the measurable news - College of Performance Management

Transcription

20 USD/AUD | 15 EUR/GBP
THE MEASURABLE NEWS
The Quarterly Magazine of the College of Performance Management
2014.01
mycpm.org
INSIDE
THIS
ISSUE
07
21
28
29
The SMARTER
Project - “A Best
Value Performance
Measurement System”
White Paper:
“The Three Aspects of
EVMS Sustainability”
5 Observations from
EVM Europe
Symposium 2013
Earned Schedule for
Agile Projects
By Mark Infanti
By Mark Phillips
By Richard C.
Plumery, EVP
By Robert Van De Velde,
PhD, PMP
THE MEASURABLE NEWS
2014.01
2014 ISSUE 01
CONTENTS
05 Update from the VP Communications
Mark Phillips
07 The SMARTER Project - “A Best Value Performance Measurement System”
Richard C. Plumery, EVP
21 White Paper: “The Three Aspects of EVMS Sustainability”
Mark Infanti
28 5 Observations from EVM Europe Symposium 2013
Mark Phillips
29 Earned Schedule for Agile Projects
Robert Van De Velde, PhD, PMP
37 Data About Our Community
Elizabeth Phillips
40 College of Performance Management and the World’s
Largest EVM LinkedIn Group Link Up
41 CPM Announces Driessnack Distinguished Service Awards
42 CPM Huntsville Chapter Update
Lauren Bone
44 CPM Washington, D.C. Region Chapter Update
Barbara C. Phillips, EVP, PMP
45 Vendors/Services
mycpm.org
THE MEASURABLE NEWS IS AN
OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE
COLLEGE OF PERFORMANCE
MANAGEMENT
EDITORIAL STAFF
THE COLLEGE OF
PERFORMANCE
MANAGEMENT
Publisher: College of Performance Management
Managing Director: Gaile Argiro
Story Editor: Peter Schwarz
Design: id365.com
Communications VP: Mark Phillips
2014 BOARD & STAFF
EDITORIAL COPY
Gary W. Troop
310-365-3876 • gary.troop@mycpm.org
Editorial contributions, photos, and miscellaneous
inquiries should be addressed and sent to the editor
at the College of Performance Management (CPM)
headquarters. Please follow the author guidelines
posted on the CPM web site. Letters submitted to
the editor will be considered for publication unless
the writer requests otherwise. Letters are subject to
editing for style, accuracy, space, and propriety. All
letters must be signed, and initials will be used on
request only if you include your name. CPM reserves
the right to refuse publication of any letter for any
reason. We welcome articles relevant to project
management. The Measurable News does not pay for
submissions. Articles published in The Measurable
News remain the property of the authors.
ADVERTISING
Advertising inquiries, submissions, and payments
(check or money order made payable to the College
of Performance Management) should be sent to
CPM headquarters. Advertising rates are $1000 for
inside front or back cover (full-page ad only), $800
for other full-page ads, $500 for half-page ads, and
$300 for quarter-page ads. Issue sponsorships are
available at $2500 per issue. Business card ads are
available for $100 per issue (or free with full-page
ad). Rates are good from January 1, 2014 – December
31, 2014. College of Performance Management
reserves the right to refuse publication of any ad for
any reason.
SUBSCRIPTIONS
All College of Performance Management publications
are produced as a benefit for College of Performance
Management members. All change of address or
membership inquiries should be directed to:
College of Performance Management
101 South Whiting St, Suite 320,
Alexandria, VA 22304
Ph 703.370.7885 • Fx 703.370.1757
www.mycpm.org
All articles and letters represent the view of the
authors and not necessarily those of College of
Performance Management. Advertising content does
not signify endorsement by College of Performance
Management. Please notify College of Performance
Management for single copy or reproduction
requests. Appropriate charges will apply.
© 2014 by the College of Performance Management.
All rights reserved.
PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
Wayne Abba
703-658-1815 • wayne.abba@mycpm.org
VICE PRESIDENT OF FINANCE
Buddy Everage
202-507-4372 • buddy.everage@mycpm.org
VICE PRESIDENT OF ADMINISTRATION
Lauren Bone
+44 (0) 7766 97 40 63 • lauren.bone@mycpm.org
VICE PRESIDENT OF CONFERENCE & EVENTS
Susan Wood
850-585-4830 • susan.wood@mycpm.org
VICE PRESIDENT OF EDUCATION & CERTIFICATION
Kim Hunter
301-330-3101 • kim.hunter@mycpm.org
VICE PRESIDENT OF RESEARCH & STANDARDS
Dale Gillam
703-431-6398 • dale.gillam@mycpm.org
VICE PRESIDENT OF GLOBAL OUTREACH
Kym Henderson
61-414-428-437 • kym.henderson@mycpm.org
VICE PRESIDENT OF COMMUNICATIONS
Mark Phillips
248-914-3774 • mark.phillips@mycpm.org
PAST PRESIDENT
Susan Wood
850-585-4830 • susan.wood@mycpm.org
EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR
Gaile Argiro
703-370-7885 • gaile.argiro@mycpm.org
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
Stephanie Bautista
703-370-4301 • stephanie.bautista@mycpm.org
THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOLKIT B� S�� N�� A�� W� �� . S��’� P�� M�� T��, ��
�� S�� P��, P�� E��.
Full functionality from project planning through execution, resource management, costing, performance
management and analytics The Fastest Critical Path Method network analysis engine on the market with flexible calendaring Integration of Schedule and Cost from the Ground Up Saving you Time, Money and Labor by eliminating
reconciliation after the fact ANSI/EIA‐748B Earned Value Management compliance Rapid entry of data , designed as an open system Fastest multi‐user environment on the market –Scalable from the desktop to the Enterprise Flexible Setup and structuring of information— Robust Security Visualize cost, schedule, risk and financial data in new ways, transforming raw data into Business Intelligence Integration of disparate systems regardless of source allowing for full integration of all six DCMA Business Systems Customizable and instant Graphics, Analytics, and Reports, including the production of the new UN/CEFACT XML
file for cost, schedule and financial information submission and inclusion into DoD and federal agency central
repositories. Built for both On‐site Implementation and Software‐as‐a‐Service (SaaS) Environments Full service Business Solutions that tie Business Processes to Technology to realize improved productivity and
ensure credibility From so�ware solu�ons through professional services, let Safran North America be your one‐stop shop for project excellence.
S AFRAN N ORTH A MERICA , LLC
Phone: 866-389-6750 l Fax: 866-381-7336 l www.safranna.com
© 2012 SAFRAN NORTH AMERICA, LLC. PROTEUS ENVISION IS A REGISTERED TRADEMARK OF SAFRAN NORTH AMERICA LLC.
ALL OTHER TRADEMARKS MENTIONED HEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS
THE MEASURABLE NEWS
2014.01
UPDATE FROM THE VP COMMUNICATIONS
Mark Phillips, PMP
Happy 2014!
2013 was a year of new accomplishments for CPM. This issue’s content reflects many of those.
Here is a quick review of some of those achievements. This is by no means a comprehensive
list but provides a flavor of what the board has been up to.
• Two successful conferences
• Retooling of the education track
• Awarding of the Driessnack award
• Successful election cycle for new board members
• Launching of two regional chapters in the U.S.
• Election of a new position, the VP for Global Outreach
• Participation in events in Australia and Europe
• Monthly topical webinars
• Publishing data about our community from the webinars
• Articles and webinars from various industries and from people from around the world
• A new affiliation with the largest EVM group in LinkedIn
• A redesigned Measurable News
• Continued engagement with government stakeholders
• Continued participation, publication and presentation of leading edge research and ideas.
And that is not all. We have a lot on our plate for 2014. Stay tuned.
As always, if you have ideas on what we should be doing or would like to discuss current
initiatives, don’t hesitate to reach out to me at mark.phillips@mycpm.org.
Best wishes for the New Year!
Mark Phillips, PMP
Vice President – Communications
|
mycpm.org
05
EVM World 2014
®
LO N
C A EW
TI
O
N
THE PROJECT PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP
30th Annual International Workshop
May 21-23, 2014 • Grand Hyatt
San Antonio TX • 210-224-1234
grandsanantonio.hyatt.com
• Update your skills with the latest Earned Value
Management (EVM) trends, tools, and techniques
• Learn through training, practice symposia,
as well as workshops
• Earn PDUs (for PMPs)
• Network with earned value professionals
from around the world
For more information…
contact: Gaile Argiro
phone: 703.370.7885
email: ExecAdmin@mycpm.org
web: www.mycpm.org or www.evmworld.org
©2013 CPM. EVM World is a registered trademark of CPM.
R.E.P. PMI, and the Registered Education Provider logo are registered marks of the Project Management Institute, Inc.
THE MEASURABLE NEWS
2014.01
THE SMARTER PROJECT - “A BEST VALUE
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM”
By Richard C. Plumery, EVP
ABSTRACT
This paper focuses on maximizing the value and clarity of information
produced by project performance information systems to tell the project’s
story. This is accomplished by demonstrating how to refine the accuracy of
the Earned Value indices with techniques that are applicable to most projects.
When these refinements are combined with an added focus on the project’s
risk critical elements and the increased frequency of measurement to ensure
actionable data all with fewer required project controls resources, it provides
a best value solution for project performance measurement. This system and
its associated techniques are applicable to most any project but even more
applicable in a lean project environment. This paper also demonstrates how
to use a unique graph to tell the project’s story more accurately through the
correlation of the refined Earned Value indices. Learn to manage and measure
project performance using “SMARTER” techniques.
“Management by Exception (MBE)” has long been the foundation of EVMS. MBE is whereby
the project team measures progress and performance against the project’s Performance
Measurement Baseline (PMB) and then utilizes standard Earned Value Indices for cost
and schedule performance to indicate good or poor areas of progress and performance
uncovering the exceptions to that PMB plan. After uncovering these exceptions to the planned
performance, the project team must then complete a root cause investigation to assess if the
indicator is valid, if the underlying cause is actionable, or if the project performance system
is simply generating a false alarm. If the indication is validated, the team must assess if the
variance is controllable, and if so, how it can be mitigated or corrected. This type of reporting
system often results in frustrated project teams, as the ultimate cause may be rooted in the
masking effect from poor earning rules, progress manipulation, lagging change orders, poor
budgetary estimates, or inadequate correlation to the project schedule, etc.
A prime example of an index’s vulnerability to false reads is the standard Earned Value index
for schedule progress and performance, known as the Schedule Performance Index (SPI).
SPI, as it is commonly calculated, can lead to false indications, both negative and positive.
Despite the use of techniques such as measuring only earned within schedule (allowing only
earnings within the work in the planned period) or “earned schedule” [1], (which improves
the schedule performance measurements throughout the project lifecycle by equating
schedule variances into time instead of money), there is still not a completely reliable metric
for accurately measuring schedule performance. This is due to all these techniques being
dependent upon the accuracy of the Performance Measurement Baseline (PMB) and thereby
the estimate and schedule that was used in its development. In addition to the PMB issues,
current schedule performance indices may also be affected by masking from subjective
rules of credit (ROC) such as the use of supervisory judgment, and strategic manipulation by
supervision of actual progress (by working non-critical tasks to gain earnings).
It is critical that this systemic failure is eliminated in every project execution but especially in
a lean project environment, where there are less staff resources available to provide progress
input, collect the data, measure the data, and then analyze data. So while it might be
tempting because of the higher risks of operating lean to increase reporting and assessment,
adding more frequent measurement usually only yields more suspect information and
uncontrollable elements. The project may also be tempted to decrease frequency of
reporting and assessment; however, less frequent measurement produces another challenge,
since problem areas may be un-actionable upon discovery. The solution is a balanced
approach to both frequency and effort that yields more focused and accurate results.
|
mycpm.org
07
I will focus more on the design, engineering and procurement elements, not simply because
they are usually the most critical early elements to schedule and quality, but because they
are most susceptible to performance measurement issues. This is because construction
performance and productivity measurement utilizes a more objective quantity based
approach with a stronger basis in historical data.
THREE MAJOR CHALLENGES WITH EARNED VALUE INDICES
The primary issue with most Earned Value system reporting indices lean or otherwise, is their
multiple vulnerabilities, because Earned Value system reporting indices are:
1. Based Solely on Budgets. Budgets are developed from estimates with varying levels
of definition and accuracy, affecting cost performance indicators throughout the life
of the project and resulting in unrealistic schedule durations. This can then be further
compounded by a schedule’s level of definition. Poor time-phasing of control accounts
for the PMB may result in a poor relationship between the PMB and the project schedule.
Furthermore, key milestones are events that carry no budget, resulting in them not
being incorporated into the PMB at all; yet these milestones can be a critical driver to
project success and are more closely tied to the project schedule. Many design tasks
are dependent on vendor information; so it becomes an issue that we don’t measure or
manage the delivery of this information within our EVMS. During the design phase of a
project, if equipment weight, orientation, layout, power and control information from key
vendors is not received in a timely manner, the effect on the design schedule completion
date is typically profound, yet this is not easily discernible from current Schedule
Variance (SV) and SPI measurements.
2. Prone to Mask Variances. The project’s Cost Performance Index and Schedule
Performance Index are also subject to masking from the use of subjective earning rules
of credit. This occurs on many projects due to the use of level of effort earning rules
(earned equals planned) for supervision and other duration based elements that are then
time-phased linearly and subsequently earned linearly. This results in projects with a
disproportionate amount of linearly planned control accounts without a relationship to the
true project performance plan, masking actual project performance. It is also worth noting
that all Level of Effort tasks do not have to be planned linearly, they need to be planned
with more thought as to how they truly progress throughout the execution of that work.
Some work may be front or back end loaded so it is important to plan them accordingly.
The manipulation of progress by a supervisor or manager can also have a masking effect.
This occurs when resources are utilized to accomplish work out of sequence or that is less
schedule-critical, in order to gain enough earnings to show that summary work element
as being on schedule. An example is working construction specifications early to replace
a more schedule-critical design requirement such as the plot plan. The net effect is a
perceived on-schedule progress indication yet the risk critical deliverable is not progressing
to completion, resulting in an adverse effect on downstream work. This may go undetected
for a time if one only examines the superficial SPI and Schedule Variances. A technique of
only allowing earning for tasks that are planned in the current period helps in some cases,
but fails to address whether the “critical path” tasks are being accomplished.
Another masking effect emanates from the calculation of SPI late in a project. Since SPI,
by its calculation, automatically improves to a 1.0 at the end of a project, the project’s
overall performance appears to be better than it actually may be, especially in the
late stages of the project. Performing earned schedule calculations such as SPI (t) can
provide a solution to this issue by measuring schedule performance in time not dollars.
The basic earned schedule [1] equations are as follows:
Schedule Performance Index (t): SPI (t) = ES / AT
Schedule Variance Index (t): SV (t) = ES -AT
ES= Earned Schedule (number of earned completed time periods plus any earned
incomplete portion)
AT= Actual Time (number of periods executed)
Although the earned schedule metric SPI (t) maintains its validity throughout the life
of the project, it is still dependent on the accuracy of the PMB and the validity of the
progress against that PMB.
08
The Measurable News
2014.01
|
mycpm.org
3. Vulnerable to Scope/Budget Misalignments. The performance indices, primarily
CPI, become inaccurate when change management processes are not rigorously
applied, or the change management process is slow to incorporate changes into the
PMB. One of the primary functions of change management is to delineate scope driven
changes/impacts from performance impacts, so that each may be managed and
mitigated effectively. If incremental scope creep is allowed to occur, it may result in the
mismanagement of the issues. All scope impacts need to be segregated, whether they
stem from a poorly estimated or even missed scope element or from an evolving design
or just a growing contractual scope. CPI can be dramatically affected by this issue;
scope changes can appear to be performance issues when the project team is executing
authorized scope but the Control Budget has not been aligned to this “authorized
for performance” scope. Although SPI is not as vulnerable to this issue as CPI is to
these impacts from poor or slow change management execution, it still diverts critical
resources, especially when the change occurs late in the project. The SPI can also be
affected where scope has been deleted and a new scope is being executed but the PMB
has not been aligned.
In summary, these three measurement issues preclude the Earned Value Indices from telling
the project’s true story. Leave precision to the accountants, but ensure the main storyline of
your project is accurately conveyed and understood.
The fact still remains that lean execution of projects and their associated leaner techniques
increase risk because they cut corners by sometimes doing work out of their normal
sequence for the sake of speeding up the process. Therefore, intuitively, one would
attempt to apply additional rigor and frequency to earned value management work, but
in reality, working harder with fewer resources may be counterproductive. The added
costs of performing all the measurements every week might alone adversely impact the
project budget and schedule. Although management may request monthly progress and
performance measurement to ease the load on the project team, critical risk drivers may
trend negative between these less frequent measurement points or reports, resulting in the
causes no longer being actionable due to their late discovery.
The reason project teams and management gravitate towards less frequent reporting and
review is due to their frustration with the inaccuracies of the Earned Value indices, resulting
in their undervaluation of EVMS tools and techniques. This usually emanates from previous
project experiences where indicators were manipulated causing false measurements. So a
higher frequency of progress means they are asked to readdress the issues even more often
when there are no perceived benefits from their perspective. Re-building credibility and
trust with performance management is of the utmost importance so we can overcome this
perception and gain buy-in from the project team.
THE SMARTER PROJECT - BEST VALUE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT PRACTICES
Despite my criticisms of some elements of Earned Value Management Systems (EVMS), I am
a strong proponent of using EVMS concepts. A fully validated EVMS system may alleviate
many of these issues; however, I still believe there is a critical need to augment and improve
the system’s indicators for performance measurement as they are most often applied. My
solution emanated from my involvement as the EPCM Project Controls Manager for a
government funded, alternative energy project. An Earned Value Management System was
needed for a client organization comprised of scientists and consultants with little interest in
job-cost accounting or earned value. This became my first lean fast-track project execution
after many years of working large government projects. After its successful implementation
and completion, I was invited in to provide input to a study initiative. The focus of the
study would become the implementation of lean execution models for a particular set of
clients whose primary focus was cost and schedule efficiency. The effort caused me to
seek a best value performance measurement system, where applied efforts were rewarded
with commensurate improvements in analytical and mitigation planning time. Therefore, I
analyzed what work was performed from a project controls perspective and how often it
was performed: the project controls and project team hours spent, the frequency, and the
associated return on that invested time.
Upon reflection of the project, it was apparent that, after project setup, the lion’s share of
time for project controls was spent on completing twice monthly performance measurement.
While the results were very helpful to identify problems at a macro level, it took many more
hours to assess the root cause of the issue, leaving little or no time to analyze the true data
or assess true mitigation approaches. The variances uncovered by the project controls team
also included issues outside of our management control, or non-project drivers, wasting
The Measurable News
2014.01
|
mycpm.org
09
much of the analytical time. By the time the project team was ready to begin recovery and
mitigation planning, the next measurement period was due for assessment and reporting.
Based on this project and some of my previous experiences in other performance related
businesses, I knew the best value needed to come from focusing our efforts on providing
more scrutiny, accuracy, and frequency of measurement on controllable, risk critical activities
that were most likely to cause the most damage to a project between measurement periods,
and much less frequency and focus on other non-critical elements. These more accurate
indicators should also facilitate a better buy-in from the project team.
The Strategic Management of Actionable and Risk-critical Tasks, Events and Resources, or
SMARTER project approach became my “best value” approach to project performance
measurement. It establishes a balance between the additional risks that lean project
execution brings versus the application of appropriate vigor (frequency) and rigor (accuracy
and thoroughness), resulting in effective and efficient project performance measurement.
The improvement in accuracy comes by accumulating the fact-based performance
information on the risk critical tasks and events, then using correlation methods to allow the
performance indicators to tell the true project story. The result is reduced investigation time,
improving the analytical and recovery planning time. Through application of these practices,
the project team can be given mitigation plans in a timely manner, and then spend more time
working towards actually mitigating cost impacts and/or schedule slippages.
To start the process, we need to implement a few key practices. The three (3) key practices
involved are to ACCUMULATE, ELIMINATE AND CORRELATE.
PRACTICE NUMBER 1 – ACCUMULATE
Produce a FACTS report that identifies the near term risk-critical project drivers. Then
trend and status these drivers objectively, whereby their accumulated performance index is
focused and meaningful.
We, as project delivery professionals, need to focus reporting efforts on the performance
status and trending of the risk-critical tasks, resources, and events that are controllable and
factual. I developed a special report which I call a FACTS report to fulfill this need. The FACTS
report is focused on measuring the performance of the risk critical drivers with more accuracy
and frequency (so mitigation is actionable) and depth of analysis (for more clarity) therefore
adding efficiency and value to the project. This type of reporting helps engage the project
team and builds the credibility of the Earned Value measurements because what is being
reported is actionable, accurate and focused on controllable project risk-critical elements.
The steps to more focused reporting are as follows:
1.
Determine the risk-critical driver tasks, activities and events, and along with any other
associated critical path items; identify any near path drivers and assess the risk of these
migrating to the paths delineated above. Focus on the near term items, as the critical
path can be constantly changing, recognizing that near term critical items should
be more firm. Remember to also evaluate each item in light of contractual role. For
instance, if you are just responsible for the detailed design, you need to evaluate duration
extension risks on the basis of what drives your end date as well as supporting the
construction need dates.
Determine if that driver is controllable by the project team. An example of something
outside your control might be the cost and delivery of a major piece of equipment, which
may be influenced more by the market conditions than project execution. The delivery
may drive your project duration, but what is the manageable risk of this one-time
impact? Conversely, the delivery of drawings and other information generated by the
equipment vendor may be influenced by utilizing payment leverage or regular expediting.
Since engineering and design duration(s) typically depend on the receipt of vendor
information for timely completion of design work and subsequent issue of Approved for
Construction (AFC) drawings to Contractors, the impact of this risk-critical driver must
be fully established.
2. Develop critical control accounts (CCAs) around those tasks that are controllable and
plan to status them weekly or at a minimum twice monthly. Group all these risk critical
control accounts in a section on a weekly report, where they can be summarized to
produce risk-critical based EV indices measurements. Use only objective measures such
as units completed or a quantity-based measurement with weighted milestone for all
10
The Measurable News
2014.01
|
mycpm.org
risk of this one-time impact? Conversely, the delivery of drawings and other information generated by the
equipment vendor may be influenced by utilizing payment leverage or regular expediting. Since engineering
and design duration(s) typically depend on the receipt of vendor information for timely completion of design
work and subsequent issue of Approved for Construction (AFC) drawings to Contractors, the impact of this
critical control
accounts.
This helps with unveiling the masking effect, since it more
risk-critical
driver must
be fully established.
accurately depicts discipline progress and eliminates more subjective measures such
Develop
critical
control(LOE).
accounts
(CCAs)
around
those tasks
are controllablethe
andmore
plan tosusceptible
status them
as Level
of Effort
The
more
subjective
thethat
measurement,
weekly or at a minimum twice monthly. Group all these risk critical control accounts in a section on a weekly
the output becomes to masking. Since only a few critical items are being progressed at
report, where they can be summarized to produce risk-critical based EV indices measurements. Use only
any onemeasures
point insuch
time
notorconsume
muchmeasurement
time from the
Also,
objective
asthis
unitsshould
completed
a quantity-based
with project
weighted team.
milestone
for
remember
theaccounts.
old Ronald
“Trust
yet Verify”…..
If earnings
are tied
to
all
critical control
This Reagan
helps withmotto
unveiling
the masking
effect, since
it more accurately
depicts
documents
or deliverables,
makesubjective
sure you
periodically
delivery
and quality.
discipline
progress
and eliminates more
measures
such asverify
Level of
Effort (LOE).
The more
subjective the measurement, the more susceptible the output becomes to masking. Since only a few critical
beingnext
progressed
at any one
point in and
time this
should not
consumekey
much
time from the project team.
3. items
For the
step, group
together
discretely
measure
deliverables/milestones.
Also, remember the old Ronald Reagan motto “Trust yet Verify”….. If earnings are tied to documents or
These are broken into groups for overall project milestones, vendor deliverable
deliverables, make sure you periodically verify delivery and quality.
milestones and then the critical engineering/‌procurement‌/construction and lastly the
client
driven
Treat
twokey
separate
milestones to These
measure
the start
3. For
the next
step,grouping.
group together
andactivities
discretely like
measure
deliverables/milestones.
are broken
into
vendor milestones
deliverable milestones
then theto
critical
engineering/
andgroups
finishforofoverall
that project
criticalmilestones,
activity. Since
carry noand
budget,
measure
the start
procurement/construction
and lastly the client
grouping.
Treat activities like two separate milestones
and finish milestone performance
usedriven
these
equations.
to measure the start and finish of that critical activity. Since milestones carry no budget, to measure the
start and finish milestone performance use these equations.
For Start Milestone measurement
•
For Start Milestone measurement
SPI (sm) = 1 + (Baseline activity start date’s number of days from project inception
SPI
1 + (Baseline
activity
start date’s
days from
“ex. 40”inception
minus
“ex.(sm)
40”= minus
current
activity
startnumber
date’s of
number
ofproject
days inception
from project
“ex.
current activity start date’s number of days from project inception “ex. 50”) /Baseline Project Duration
50”) /Baseline Project Duration Days “ex. 200”
Days “ex. 200”
Example:
+ (40-50
= -10)/200
dayProject
Baseline
Project
Example:
1 + 1(40-50
= -10)/200
day Baseline
Duration
= .95Duration = .95
Figure 1 – Start Milestone Schedule Performance Index SPI(sm)
•
For
Finish
Milestone
measurement
For
Finish
Milestone
measurement
SPI (fm) = Current activity days from Current Project Duration Finish Day “ex. 100”/Baseline days from
SPI (fm)
= Current
days from Current Project Duration Finish Day “ex. 100”/
Baseline
Finish
Day “ex. activity
140”
Baseline days from Baseline Finish Day “ex. 140”
5
Example:
from Current
Project
Finish
(Day
days
fromDuration
Baseline
Example:
100 100
daysdays
from Current
Project Finish
(Day
200)/140
days200)/140
from Baseline
Project
Finish
(DayDuration
200) = .71 Finish (Day 200) = .71
Project
Figure 2 – Finish Milestone Schedule Performance Index SPI(fm)
These
additional
measurements
of actual schedule
progress
un-impacted
by any
budget-based
Theseprovide
provide
additional
measurements
of actual
schedule
progress
un-impacted
by any
issues
and when contrasted
withwhen
the other
SPI indices,with
help the
provide
the truest
progress.help provide the
budget-based
issues and
contrasted
other
SPI indices,
The Measurable News
2014.01
truest
progress.
4. Use
the “average
daily cost” for duration based work of the phase being extended or contracted to give
variances a more scaled order of magnitude to the current forecast and budgets. Project risk drivers vary and
4. the
Use
the path
“average
dailymany
cost”
forduring
duration
based
work of
phase
extended
or
critical
can change
times
a projects
execution,
butthe
projects
can being
be generally
categorized
as
either cost orto
schedule
driven. Most
midstream
EPCorder
projectsofare
schedule driven
fromcurrent
an owner’s
contracted
give variances
a more
scaled
magnitude
to the
forecast
perspective
(especially
if it isrisk
a path
to newvary
revenue),
some cases
thecan
costs
of equipment
a
and budgets.
Project
drivers
and but
theincritical
path
change
manyand/or
times
constraint
or
the
amount
of
reserve
in
the
scheduled
completion,
or
in
service
date,
may
determine
a
project
during a project’s execution, but projects can be generally categorized as either cost to
be more cost-driven. For the purposes of this discussion, I will focus on schedule driven EPC projects.
or schedule
driven.
midstream
EPCofprojects
arecosts,
schedule
driventhat
from
Duration
based costs
mayMost
comprise
a third or more
your project
so it is critical
theyan
areowner’s
quantified
perspective
(especially
if
it
is
a
path
to
new
revenue),
but
in
some
cases
the
costs
and managed. Knowing the cost of a “construction-day” or “engineering-day” added to the schedule
is of
extremely helpful when making a cost/benefit decision on items along the critical path. Specifically, when
evaluating the cost of an equipment purchase, the cost of 20 days added duration may far outweigh any
perceived savings. Or, accepting a bid for a long lead equipment item that is 5-10% higher than the low bid,
| mycpm.org
but removes it from the critical path and takes 20 days off your project construction duration; may be well worth
the higher amount. If your contractual role is the engineering and design work then the advantage may be the
11
equipment and/or a constraint or the amount of reserve in the scheduled completion,
or in service date, may determine a project to be more cost-driven. For the purposes of
this discussion, I will focus on schedule driven EPC projects. Duration based costs may
comprise a third or more of your project costs, so it is critical that they are quantified and
managed. Knowing the cost of a “construction-day” or “engineering-day” added to the
schedule is extremely helpful when making a cost/benefit decision on items along the
critical path. Specifically, when evaluating the cost of an equipment purchase, the cost of
20 days added duration may far outweigh any perceived savings. Or, accepting a bid for
a long lead equipment item that is 5-10% higher than the low bid, but removes it from the
critical path and takes 20 days off your project construction duration; may be well worth
the higher amount. If your contractual role is the engineering and design work then the
advantage may be the speed in getting the vendor’s information in order to complete
your design work or get an earlier or greater percentage of completion before you reach
the construction stage. This reduces the risk of re-work or standby time in the field. For
these and other reasons, know the cost of an added day of project duration by phase.
5. Add Cost and Sell trend rates shown on the FACTS report along with any other easily
gathered information (such as actual staffing resources vs. planned resources, actual
purchase order expenditures vs. planned expenditures) so that more potential variances
between full measurement periods can be identified.
6. Produce this report at least twice monthly, but also do a full measurement of all accounts
monthly to ensure the team is not missing other impacts.
PRACTICE NUMBER 2 – ELIMINATE
Refine the progress and performance indices to remove as many imperfections as possible
through the development of new Key Performance Indices.
Risk Critical SPI = R-SPI
As mentioned earlier, SPI can be a bad actor when trying to find problem areas quickly. One
way I tried to overcome this is by developing a refined schedule index for risk-critical tasks.
The risk-critical schedule performance index is not a new measurement itself, it is simply
based on the accumulation of the project’s risk critical activities in the FACTS report (See
Table1). Since R-SPI also more closely corresponds directly to the project’s critical path and
does not require a budget basis; it better indicates the tasks that are driving the critical path,
or are risk-critical are being efficiently and effectively accomplished according to the plan.
Any masking effects from progress manipulation would be removed from this index since it is
only developed from work that is on, or near, the critical path. Then as long as objective rules
of credit are used R-SPI should more correctly tell the project progress story. However, you
must remember that the plan is still only as good as the scope clarity, sequencing and team
alignment allows. The critical path tasks may change frequently throughout the life of the
project, but by providing focus on these tasks when they are actionable you can overcome
them one at a time until you reach your project schedule completion goal. The current status
project,
but by providing
focus
on these
tasks when
theythe
are SPI
actionable you
can
overcomeSPI,
themprovides
one at a time
and trending
of R-SPI,
when
contrasted
with
and
standard
an
(sm & fm)
until you reach your project schedule completion goal. The current
status and trending of R-SPI, when
even
more
accurate
indication
of
whether
the
team
is
properly
focused
or
being
constrained
contrasted with the SPI (sm & fm) and standard SPI, provides an even more accurate indication of whether the team
orproperly
hindered
by another
issue.
is
focused
or being constrained
or hindered by another issue.
Figure 3 – Risk Critical Schedule Performance Index (R-SPI)
Performance Budget CPI = CPI (p)
Performance Budget CPI = CPI (p)
12
Change Management is a crucial element in the accuracy of CPI. If a project has a misalignment between the
budget and scope, it wreaks havoc on all performance indicators. The best way to mitigate this issue is to
Change Management is a crucial element in the accuracy of CPI. If a project has a
develop a separate measurement for work being performed that is not yet defined in the Control Budget. This
misalignment
between
the budget
and
scope,
it wreaks
havoc
all performance
indicators.
measurement
looks
at the impact
of incurred
costs
for Pending
Changes
and on
Internal
Changes, and any
Level
The
best
wayearnings
to mitigate
this issue
isscope.
to develop
a separate
for work
being
of Effort
(LOE)
for Pending
Deleted
The indicator
shows measurement
the earnings contrast
between
what is
performed
that is(Control
not yet
defined
in the Control
Budget. Baseline)
This measurement
the
in
contractual scope
Budget
and Performance
Measurement
and the actuallooks
scopeat
being
performed to (Performance Scope adjusted Budget). This happens often when a project team is directed to
move forward with changes before they can be estimated, negotiated and incorporated into the contract, and
eventually time-phased into the PMB. These scope changes
are “authorized
or approved”
to be worked
in order
The Measurable
News
2014.01
| mycpm.org
to maintain schedule but not yet formalized. Since these pending changes are not yet time-phased into the
impact of incurred costs for Pending Changes and Internal Changes, and any Level of
Effort (LOE) earnings for Pending Deleted scope. The indicator shows the earnings contrast
between what is in contractual scope (Control Budget and Performance Measurement
Baseline) and the actual scope being performed to (Performance Scope adjusted Budget).
This happens often when a project team is directed to move forward with changes before
they can be estimated, negotiated and incorporated into the contract, and eventually timephased into the PMB. These scope changes are “authorized or approved” to be worked in
order to maintain schedule but not yet formalized. Since these pending changes are not
yet time-phased into the PMB, they do not affect SPI as much as they affect CPI. Added or
deleted budget estimate dollars for pending scope changes are combined with other internal
changes from non-contractually added work scope to form the Performance Budget. Internal
changes are defined as missed budget estimate dollars for an in-scope work element. For
instance, an internal change would result from the estimator overlooking a section of pipe
rack in the original scope and thus omitting it from the project estimate. The problem is in
the budget estimate, not the performance of the work. This omission should then be treated
as an internal change and, if approved, become part of the performance budget. Since it is
work that has to be completed to finish design work, any additional quantities need to be
tracked for progress. This is similar to a Quantity-Adjusted Budget which is seen mostly in
construction where physical progress would be inaccurate if the total quantities are different
than what is being tracked for installed quantities. This does not mean that the project
workforce cannot work to overcome these estimate omissions, but simply means they are not
performance problems.
The most accurate way to deal with this scope and budget misalignment is to collect actual
costs against the work and then measure the progress of that specific work. The problem is
that this can become even more time consuming. Therefore a viable alternative is to at least
collect or estimate the costs that have been incurred on these pending changes and offset
their impact with an equal amount of earned budget based upon the same performance
being experienced on the control budget scope of work. This formula is as follows:
CPI (p) = EV (p) / AC
EV (p) is equal to the amount expended to date on Internal and Pending Changes times
the current CPI for the Control Budget and then adding that amount to the Control Budget
Earnings to date.
AC = Actual Costs to date
For example if the Earned dollars against the Control Budget is $900,000 and the Actual
Cost to date is $1,200,000 the CPI would be .75 to date. If $200,000 has been incurred on
pending changes then that is multiplied times the .75 yielding $150,000 that is then added
to the $900,000 in Earned dollars to date. The CPI (p) then becomes $1,050,000 divided
by $1,200,000 or .875 to date. This large improvement is a sign to the project management
team that pending changes need to be addressed promptly.
PRACTICE NUMBER 3 – CORRELATE
Add further clarity by using correlations to provide accurate insight to the storyline of the
project to different stakeholders.
Using the information available from your FACTS and other reports, selectively pull Key
Performance Indicators (KPIs) for correlation to other KPIs that best tell the project’s story.
The possibilities for KPI correlation are almost endless. Two key correlations are outlined
below. In addition, the use of a “target box” graph is demonstrated as a unique way to display
the assembled correlations to tell the project’s risk story.
A completed sample of a FACTS report is shown on the following page:
The Measurable News
2014.01
|
mycpm.org
13
demonstrated as a unique way to display the assembled correlations to tell the project’s risk story.
A completed sample of a FACTS report is shown below:
Figure 4 – The FACTS report
THE FACTS DASHBOARD
The next part of the process is to incorporate the resource and trend analysis including
The FACTS Dashboard
previously identified key performance indicators. A sample FACTS dashboard is shown below
The next into
part oftwo
the process
is to incorporate
the resource
and analysis:
trend analysis including previously identified key
broken
parts resource
analysis
and trend
performance indicators. A sample FACTS dashboard is shown below broken into two parts resource analysis
and trend analysis:
8
Figure 5a – FACTS Dashboard (resource analysis)
So the first thing we look at is the sell rate to see if we have a cost issue since in the Process Industries, unlike the
So the firstthey
thing
we
at attuned
is the to
sell
rate to hours
see ifversus
we have
a cost
issue
since
the Process
Government,
seem
to look
be more
measuring
dollars.
The next
sections
goin
discipline
by
Industries,
unlike
the
Government,
they seemforto
bethey
more
attuned
to measuring
hours versus
discipline
so we
can see
if they
are staffing appropriately
what
need
to earn based
on their recent
performance.
dollars. The next sections go discipline by discipline so we can see if they are staffing
appropriately for what they need to earn based on their recent performance.
14
The Measurable News
2014.01
|
mycpm.org
Government, they seem to be more attuned to measuring hours versus dollars. The next sections go discipline by
discipline so we can see if they are staffing appropriately for what they need to earn based on their recent
performance.
Figure 5b – FACTS Dashboard (trend analysis)
9 the data collected on the FACTS report and
The next set of charts show us the trends with
a couple other valuable metrics to assist us in analyzing where the project is headed. This
is then sent to the project team with an analytical narrative of each discipline, status and
trend as well as the overall project status. I instruct my analysis team to always provide some
insight beyond the numbers to further demonstrate their value.
PERFORMANCE BUDGET CORRELATION TO CONTRACTUAL BUDGET CPI
The accuracy of the estimate predetermines the weighting of the budget amongst its
elements. Thus, if it is largely a factored estimate then the earned value measurement
accuracy may be adversely affected. If one element is improperly overestimated the earned
value that the project accrues, may hide progress and/or performance issues. The use of
internal changes (non-contractual change orders that are not integrated into the PMB
because they are completely missed scope or underestimated in-scope elements) can
also be helpful in separating these estimate accuracy issues from true performance issues.
These estimate accuracy issues and any scope misalignment issues may be exposed by the
correlation of the Performance Budget measurement of CPI (p) to CPI. If there is a wide gap
between the two measurements it indicates to management that challenges exist with the
project’s ability to properly measure and manage the performance.
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT BASELINE CORRELATION TO ACTUAL
SCHEDULE PROGRESS
The marriage of the cost and schedule to the control account for the PMB can also have a
dramatic effect on the accuracy of progress measurement. It is often stated that an ideal
correlation is 1:1, meaning there is only one schedule activity for each cost account. The
problem is that often a more detailed schedule is required for project execution planning
including area breakdowns which may be too onerous for tracking labor charges. In the
cases when the time phased correlation is developed from a “many” activity to “one” cost
account relationship the planned schedule performance for that element of work is unclear
and therefore a potential source of inaccuracy in the PMB. The solution is to display the
correlation of the schedule milestone index for starts (SPI (sm)) and finishes (SPI (fm)) and
R-SPI (since those measurements are most closely related to the actual project schedule)
against the SPI and illuminate any imbalances. If there is a wide gap between these elements
it may indicate a poor correlation between the PMB and true schedule progress.
THE “TARGET BOX” CORRELATION GRAPH
I have developed a method to display these Key Performance Indicator (KPI) correlations in
a four-quadrant graph which I have named a “Target Box.” The “Target Box,” as seen below,
acts to bring together several correlations to help tell the project story to stakeholders
that may not be as active in the management of the project. The correlations allow these
stakeholders to have confidence in the accuracy of the performance information since it
portrays a cohesive storyline for the project not just a bunch of numbers on a spreadsheet.
The Measurable News
2014.01
|
mycpm.org
15
The four quadrants can be interchanged to be applied to different project situations. The
boxed correlation can be used for any indices that can be measured to an index of 1.0. The
target range bands can be adjusted for the project’s risk tolerance. This graph could be used
at any level of the Work Breakdown Structure. Some examples of helpful index correlations
might be:
1.
SPI (t) (time-based) vs. R-SPI (risk-critical activities) – which depicts the reasonableness
of completion date.
2. Vendor SPI (fm) vs. R-SPI – which illuminates potential schedule impacts from the timing of
the receipt of vendor information
In the “Target Box” example (Figure 6) the cost, schedule, scope and resource quadrants
demonstrate related index correlations for each of these major project performance elements.
Figure 6 – “Target Box” correlation graph
The example “Target Box” above tells the story of a project that is experiencing several issues and is on the
The
example
Box”
above
the story
offour
a project
that performance
is experiencing
several issues
verge
of failing“Target
on several
fronts.
Theretells
are concerns
in all
major project
elements.
and is on the verge of failing on several fronts. There are concerns in all four major project
performance elements.
11
16
The Measurable News
2014.01
|
mycpm.org
Figure 7 – Cost quadrant correlation graph
There appears to be a significant rate issue. This is deduced by the fact that the “Hours Performance Index
(PI)” is a 1.05
whileathe
“Cost Performance
Index (CPI)”
is .90
for labor elements
and itfact
is trending
So
There appears
to be
significant
rate issue.
This
is deduced
by the
that worse.
the “Hours
while the labor hour measurements appear good, the incurred rates are high enough to significantly drag down
Performance
Index
(PI)”
is
a
1.05
while
the
“Cost
Performance
Index
(CPI)”
is
.90
for labor
the cost index which may spell trouble for the project’s cost.
elements and it is trending worse. So while the labor hour measurements appear good, the
incurred rates are high enough to significantly drag down the cost index which may spell
trouble for the project’s cost.
12
Figure 8 – Schedule quadrant correlation graph
In this case where the SPI is higher than the R-SPI it shows that the most essential (risk-critical) tasks are not
being where
accomplished
theis
project
completion
be in it
jeopardy
if steps
correct
the team’s
focus are
In this case
the so
SPI
higher
than date
themay
R-SPI
shows
thattothe
most
essential
(risktaken.are not being accomplished so the project completion date may be in jeopardy
critical)not
tasks
if steps to correct the team’s focus are not taken.
The Measurable News
2014.01
|
mycpm.org
17
Figure 9 – Resource quadrant correlation graph
There also appears to be a resource issue since the project is not reaching full staffing levels. Additionally, the
staffappears
that is currently
on the
project are atissue
a highersince
than budgeted
rate. This
not areaching
good sign forfull
the staffing
project
There also
to be
a resource
the project
isisnot
levels.
Figure action
9 – Resource
quadrant
correlation
graph
cost and schedule risks so corrective
plans need
to be developed
implemented.
Additionally,
the staff that is currently
on
the project
are atand
a higher
than budgeted rate. This
is not a There
goodalso
sign
for tothe
costsince
andtheschedule
so full
corrective
action
plans
appears
be aproject
resource issue
project is notrisks
reaching
staffing levels.
Additionally,
theneed to
staff that is
currently
on the project are at a higher than budgeted rate. This is not a good sign for the project
be developed
and
implemented.
cost and schedule risks so corrective action plans need to be developed and implemented.
Figure 10 – Scope quadrant correlation graph
14
Figure 10 – Scope quadrant correlation graph
The project is working efficiently on the available work fronts but the delay and resource
14
issues along with a slowing change management process are causing problems. This is
shown by the correlation between the project’s contractual “Cost Performance Index (CPI)”
of .90 and the higher “Performance Budget Cost Performance Index CPI (p)” of 1.0 meaning
there are some significant scope alignment issues whereby the contractual budget will grow
and which are affecting the accuracy of the current earned value indices.
In summary, the “Target Box” can be a valuable tool to help you tell the project story, which
will quickly show the project team, clients and management the essential value of good
performance measurement and help illuminate many risks that need to be addressed. The
correlations within the quadrants and then in combination with each other indicate areas of
risk that need to be investigated and possibly mitigated, when and if they are validated.
18
The Measurable News
2014.01
|
mycpm.org
SUMMARY
“The SMARTER Project” best value performance measurement system addresses the
three major Earned Value index challenges through ACCUMULATION, ELIMINATION and
CORRELATION. These challenges are all addressed through the use of a variety of new
indices and measurement techniques. The new indices that were introduced include the
practice of determining a project’s risk critical performance measurement (R-SPI) through
the accumulation and elimination of subjective earning rules. The introduction of a new Cost
Performance Index labeled as CPI (p) which is aimed at measuring cost performance against
the scope-aligned Performance Budget. Next the new milestone performance indices SPI(sm)
for Starts and SPI (fm) for finishes are developed to measure non-budget dollar based key
milestones and events helping to solve the challenge of PMB imperfections, since they are
more closely tied to the project schedule. The system also addresses staffing resources to
ensure they are at proper levels to achieve progress and performance goals. The combination
and correlation of these new indices along with many other current indices greatly improves
the ability to tell a project’s story more accurately.
The SMARTER project performance measurement system will yield much more accurate
forecasts for your projects and keep risk-critical elements on the radar between full
measurement periods with fewer staff resources expended. In addition your staff is doing
more rewarding analytical work and less robotic processing and chasing false reads. Many, if
not all of these methods and indices are valid anytime and can be applied to any EPC project.
The key is to use the SMARTER project practices with the process steps of ACCUMULATING,
ELIMINATING and then CORRELATING. This all results in a “best value performance
measurement” system and helps restore the credibility of Earned Value based systems to all
project stakeholders.
References
1) Lipke, Walt. “Schedule is Different,” The Measurable News, March & Summer 2003
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Rich is a certified Earned Value Professional (EVP) with over 20 years of project management experience in both the private
and government sectors. Rich specializes in project performance measurement and management, with experience ranging
from implementing EVMS validated systems on multi-billion dollar government projects to successfully implementing an
EVMS “light” system for a client with no previous government and no capital project experience. Rich works for URS Energy
and Construction leading project controls efforts on design, engineering, procurement and construction projects for oil and
gas industry clients. His current projects include three (3) EPC gas plant projects for mid-stream clients with a cumulative total
installed cost (TIC) value of over one billion dollars. Rich previously owned and/or managed several successful performance
oriented businesses including a tactical supply company targeting military Special Forces’ needs, a security training services
business, partnering with a well-known retired member of Seal Team Six and Red Cell, as well as a sports performance
training business which worked with many elite professional and Olympic athletes to improve their athletic and mental
performance. His previous experiences bring a unique perspective to performance management and led him to devise his
“SMARTER” project approach to performance measurement.
Richard C. Plumery
URS Energy & Construction
Richard.Plumery@urs.com
The Measurable News
2014.01
|
mycpm.org
19
2014
Basic and Advanced
Public Training
Irvine, CA
March 3-7, 17-20
Tyson’s Corner, VA
October 20-24, November 3-6
TRAINING REGISTRATION
18400 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 500 | Irvine, CA 92612 | 949 975 1550 x269 | http://www.smawins.com/seminars.aspx.
The PMI Registered Education Provider is a registered service and collective mark of the Project Management Institute, Inc.
THE MEASURABLE NEWS
2014.01
WHITE PAPER: “THE THREE ASPECTS OF EVMS
SUSTAINABILITY”
By Mark Infanti
ABSTRACT
Effective sustainability of an earned value management system is enabled
by a thorough understanding of three primary objectives: Perspective,
Performance and Provability.
This paper includes specific methods, explanations and examples that expand
the reader’s knowledge and appreciation of EVMS utility and benefits. It
discusses pertinent pointers on effective system sustainability and how/when
to consider alternative resources when needed to critique or validate.
THE THREE ASPECTS OF EVMS SUSTAINABILITY
Sustainability Relies on 3 Elements
• Perspective - A system that is built to provide help for the CAMs and information for the
PM
• Performance - Use of the system by management
• Provability - Practical and simple processes and artifacts that are used
PERSPECTIVE
A company is a team of experts held together by a standard business model supporting
governance, methodology and execution
One approach to understanding Perspective is to describe the elements of perspective that
threaten sustainability of the EVM System.
Common Threats to Perspective
• An EV system as perceived by a non-Control Account Manager (CAM)
• System documentation that is not completely clear on what the CAM is (and is not) to do
and for what the CAM is responsible.
• No reviews or encouragement for the CAMs participation
As a consultant that has designed and reviewed many EVM Systems, I know that these
designs are usually done starting at the top. We start with the customer requirements and
figure out how the company can meet those requirements.
The people who put these systems together do not always think like a CAM. Yet the CAM is
an instrumental part of a successful system. What would your system design be like if you
trained CAMs on EVM and asked them to design a companywide system?
System flowcharts and documentation are almost never prepared from the CAM point of
view. We have all seen the flowcharts that define what we are to do in any situation. Do they
have a real start and complete or do they just seem to start with an event that is the end
product of another process? Are your flowcharts really clear enough to follow or are they
useful only to auditors?
The CAM role is essential to this system but do the CAMs know what they are expected
to do and how it benefits the company? We typically train our CAMs on what to do (and
sometimes what not to do). Do we do a good job of explaining why they are doing what we
say they should? Has your company management been trained on what the CAM is to do and
not to do? Finally, do we provide positive feedback or encouragement to the CAMs for their
participation?
The point of perspective is that everyone should know what their role is, what everyone
else’s role is and how these roles interact. Not only should they know their role, it should be
respected as an important role in the process.
|
mycpm.org
21
Does the CAM Understand the Company Point-of-View?
Even if the flowcharts and system description are prepared from the CAM’s point of view, what
is in it for the CAM? It is easy to say it is his/her job, but the system will be more sustainable
and will improve if the CAM understands what their role does for the company and for him/her.
The CAM also should be aware of the need for visibility into their work performance. Does the
CAM understand why it is necessary to see their performance in detail? Do they know why
they were chosen to become a CAM and how that position supports the program?
Does your company use EVM data for CAM performance rating? If the CAMs think that EVM
metrics are used to rate their performance, it will cause anxiety and so is not recommended.
If the CAMs perceive that the data is used to measure them, they are going to dislike the
metrics and potentially ignore the metrics, or worse, try to change the metrics to their
advantage. This makes it essential that the CAMs understand the company point of view for
the use of EVMS.
Practical and Simple Solutions to Perspective Sustainability
1. Preparing instructions and flowcharts that are designed for the CAM
Project management consists of answering four questions:
• What are you planning to do?
• How are you doing against that plan?
• What changes/updates have been made to your plan?
• How much do you have left to do?
An EVMS needs to support the answering and collecting of this information easily and
consistently. This requires visibility and transparency.
To be successful at this, visibility and transparency must be regarded as a positive so the
CAMs regard this as proof of their good work. Also, fear of visibility is easier to overcome
if EVM is mandated from the top of the organization for all projects with an adequate
explanation of the reasons for the visibility and how it will be used.
2. An EV system that reflects intuitive CAM actions
A CAM is naturally going to lean toward technical issues and solutions. They are not usually
inclined toward budgeting, estimating and explaining what happened when there is a
variance. To make these actions intuitive requires a company culture that asks for this
information regularly and publicly so that it becomes intuitive.
3. System documentation that is completely clear on what the CAM is (and is not)
responsible for.
Make sure that all documentation and training explains the responsibilities of the CAM with
an explanation of why. Also, make sure that the CAM knows what they are not responsible to
perform and why.
4. Periodic review and encouragement from the PM, PMO, and/or a surveillance team
Reward attempts at measurement, however small or inaccurate. Rewards can be as simple as
a public recognition.
PERFORMANCE
Things never go according to plan. The organization that has a process that is understood
and can handle changes will be the best performer
Common Threats to Performance
• Insufficient use of data metrics to improve the process.
• Inability to distinguish between normal variances and system danger signals.
• Lack of process for filtering arithmetic anomalies.
• Systems that consider commitment for data update to be corrective action.
• Users that do not know the essential elements of the update cycle.
How do you use metrics? If the metrics are ignored by the company, the CAM will ignore
them also. One of the proficiencies that should be cultivated is what the EVM metric is telling
you. Is a schedule variance real or is it really a planning variance that has no effect on the
critical path and hence the end date.
It is easy to say that a negative cost variance means an overrun, but is that because the
estimate was bad, risk analysis was incomplete, or some other systematic issue? How do you
know that? Are there EVM SMEs that can be called on to help with that assessment? Are
22
The Measurable News
2014.01
|
mycpm.org
variances looked at over time so trends can help determine if the variance is a single issue or
a systematic issue?
Do the regular performance reports include an error report that catches anomalies (e.g.,
BCWP>BAC, ACWP+ETC>EAC, ACWP occurring after the task is 100% complete, etc.)? As
obvious as these anomalies may be, it is easy to miss them and they need to be corrected so
they are not reported to the customer or management.
Corrective actions should come with an expected completion date and impact. That is taught
in every basic EVM training course. But is the information tracked to make sure that action
was taken, that it was completed, and the impact was accounted for in the forecasted cost
and schedule?
Having users that do not know the essential elements of the EV performance update cycle
is seen often in a newly implemented system. If it is seen in an existing system, it is a clear
indication that the system is not being sustained. The update cycle is typically monthly. If
someone is performing the cycle monthly and does not understand the elements of that
update, that is indication of the system deterioration.
If someone finds a system issue, to whom do they report the problem? Not having a central
point of contact for system weaknesses will cause system deterioration. If weaknesses are
reported and there is no action or feedback, the reporting of issues will stop. People stop
doing things that they perceive as having no purpose.
The Easiest Way to Determine System Weakness is the Quality of the VARs
One of the surveillance techniques that should be used is to review a 3 period sampling of
variance analysis reports (VARs). Variance Analysis Reports (VARs) should identify the issues,
cause and impact for the most significant contributors to a variance. Also, each report should
be stand alone (not ‘see last month’) and the issues and corrective actions brought up in
prior months should be updated or closed in subsequent months.
But the key is the quality of the explanation. Does the analysis get to the root cause of the
problem? Are the variances quantified so the reader understands the magnitude of the issue?
Are EAC’s updated regularly? If these things are not done, the system is deteriorating.
What will cause VARs to deteriorate is the lack of action by the program management. We
only do what our boss thinks is important. If the CAMs believe that the effort they are putting
into a VAR is not justified (recognized by management), then they will not be as diligent
about the analysis. If, on the other hand, the PM questions or praises the CAMs VAR, it will be
obvious that it is important.
Practical and Simple Performance Solutions
1. Understanding of what the data metrics really mean
First it is important to understand what the data metrics mean. One way to do this is to
have the PM reinforce their meaning in every project review by using the metrics. This
accomplishes constant training and makes it clear that the management is interested.
2. Determine a person or group with the ability to distinguish between normal variances
and system danger signals
Make sure that there is a person or team that reviews data from a system point of view. A
surveillance team, an SME or project controls. Since most of us are busy reviewing the project
to which we are assigned, we seldom see if that same issue is affecting other projects.
3. Maintain a process for filtering arithmetic anomalies
To assist in identifying data anomalies, issue a regular report with the performance reports
that highlights these issues. Also make sure there are project instructions that identify what
to do when one of these is highlighted.
4. Do not allow commitment for data update to be considered corrective action
Create and maintain a corrective action log that provides a way to track corrective actions
to conclusion. This reinforces the idea that corrective actions are important and should be
taken seriously. This is very useful in preparing format 5 for the customer as well as internal
management.
5. Provide regular periodic update instructions
Provide regular periodic update desk instructions to all involved. It can be a simple as an
The Measurable News
2014.01
|
mycpm.org
23
email. Send these out once a quarter so that there is no reason to not be fully aware of the
standard process.
6. Review Past EAC Forecasts against the Final Cost of all Projects
Look at the history of projects in your organization and find out which project EAC forecasts
were the most accurate. Find out who prepared those EACs and what process they used.
Once you have that information, tell everyone.
PROVABILITY
Provability is readily demonstrating an ‘understanding of’ and ‘adherence to’ company
procedures.
Common Threats to Provability
• Lack of simple evidence that shows understanding
• System documentation that fails to distill the many words into concept summaries for
user and auditor
• Inability to consistently characterize simple system attributes for repetitive display
This is an issue of use. Is the system being used in a way that is obvious to everyone? Are
the terms and practices evident in program reviews and status meetings? When there is a
presentation on project/program status, are the terms used to answer the 4 basic questions
of: What are you planning to do? How are you doing against that plan? What changes/
updates have been made to your plan? How much do you have left to do?
If there is a question of intent or understanding, is it possible to review the system
documentation and easily understand the steps, intent of each step and reasons for the
processes? Most system documents I have seen explain “what” and detail instructions explain
“how”, but what I have seldom seen is the “why”.
There is also an issue of understanding the terms and using them consistently. For instance, is
it necessary to explain what an SPI is and what are its limitations every time it is used?
Practical and Simple Provability Solutions
1. Constantly Use EVM Standard Outputs.
If the CAM can understand and present the data in a standard graphical trend output, they
are proving an understanding of the process.
• All project review presentations should use the same graphics. This provides a constant
reinforcement to the CAM and all associated parties
• Using standard graphs and reports establishes the practice at every level of the
management. Even in the board room.
2. Provide an Independent Surveillance Capability
Internal surveillance is not an audit function. It is a support function.
• Surveillance has the goal of improving the people and practices
• Use surveillance to determine where practices are not being used or understood.
• Use surveillance to establish when training is required and on what subjects
• Use surveillance to determine when practices need to be changed to make the process
more efficient and in line with the company goals
One of the best ways to determine if a system is deteriorating is to perform internal
surveillance of those people who are the primary users, such as the CAMs, PM, and functional
managers. This is usually performed by an experienced team that can determine system
danger signals, identify users with incomplete knowledge and suggest corrective actions.
Objectives of the Surveillance Elements
• Discussions - to determine an individual’s understanding of system and his/her use of
data generated
• Data traces - analysed for consistency, accuracy and currency
• Reporting - details of observations, concerns and recommendations
• Corrective actions - define possible system improvements and needed project actions
24
The Measurable News
2014.01
|
mycpm.org
3. What about Subcontractor/ Interdivisional EVM Practices
Part of the company documented process we discussed in Perspective includes the
integration of subcontractor and/or interdivisional EVM data
• This requires that the subcontractors/ interdivisional CAMs are doing what is expected
• It may also require that the internal surveillance team train and improve the CAMs in a
different organization
SUMMARY
EVMS SUSTAINABILITY TAKES WORK
• Sustainability is the capacity to endure. We are in business to endure and grow.
• Each company has invested in the documentation of goals and standards that are the
basis for growth. That is Perspective.
• The foundation for that growth is the Performance of the company by using and
improving those standards.
• The use of those standards is the Provability that is needed to maintain the perspective
and performance.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Mark Infanti’s experience with Earned Value Management began in 1975 in the aerospace industry. Over the past 35 years, he
has been a project analyst, EVM consultant, software implementation consultant, project controls manager and marketing
manager for EVM software tools. He has worked with government and commercial companies around the world, and
supported professional organizations such as PMI, NDIA, & AACE.
Mark is a charter member of the Performance Management Association which is now known as CPM.
Mark Infanti, Sr. EVMS Consultant, SM&A
18400 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 500, Irvine, CA 92612
949.975.1550 | mark.infanti@smawins.com
The Measurable News
2014.01
|
mycpm.org
25
The “New” College of Performance
Management (CPM) – JOIN NOW!
As you may be aware, the College of Performance Management has been newly transformed
as an independent entity, after a mutual and amicable separation from the Project
Management Institute (PMI®).
Come join us and get involved in shaping the exciting future of the “new” CPM!!!
Membership is $85/year. Register online at www.mycpm.org.
CPM is the premier organization for earned value management (EVM) and project planning and controls.
As an international, non-profit organization, CPM is dedicated to project management and performance
management.
CPM Objectives
• Promote Earned Value Management and Project Planning and Control: Foster the recognition and use of earned
value management and other project planning and control techniques as integrating processes for project management
• Disseminate Information: Provide opportunities for the exchange of ideas, information, solutions and applications
• Improve Community: Encourage and enable the advancement of theory and application through research,
standards, and education
• Grow Professionals: Provide our diverse membership of project management professionals with growth
opportunities through leadership, education, networking, and other benefits of a professional association
• Enhance Membership and Benefits: Improve membership benefits and expand our membership base through
continued development of a professional association
Membership Benefits
•
•
•
•
•
•
Discount to CPM Conferences
Access to latest information on performance management
Networking with other professionals, industry leaders, and academia
Quarterly magazine, The Measurable News
Access to CPM electronic library
Monthly Webinars
Conference
•
•
•
•
Earn PDUs for Project Management Professionals
Update skills
Network
Participate in EVM Training and Certificate Program
Active members, serving on a committee, as a speaker, volunteer or
as a member of the Governing Board, gives you the greatest reward
of all – contributing your knowledge and experience to benefit others!
For more information, email execadmin@mycpm.org or call (703) 370-7885
Join CPM now at www.mycpm.org
PMI is a registered mark of the Project Management Institute, Inc.
BECOME A COLLEGE OF PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT MEMBER
Register A
onCOLLEGE
line at www.mycpm.org
BECOME
OF PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT MEMBER
Register on line at www.mycpm.org
$1..FNCFSTIJQ"QQMJDBUJPO
Membership Type:
Membership Type:
Name:
New Member
Renewal
New Member
Renewal
Date:
Name:
Company/Organization:
Date:
Company/Organization:
Select one:
Government Employee
Select one:
Address Type:
Address Type:
Address:
Industry
Government Employee
Academic
Industry
Consulting
Academic
Work
Consulting
Work
Home
Home
Address:
City:
State:
City:
Phone (Daytime):
Zip/Post Code:
State:
Zip/Post Code:
Phone (Evening):
Phone (Daytime):
Email Address:
Email Address:
Select one:
Country:
Country:
Phone (Evening):
New - Annual Membership Dues - $85
Select one:
Annual Membership Dues - $85
Renewal - Annual Membership Dues - $50
Payment:
Payment:
Visa
Visa
Mastercard
Mastercard
American Express
American Express
Discover
Discover
Check Enclosed
Check Enclosed
Card Number:
Card Number:
Exp. Date:
Exp. Date:
Security Code:
Security Code:
Billing Address Zip Code:
Billing Address Zip Code:
Signature:
Signature:
By becoming a member, you hereby agree to abide by the CPM Code of Ethics as shown on the CPM web site – http://www.mycpm.org/about-us/code-of-ethics
PLEASE RETURN THE COMPLETED APPLICATION WITH PAYMENT BY FAX OR MAIL:
PLEASE RETURN THE COMPLETED APPLICATION WITH PAYMENT BY FAX OR MAIL:
College of Performance Management
College
Performance
Management
101 S. of
Whiting
Street, Suite
320
101Alexandria,
S. Whiting Street,
Suite 320
VA 22304
Alexandria, VA 22304
Fax: (703) 370-1757; outside US – Country Code +1-703-370-1757
Fax: (703) 370-1757; outside US – Country Code +1-703-370-1757
For more information, contact ExecAdmin@mycpm.org or call (703) 370-7885; outside US – Country Code +1-703-370-7885
For more information, contact ExecAdmin@mycpm.org or call (703) 370-7885; outside US – Country Code +1-703-370-7885
'BYUPEBZUP
THE MEASURABLE NEWS
2014.01
5 OBSERVATIONS FROM EVM EUROPE SYMPOSIUM 2013
By Mark Phillips
EVM Europe 2013 took place in Ghent, Belgium on December 3rd and 4th. It
was attended by 60 people from across Europe and the United States. Here
are five observations from the event. These are my personal, subjective,
observations and not an official communication from CPM.
1.
EVM Europe is living up to its reputation of being a place where practitioners and
researchers meet. Practitioners share expertise while learning about leading-edge
research in the field of project controls. Researchers share their leading-edge research
while learning from the expertise and experience of the practitioners who come.
Practitioners leave with new ideas. Researchers leave with new problems to solve and
new data to explore.
2. The 1.3 million Euro (roughly $1.7 million) research project is bearing fruit. There was
a group of over 20 young students presenting their ideas, initial research findings and
next steps in their research. These are Ph.D. and Masters students exploring a diverse
range of approaches and challenges to project control including: Schedule Risk Analysis,
Work Package Management and Complicated Scheduling Under the Constraint of
Simultaneous and Exclusive Needs.
The approaches are being tested against various data sets, benchmarked against
current EVM approaches. EVM is the baseline and point of departure from which the
next generation of integrated project control approaches are evolving. The student
presentations were elegant, clear and given in flawless English. Judging from the work
so far, the research project should lead to a slew of papers in top management journals
breaking new territory in the field and contributing to practice, over time.
3. Several factors are enabling the new research:
•
Funding, namely the 1.3 million Euro research grant (roughly $1.7 million)
•
High Performance Computing, the researchers have access to the biggest super
computer in Belgium, which is ranked 118th in the world
•
Modern software facilitating simulations, Monte Carlo experiments and analysis
•
Use of applied mathematics such as Allen’s Interval Algebra and machine learning
• The analytical foundation of schedule measured in terms of time as a quantity,
distinct from cost measurements and
• The leadership of Professor Dr. Mario Vanhoucke.
4. Practitioners expressed the desire for the addition of management skills as a subject for
the conference. Obtaining and using the right data is fundamental. However, the science
of a practitioner’s job is in how the data is used to improve project management. Project
outcomes are a result of people, not numbers.
5. Ghent is a beautiful city. The people are friendly. Almost everyone speaks English. It is
easy to get to. And the hosts of EVM Europe took great care of everyone.
EVM Europe 2014 is scheduled for December 2nd and 3nd in Ghent, once again. It promises
to be a worthwhile event.
28
|
mycpm.org
THE MEASURABLE NEWS
2014.01
EARNED SCHEDULE FOR AGILE PROJECTS
By Robert Van De Velde, PhD, PMP
ABSTRACT
Earned Schedule for Agile projects (AgileES) combines the speed and
responsiveness of Agile with the accuracy and control of Earned Schedule.
AgileES adds value to common Agile tools that are used for assessing
schedule performance. It also removes an Agile concern with Earned Value’s
schedule performance metrics. Using Earned Schedule on Agile projects is
not without controversy, but there is strong, objective proof that it is valid
for Agile projects. In short, AgileES deserves a place in the Agile tool kit.
Since its introduction a decade ago, Earned Schedule (Lipke, 2003) has improved the
ability of projects to measure and track schedule performance. Traditional Earned Value
Management (EVM) measures schedule performance in units of currency. Earned Schedule
measures it in units of time—a richer and more intuitive metric.1 While the use of Earned
Schedule on plan-driven projects is growing, its adoption by Agile projects is stalled. There
are several reasons for the gap.
Today, Agile projects use EVM (AgileEVM) to manage cost performance. Their use of EVM for
schedule management is limited—there is doubt that it adds value beyond what is provided
by common Agile tools. Consider this observation concerning the use of EVM on two Agile
test projects:
The Product Owners for both projects felt that the AgileEVM metrics did not provide
any more schedule insight than the burndown chart provided. … We agree that without
the need to manage cost performance, AgileEVM does not add significant value above
traditional burndown methods. (Sulaiman, T., Barton, B., & Blackburn, T., 2006)
There is also a concern with EVM’s traditional schedule performance metrics. As a project
approaches completion, EVM’s metrics invariably show schedule performance improving. At
the end of a project, the performance appears to be perfect, even if the project is delivered
late. That is counter-intuitive, if not simply misleading.
Finally, there are concerns within the Agile community about using EVM in any form. Based
on negative experience, some claim that EVM is merely bureaucratic overhead. Others, who
have had positive experience with EVM, dispute the claim. The debate persists.
AgileES applies Earned Schedule to Agile projects and addresses all of these concerns.
AgileES practice demonstrates value-add for traditional burndown methods and improved
accuracy versus traditional EVM schedule performance metrics. AgileES theory objectively
proves the validity of AgileES for Agile projects.
AgileES Practice
AgileES quantifies schedule performance efficiency. Earned Schedule measures the amount of
time earned on a project. The Schedule Performance Index for time (SPIt) compares the amount
of time earned to the actual time, thus indicating how well or poorly time is being used on the
project. The SPIt yields a profile of schedule performance that goes beyond burn charts and
gives Agile teams additional information to use in identifying and correcting deviations.
A recent project that used AgileES illustrates the point. The project, call it AgileEStest, was
a classic Agile project: it was a software development initiative done by a team with several
years of Agile experience. The team prepared a product backlog, a relative sizing, and a
release plan.
The planned staffing level on the project was ten team members, all of whom were colocated. The sprints were two weeks long, and the original end date was four months after
the start. The budget was a half-million dollars.
|
mycpm.org
29
Each week, the team gathered EVM data for a spreadsheet that was used to do Agile and AgileES
calculations. No additional data collection was required for AgileES. Metrics generated from the
Each
week, were
the team
gathered
data team
for ameetings.
spreadsheet
that was
to do
spreadsheet
used in
regularly EVM
scheduled
Grooming
of theused
release
planAgile
was done
and
AgileES
calculations.
No
additional
data
collection
was
required
for
AgileES.
Metrics
at the end of each sprint.
generated from the spreadsheet were used in regularly scheduled team meetings. Grooming
of
the release
plan taken
was done
at the
end the
of each
Consider
a snapshot
part way
through
projectsprint.
(Figure 1). The snapshot includes Burndown
and AgileES metrics that will be explained presently.
Consider a snapshot taken part way through the project (Figure 1). The snapshot includes
Burndown and AgileES metrics that will be explained presently.
The project had a bad start. Actual staffing levels were significantly lower than planned. As a result,
schedule
performance
efficiency
was low.
At the end
of Sprint
the staffing level
was
brought
to theAs a
The
project
had a bad
start. Actual
staffing
levels
were 3,
significantly
lower
than
planned.
full complement
ten, but due to efficiency
the delay already
incurred
andend
the of
addition
a large
number level
of newwas
result,
scheduleofperformance
was low.
At the
Sprintof3,
the staffing
release points,
a full
major
plan revision of
was
required.
Thetonumber
of sprints
and incurred
budget were
brought
to the
complement
ten,
but due
the delay
already
andincreased,
the addition
theatarget
was delayed,
the contents
the sprints
re-organized.
With theThe
newnumber
baseline,of
of
largedate
number
of new and
release
points, of
a major
planwere
revision
was required.
sprints
and
budget
wererestarted.
increased, the target date was delayed, and the contents of the
the project
was
essentially
sprints were re-organized. With the new baseline, the project was essentially restarted.
AgileEStest
Burndown, SPIt , and Ideal Burndown
Release
Points
6000
Index
Value
Re-baseline
5000
Planned Finish
0.80
4000
0.60
3000
0.40
2000
0.20
1000
0
Sprints
1.00
0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Burndown
8
9
SPIt
10
11
12
13
IdealBurn
Figure 1: Project AgileEStest Burndown, SPIt, and Ideal Burndown
The chart focuses on the restarted project. It depicts the burndown (the blue squares)
The chart focuses on the restarted project. It depicts the burndown (the blue squares) beginning with
beginning with the number of release points actually completed at the end of Sprint 4 and
the number of release points actually completed at the end of Sprint 4 and running as far as Sprint 9.
running as far as Sprint 9. For those unfamiliar with burndown charts, they are commonly
For those
unfamiliar
with burndown
charts,schedule
they are commonly
used on
projects
forhow
assessing
used
on Agile
projects
for assessing
performance.
TheAgile
charts
show
much work
has been completed and, by inference, how much remains on the project.
Robert Van De Velde
© 2013
2
The chart in Figure 1 also contains an Ideal Burndown line (the yellow dotted line). It runs
from the first sprint of the re-baseline to the last planned sprint. It starts with the number of
release points that should have been completed at the end of Sprint 4 and finishes at Sprint
11 with no remaining release points. If the actual Burndown runs below the line, the project is
ahead of schedule, and if it runs above the line, the project is behind schedule.
After the re-baseline, the Burndown line shows a steady decline in the number of remaining
release points. Through Sprint 8, the results appear to run on or slightly above the Ideal
Burndown line, indicating that the project is on or slightly behind schedule. At Sprint 9, the
results jump above the Ideal Burndown line, indicating that the project is definitely behind
schedule.
AgileES clarifies what is happening. As shown by the SPIt line (the red triangles), schedule
performance efficiency improves over the first four sprints of the new baseline, but after
the fourth, Sprint 7, performance steadily declines. While the Burndown line highlights the
deviation at Sprint 9, the shortfall began at Sprint 7. Root cause analysis of the delay should
start there, rather than with the later sprint.
Burndown charts show the outcome of schedule performance efficiency: greater efficiency
means more release points are consumed, less efficiency means fewer release points are
consumed. The outcome is that the project is either on, ahead of, or behind schedule. By
contrast, AgileES assesses schedule performance efficiency itself and not just the outcome
of that performance efficiency. It shows explicitly how time is being used and thereby adds
insight to what is provided by common Agile tools such as burn charts.
30
The Measurable News
2014.01
|
mycpm.org
The discussion thus far has been framed exclusively in terms of SPIt , intentionally omitting
EVM’s Schedule Performance Index (SPI). As alluded to earlier, SPI is a problematic metric.
The SPI is the ratio between the Earned Value and the Planned Value. At the end of a project,
the Earned Value equals the Planned Value, by definition. As a project approaches its finish,
the SPI begins to rise, regardless of the actual performance. Even late projects end with a
perfect SPI.
Unlike the SPI, Earned Schedule’s SPIt accurately reflects time performance throughout a
project’s life cycle. Again, the test project illustrates the point.
By the time it completed, AgileES test had exceeded its planned finish by two sprints.
Nonetheless, the SPI rose steadily from Sprint 10 onwards and ended at 1.00. In contrast, the
SPI
AgileESt trended downwards from Sprint 11, ultimately finishing at .80. Given the project’s finish
date, the SPIt presents a more accurate picture of time performance than does the SPI.
AgileEStest
SPIt vs. SPI
Index
Value
1.00
0.80
0.60
Re-Baseline
0.40
Planned Finish
0.20
0.00
Sprints
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
SPIt
8
9
10
11
12
13
SPI
Figure 2: Project AgileEStest SPIt vs. SPI
In
summary,there
there
practical
reasons
for applying
Earned Schedule
to Agile
In summary,
areare
practical
reasons
for applying
Earned Schedule
to Agile projects.
As projects.
shown by As
shown
by the AgileES
test project,
offers
newcharts,
insight
into
is more
accurate
the test project,
offers AgileES
new insight
into burn
and
it isburn
morecharts,
accurateand
thanitEVM’s
SPI.
than
EVM’s
SPI. The
AgileES
is it,
a but
good
reason does
to use
but validity.
practicality does not
The utility
of AgileES
is utility
a good of
reason
to use
practicality
notit,
prove
prove validity.
AgileES Validity
AGILEES VALIDITY
Mathematical
deduction proves validity. But, why is it necessary to prove validity? Why is the
Mathematical
deduction
proves
validity.
But, to
why
is it necessary
to prove
Why is the utility of
utility
of AgileES
practice
not
enough
justify
its use on
Agile validity?
projects?
AgileES practice not enough to justify its use on Agile projects?
Practice is a matter of experience, and within the Agile community, there is experience that
runs
counter
to AgileES
practice.
the following
Practice
is a matter
of experience,
and Consider
within the Agile
community,statement:
there is experience that runs
Artificial
measures
such
as EVM
prove to be overhead at best, whose only value is
counter
to AgileES
practice.
Consider
thetypically
following statement:
to
cater measures
to the dysfunctional
infesting
many organizations.
Artificial
such as EVMbureaucrats
typically prove
to be overhead
at best, whose (S.
onlyAmbler, 2011)
value is to cater to the dysfunctional bureaucrats infesting many organizations. (S.
On the
other2011)
hand, there is experience consistent with AgileES practice. Consider the
Ambler,
following response to the last statement:
Ignore the arguments against EV from those [who have] not … deployed it successfully. … You
On the other hand, there is experience consistent with AgileES practice. Consider the following
wouldn’t take agile advice from someone who has not successfully deployed agile in a domain
response to the last statement:
and context similar to yours. Don’t do the same for anything else. (G. B. Alleman, 2011)
Ignore the arguments against EV from those [who have] not … deployed it
successfully.
… You
wouldn't
takeconclusive
agile advice
fromRather
someone
has not one subjective
Experience, although
valuable,
is not
proof.
thanwho
countering
successfully
deployed
agile
in
a
domain
and
context
similar
to
yours.
Don't
claim with another, we need an objective approach. To prove the validitydo
of the
AgileES for Agile
sametherefore,
for anythingEarned
else. (G.Schedule
B. Alleman,
2011) were deduced from Agile metrics. Test projects
projects,
metrics
then provided empirical verification of the math.
Experience, although valuable, is not conclusive proof. Rather than countering one subjective claim
with proof
another,
we need an objective
approach.
To and
provespecific
the validity
of AgileES
for Agile
projects,
The
incorporates
both the
approach
theorems
from
previous
work on
AgileEVM
(Sulaiman,
Barton,
Blackburn,
2006).
themetrics.
full proof
lengthy,
only
an outline is
therefore, Earned
Schedule
metrics
were deduced
fromAs
Agile
Testis
projects
then
provided
included
here, describing
key steps. A link to the full proof is included in the References (Van
empirical verification
of the math.
De Velde, 2013).
The proof incorporates both the approach and specific theorems from previous work on AgileEVM
(Sulaiman, Barton, Blackburn, 2006). As the full proof is lengthy, only an outline is included here,
describing key steps. A link to the full proof is included in the References (Van De Velde, 2013).
The Measurable News
2014.01
|
mycpm.org
Robert Van De Velde
© 2013
4
31
work
per
sprint.
The
offset
is(n)
themultiplied
sprint
Length
(L)
times
aan
performance
factor.
Theatperformance
factor
at
mean
velocity
v (RD
the
Start
Date
(SD)
plusActual
offset.
The Complete
mean velocity
is then average
v) equals
is
the
current
sprint
number
by 1 equation
over
the
Percent
Sprint
(APC
n).
1
The
starts
withnumber
AgileEVM’s
release
date
(Sulaiman,
T., et
al., 2006).
The Release
Date
is
theproof
current
sprint
by
1
over
the
Actual
Percent
Complete
at
Sprint
n
(APC
work
per
sprint.
The
offset
is(n)
themultiplied
sprint
Length
(L)
times
a
performance
factor.
The
performance
factor
n). (1)
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑣𝑣 = 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 + 𝐿𝐿 × �𝑛𝑛 ×
�
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
at
mean
velocity
v
(RD
an
offset.
The
mean
velocity
is
the
average
v) equals the Start Date (SD) plus
𝑛𝑛
is
theproof
current
sprint
(n) multiplied
by 1 equation
over the Actual
Percent
Complete
at Sprint
n (APCDate
n).
The
starts
withnumber
AgileEVM’s
release date
(Sulaiman,
T., et
al., 2006).
The Release
1
work per sprint. The offset
is thestarts
sprint
Length
times
a performance
factor.(Sulaiman,
The performance
The proof
AgileEVM’s
release
date equation
T., et al.,factor
2006).
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
=with
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆Date
+
𝐿𝐿 (L)
× �𝑛𝑛
×
�offset.
(1)The
1
𝑣𝑣 Start
at mean velocity v (RD
)
equals
the
(SD)
plus
an
The
mean
velocity
is
the
average
v
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆the
+velocity
𝐿𝐿1
× �𝑛𝑛 the
×v 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
(1)
𝑛𝑛)�Complete
In
AgileEVM
T., et
al.,
2006),
Actual
Percent
is
defined
as
the
ratio
between
Release
Date
at=mean
(RD
equals
the
Start
Date
(SD)
plus
an
offset.
The
is the
current(Sulaiman,
sprint number
(n)
multiplied
by
over
Actual
Percent
Complete
at
Sprint
n
(APC
).
𝑣𝑣
n
v
1
𝑛𝑛
work per sprint. The offset
is
the
sprint
Length
(L)
times
a
performance
factor.
The
performance
factor
mean velocity
is=the
work
The offset is the sprint Length (L) (1)
times a
the total number of Release
Points
at �𝑛𝑛
Sprint
(RPC
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑣𝑣Completed
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 average
+ 𝐿𝐿 ×
× nper
�sprint.
n) and the total number of Planned
is the
current(Sulaiman,
sprint number
(n)al.,
multiplied
by
over the
Actual
Percent
at the
Sprint
n (APC
𝑛𝑛 factor
performance
factor.the
The1
performance
is the
current
number
(n)n).multiplied by 1
In
AgileEVM
T.,
et
2006),
Actual
Percent
isComplete
defined sprint
as
ratio
between
Release
Points at Sprint
n (PRP
1 Complete
n). That is,
In
AgileEVM
(Sulaiman,
T.,
et
al.,
2006),
the
Actual
Percent
Complete
is
defined
as
the
ratio
between
over
the
Actual
Percent
Complete
at
Sprint
n
(APC
).
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
=
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆
+
𝐿𝐿
×
�𝑛𝑛
×
�
(1)
the total number of Release Points 𝑣𝑣Completed at Sprint
n (RPCn) and then total number of Planned
𝑛𝑛 Complete
the
total
number
of
Release
Points
Completed
at
Sprint
n
(RPC
)
and
the
total
number
of
Planned
In
AgileEVM
(Sulaiman,
T.,
et
al.,
2006),
the
Actual
Percent
is
defined
as
the
ratio
between
n
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑛𝑛 1
Release Points at Sprint n (PRPn). That is,
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
= 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆
+ 𝐿𝐿𝑛𝑛 ×
× n (RPC
�
(1)
=
Release
Points atofSprint
n (PRP
That
is,
the total number
Release
Points
Completed
at �𝑛𝑛
Sprint
n). 𝑣𝑣
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
𝑛𝑛𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑛𝑛 Complete is defined as the ratio between (2)
In
AgileEVM
(Sulaiman,
T.,
et
al.,
2006),
the
Actual
Percent
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑛𝑛
Release Points at Sprint n (PRPn). That is,
In AgileEVM
(Sulaiman,
et𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
al.,𝑛𝑛2006),
the
Actual Percent Complete is defined as the ratio
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑛𝑛T.,=
the total
number
of Release
Points
Completed
atPlanned
Sprint
nDuration
(RPC
(2) total
That
ratio
is
equivalent
to
the
ratio
between
the
at
a particular
(PD
v))and
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴Actual
𝑛𝑛
In AgileEVM (Sulaiman,
T., et al.,
the
Percent
Complete
is defined
as
the ratio
between
between
the2006),
total number
Points
Completed
at velocity
Sprint
nv(RPC
and the
𝑛𝑛 =of Release
n
(2)
Release
Points
at Sprint
n (PRP
is,
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑛𝑛 steps establish the equivalence.
n). That
the
Earned
Duration
at
that
velocity
(ED
).
The
following
numberPoints
of Planned
Release
Points nat(RPC
Sprint
n (PRP
That
is,
v 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
the total number of Release
Completed
at Sprint
then).total
number
of Planned
n) and
𝑛𝑛 =
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑛𝑛 Duration at a particular velocity v (PDv) and (2)
That ratio is equivalent to the ratio between the Planned
Release
at Sprinttonthe
(PRP
That is, the Planned
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑛𝑛 Duration at a particular velocity v (PDv) and
n). between
That
ratioPoints
isDuration
equivalent
ratio
TheEarned
Planned
Duration
velocity
v (PD
isThe
the
Length
ofsteps
time (L)
that thethe
overall
project is expected to
the
atatthat
velocity
(EDv)v).𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
following
establish
equivalence.
𝑛𝑛 =
the
Earned
Duration
at
that
velocity
(ED
).
The
following
steps
establish
the
equivalence.
That
ratio
is
equivalent
to
the
ratio
between
the
Planned
Duration
at
a
particular
velocity
v (PDv) and (2)
v
𝑛𝑛
take in order to complete all planned release points
at𝑛𝑛the planned velocity (PVn). The planned
=
the
Duration
velocity
(EDv)to
The
following
steps
establish
the
equivalence.
TheEarned
Planned
Duration
atthat
velocity
(PD
isbe
the
Length
ofbetween
time
(L)
that
the
overall
projectat
is aexpected
to velocity
That
ratio
is vequivalent
to
the ratio
the Planned
Duration
particular
𝑛𝑛completed
v).
velocity
is is
the
numberat
of
each
sprint.
The
PD
v sets a baseline
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑛𝑛 ofin
That
ratio
equivalent
torelease
the
ratiopoints
between
the
Planned
Duration
at a the
particular
velocity
vis(PD
The Planned
Duration
velocity
vthe
(PD
Length
time
(L) that
overall
project
expected
to(2) the
v) and
v) is the
v at
(PD
)
and
Earned
Duration
at
that
velocity
(ED
).
The
following
steps
establish
take
in
order
to
complete
all
planned
release
points
at
the
planned
velocity
(PV
).
The
planned
v
v
n
expectation Duration
on the total
duration
of a(ED
project.
Infollowing
formal terms,
the
at
The
establish
the
equivalence.
take
in order
to
complete
allvelocity
planned
release
points
at the
planned
velocity
(PV
Thea planned
equivalence.
v).
TheEarned
Planned
Duration
atthat
velocity
v (PD
isbe
the
Length
ofsteps
time
(L)
that
the
overall
project
is expected to
v)
velocity
is is
theequivalent
number
of
to
completed
each
sprint.
The
PDnv).velocity
sets
baseline
That ratio
torelease
the ratiopoints
between
the
Planned in
Duration
at a particular
v (PDv) and
velocity
is thetonumber
of release
points
to be points
completed
inplanned
each sprint.
The(PV
PDnv).sets
a planned
baseline
take
in
order
complete
all
planned
release
at
the
velocity
The
expectation
on
the total
duration
of
a(ED
project.
formal
terms,
the
Earned
Duration
at
velocity
The
following
steps) (L)
establish
the
equivalence.
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑛𝑛 vof
v).
The
Planned
atIn
velocity
(PD
is
the
of time
(L) that
the overall
The
Planned
Duration
atthat
velocity
vDuration
(PD
isbe
the
Length
thatLength
the
overall
project
is expected
to project is
v)
v
expectation
on
the total
duration
of
a project.
In
formal
terms,
velocity
is the
number
of
release
points
to
completed
intime
each
sprint.
The
PDv sets
a baseline
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
=
𝐿𝐿
×
�
�
(3)
𝑣𝑣
expected
to
take
in
order
to
complete
all
planned
release
points
at
the
planned
velocity (PVn).
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
take in order to complete all planned release points at
planned velocity (PVn). The planned
𝑛𝑛 the
expectation
the total
a project.
In
formal
terms,
The
Plannedon
Duration
atduration
velocity
vvelocity
(PD
)
is
the
Length
of
time
(L)
that
the
overall
project
is
expected
to
The
plannedof
is
the
number
of
release
points
to
be
completed
in
each
sprint.
The PDv
v
𝑛𝑛
velocity is the number of release points
to =
be𝐿𝐿 completed
in each sprint. The PDv sets a baseline
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
×
�
�
(3)
sets
a
baseline
expectation
on
the
total
duration
of
a
project.
In
formal
terms,
𝑣𝑣
𝑛𝑛
take in order to complete all planned release
at
the planned velocity (PVn). The planned
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
𝐿𝐿points
×
� 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
𝑛𝑛 � is actually spent completing
The
Earned on
Duration
at duration
velocity vof(ED
is=the
time
that
the release points(3)
expectation
the total
a project.
In
formal
v) 𝑣𝑣
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 terms,
velocity is the number of release points to be completed
in each sprint. The PDv sets a baseline
=
𝐿𝐿
×
�
�
that are done up to that point in time, 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
given
the
planned
velocity.
In
formal
terms,
(3)
𝑣𝑣
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
expectation
the total
a project.
In formal
𝑛𝑛 terms,
The
Earned on
Duration
at duration
velocity vof(ED
that
is
actually
spent
completing
the
release
points
v) is the time
𝑛𝑛 is actually spent completing the release points
The Earned Duration at velocity v (ED𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
the
time
that
v) is=
𝐿𝐿velocity
×
�𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
(3) the
that are done up to that
in time,
given
the
planned
velocity.
In formal
terms,
𝑣𝑣 at
Thepoint
Earned
Duration
v� (ED
) is the
time that
is actually spent completing
v
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 is
that are
doneDuration
up to that
in time,
given
the
planned
Inspent
formal
terms,
The
Earned
at point
velocity
v (ED
isare
time
that
actually
completing
release
points(4)
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
=the
𝐿𝐿done
×
� 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
� velocity.
v) 𝑣𝑣
release
points
that
up
that
point
in
time,
given thethe
planned
velocity.
In formal
𝑛𝑛to
𝐿𝐿 ×planned
� 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑛𝑛 � velocity. In formal terms,
(3)
𝑣𝑣 = the
that are done up to that
point in time, 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
given
terms,
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛
The Earned Duration at velocity v (ED𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
the
time
that� is actually spent completing the release points(4)
v) is=
𝐿𝐿 ×
�𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
𝑣𝑣
𝑛𝑛
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝐿𝐿 ×planned
� 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑛𝑛 terms
� velocity.
(4)
Given
the
definition
of APC
ED
common
cancel
withterms,
the following result:
that are
done
up to that
point
in time,
given
Inout
formal
𝑣𝑣 =
n, PD
v, and
v, the
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 is actually spent completing the release points
The Earned Duration at velocity v (EDv) is the time that
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑣𝑣 = 𝐿𝐿 × �
�
(4)
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑛𝑛 terms
that are
done
up to that
point
in definition
time,
givenv, the
planned
velocity.
Inout
formal
terms,
Given
the
definition
ofGiven
APC
, PD
common
cancel
with
the
following
result:
nthe
v, and1EDof
APC
,
PD
,
and
ED
,
common
terms
cancel
out
with
the
following
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑛𝑛n𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
v
𝑛𝑛v 𝑣𝑣
Given the definition ofresult:
APCn, PDv, and𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
ED=
, common
cancel
out with the following result:
v=
(5)
𝐿𝐿 × � = terms
�
(4)
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑣𝑣𝑛𝑛 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑛𝑛 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑛𝑛𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑣𝑣
Given the definition of APCn, PDv, and1EDv, common
terms
cancel
out
with
the
following
result:
𝑛𝑛
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑛𝑛 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑣𝑣
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
× �𝑛𝑛 = 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
�𝑣𝑣
(4)
= 𝐿𝐿𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
(5)
1 𝑣𝑣 =
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
=
= 𝑛𝑛𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
(5)
𝑛𝑛
𝑛𝑛 (1),
𝑣𝑣 have:
Substituting
for the performance
inED
equation
we
Given the definition
of APCn, PDvterm
, and
terms
cancel
out
with
the
following
result:
v, common
1 𝑛𝑛 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑛𝑛 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑣𝑣
=
= term in equation (1), we have:
(5)
Substituting for the performance
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑛𝑛 (1),𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
Given
the definition
of APCn, PDvterm
, and
ED
terms
cancel out with the following result:
𝑛𝑛
𝑣𝑣 have:
v, common
Substituting
for the performance
in
equation
we
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
1 equation
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑛𝑛 (1),𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
𝑣𝑣 𝑣𝑣
Substituting for the performance 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
term
in
�
(6)
= ×we have:
(5)
𝑣𝑣 = 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆=+ 𝐿𝐿 × �𝑛𝑛
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝑣𝑣
𝑛𝑛
𝑛𝑛 (1), we
𝑣𝑣 have:
Substituting for the performance term in
equation
1
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑛𝑛 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
𝑣𝑣 𝑣𝑣
= × 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑣𝑣 �
(5)
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅Schedule
= 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆=+𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
𝐿𝐿 × �𝑛𝑛
𝑣𝑣𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
Next, Earned
terms
replace
the duration velocity terms (PDv and EDv).(6)
The
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝑛𝑛 duration
𝑣𝑣 𝑣𝑣 �terms (PD and ED ). The equivalence
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
=in
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆
+ 𝐿𝐿 ×𝑛𝑛 �𝑛𝑛
×we
(6)
Next, Earnedfor
Schedule
terms
replace
the
velocity
Substituting
the performance
term
equation
(1),
have:
𝑣𝑣
v
v
equivalence between the Planned𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
Duration
for
velocity
(PD
)
and
the
Planned
Duration
for
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
v
𝑣𝑣
between the PlannedEarned
Duration
for𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
velocity
and
the
Planned
Duration
for Earned
Schedule
) duration
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 (PD
+)𝐿𝐿isv)×easy
�𝑛𝑛 ×
�
ES(6)
Schedule
to demonstrate.
For both
PDv and
PDES, the(PD
planned
𝑣𝑣 =(PD
ES
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸have:
Substituting
for
the performance
term in
(1),
we
𝑣𝑣 terms (PDv and EDv). The equivalence
Next,
Earned
Schedule
terms
replace
theequation
duration
is the
between
Finish
and the
Date. So, between
PDv = PDthe
.
is easy
to demonstrate.
Fordifference
both
PDv and
PDES,the
thevelocity
planned
duration
is Start
the difference
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑣𝑣Date
AgileES
ES
Next, Earned Schedule terms replace
the
duration
velocity
terms (PDv and EDv). The equivalence
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
=
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆
+
𝐿𝐿
×
�𝑛𝑛
×
�
between
the
Planned
Duration
for
velocity
(PD
)
and
the
Planned
Duration
for
Earned
Schedule
(PD
)
𝑣𝑣
v
ES(6)
Finish Date and the Start Date. So, PDv = PDES.
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸Planned
𝑣𝑣 terms (PD
between
the
Planned
Duration
for
velocity
(PD
the
Duration
for
Earned
Schedule
(PD
)
Next,
Earned
Schedule
terms
replace
the
duration
velocity
and
ED
).
The
equivalence
v) and
ES
The
Earned
Duration
for
velocity
(ED
)
was
just
defined.
There
needs
to
be
an
equivalent
v
v
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑣𝑣v duration is the difference between the
is easy to demonstrate. For both PDv and PDES, the planned
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆PD
+
𝐿𝐿 ,)×the
�𝑛𝑛 planned
×
� duration
(6) the
𝑣𝑣v =
isduring
easyDate
towhich
demonstrate.
For
both
PD
and
is) the
difference
between
the
earned
duration
term
for
Schedule.
The
Earned
Duration
for
ES (ED
) equals
between
the
Planned
Duration
for
velocity
(PD
and
the
Planned
Duration
for
Earned
(PD
ESvEarned
ES)
ESthe
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸There
the
total
number
of(ED
release
points
actually
done
(RPC
is
greater
thanSchedule
or earned
equal
to
Finish
and
the
Start
Date.
So,
PD
=
PD
.
ATto
𝑣𝑣
v
ES
The
Earned
Duration
for
velocity
)
was
just
defined.
needs
be
an
equivalent
Next,
Earned
Schedule
terms
velocity
(PD
v the duration
and
ED
equivalence
length
ofreplace
time
during
which
the
total terms
number
ofvis
release
points
done
(RPCAT) is
v). The actually
Finish
Date
and
the Start
Date.
iscumulative
easy
to demonstrate.
For
both
PDPD
and
planned
duration
thelast
difference
between
theterms,
v =
ES,. the
vend
ES
number
planned
atSo,
the
ofPD
each
sprint
from
first
toplanned
the
(CPRP
formal
i). Inof
duration
term
for Earned
Schedule.
The
Earned
Duration
forthe
ES
(ED
thethe
length
time
greater
than
or
equal
to
the
cumulative
number
at
end
each(PD
sprint
between
the
Planned
Duration
for
velocity
(PD
ES) equals
)
and
the
Planned
Duration
for
Earned
Schedule
v
ES) from the
Finish
Date and
the Start
Date.
So,
PD
= duration
PD
vwas
ES.defined.
Next,
Earned
Schedule
replace
velocity
terms
(PDvto
and
). The equivalence
The
Earned
Duration
forterms
velocity
(ED
)the
just
There
needs
beED
an
earned
vequivalent
first
to both
the
last
(CPRP
).
In, formal
terms,
vand
i
is
easy
to
demonstrate.
For
PD
PD
the
planned
duration
is
the
difference
between
the
v ) was just
ES
The
Earned
for
velocity
needs
to befor
anEarned
equivalent
earned
v
between
the Duration
Planned
Duration
for(ED
velocity
(PD𝑗𝑗v)defined.
and the There
Planned
Duration
Schedule
duration
term
forthe
Earned
Schedule.
The
Earned
Duration
for ES (ED
the length
of time(PDES)
ES) equals
Finish
Date
and
Start
Date.
So,
PD
=
PD
.
v
ES
(𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
)
Robert
Van
De
Velde
©
2013
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
=
𝐿𝐿
×
�
�
≥
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
�
duration
term
for
Earned
Schedule.
The
Earned
Duration
for
ES
(ED
)
equals
the
length
of
timethe 5(7)
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 There
𝑖𝑖
The
Earned
Duration forFor
velocity
(ED
) wasPD
just
needs
to the
be an
equivalent
earned
ESis
is easy
to demonstrate.
both 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
PDvvand
, defined.
the planned
duration
difference
between
ES
𝑖𝑖=1
duration
term
forthe
Earned
Thev =
Earned
Finish Date
and
Start Schedule.
Date. So, PD
PDES. Duration for ES (EDES) equals the length of time
Robert
De Velde
2013thatThere
5 is exactly
TheVan
Earned
Duration For
for velocity
(EDwe
just©here
defined.
needs
to beof
anrelease
equivalent
earned
simplicity,
assume
the total
number
points
completed
v) was
RobertFor
Vansimplicity,
De Velde we assume here that the total number
© 2013 of release points completed is exactly equal to 5
equal
to the total
the(ED
end
of
a
sprint.
That
is,
there
is
no
fractional
duration
term for Earned
Schedule.
Thenumber
Earnedplanned
Durationas
forofES
)
equals
the
length
of
time
ES
The
Earned
Duration
for velocity
(EDend
needs
be an equivalent
earned
the
total
number
planned
as (Accounting
of the
of for
ajust
sprint.
is, there
is
notofractional
amount.
(Accounting
Robert
Van
De Velde
©defined.
2013ThatThere
5 of the full
v) was
amount.
fractional
amounts
adds
considerably
to the
complexity
proof.)
duration
term
for
Earned
Schedule.
The
Earned
Duration
for
ES
(ED
)
equals
the
length
of
time
for fractional amounts adds considerably to the complexity of the full
ES proof.)
Robert Van De Velde
© 2013
5
Now, we prove that EDv and EDES are equivalent. The equivalence rests on the fact that EDv
weVelde
prove that and
EDv ED
and ED
are equivalent.
The equivalence rests on the fact that EDv andvelocity
ED5ES in the
RobertNow,
Van De
© 2013
areES
simply different
ways to count the number of units of planned
ES
are simply different release
ways topoints
count the
number of units of planned velocity in the release points
completed.
completed.
An example illustrates the point (Table 1). At the end of Sprint 5, 50 release points have been
completed. At a planned velocity of 10 release points per sprint, 5 sprints have been earned.
An example illustrates the point (Table 1). At the end of Sprint 5, 50 release points have been
Similarly, if we compare the 50 points completed with the running total of planned points at
32
completed. At a planned velocity of 10 release points per sprint, 5 sprints have been earned. Similarly,
if we compare the 50 points completed with the running total of planned points at the end of each
The Measurable
2014.01 | mycpm.org
sprint, we see, again, that 5 sprints have been earned. Generalizing,
we say thatNews
EDv = ED
ES.
RPCn
0An example illustrates
15
35(Table 1). At40
505, 50 release points
- have been
the point
the end of Sprint
completed. At a planned velocity of 10 release points per sprint, 5 sprints have been earned.5Similarly,
PVn
10
10running5total10
10
Sprint
1 10
2 10
3 completed
4 the
if we compare
the 50 points
with
of planned6points at theED
end of each
the endsprint,
of each
sprint,
we
see,
again,
that
5
sprints
have
been
earned.
Generalizing,
we say
we
see,
again,
that
5
sprints
have
been
earned.
Generalizing,
we
say
that
ED
= EDES.
v
10= ED 15
20
RPCCPRP
n that
0 ED
35 30
40 40
50 50
- 60
n
.
v
ES
5 5
PVnRPCAT 10 50
10 50
10 50
10 50
10 50
10 50
CPRPn
10
RPCAT
50
Sprint
1
RPCn
0
PVn
10
20
50
2
3
4
5
15
35
40
50
EDv = EDES 50
30 Table 1: 40
5010
50
10
10
1050
Table
EDvelocity
Substituting the Earned
Schedule
terms
for1:
the
terms in
CPRP
10
20
30ES
40(6), we have:
50
v = ED
n
RPCAT
50
50
60
50
50
50
50
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃1:
Table
ED
=
ED
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
v
ES
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑣𝑣for
= 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆
𝐿𝐿 × �𝑛𝑛terms
×
Substituting the Earned Schedule terms
the +
velocity
in�(6), we have:
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
6
-
10
ED
5
60
50
5
5
(8)
Substituting the Earned Schedule terms for the velocity terms in (6), we have:
Substituting the Earned Schedule terms for the velocity terms in (6), we have:
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
Then, we move from the Agile context to the Earned
Schedule domain. To do so, we show the
�
(8)
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 of schedule
equivalence between EDES and the calculated amount
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 earned (ES). (For simplicity, the
�
(8)
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
outline varies
herewe
from
thefrom
full proof.)
Then,
move
the Agile context to the Earned 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸Schedule domain. To do so, we show
Then, we move from
the Agile context
to the
Schedule
domain.
To of
do schedule
so, we show
the (ES). (For
the equivalence
between
EDEarned
and the
calculated
amount
earned
ES context to the Earned Schedule domain. To do so, we show the
Then, we move from the Agile
equivalence
ED
and
the
calculated
amount
of
schedule
earned
(ES).
(For
simplicity,
the the
simplicity,
outline
varies
here
from
the
full
proof.)
The keybetween
to the
equivalence
is
the
fact
that
the
method
for
sizing
release
points
can
be
any
numerical
ESthe
equivalence between EDES and the calculated amount of schedule earned (ES). (For simplicity,
AgileES
outline
varies
here
from
the
full
proof.)
value (Sulaiman, T.,outline
et al.,
2006).
canproof.)
substitute weighted release points for release points
varies
here So,
from we
the full
The key to the equivalence is the fact that the method for sizing release points can be any
throughout the equations. Starting with (7), we first substitute EDv for EDES. Second, we multiply all
numerical
(Sulaiman,
T.,iset
So,
we for
can
substitute
weighted
release
points for
Thevalue
key
to the
equivalence
theal.,
fact2006).
that
method
sizing
release
points
can be
any numerical
AgileES
The key
to the
equivalence
is the
fact
that
method
for the
sizing
release
points
can
be
any
release
points
in the
equation
by
Rate
(R),
giving
us:
the
Cumulative
Planned
Release
Points
yields
thethe
Planned
Value
in the
second
termnumerical
, we substitute
release
points
throughout
the
equations.
Starting
with
(7),
we
first
substitute
ED
for
EDES.
v
value (Sulaiman, T., et al., 2006). So, we can substitute weighted release points for release points
(Sulaiman,
T., et al.,
So,all
werelease
canStarting
substitute
weighted
release
points
for.giving
release
points
Second,
we2006).
multiply
points
equation
byED
Rate
(R),
us:
and getvalue
the following
result:
throughout
the equations.
with in
(7),the
we first
substitute
for
ED
Second,
we
multiply
all
v
ES
𝑗𝑗 substitute
throughout the equations.
Starting
with
we first
ED
𝑅𝑅 points
× 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
AgileES
release
in𝑛𝑛the(7),
equation
by Rate
(R), giving
us:v for EDES. Second, we multiply all
the Cumulative Planned Release
Points
yields
the
Planned
Value
we
substitute
in
the
𝐿𝐿 × � by Rate�(R),
= 𝐿𝐿 giving
× ��us: (𝑅𝑅 × 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅,𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ 𝑅𝑅 × 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑖𝑖 )� second term
(9)
release points in the equation
𝑗𝑗
𝑅𝑅
×
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
𝑖𝑖=1
𝑛𝑛
and get the following result:
𝑗𝑗
𝑅𝑅 ×𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝐿𝐿 × �� (𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
≥𝑛𝑛 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖 )�
(10)
𝐿𝐿𝑖𝑖=1
× � and use
�=
𝐿𝐿 ×equivalence
�� (𝑅𝑅 × 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
� ED to simplify the
(9)
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ 𝑅𝑅 × 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
We cancel
common
terms
the
between
ED 𝑖𝑖 )and
𝑅𝑅 ×the
𝑖𝑖=1 , we substitute in vthe second
ES
the Cumulative
Release
Points
yields
term
𝑗𝑗𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑛𝑛 Planned Value
𝑅𝑅
×
We cancelPlanned
common
terms
and
use
the
equivalence
between
ED
and
ED
to
simplify
the
first
term.
𝑛𝑛
v
ES
first
term.
Rate
times
Points Completed yields the Earned(9)
Value
𝑗𝑗
(𝑅𝑅 ×the
𝐿𝐿result:
×
� Given that
� = 𝐿𝐿the
×�
�
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅Release
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ 𝑅𝑅 × 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑖𝑖 )�
and get
the following
(𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
)� Release
𝑅𝑅
×
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝐿𝐿 the
×of�Cumulative
� Points
≥ 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
(10)
and
theWe
Rate
times
Planned
Points
yields
the
Planned
Value,
we
Given
the
Rate
times
the
Release
Completed
yields
the
Earned
Value
and the
times
cancel
common
terms
and
use
the
equivalence
between
EDv fractional
and
ED
toamount),
simplify
theRate
first
term.
𝑖𝑖=1
As the second
termthat
is the
calculated
amount
schedule
earned
including
the
𝑛𝑛 =
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝑖𝑖 (not
ES
𝑖𝑖=1
substitute
in that
thethe
second
term
get Points
the following
Given
Rate times
theand
Release
Completedresult:
yields the Earned Value and the Rate times
EDES equals ES.
𝑗𝑗
We cancel common terms and
between
v and EDES to simplify the first term.
(𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸use
=the
𝐿𝐿 ×equivalence
�of
�schedule
≥ 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖 )�ED
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸amount
As the
second
term
is the calculated
earned
(not including the fractional amount), (10) 6
Robert
Van the
De
Velde
© 2013
𝑖𝑖=1
Given
that
Rate times
theDeRelease
Points
Completed
yields
the
Earned
Value and the Rate times
Robert
Van
Velde
©
2013
6
Having
shown
the
equivalence
between
ED
and
ES,
we
substitute
into
(8),
yielding:
ES
EDES equals ES.
As the second term is the calculated amount of schedule earned (not including the fractional
As the second term
is the calculated
amount
earned (not including the fractional amount),
amount),
EDES equals
ES. of schedule
Having
shown
the
and
ES,
(11)
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑣𝑣between
= 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 + ED
𝐿𝐿 ×ES�𝑛𝑛
× ©
�we substitute into (8), yielding:
Robert
De Velde
2013
6
EDESVan
equals
ES.equivalence
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
Having shown the equivalence between
ED and ES, we substitute into (8), yielding:
ES
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃we substitute into (8), yielding:
Having
shown
the equivalence
between
ED
Finally,
factoring
in standard
Earned𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
Schedule
definitions
for 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
SPI
(11)
𝐿𝐿ES×and
�𝑛𝑛 ×ES,
� t and for the Estimate at Completion
𝑣𝑣 = 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 +
2𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
for time (EACt), the AgileES release date equation follows. That is, the Release Date for AgileES
Finally,
factoring
inoffset.
standard
Earned𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
Schedule
definitions
for (L)
SPItimes
and for
at
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
(RDFinally,
the Start
Date (SD)
plus𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
anSchedule
sprint
Length
a the Estimate
t
ES) equals
(11)
factoring
in standard
Earned
for release
for the
Estimate
at Completion
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 +The
𝐿𝐿definitions
×offset
�𝑛𝑛AgileES
× consists
�SPItofand
2
𝑣𝑣 = (EAC
Completion
for time
),
the
date
equation
follows.
That
is,
the
Release
t
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
2 (n) times the Estimate at Completion
performance
factor.
The performance
factor isequation
the current sprint
for time (EAC
the plus
Release
Date for
Date for release
AgileESdate
(RDES) equals follows.
the StartThat
Dateis,
(SD)
an offset.
TheAgileES
offset consists of sprint
t), the AgileES
for time
(EAC
)
divided
by
the
Actual
Time
(AT).
t
Length
(L)
times
a
performance
factor.
The
performance
factor
is
the
current
(RD
)
equals
the
Start
Date
(SD)
plus
an
offset.
The
offset
consists
of
sprint
Length
(L)
times
a sprint (n) times
ES
Finally,
factoring in standard Earned Schedule definitions for SPIt and for the Estimate at Completion
the
Estimate
at
Completion
for
time
(EACt)
divided
by
the
Actual
Time
(AT).
2
performance
factor.
The performance factor is the current sprint (n) times the Estimate at Completion
for time (EAC
t), the AgileES release date equation follows. That is, the Release Date for AgileES
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑡𝑡
for(RD
time
(EAC
)
divided
by the Actual
Time
(AT).
t
plus
an
offset.
The
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
= 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆
+ 𝐿𝐿 × �𝑛𝑛
× offset�consists of sprint Length (L) times a(12)
ES) equals the Start Date (SD)
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
performance factor. The performance factor is the current sprint (n) times the Estimate at Completion
Thus, the AgileES release date equation 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
is deduced from Agile’s velocity release date
𝑡𝑡
for time (EACt) divided by the Actual Time (AT).
(12)
= 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 +
𝐿𝐿 Earned
×Agile’s
�𝑛𝑛 × Schedule
� release
equation,
proving𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
of
for Agile
projects.
Thus, the AgileES release
date equation
isthe
deduced
from
velocity
date
equation,
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 validity
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
proving the validity of Earned Schedule for Agile projects.
The math was tested on two projects. Both
the𝑡𝑡 velocity and the AgileES release dates
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
(12)
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅is𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸deduced
= 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆
+ projects.
𝐿𝐿from
× �𝑛𝑛
×Given
�the math,
Thus, the AgileES release
date equation
Agile’s
release
equation,
were calculated
throughout
the
the date
results
were not surprising.
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴velocity
Theproving
math was
tested
on
two
projects.
Both
the
velocity
and
the
AgileES
release
dates
were
calculated
They
showed
that the
the validity of
Earned
Schedule
forAgile
Agilevelocity
projects.and Earned Schedule release date estimates were
throughout the projects.indistinguishable
Given the math, the
They
showed that
thecorrelation
Agile
(seeresults
Figurewere
3 fornot
thesurprising.
results from
AgileEStest
). The
between
Thus, the AgileESthe
release
date
equation
is deduced
from Agile’s
velocity
release
date
equation,
mean
velocity
release
date
equation
and
the
AgileES
release
date
equation
was
thereby
velocity
and
Schedule
release
dateBoth
estimates
were and
indistinguishable
(see Figure
for the
The
mathEarned
wasvalidity
tested
onEarned
two
projects.
the
velocity
the AgileES
release
dates3 were
calculated
proving
the
of
Schedule
for
Agile
projects.
empirically
confirmed,
re-enforcing
the
validity
of
Earned
Schedule
for
Agile
projects.
results
from AgileEStest
). The
correlation
between
the mean
velocity
releaseThey
dateshowed
equation
and
the
throughout
the projects.
Given
the math,
the results
were not
surprising.
that
the
Agile
AgileES
release
date
equation
was
thereby
empirically
confirmed,
re-enforcing
the
validity
of
Earned
velocity
and
Earned
Schedule
release
date
estimates
were
indistinguishable
(see
Figure
3
for
the
The math was tested on two projects. Both the velocity and the AgileES release dates were calculated
Schedule
for
Agile
projects. The correlation between the mean velocity release date equation and the
results
from
AgileEStest
throughout
the projects.). Given
the math, the results were not surprising. They showed that the Agile
AgileES
release
date
equation
was
thereby
re-enforcing (see
the validity
Earned
velocity and Earned Schedule release
dateempirically
estimatesconfirmed,
were indistinguishable
Figure of
3 for
the
Schedule
for
Agile
projects.
results from AgileEStest ). The correlation between the mean velocity release date equation and the
AgileES release date equation was thereby empirically confirmed, re-enforcing the validity of Earned
Schedule for Agile projects.
The Measurable News
2014.01
|
mycpm.org
33
AgileES
AgileEStest
Release Date Comparison
Estimated
Release Date
9/18/2014
Re-baseline
6/10/2014
Planned Finish
3/2/2014
11/22/2013
8/14/2013
5/6/2013
Re-baselined Target Date
1/26/2013
10/18/2012
Sprints
1
2
3
4
5
6
AgileVelocity
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
AgileESM
Figure 3: Project AgileEStest Release Date Comparison
CONCLUSION
AgileES Added Value: AgileES release date estimates do not by themselves add value to
CONCLUSION
Agile
velocity release date estimates. As stated by the math and verified by experimental
AgileES
Addedrelease
Value: AgileES
release date
estimates
do not
by themselves
add valueare
to Agile
data,
AgileES
date estimates
and
velocity
release
date estimates
indistinguishable.
velocity release
date and
estimates.
statedboth
by theindicate
math andwhether
verified byor
experimental
data,isAgileES
Similarly,
AgileES
burn As
charts
not a project
on schedule.
release
date estimates
and
velocity
dateAgileES
estimatesassesses
are indistinguishable.
Similarly, AgileES
The
value-add
comes
from
therelease
fact that
schedule performance
efficiency,
and burn charts
indicate
whether
or not
a project
is onon
schedule.
The value-add
comes from
the into
indicating
howboth
well
or poorly
time
is being
used
the project.
That provides
insight
fact that AgileES
assesses that
schedule
performance
efficiency,
indicating
how well or EVM
poorlymeasures.
time is being
schedule
performance
goes
beyond burn
charts
and traditional
used on the project. That provides insight into schedule performance that goes beyond burn charts
and
traditional
EVM measures.
Validity
of AgileES
for Agile Projects: The added value of AgileES is a good practical reason
for its application to Agile projects, but there is also a theoretical reason for its validity. The
Validity ofproof
AgileES
for Agilehow
Projects:
The added
value ofdate
AgileES
is a good
practical
reason
for its
outlined
suggests
the AgileES
release
estimate
follows
from
Agile
metrics.
application
to Agile
projects,
but there
is also a theoretical
reason for between
its validity. the
The AgileES
outlined proof
The
detailed
proof
definitively
establishes
the correlation
release date
suggests how
AgileES
release
date estimate
follows from
Agile
metrics.provide
The detailed
proof verification
equation
andthe
the
velocity
release
date equation.
Test
projects
empirical
definitively
establishes the correlation between the AgileES release date equation and the velocity
of
the math.
release date equation. Test projects provide empirical verification of the math.
AgileES
Lightweight Process: Although it was mentioned only in passing above, AgileES uses
Lightweight
Process:
Although
it wascollected
mentionedon
only
in passing
above, AgileES
uses the
same
data
the
same data
that is
ordinarily
Agile
projects—no
additional
data
collection
that
is
ordinarily
collected
on
Agile
projects—no
additional
data
collection
is
required,
minimizing
the
is required, minimizing the overhead for Agile teams. There is a small increase in time
overhead
for Agile
teams.
There isdata
a small
increase in
for analysis
of theeither
additional
data provided
for
analysis
of the
additional
provided
bytime
AgileES.
Finally,
a purchased
tool is
by AgileES.orFinally,
a purchased
tool isto
required,
or there Earned
is a one-time
effort tocalculations
incorporate and results
required,
thereeither
is a one-time
effort
incorporate
Schedule
Earned
Schedule
calculations and results into existing tools.
into
existing
tools.
AgileEVM+AgileES: AgileES is a natural complement to AgileEVM. AgileEVM’s strength in cost
AgileEVM+AgileES: AgileES is a natural complement to AgileEVM. AgileEVM’s strength
management is supplemented by AgileES’ strength in schedule management. The combination gives
cost management is supplemented by AgileES’ strength in schedule management. The
FOOTNOTES inAgile
teams better tools for managing their projects.
combination
gives
Agile teams
better
tools for
their
1. The concept behind Earned
Schedule
is that
the amount
ofmanaging
time earned
on projects.
a project is the time at
which the value currently earned should have been earned (Lipke, 2003, 2009).
FOOTNOTES
1.
The concept behind Earned Schedule is that the amount of time earned on a project
The calculation is
of the
Earned
is invalue
two parts:
time Schedule
at which the
currently earned should have been earned (Lipke, 2003,
(a) the number
of complete periods in which the current Earned Value (EV) equals or exceeds
2009).
the cumulative Planned Value (PV) for the period;
Robert Van
Decalculation
Velde
©is2013
The
of Earned
Schedule
inthe
two
parts: Value (EV) does not equal or 8
(b) the fractional
amount for the
first period
in which
Earned
a) the number of complete periods in which the current Earned Value (EV) equals or
exceed the cumulative
Planned
ValuePlanned
for the period
(PV).for the period;
exceeds the
cumulative
Value (PV)
b) the fractional amount for the first period in which the Earned Value (EV) does not
equal orSchedule
exceed the
cumulative
Planned
for the
period
(PV).
The expression of Earned
duration
in periods
addsValue
flexibility
to the
calculations:
the
periods can represent any unit of time. Earned Schedule periods can be rendered in specific time
The expression of Earned Schedule duration in periods adds flexibility to the calculations: the
units by multiplying the number of periods by the Length (L) of a period. Thus, we can state the
periods can represent any unit of time. Earned Schedule periods can be rendered in specific
duration of ES
inunits
specific
time units (ES)
follows:
time
by multiplying
the as
number
of periods by the Length (L) of a period. Thus, we can
state the duration of ES in specific time units (ES) as follows:
𝑗𝑗
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝐿𝐿 × ��
𝑖𝑖=1
34
(𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖 ) +
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 − 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖
�
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖+1 − 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖
(i)
2. From the standard Earned Schedule equation, other metrics have been derived (Henderson, 2004),
including the Schedule Performance Index for time (SPIt) and the Estimate at Completion for time
(EACt).
The Measurable News 2014.01 | mycpm.org
(EACt).
The SPIt equals the amount of schedule earned (ES) divided by the Actual Time (AT), where both
are
theamount
same
units
of duration:
Themeasured
SPIt equals
the
of schedule
earned
(ES) equation,
divided byother
the Actual
Time
(AT),
where
both
2. inFrom
the standard
Earned
Schedule
metrics
have
been
derived
are measured in(Henderson,
the same units
of duration:
2004),
including the Schedule Performance Index for time (SPIt) and the
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 (EACt).
Estimate at Completion for time
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑡𝑡 =
(ii)
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑡𝑡 =
(ii)
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
Dividing the Planned Duration based on ES (PDES) by SPIt yields the EACt. That is,
Planned
Duration
ESSPI
(PD
) by SPI
yields
the EAC . That is,
Dividing theDividing
Plannedthe
Duration
based
on ESbased
(PDESon
) by
thet EAC
ES
t yields
t. That is, t
(iii)
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑡𝑡 =
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑡𝑡
(iii)
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑡𝑡 =
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑡𝑡
REFERENCES
Alleman, G.B. (2011, May 4). More EV and Agile Confusion [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://herdingcats.
typepad.com/my_weblog/2011/05/alert-earned-value-is-not-the-same-as-business-value.html
Ambler. S. (2011, May 3). Agile and EVM Strategies. [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.drdobbs.com/
architecture-and-design/agile-and-evm-strategies/229402730
Henderson, K. (2004, Spring). Further Developments in Earned Schedule. The Measurable News.
Lipke, W. (2003, Summer). Schedule is Different. The Measurable News.
Lipke, W. (2009). Earned Schedule. Lulu Publishing.
Sulaiman, T., Barton, B., & Blackburn, T. (2006). AgileEVM—Earned Value Management in Scrum Projects.
Agile ‘06: Proceedings of the Conference on AGILE 2006 (pp. 7-16). IEEE Computer Society.
Van De Velde, R. (2013). AgileESM: Earned Schedule for Agile Projects. http://www.projectflightdeck.
com/media/AgileES_Full_Length_Proof.pdf
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Robert Van De Velde owns and operates ProjectFlightDeck.com, a company focused on Earned Schedule
products and services. He has recently extended Earned Schedule to Agile projects, packaging the
practice, tools, and theory as AgileESM© (Agile Earned Schedule Management). For more information,
click on the following link http://www.projectflightdeck.com/AgileESM.php.
As a project manager, Rob has a long track record of delivering IT programs and projects in a variety of domains,
Robert Van De Velde including financial services, natural resources,
© 2013 telecommunications, and health care. His project management
9
by several awards, including two CIPAs (Canadian Information 9
Robert Van De Velde accomplishments have been recognized
© 2013
Productivity Awards). He has successfully used both plan-driven and Agile processes on his projects.
Rob holds a PhD, a PMP, and a Black Belt in MS Project. He has spoken at Project World, EVM World, and
Ryerson University. His articles have appeared in Projects@Work, PMWorldToday, and Journal of Systems
Management.
Contact Information
Robert Van De Velde
Owner/Operator
ProjectFlightDeck.com
Robert.vandevelde@projectflightdeck.com
3416 Sawmill Valley Drive
Mississauga, Ontario
Canada L5L 3A4
(905) 828-0508
The Measurable News
2014.01
|
mycpm.org
35
Everyone is Looking for Skilled
EVMS Resources…We Have Them
Let The CBT Workshop Assist You!
Staff Augmentation
EVMS Services
 Skilled EVMS Planners, Schedulers, Program Control
Analysts, Estimators, and EVMS Consultants
 Short or Long Term Assignments
 Contract-to-hire personnel





Tools Implementation and Training
Web Based EVMS Training
We have EVMS tools experts who can implement, train,
integrate, and migrate EVMS data in the following tools:
 EVMS Fundamentals and EVMS Advanced training,
testing, and certification.
EVMS Gap Analysis
System Description Design and Development
Desktop Operating Procedures
IBR Preparation and Dispositioning
CAM Training and Mock Interviews
 Microsoft Project and Project Server
 Deltek MPM, wInsight, Cobra, Open Plan
 Primavera
Call UsToday!
website: www.CBTWorkshop.com
phone: 888•644•5613
EVMLibrary.org: The CPM Online Library
A comprehensive, online library of resources
about Earned Value Management (EVM) and
related project management topics.
The CPM library now contains well over 2,100 documents,
such as articles and presentations, and is growing everyday.
Each document has been catalogued by subject area, author,
publication date, keywords, etc.
How You Can Contribute? Do you have topical articles,
speeches, or presentations?
Contact Gaile Argiro at execadmin@mycpm.org to have your
contributions included in this online resource.
36
The Measurable News
2014.01
|
mycpm.org
THE MEASURABLE NEWS
2014.01
DATA ABOUT OUR COMMUNITY
By Elizabeth Phillips
We’ve continued conducting surveys during the CPM webinars. The survey results help
presenters know about the audience to improve their presentations. The survey results
also provide insight into the make-up, concerns and issues of our community. Needless to
say, survey data is only one dimension in understanding the community and only captures
webinar participants. But we believe you’ll find the information interesting.
A full description of the webinar topics and the presenters can be found on the CPM
website at MyCPM.org. Recordings of the presentations and the slides are available to
members and paid attendees.
WEBINAR NO. 10
INTRODUCTION TO EVM: CONCEPTS OF ANALYSIS
Webinar Information
Webinar Topic: Introduction to EVM: Concepts of Analysis
Presenter: Eleanor Haupt, Senior Partner, Earned Value Associates LLC
Date: 14 November 2013, 12:00 p.m. Eastern
Number of Attendees (includes presenters and hosts): 67
(27 attendees accessed using one login)
Poll Questions
ARE YOU MANDATED TO USE EVM ON YOUR PROJECTS
60.6%
20
15
10
21.2%
18.2%
5
0
Yes
No but I use it
anyway
No and I don’t
use it
WHICH TOOL DO YOU USE FOR EVM ANALYSIS?
10
8
33.3%
30%
23.3%
6
13.3%
4
2
0
Excel
Brand Name EVM
Analysis Tool
|
Internet Tool
mycpm.org
Other
37
Open Ended Question
Responses:
List order does not indicate priority
or importance of the issue
WHAT ISSUES HAVE YOU HAD WITH THE CAMS AND PROGRAM
MANAGERS DOING THE ANALYSIS THAT THEY SHOULD?
We, as program control end up doing the analysis for the CAM/PM ourselves.
They game the system.
Correlating the analysis trends with explanation, and mitigation of specific technical
issues.
Not supporting EV program at this time.
Most CAMs do not take the time to analyze their data to come up with detailed variance
analysis which results in the EV Team to constantly update the variance explanations. Or
chase down the CAMs.
WEBINAR NO. 11
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT OF ACTIONABLE RISK-CRITICAL TASKS,
EVENTS AND RESOURCES (SMARTER)
Webinar Information
Webinar Topic: SMARTER Projects: A Best Value Performance Management System
Presenter: Rich Plumery, PMP, EVP, Project Controls Manager, URS Energy and Construction
Date: 19 December 2013, 12:00 p.m. Eastern
Number of Attendees (includes presenters and hosts): 29
Poll Questions
WHAT TYPE OF ORGANIZATION ARE YOU ASSOCIATED WITH?
12
38.5%
10
26.9%
8
6
19.2%
4
11.5%
2
0
3.8%
Government
Government
Sector Project/ Sector Project/
Owning
Program
Organization
Authority
Contractor
Organization
Consulting
Organization
Other
WHAT SIZE PROJECTS OR PROGRAMS ARE YOU NORMALLY INVOLVED
WITH (USING TOTAL INSTALLED COST)?
28.6%
6
23.8%
23.8%
19%
4
2
0
38
4.8%
Under US $1 Million
US $1 Million
US $1-100 Million
US $100-999 Million
US $1 Billion
The Measurable News
2014.01
|
mycpm.org
IF YOU USE EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT METHODOLOGIES, WHAT
AREAS DO YOU THINK NEED THE MOST IMPROVEMENT?
6
50%
4
0
20%
20%
2
10%
0%
The Cost and Time
to Implement
The Accuracy of its Needs to be Reﬁned Needs to be Totally
Current Prime
Revamped or
Indicators (CPI & SPI)
Enhanced by Earned
Schedule or Other
Methodologies
Humphreys
Associates
offers
a complete
Humphreys & &
Associates
offers
a complete
range ofrange ofProposal Support
EVMS
consulting
services.
From
proposal
preparation
EVMS consulting services. From proposal preparation
Humphreys
&
Associates
offers
a
complete
range of
and
management
system
gap
analysis
to
mock
and management system gap analysis to mock
EVMS
consulting
services.
From
proposal
preparation
compliance
reviews
or or
contractor
self- selfEVMS Staff
compliance
reviews
contractor
EVMS Staff
Augmentation
Augmentation
surveillance and
third
party
validations,
H&A
and management
system
gap
analysis
to ismock
surveillance
and
third
party
validations,
H&A is
the authority in EVMS.
compliance
reviews
or contractor selfEVMS Staff
the authority
in EVMS.
Nothing, It Works
Just Fine But
Sometimes Gets
Misapplied
Proposal Support
Proposal Support
EVMS Requirements
or Gap Analysis
EVMS Requirements
or Gap Analysis
EVMS Requirements
or Gap Analysis
As the industry
recognized
leader in H&AEVMS
Humphreys & Associates
surveillance
and
third
party
validations,
is Compliance Augmentation
EVMS Design and
As
the
industry
recognized
leader
in
Humphreys
&
Associates
EVMS training, H&A offers regularly
Review Preparation
Documentation
EVMS Compliance EVMS
EVMS Design and
the authority
EVMS.Value
scheduledin
Earned
EVMS
training,
H&A Management
offers regularly
Review Preparation
Documentation
Consulting Services EVMS
System, Project
Scheduling,
and
Advanced
scheduled
Earned
Value
Management
Consulting
Services
As the
industryManagement
recognized
leader
in
Humphreys & Associates
Earned Value
Techniques
EVMSBaseline
Compliance
EVMS Design and
EVMS
System,
ProjectH&A
Scheduling,
andpublic
AdvancedIntegrated
Review (IBR)
EVMS
training,
offers
regularly
Review
Preparation
Documentation
EVMS
Implementation
workshops.
Preparation
Earned Earned
Value Management
Techniques public
scheduled
Management
Consulting Services
Review (IBR)
H&A now offers Value
a Control
Account
workshops.
Preparation
EVMS and
System,
Project
Scheduling,
and
Advanced
Manager
(CAM)
Certification
Program
– ideal for
Project Management
Training
anyone
looking
to
improveatheir
EVM expertise
and distinguish Integrated Baseline
H&A
now
offers
Control
Account
Earned
Value
Management
Techniques
public
EVMS and
Review
(IBR)
themselves
with
a
professional
certification.
Manager (CAM) Certification Program – ideal for
workshops.
Project Management
Preparation
Integrated Baseline
anyone looking to improve their EVM expertise and distinguish
EVMS
Implementation
EVMS
Implementation
Training
Interested in learning more?
H&A themselves
now Visit
offers
a siteControl
Account
with
a professional
certification.
our web
at www.humphreys-assoc.com
or call us today at (714) 685-1730
EVMS and
Manager (CAM) Certification Program – ideal for
Project Management
Training
Interested
learning more?
anyone looking to improve their EVM expertise
andindistinguish
Visit
our web site certification.
at www.humphreys-assoc.com or call us today at (714) 685-1730
themselves with
a professional
Interested in learning more?
2014.01 | mycpm.org
Visit our web
site at www.humphreys-assoc.com or call us today at (714) 685-1730
The Measurable News
39
THE MEASURABLE NEWS
2014.01
COLLEGE OF PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AND THE
WORLD’S LARGEST EVM LINKEDIN GROUP LINK UP
Expanding Opportunities for
the EVM and Performance
Management Community
On October 21st, 2013, The College of Performance Management (CPM), the world’s authority
on earned value management and other project performance management techniques, and
the world’s largest EVM LinkedIn group, announced a formal affiliation. The affiliation offers
CPM members and EVM group members an expanded array of services to advance their
professional interests and to share, promote, and advance the best of planning, control, and
performance management for projects of all sizes and complexity.
“This affiliation is a win-win for the entire performance management community,” says Gary Troop,
President of CPM. “It gives our members, stakeholders and supporters an expanded reach to the
over 8,000 members of the EVM LinkedIn group, as well as a robust electronic discussion forum.”
“We are excited to begin this formal affiliation with the College of Performance
Management,” says Dale Gillam, the EVM LinkedIn group manager and VP-Elect for
Research and Standards. “It gives our members access to discounted CPM membership and
all the benefits that come from being affiliated with the world’s authority on earned value
management and project performance. This includes leading edge research, the Measurable
News quarterly magazine, monthly webinars, discounted attendance at CPM events and the
ability to have a greater voice in the CPM community.”
The affiliation, which was effective October 21, 2013 provides EVM group members
discounted membership in CPM for a limited time. CPM membership benefits include:
• Free attendance at CPM monthly webinars, at least 10 PDU’s are available from attending
webinars each year;
• Full access to the EVMLibrary, the largest online repository of earned value management
and project performance material;
• Discounted attendance at EVM World, the world’s leading event and training workshop
on earned value management and project performance;
• A subscription to the Measurable News, CPM’s quarterly magazine on earned value
management and project performance;
• The opportunity to participate in senior leadership engagement with CPM, its community and
stakeholders through volunteer opportunities and running for a position on the governing board;
The affiliation offers CPM members, stakeholders and the CPM community a robust
electronic forum for discussion and access to a large and diverse audience focused on EVM
and project performance. The forum will maintain its editorial independence and will not be
moderated or expressly monitored by CPM. The views expressed in the forum will remain
those of the participants and will not be an official expression of CPM views.
The affiliation expands on CPM’s growing number of global relationships including
relationships in Europe and Australia. This latest affiliation brings in a global, virtual
community and allows participants and community members to leverage the best of online
and in-person capabilities. For example, a concept may be introduced in the discussion forum,
and then discussed during a live online meeting using CPM’s professional online meeting
capabilities. It may then be formulated into an article for the Measurable News and eventually
lead to an in-person presentation and networking event at EVM World. This new range of
discussion and outreach capabilities should provide tremendous value to the CPM community
and its stakeholders, along with project performance professionals around the world.
As part of the affiliation, Dale Gillam assumed the role of the CPM Director for LinkedIn
Engagement, a volunteer position with College of Performance Management. The logo
for the EVM LinkedIn group will be formally changed to recognize the affiliation. For
more information about CPM visit www.mycpm.org. For more information about the EVM
LinkedIn group visit www.linkedin.com and search for the EVM group.
40
|
mycpm.org
THE MEASURABLE NEWS
2014.01
CPM ANNOUNCES DRIESSNACK DISTINGUISHED
SERVICE AWARDS
The CPM board is pleased to announce the following recipients of the
Driessnack Distinguished Service Award.
The Driessnack Distinguished Service Award, which is named after Lieutenant General
Hans H. “Whitey” Driessnack USAF, is CPM’s most prestigious award. The award criteria are:
Awarded to individuals who have made major contributions to project performance
management policy, concepts, and practices, which have national and international
implications. This recognition is awarded to individuals who have provided critical
contributions to the evolution of Earned Value Management and project planning and
control standards, research, and education, and have promoted the exchange of theory,
development, and application among project management professionals.
–– The award winner is selected by the CPM Board of Directors.
–– This award is typically awarded at the Integrated Project Management Conference
during October or November.
MR. NEIL ALBERT
Mr. Neil Albert was an elected member of the CPM Governing Board from 2005 through 2011;
first serving as the CPM President then as the CPM Past President.
During his tenure, Neil guided the CPM organization through three major changes, as the
organization went from a Project Management Institute College, to a PMI Community of
Practice and then to the current wholly independent CPM organization.
Neil provided steady leadership through these changes, ensuring the logistics of such change
(organizational, governance, legal, financial, and personnel) maintained the integrity of CPM
as a professional organization while never letting its mission -- to serve the best interest of
the EVM community -- cease being the focus of the CPM Governing Board’s activities.
What is truly outstanding regarding Neil’s contribution to project performance management
during these difficult transitional periods was his ability to simultaneously promote the
continued growth of EVM internationally, while maintaining productive relationships across
various EVM interested parties.
To ensure the changes in CPM did not fracture the CPM community and to bring it closer
together, Neil worked tirelessly with PMI, NDIA, SCEA, US and foreign government
organizations, and with individuals from around the globe (from those just starting out in
EVM to corporate leaders responsible for billions of dollars in assets).
This contribution cannot be overstated as CPM for the last 35 years has provided the
EVM community a global platform for interested parties from government, professional
and corporate sectors, as well as individuals and organizations interested in advancing
EVM. Through his efforts, Neil prevented these relationships from being jeopardized by the
occurrence of the aforesaid organizational changes.
If not for Neil’s leadership and his ability to connect with individuals, his ability to relate the
fundamentals and theory of EVM to a broad audience, and his deep and enduring vision to
see EVM expand across the globe, the state of EVM would be very different.
|
mycpm.org
41
Notable International EVM contributions include:
• Worked with Mr. Wayne Abba to open the door to EVM in Turkey.
• Established CPM’s first Global Advisory Committee, which reached out to the
international community to obtain their participation in CPM.
• Met with Japanese Diet representatives to promote the use of EVM in Japan.
• Helped to enhance understanding of how EVM could be applied in Japan’s cultural and
governmental environment. Emphasized importance of sound project organization and
estimating as precursors to effective performance management. Known widely in Japan
as “Mr. WBS.
Mr. Albert’s Driessnack award was presented at the IPM 2013 Conference.
MR. WALTER H LIPKE
Mr. Walter H. (Walt) Lipke has been a member of CPM since 2004. He has made many
contributions to the evolution of EVM standards, research, and education, and has promoted
the exchange of theory, development, and application among project management
professionals which have had significant national and international implications.
These contributions include:
• Became a leading “thought leader” as the most published author on EVM with 45 unique
citations and 18 reprints in the Earned Value Bibliography. Walt’s papers have covered the
cost and schedule aspects of EVM.
• Developed and published novel theories related to EVM which created interest from
European EVM academics and practitioners, which in turn led to conferences held
in London in 2006 and 2007. This precipitated the formation of the EVM European
Association in 2008 and the inaugural EVM Europe Conference being held at CERN,
Switzerland in November 2009 at which Walt attended and presented.
• European interest in Walt’s novel work has resulted in four EVM conferences being held
in Europe, promoting academic and practitioner interest in the method and its research
and application for European projects.
• European interest in Walt’s extensive bibliography of published papers has resulted in an
EVM Research Centre of Excellence being established at Ghent University where his ideas
have been turned into many research projects by student’s at the faculty of Economics
and Business Administration.
• European academic interest in Walt’s work also resulted in a collaboration which
generated a successful research proposal for more than €1.2 million over a 6 year period.
This project controls/EVM research project is led by Ghent University (Belgium) and
includes CERN (Switzerland), George Washington University (USA) and University
College London (UK). The project is currently in the first year of research activity.
While Walt is best known for the development of Earned Schedule in 2003, and the
extensions to Earned Schedule including the P Factor measure of schedule adherence, his
other ideas include the application of statistical methods to EVM for cost and schedule
prediction. Walt’s earlier work also includes the use of EVM data for applying Statistical
Process Control techniques to the management of software projects.
Notable International EVM contributions include presentations to:
• The EVM Europe Conferences (4 times); and presentation to the PMI Belgium Chapter in
2007
• The EVA UK Conference, London in 2006 and 2007
• Australia 3 times at the:
• PROMAC Conference held in Sydney in 2006
• Project management component of the Australian Defence and Industry Conference
held in Adelaide in 2007.
• Remote keynote presentation at the Project Governance and Controls Symposium
(PGCS) in May 2013.
(Walt’s work has been a significant factor in generating the interest needed to reestablish the renamed PGCS.)
• The CPM Japan Conference in 2004.
42
The Measurable News
2014.01
|
mycpm.org
Walt made many earlier contributions of national significance to the USA while he was
employed by the Software Division at Tinker AFB, all of which occurred in the context of
applying EVM to software projects, to include:
• The Test Program Set and Industrial Automation (TPS and IA) functions of the Software
Division became the first US Air Force activity to achieve Level 2 of the Software
Engineering Institute’s Capability Maturity Model ® (CMMR) in 1993.
• TPS and IA functions became the first software activity in Federal service to achieve
CMM Level 4 distinction in 1996.
• TPS and IA functions became ISO 9001/TickIT registered in 1998.
These very significant achievements were awarded the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers’ Computer Society Award for Software Process Achievement in 1999.
Other contributions by Walt of national and international significance include:
• Commissioning the Earned Schedule website at www.earnedschedule.com in 2006 which
is maintained at his expense with volunteer webmaster support. This site, with a very
small number of exceptions, has made freely available all of the Earned Schedule and
other literature and toolsets to the global EVM and project management communities.
• Making his intellectual property freely available to PMI enabled inclusion of Earned
Schedule (and follow on techniques) in Appendix D to the PMI EVM Global Practice
Standard 2nd edition.
Mr Lipke’s Driessnack award will be presented at the EVM World 2014 Conference which is
being held May 21-23, 2014 at the Grand Hyatt, San Antonio, Texas.
CPM HUNTSVILLE CHAPTER UPDATE
Meeting Topic: Kick-off Meeting
Organizer: Mr Bob Wasser, BCF Solutions
Presenters:
• Gary Troop, President of CPM
• Jerald Kerby, NASA EVM Program Executive
• Chuck Hanes, Boeing, Exploration Launch Systems
• LTC Tom Huff, US Army, ARSGM Product Manager
• Steelray Software, Presentation of Advancements in their tools
Date: Tuesday, 11th February 2014, 1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. Central
Location: Holiday Inn Research Park, 5903 University Drive, Huntsville, Alabama, 35806
Sponsor: Steelray Software: Business Intelligence Software for Project Managers
RSVP: TVChapter@mycpm.org
The Measurable News
2014.01
|
mycpm.org
43
THE MEASURABLE NEWS
2014.01
CPM WASHINGTON, D.C. REGION CHAPTER UPDATE
By Barbara C. Phillips, EVP, PMP
The Washington, DC region is ready for our local Chapter, CPM WDC, to
form and provide opportunities to hear expert speakers, panel discussions,
vendor demonstrations as well as opportunities for volunteering and
networking for job seekers and job hire agents. The Kick-off meeting held
at the Integrated Program Management (IPM) Conference, Bethesda, MD,
in November gathered 25+ petition signatures enabling the Chapter to
be launched. The next step is have an Inaugural Meeting that includes
presentation of the Business Case and election of Provisional Officers.
Wednesday, March 19th. 11:30 am to 3:30 pm.
George Washington University
Business School Building, Duquès Hall, at 2201 G Street, NW
Space is limited. RSVP to cpmwdc@mycpm.org to reserve a spot.
We are excited to feature Mr. Ivan Bembers, Chief of the National Reconnaissance Office
(NRO) Earned Value Management Center of Excellence, Cost and Acquisition Assessment
Group speaking on “Better EVMS Implementation”. Expected venue is mid-town Washington,
DC. A 2-hour brown bag lunch with snacks is planned.
MEETING TOPIC: BETTER EVMS IMPLEMENTATION
The Joint Space Cost Council, made up of government and industry partners in the space
acquisition community, is sponsoring a cost of EVMS study with the objectives of quantifying
the cost and identifying areas of cost optimization. In the current phase of the study, we are
administering a survey to industry, based on a series of government and industry briefings,
to identify and understand cost drivers in 16 cost areas including Integrated Baseline Review
Process, Level of Control Accounts, Variance Analysis Requirements and others. We are also
administering a modified version of the survey to government program offices to understand
the relative value associated with the EVMS cost drivers. We plan to use the survey results to
better understand the cost versus benefits spectrum, identify areas of over-implementation
and where costs could be saved, and differentiate areas operating below standard where lack
of investment puts the reliability of the system in question. The outcome of the study will be
EVM implementation guidance to improve efficiency and effectiveness. This presentation will
cover the approach and methodology as well as the initial results of the EVM Optimization
phase of the study.
This research is drawing attention from industry and government. Along with the
presentation at the IPM Conference, it has been presented to senior leadership at DCMA,
PARCA and GAO.
Join us and learn the latest in program control research.
Chapter Business
Note: The business section of the inaugural meeting includes a presentation of the Chapter
Business Case as well as the election of the provisional chapter officers. Please contact the
Volunteer Coordinator, Barbara Phillips, at cpmwdc@mycpm.org for more information.
44
|
mycpm.org
THE MEASURABLE NEWS
2014.01
VENDORS & SERVICES
www.smawins.com
see our ad on p. 36
P.O. Box 20996
Sarasota, FL 34276
Phone: (888) 644-5613
www.CBTWorkshop.com
www.humphreys-assoc.com
see our ad on p. 20
see our ad on p. 39
Planning every step — Every step as planned™
www.safranna.com
see our ad on p. 4
Get it!
now
www.lexemstrategy.com
Got your
*?
EVPrep™ Exam Study Guide
EVPrep™ Exam Prep Workshops
www.mgmt-technologies.com
*Earned Value Professional
Your ad could go here.
Contact us today: www.mycpm.org
|
mycpm.org
45

the measurable news - College of Performance Management

Transcription

Similar documents

Drop Estimaterne

Fall - IRCO Community Federal Credit Union

Accessibility for all.

AIS West

CU News - Tuscaloosa VA Federal Credit Union

Viumbe Media Kit

May

Winter 2014 - Appalachian Community Federal Credit Union

Sprint AIR - Veterinary X-rays