A family of Microsoft relational database management systems designed for ease of use.
BevanTaylor25,
Project's convenient outlining methods facilitate the development of schedules with lots of duplicate names. The unfortunate consequence is that we (both schedulers and reviewers) become completely dependent on the outline structure to define the scope of a particular task. Ultimately, the productivity gained in creating the original task list and WBS (copy/paste is a wonderful thing) is offset during subsequent schedule logic development, review, analysis, updating, and revision.
Dale has given good advice, though as you've hinted there may be faster ways to create a large list of unique task names using concatenation. In the past, this was most easily done by populating a custom text field with a string of the outline parent names (using vba), then copying that field directly to the task name. Alternately (without vba), you could export the names (and outline codes) to Excel and do the concatenation there with simple cell formulas, then re-import or simply copy/paste to the task table in Project.
If you are using Project 2016 or later, Microsoft has helped you out with two new(er) features:
- Pull-down lists in the task forms that are used for assigning Predecessors and Successors now include the full hierarchical outline structure, so selecting or confirming the correct predecessor/successor tasks is easier. This is a workaround for duplicate names in that context.
- There is a new task field called [Task Summary Name], which is the name of the task's immediate parent task. Explicitly including this field/column in certain reports may be enough to offset any issues (especially if the summary tasks are ALL unique and self-explanatory). This field also offers the prospect of getting the same result as the vba method above but without vba - by populating the text field using a formula including [Task Summary Name]&"/"&[Name] and going through several rounds of copy/paste. Personally I'd still find the vba or Excel approach much simpler.
Good luck, tom