number of other customers have commented on in the past.  Your use case is identical to ours - our PMs regularly need to stretch existing tasks, but the impact of automatically reprofiling the effort creates massive rework and quickly became a roadblock for adoption of good quality planning in Planview and has driven our PMs back to offline planning tools.  Maybe if we were operating in a different project environment - as a software consultancy for example, fixed effort planning would be an appropriate model but for many it just doesn’t work. 

We’ve recommended breaking plans down into smaller duration tasks to mitigate the impact, but the poor UX and challenging nature of maintaining plans compared with the likes of MSP means there has been limited uptake, and at the end of the day, it’s still a workaround.

I think there are plenty of customers who would like to see alternative planning models available, along with a more user-oriented planning experience

Regards,

 

James


Forum|alt.badge.img
  • Author
  • 4 replies
  • November 17, 2025

Hi ​@James Bonfield , thank you for your suggestion. We are also proposing a similar workaround internally.

Unfortunately, the problem with every workaround is that it only complicates system usage, and our users are becoming even more frustrated.

I have already created an enhancement request on this topic (though I doubt it will be considered, just like all the others I've created).

However, you might be interested in voting for it and supporting the idea.

https://planviewideas.spigit.com/portfolios2025q4/Page/ViewIdea?ideaid=729 

Best regards,

Anna