Why should I use link type "Tracks/Contributes To" instead of "Parent/Child" for Cross Project Plans?
This is a well known scenario: Project Area A has the plan Items (Backlog Items), which are linked to execution items (Tasks and Defects) in Project Area B. Project Area A is owned by the Business, who will create and track backlog items. Project Area B is owned by Development, who will break down the backlog items into tasks and defects as needed.
My question is: why should I use the "Tracks/Contributes To" relationship between plan items and execution items instead of the "Parent/Child" relationship?
I know that both relationship types can be used across different project areas. I also know that the "Parent/Child" relationship does not require the project areas to be associated, plus the plan item is shown in the plan.
Are there any other reasons why I should use "Tracks/Contributes To"?
Thanks!!
Accepted answer
Basically parent/child relationships have a dedicated functionality e.g. roll up in plans ONLY WITHIN ONE PROJECT AREA. Parent child can be created across project areas, but the built in capabilities don’t work.
- Works across project areas
- Work across multiple ccm repositories
- Is the link type that is supported in cross project plans
- Is M:N
Comments
We are using Parent/Child cross PA a lot. It's working fine within one CCM instance.
Specially in a environment, where you do e.g. a Feature/Story breakdown and move the Story into another team in another PA, for implementation.
But do not expect, plans with working progress bars etc. over PA boarders.
Within Report Builder you can use such parent/child links cross PA also for progress reporting, by selecting both PA.
2 votes