have you run this past your assigned workers? If it works for them, then I guess this would work. I don't know of any team who would want to work this way but then again, I haven't worked with enough companies to see what's out there. So just as an example, if you have 4 assets, your timeline shows that your copy person will develop copy for all four, your design person will design all four, and your proofreading person will proofready all four (within the same task they are assigned). You've already determined it's not possible to log time for all four assets individually, and this kind of thinking will carry its way through the workflow. So if only one of the four needs a change, you need to have a way to indicate which assets are fine and which need to be changed. You need to have a way to indicate how much time is allocated per asset. And so on down the line. At least, that's the understanding I'm getting out of your template. I'm not saying this is wrong, but it's definitely the commitment you need to make and account for: that multiple deliverables need to be in lockstep, and one of them can't advance without all the others. That commitment would show up in agreement from your assigned workers, commitment to train and have process manuals that address this, and clear understanding on how to distinguish between the deliverables that are "ready" vs. "not". -skye
