Earned Value Management (EVM): How Much is Enough?

By /

I took the scenic route to selecting the theme of this blog. First, it was suggested that I write a blog on the benefits and costs of the earned value process as it applies to program management. Next it was suggested that I describe the harm of not using any of the elements of the earned value process.

This blog summarizes my observations of how companies have chosen “how much EVM is enough” for them and share my observations of the results of these decisions. Each company has selected an EVM implementation strategy and each company’s strategy falls along a bounded continuum.

Two Goal Posts and a Cross Bar

There are as many strategies for implementing earned value management as there are companies using EVM to manage their programs and projects.

I will describe this continuum of company EVM strategies as a left goal post and a right goal post with the space between as a cross bar. The “left goal post” represents companies that elect to be very poor at EVM or to not use EVM at all. The “right goal post” represents companies that have committed to being “best-in-class” practitioners of the EVM process and are the polar opposite of the companies at the left goal post. There are few companies at either the left or right goal posts. The “cross bar” represents the vast majority of companies that have selected an EVM strategy somewhere between the left and right goal posts.

Left Goal Post: The Unwilling

I have firsthand experience with a company that at the time I initially joined them, had decided to ignore earned value management even though it was a requirement in several of its contracts. After many painful years of attempting to maintain this EVM resistant strategy, this company decided that a better strategy would be to become an “efficiently expert” at EVM.

Cross Bar: Merely Compliant at EVM

It has been my experience that most companies desire to become “EVM compliant,” which generally means being compliant with the EIA-748 Standard for EVMS 32 guidelines and to avoid failing to comply with those guidelines that could result in losing their approved or certified EVMS status. This is the vast middle ground between the two goal posts. I have five observations regarding companies in the “cross bar” majority.

Observation #1: Compliance as a Goal

Compliance should be a given or a pre-condition, not a goal. Remaining merely compliant implies a status quo or static posture.

I will use the game of golf as an analogy. Golf is a game of honor and compliance to well established rules. All PGA professional tour golfers “comply” with the rules that govern golf. Although all PGA tour pro golfers comply with these rules, their performance on tour differs dramatically.

Ninety percent of all PGA golf pros, past and present, have no tour wins. That means only 10% of all PGA tour golf pros have won at least a single PGA tour. There are seven players in the history of the PGA that have fifty or more tour wins. If the bar is lowered to forty or more wins, only three players are added to the list. If the bar is lowered yet again to thirty or more tour wins, only eight more players are added to the list. Only 18 golfers have won 30 or more PGA tournaments.

Professional golfers do not confuse compliance with performance, nor do these professionals assume that “being compliant” will improve their performance.

Observation #2: The Tyranny of the Status Quo

With apologies to Milton Friedman and his book of the same name, companies that attempt to maintain mere guideline compliance will do no better than the status quo, and often regress toward non-compliance. Maintaining status quo is a myth – you either improve or regress.

All professionals, companies included, must compete in their markets and selected fields. To succeed in this competition requires constant improvement in areas critical to success. A company, organization, or individual without the means or the desire to improve will eventually fail and perhaps perish.

Observation #3: Blaming the Scoreboard

As a program manager, I considered EVM as my scoreboard. I reacted to the EVM data – the scoreboard – and made decisions based on that data (Guideline 26: Implement managerial actions taken as the result of earned value information).

I recall the 2024 Super Bowl’s final score: Chiefs 25, 49ers 22. Did the scoreboard cause the 49ers to lose the game or did a poor decision by their coach cause the loss?  Imagine a coach that cannot see the scoreboard. That coach does not know the score or how much time remains. That coach cannot react to the realities of the game.

Observation #4: EVM Causes Poor Program Performance

I have witnessed several company leaders assert that the use of EVM on a poorly performing program is the cause of that program’s poor cost and schedule performance. A correlation between two variables, or a sequence of two variables (use of EVM and poor performance), does not imply that one caused the other. This is the logical fallacy known as “X happened, then Y happened, therefore X caused Y.”  Night follows day, but day does not cause night. Use of EVM does not cause poor program performance. Not reacting to EVM data and promptly taking corrective action with your program’s cost and schedule performance often leads to poor outcomes.

Observation #5: It Takes More Energy to be Poor at EVM than to be an Expert

Returning to the earlier golf analogy, professional golfers make very difficult shots appear easy. I played in a pro/am tournament years ago. The pro I was teamed with took me to the range hours before our tee time. He asked me how many balls I hit before each round. I told him sometimes none and sometimes 50. He hit 1,000 balls before our round. When we finished our round, he was ready for another 18 holes. I was not. Both of us “complied” with the rules of golf. His score was significantly lower than mine. His game was effortless and produced a below par score. My game was labored and produced a poor result.

It is the same with EVM or any other process. The better you are at a skill, the easier it becomes. Experts consume far fewer calories at their craft than ambivalent amateurs.

Right Goal Post: Efficiently Expert at EVM

The polar opposite of a resistant EVM strategy is a strategy to become “efficiently expert.”  As I mentioned earlier, I joined a company that attempted to sustain an EVM resistant strategy. Their EVM strategy led to de-certification, large dollar withholdings, and significant damage to their corporate reputation.

After the most ardent EVM opponents in this company sought employment elsewhere, a new strategy was adopted. This company embraced a strategy to become “best-in-class” as expert practitioners of EVM. This company’s goal was EVM perfection. EVM perfection is an impossible ambition, but wiser than “mere compliance.”  And as with the PGA tour golf pro, EVM became nearly effortless.

Which EVM strategy will your company choose?

—

Mr. Kenney is a senior business executive with over 35 years of experience in the aerospace industry as well as over 10 years as a consultant to industry. He is an experienced practitioner of program management best practices as an Executive Vice President of Government Programs, Vice President of Naval Programs, and Program Manager at various aerospace and defense contractors. He is also a retired U.S. Marine Corps Colonel with 27 years of active and reserve duty.

Earned Value Management (EVM): How Much is Enough? Read Post »

Why Expert Planning and Scheduling Resources Matter

By /
Why Expert Planning and Scheduling Resources Matter

At Humphreys & Associates, conducting a requirements analysis of a contractor’s current integrated program management or earned value management (EVM) practices is one of our most frequently requested services. We are also the “911” call that contractors make when they need to quickly solve an Earned Value Management System (EVMS) compliance issue. When we reviewed our findings and observations from the past year, a common issue that stood out was the lack of sufficient scheduling expertise.

As many project managers, project control teams, and control account managers (CAMs) recognize, a well-planned and constructed schedule provides a model of when work will be performed and what resources are required to perform the work. A well-planned and constructed schedule must be realistic, challenging, and achievable, and be based on a well-thought-out execution plan. It also provides an overall view of performance to date and displays the forecast schedule for remaining work.

Equally important, a well-planned and constructed schedule becomes the principal communication tool for the project team. It shows when major events are planned to occur as well as the completion dates for all activities preceding them along with the resources required to support the scheduled activities. Ensuring resources are available to execute the schedule and performing a schedule risk assessment (SRA) also help to ensure the schedule is realistic and achievable.

A well-constructed and maintained schedule facilitates project performance analysis and to assess how changes affect project objectives. It provides an early warning of potential issues for effective and timely management corrective action.

Scheduling Best Practice Guidance

Several industry and government documents discuss scheduling principles and best practices for major projects within the US Federal Government acquisition environment. Two frequently referenced documents include the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) Integrated Program Management Division (IPMD) Planning and Scheduling Excellence Guide (PASEG) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) Schedule Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Project Schedules. These guides define what is considered a “good schedule.”

Some of our recent blogs have highlighted the nuances of producing a well-constructed integrated master schedule (IMS) that reflects the work to be performed and communicates that plan to everyone on the project. This includes Improving Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) Task Duration Estimates, Including Level of Effort (LOE) in the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS), and Establishing Milestones in the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) Appropriately.

What’s the Problem?

A project’s integrated master schedule (IMS) is only as good as the team that built it and the master planner/scheduler that assembled it. Scheduling is a combination of art, science, and discipline. A master planner/scheduler ensures there is clear communication on what needs to be done when along with defining how to handle day-to-day issues. They translate all of the inputs and organize the puzzle pieces into a coherent road map for the entire project team to understand and to use. The experience and schedule maturity level of the planner/scheduler is a key ingredient.

When our earned value consultants identify issues with the construction or content of an IMS, a common discovery was that the client’s scheduling team needed help with basic scheduling techniques.

Here is a sample of common findings in the past year where the client’s scheduling team and/or the master planner/scheduler, could not provide satisfactory answers to schedules under review. They needed more mature scheduling expertise.

  • Invalid critical path. The team could not display the critical path from “time now” through the end of the project. When asked to push an activity on the critical path by 300 days, they could not explain why the successor activities and end date did not move by the same 300 days.
  • Lacked awareness of the scope of work. During scheduling reviews, we ask the team how they know all requirements have been accounted for in the IMS. A common response is they rely on the individual CAMs to identify their scope of work requirements. In many instances, the entire team did not read the required contractual documents such as the statement of work, systems engineering management plan, CDRL requirements (DIDs), or the program management plan that affects them. Some did not understand the work breakdown structure (WBS) or the purpose of the WBS and how important it is for integration with the cost tool.
  • Improper baseline management. We have found that team members and/or the planner/scheduler simply insert the new baseline dates instead of updating the baseline task by task. A separate baseline IMS file should be maintained monthly and approved baseline changes should be incorporated into the revised baseline IMS, and then updated in the current IMS file.
  • Change management was lacking. The team could not explain or identify the changes incorporated into the IMS. Many planners/schedulers do not realize they are the “historians” for the project. The planner/scheduler should understand the impact of every change order or delay on the schedule. A big part of this is documenting who (customer or project team) caused the delay or whether it was caused by both parties. All changes during a reporting period should be assessed for delays and documented in the monthly schedule status report. If a change order causes a delay, it must be documented in the monthly report. Why is this important? Project records should document what and who caused the delay.
  • Ah-hoc integration of major procurement items and subcontract management. Without a documented approach for how material is incorporated into the IMS, it can be a daunting task to identify impacts when delays occur. The planner/scheduler should understand how purchase order line items are structured and should include tasks for each within the IMS. For subcontracts that have EVM and IMS requirements, it is important that the subcontractor’s schedule is modeled within the IMS at the appropriate level of detail. As a result, delays can be clearly demonstrated.

Meeting the Challenge

Planning and scheduling are critical to the success of all projects. Having a strategy to develop competent planners/schedulers ensures you have the resources with the necessary creative talent, skill set, discipline, and communication skills needed to produce quality schedules. Strategies to help scheduling personnel to improve their level of expertise include:

  • Establishing a corporate training program for planners/schedulers. This could be an internal set of courses or public training courses could be leveraged as part of that training program. The goal is to ensure the planners/schedulers and other project team members have the knowledge base to successfully develop and maintain schedules for your business environment. H&A offers a range of project scheduling training workshops that can help schedulers to implement industry best practices in an EVM environment tailored to common tools such as Microsoft Project (MSP) or Primavera P6. These workshops include hands-on exercises that help the students learn how to apply what they are learning in a real-world environment.
  • Hands-on mentoring. Our clients are often aware of the limitations of their scheduling personnel particularly when it comes to incorporating more advanced scheduling techniques such as SRAs. H&A provides planning/scheduling and risk management subject matter experts (SMEs) to help clients establish a repeatable process as well as to conduct a series of hands-on workshops with the client’s project planners/schedulers. These workshops help them to gain the experience they need to routinely conduct SRAs, to use the schedule and risk tool outputs wisely, and to use that information to produce more realistic schedules.
  • Producing schedule procedures or guidance to ensure the scheduling team is following a consistent repeatable process. Consistency helps to ensure that project personnel have the necessary knowledge base to develop and maintain an IMS in an EVM environment. This includes integrating the IMS with the cost tool as well as other systems such as an M/ERP system in production environments or integrating subcontractor scheduling data.

In situations where it is necessary to bring in outside scheduling personnel to supplement a project team, it is important to verify the scheduler’s skill set and level of expertise in an EVM environment. Just because someone states they know how to use a given scheduling tool it doesn’t mean they know how to plan and schedule. The company you choose to support you matters.

H&A routinely provides expert scheduling staff augmentation services for clients that need to fill short or long term planning/scheduling resource needs. Some clients need surge support to develop a baseline schedule for a new contract award and/or to get them through the initial work definition and planning process. H&A planners/schedulers frequently help project teams to establish and execute the weekly or monthly business rhythm until the client’s project control team is ready to take over.

Another common request is for H&A master planner/scheduler hands-on expertise to resolve a variety of schedule issues. H&A planners/schedulers often provide one-on-one mentoring to client project personnel to work through perceived or identified deficiencies. This can range from helping to configure the scheduling tool appropriately, teaching how to use the software effectively, and showing how to fix schedule construction issues as well as establishing a disciplined process that improves the quality of the schedule.

We know the planning/scheduling resources we provide to clients have the necessary level of planning, scheduling, and EVM expertise. The people we hire are required to complete a scheduling exam to verify their knowledge level; they are also known resources that other H&A consultants have worked with.

Interested in learning more? 

Whether you need training, hands-on mentoring, or staff augmentation, H&A has the support services and solutions to fit your needs. Call us today at (714) 685-1730 to get started.

Why Expert Planning and Scheduling Resources Matter Read Post »

Establishing Milestones in the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) Appropriately

By / / , , , ,
, , , ,

The purpose of the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) is to model and communicate the plan to accomplish a project’s objectives. A key part of that model is the identification of key events that are represented as milestones. The selection of these milestones should be done with consideration for its purpose – what does the milestone represent and communicate? You should be aware of the intent of each milestone that is entered into the IMS. The IMS is a critical communication tool to ensure everyone on the project has a common understanding of the project’s work flow. Too many times I have witnessed a scheduler slam a milestone into the IMS without regard to how it impacts the schedule logic. This could be due to haste but, in my experience, it is often due to a lack of understanding of the purpose of the milestone.

Figure 1 illustrates a common diagram for a milestone. 

Gate Review Milestone. C may not proceed until the Gate Review has been completed.
Figure 1 Example of a Gate Milestone

As illustrated in Figure 1, the milestone is a gate and will hold up work in task C until the milestone is claimed as finished.

If the intent is to have the milestone act as an indicator instead of a gate, then the diagram in Figure 2 could satisfy that intent. If a successor is needed for the indicator milestone, something like the “End of Project” milestone could be added.

Indicator Milestone - C may proceed as soon as A is completed. Until the Milestone is claimed finished, it will move along with the data date leaving its baseline behind and indicating it has not been claimed.
Figure 2 Example of an Indicator Milestone

An accomplished scheduler knows the dangers of a Merge in the IMS. The Merge introduces schedule risk. Imagine the damage to the schedule risk assessment (SRA) if a Merge were entered as illustrated in Figure 3.

MERGE in the IMS - Neither C no D may proceed until the Gate Review has been completed. Does C really depend on B or does D really depend on A?
Figure 3 Example of Merge Risk in the IMS

In addition to adding risk, as the question indicates in Figure 3, the situation portrayed may not be true.

Is the purpose of a milestone clear to everyone?

What is the real purpose of the milestone? That must be defined first so the diagram can be entered properly into the schedule, and the IMS can model the correct steps for the project. Along with the definition of the purpose, the completion criteria should be defined and documented.

Unfortunately, this problem often extends to others on the project and even to those most responsible for the project – the Program/Project Managers (PMs). A case in point. Some years ago, a high-level customer PM challenged me, in my role as the contractor IMS architect, after the PM’s schedule subject matter expert (SME) expressed their concern that milestones in the IMS were being input incorrectly.

The milestone in dispute was the Preliminary Design Review (PDR). The PM and the PM’s schedule SME said the review was a gate and therefore should be modeled as illustrated in Figure 4. Note: In the real schedule, there were many more predecessors and successors to the milestone. Figure 4 simplifies the schedule content for clarity.

MERGE in the IMS - Neither C nor D may proceed until the Gate Review has been completed. Does C really depend on B or does D really depend on A?
Figure 4 Impact of a Gate Review Milestone

They both agreed that Tasks A and B were tasks to be done during the review itself and that the Milestone was to represent the satisfactory completion of the review. According to the definition of the PDR in the Integrated Master Plan (IMP) entrance/exit criteria, the review would lead to a letter of acceptance. The letter of acceptance was the definition of done in this case. When asked how long it would take from the time the review in A and B (and all predecessors) would be held until the letter was received, the answer was something in the order of weeks.

A literal reading of the IMS would go like this: “Hold the review in tasks A and B (and all predecessors) then wait for the approval letter before starting any other work.”

When asked if it was the PM’s intent for the several hundred engineers and others working on the project to put down their pencils after the review and wait for the letter while doing nothing as shown in PM’s desired version of the milestone in the IMS, the immediate reaction of the PM was shocked silence. Of course not. The project could not go on hold for even one week waiting for a letter. The teams would disband, and the workforce would be gone. Work would stop.

I then told the PM it was not the contractor’s intention to go parade rest and wait for the letter even if he had thought that was what was supposed to happen. If the review in A and B was deemed successful with some reasonable set of action items, then the teams would proceed. It might be that they would proceed on risk, but they would proceed anyway. I then showed the PM and the PM’s schedule SME how we would model the review in the IMS to show proceeding on risk. It would look like the example in Figure 5 if we implemented the milestone as an indicator milestone.

Review as Indicator Milestone - C and D may proceed when their respective predecessor is completed. The milestone is not a gate.
Figure 5 Review as an Indicator Milestone

The PM thought that could work but was concerned there was no gate review aspect to this diagram and PM control of the project would be weakened or lost. I then showed him how we could put the review into the IMS as an indicator with a delayed gate effect. In other words, work would proceed while the letter was being prepared but would stop at some point if the letter was not received. That diagram looked like the example in Figure 6. 

Review as Indicator Milestone but also a Gate - C and D may proceed on risk when their respective predecessor is completed. E and F however may not proceed until their immediate predecessor (C or D) and the Gate Milestone are finished.
Figure 6 Review as Indicator and as a Gate

The letter could be prepared while the teams worked on tasks C and D. If issues arose then the teams would be compelled to stop after tasks C and D individually. In this case an issue with task C might not hold up task D and conversely, an issue with task D might not hold up task C. This was a measure of control the PM thought would be adequate when the need for the approval letter in the milestone was also added.

Talking Through the IMS to Verify the Intent of Milestones

The point is that the IMS is a model of the project that should define exactly what is supposed to happen. What exactly is the IMS telling us to do? Is the review a gate? Is it just an indicator? What do the documents and agreements say about the milestone? This is definitely not the time to quickly slam a milestone into the schedule logic without taking the time to think about its purpose or what you want to communicate to someone else on the project.

This story also highlights the importance of ‘reading’ or ‘talking through’ the IMS. When it was explicitly stated that the project would be put on hold if the schedule depicted in Figure 4 were followed, the team quickly realized the need for a better approach, leading to the development of a more effective plan.

Interested in Learning More?

There is an art and skill that is honed over time for creating integrated master schedules that accurately reflect the work to be performed and clearly communicates that plan to everyone on the project. There is always more to learn. H&A offers basic and advanced scheduling workshops taught by senior master schedulers with decades of experiences in all types of scheduling environments that can be tailored for the scheduling tools you are using. Give us a call today to get started.

Establishing Milestones in the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) Appropriately Read Post »

Including Level of Effort (LOE) in the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)

By / / , , ,
, , ,

A recent H&A blog titled “Level of Effort (LOE) Best Practice Tips” discussed different approaches for handling LOE to avoid generating false variances. That discussion did not elaborate on including the LOE tasks in the integrated master schedule (IMS). This blog is a follow on to that earlier discussion with a focus on options for including LOE in the IMS along with notes on best practices, tips, and customer expectations.

In the general sense of an earned value management system (EVMS), the LOE scope of work is contained in summary level planning packages (SLPPs) or control accounts as subordinate planning packages or work packages. The budget values for those elements will most likely come from a resource loaded IMS or a resource loading mechanism aligned with the IMS. Not all organizations resource load the IMS activities but instead extract time buckets from the IMS for resource loading using other mechanisms. Resource loading the IMS activities is the recommended practice because it assures cost/schedule integration, but it can be difficult.

LOE work might not appear in the IMS since it is considered optional by some customers such as the Department of Defense (DoD). The Department of Energy (DOE) requires LOE tasks to be included so you can expect it to be in the IMS when DOE is the customer.

Before we talk about LOE in the IMS we must think about the type of work the LOE tasks represent. LOE might be a general task such as “Control Account Management” that is not directly related to other work except perhaps in the time frame in which they happen. But some LOE tasks such as support tasks are related to other discrete work. Modeling the LOE in the IMS starts by understanding what type of effort is involved and can help to determine the approach for linking activities. 

LOE Best Practice Tips Related to the IMS

The Level of Effort (LOE) Best Practice Tips blog included these points related to the IMS:

  • “When LOE activities are included in the schedule, they should not drive the date calculations of discrete activities in the integrated master schedule (IMS). They should also not appear on the critical path.”
  • “LOE must be segregated from discrete work effort. In practice, this means a work package can only be assigned a single earned value method.”
  • “Consider shorter durations for the LOE when that LOE is supporting discrete effort. Should the first occurrence of the LOE trigger a data anomaly test metric, it can be proactively handled along with any future replanning. The remaining LOE would already be in one or more separate work packages so there won’t be any criticism for changing open work packages.”

Government Agency and Industry Guidance on LOE on the IMS

Is there any guidance that can help clarify how best to handle LOE tasks in the IMS? Let’s take a look at three of the guidance documents that may be useful for your environment.

  1. The Integrated Program Management Data and Analysis Report (IPMDAR) Data Item Description (DID), DI-MGMT-81861C (August 2021). This DID is typically placed on contracts with the DoD or NASA that exceed the contract value threshold for EVM reporting or EVMS compliance. Relevant mentions of the data requirements for the IMS in the DID are as follows.

“2.4.1.1 Content. The Schedule consists of horizontally and vertically integrated discrete tasks/activities, consistent with all authorized work, and relationships necessary for successful contract completion.”

Note: This is where the option to exclude LOE from the IMS appears since this requires only discrete tasks/activities. The following sections provide additional guidance when LOE is included in the IMS.

“2.4.2.7 Level of Effort (LOE) Identification. If tasks/activities within an LOE work package are included in the Schedule, clearly identify them.”

“2.4.2.9 Earned Value Technique (EVT). Identify the EVT (e.g., apportioned effort, level of effort, milestone).”

  1. National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) Integrated Program Management Division (IPMD) Planning and Scheduling Excellence Guide (PASEG) (Version 5.0). The PASEG is a widely recognized industry guide on scheduling best practices in government contracting environments. Section 5.8, Level of Effort (LOE) provides a discussion on the topic including things to promote and things to avoid. Excerpts from the PAGEG follow.

“There are pros and cons around including or excluding LOE tasks in the IMS. Including LOE tasks in the IMS allows for a more inclusive total program look at resource distribution, which aids in the maintenance and analysis of program resource distribution. However, if modeled incorrectly, including LOE tasking in the IMS can cause inaccurate total float and critical path calculations.”

“Tasks planned as LOE in the IMS should be easily and accurately identifiable. This includes populating the appropriate Earned Value Technique field (as applicable) and possibly even identifying the task as LOE in the task description.”

“Consider adding an LOE Completion Milestone to tie all LOE tasking to the end of the program.”

“LOE tasks should not be networked so that they impact discrete tasks. Incorrect logic application on LOE can lead to invalid impacts to the program critical path.”

“Level of Effort tasks should have no discrete successors and should therefore never appear on critical/driving paths.”

  1. DOE Guide 413.3-24 Planning and Scheduling (April 2022). This document provides guidance for acceptable practices in a DOE contractual environment. The discussion on LOE can be found in Section 7 Planning and Scheduling Special Topics, 7.2 Level of Effort, and 7.3 Inclusion of Level of Effort in the Integrated Master Schedule. Excerpts and image from the Guide follow. 

“Overview: Activity-based methods either cannot, or impracticably can measure the performance of LOE WPs and activities. Include all activities, both discrete and LOE, in the IMS.”

“LOE is planned in the IMS so that it does not impact discrete work. Figure 6 shows the recommended linkages in the IMS for planning level of effort.”

Interpreting this DOE Guide diagram for the recommended modeling of LOE in the IMS, notice the inclusion of a “LOE Complete” milestone following the Critical Decision (CD) 4 milestone with no constraint. CD4 in this diagram represents the end of contract effort. The purpose of this LOE-complete milestone, with no constraint, is to provide a successor for all LOE tasks where one is needed. That will prevent generating issues where tasks have no successors.

This recommended modeling is done so that the LOE tasks are not linked to the end of the contract work and thus will not push it. The LOE tasks will also not appear on the critical path since they are not in the path that established the end date.

Also note that the LOE tasks in green are linked as successors to discrete work which is a logic linking approach intended to keep the LOE work aligned with the discrete work but off the critical path. Study the logic and you see that a movement to the right of a discrete task will drag along its related LOE task.

DOE requires the use of Primavera schedule tools so the relationships shown here can be accomplished in that tool. That may not be true of all tools. Know how your tools work before you generate any guidance.

Additional Relevant Guidance Search

H&A earned value consultants recently conducted a survey of the various government and non-government documents regarding the IMS and collected relevant guidance related to LOE among other things. The table below lists the results from a search for “LOE” wording. Note: this is a representative sample of typical government agency and industry IMS references. You should verify current references before you generate your own internal IMS guidance.

Source DocumentGuidance for Capturing all Activities, LOE in IMS
DCMA EVMS Compliance Metrics (DECM) Checks (version 6.0)
  • 06A210a: Do LOE tasks/activities have discrete successors? (0% threshold)
  • 12A101a: Are the contractor’s Level of Effort (LOE) WPs supportive in nature and/or do not produce technical content leading to an end item or product? (≤ 15% threshold)
  • 12A301a: Does the time-phasing of LOE WP budgets properly reflect when the work will be accomplished? (≤ 10% threshold)
IPMDAR DID DI-MGMT 81816CIf tasks/activities within an LOE work package are included in the Schedule, clearly identify them.
DOE Guide 413.3-24 Planning and Scheduling, Appendix A Schedule Assessment PrinciplesPrinciple 20. No LOE on critical path.
GAO Schedule Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Project Schedules (December 2015)Selected excerpts:
  • LOE activities should be clearly marked in the schedule and should never appear on a critical path.
  • LOE activities … derive their durations from other discrete work.
  • Best Practices for confirming the critical path is valid: Does not include LOE activities, summary activities, or other unusually long activities, except for future planning packages.
NDIA IPMD PASEG (version 5.0) (as noted above)
  • Tasks planned as LOE in the IMS should be easily and accurately identifiable.
  • LOE tasks should not be networked so that they impact discrete tasks.
  • Level of effort tasks should have no discrete successors and should therefore never appear on critical/driving paths.
PMI Practice Standard for Scheduling (Second Edition)Since an LOE activity is not itself a work item directly associated with accomplishing the final project product, service, or results, but rather one that supports such work, its duration is based on the duration of the discrete work activities that it is supporting.

Conclusion

Based on the various sources of guidance, it is possible to structure the IMS to include LOE in a way that provides cost/schedule integration and keeps all work correctly aligned yet does not cause issues with the critical path and the driving paths. From this guidance, it should be a straightforward effort to generate your own internal scheduling procedure defining how to handle LOE in the IMS if you choose to include it or if you are required to include it.

Need help producing a clear and concise scheduling procedure or tool specific work instructions? H&A earned value consultants and scheduling subject matter experts have worked with numerous clients to create easy to follow guides that help to ensure schedulers are following your company’s best practices using the scheduling tools of choice. Call us today at (714) 685-1730 to get started. 

Including Level of Effort (LOE) in the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) Read Post »

Improving Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) Task Duration Estimates

By / / , , , ,
, , , ,
Improving Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) Task Duration Estimates

One of the top reasons projects fail is because of poor task duration estimating for an integrated master schedule (IMS). Without accurate and consistent estimates, project outcomes can become unpredictable, leading to missed deadlines, budget overruns, and overall project failure. A realistic schedule is required to place the necessary resources in the correct timeframe to adequately budget the work as well as to produce credible estimates to complete and to forecast completion dates. While missed deadlines and budget overruns are detrimental for any project, there can be additional business ramifications when producing schedules in an Earned Value Management System (EVMS) contractual environment.

While there are effective methods available to improve task duration estimates, they are often underutilized. A common reason for this oversight is the lack of time allocated to developing the project schedule and determining task durations.

During the proposal phase, initial durations are typically estimated at a more summary level than the detailed execution phase. The proposed work is often defined at a level one to two steps higher than where the actual tasks will be performed. After project initiation, the team’s initial effort is to break the work down into more manageable tasks. This decomposition is crucial for achieving more accurate estimates. It’s no surprise, then, that the initial breakdown efforts often result in duration estimates that don’t align with the proposed durations.

Parkinson’s Law tells us that work expands to fill the time available. If task durations are excessively long, costs will inevitably rise. To counter this, it’s important to require estimators to provide both the estimated effort and the duration needed to accomplish the task. This approach helps to gain a better understanding of the scope of the task and to avoid unrealistic estimates. If you see a task that requires 10,000 hours with a duration of 2 weeks, then you immediately would suspect something is wrong with the estimates.

Techniques for Developing More Accurate Task Duration Estimates

What are your options? H&A earned value consultants and senior master schedulers often employ the following techniques to help a client produce a more realistic IMS.

  1. Establish a Probability Goal. It is essential to set clear expectations for the estimating team. Without guidance, teams may default to estimates with a 50/50 probability of success, which is a recipe for failure. Instead, directing the team to aim for estimates within a 75% to 80% probability range can lead to better outcomes.
  2. Break Down Tasks. Decompose tasks into smaller, more manageable components. The further out the task’s horizon, the greater the variability in estimates. For example, asking someone to estimate the drive time from Washington, DC, to Boston without specifying the vehicle, route, limitations, or conditions introduces unnecessary uncertainty.
  3. Use Professional Judgment. Engage someone with experience in the specific type of work required for the task. A seasoned expert will provide more accurate duration estimates based on their knowledge and experience. Often, we ask the potential task manager to do the estimate, but that person may not be the one with the most related experience or knowledge about the work.
  4. Leverage Historical Data. If the task or a similar one has been done before, use that historical data to inform the estimate. This approach provides a realistic benchmark for future estimates.
  5. Use generative AI. If you have access to an AI capability along with access to historical data, that could be an option to leverage the source data using specific prompts to glean relevant information. As with all AI tools, always verify the generated results to ensure it is a useful basis to substantiate the estimate.
  6. Apply Parametric Estimating. When possible, use parametric analysis to estimate the durations. For example, if it took a specific number of days to clean up a certain amount of toxic waste under similar conditions, this data can be used to estimate the duration of a new but comparable task.
  7. Engage Multiple Estimators. Gathering estimates from more than one person helps to reduce individual biases and provides a more rounded estimate.
  8. Apply the Delphi Method. This technique involves three knowledgeable individuals providing estimates or three-point estimates. The initial estimates are analyzed, and the results are shared with the estimators without attributing specific values to any individual. After discussing the findings, the estimators revise their estimates based on the collective insights, leading to a more refined and accurate duration estimate.
  9. Use Three-Point Estimates. Ask estimators to provide best-case (BC), most likely (ML), and worst-case (WC) durations, along with their reasoning. Applying a formula like the Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) duration formula (1BC+4ML+1WC)/6 can yield an adjusted and realistic estimate. You can vary the best and worst case estimate for risk if you have information on that.

    To see how this simple approach can work, walk through this exercise. Ask yourself how long it takes you to drive to work most of the time. Let’s say the answer is 45 minutes. Then ask yourself how long it would take on a Sunday morning in the summer when the roads were dry (the best case). Let’s say your answer is 25 minutes. Then ask yourself how long it would take on a Monday morning in the winter during a moderate snow event (the worst case). You tell yourself 90 minutes. Now you have enough information to calculate the PERT duration.

    Best Case = 25 minutes
    Most likely = 45 minutes
    Worst Case = 90 minutes
    PERT Duration = (25 + 180 + 90)/6 = 49 minutes

    Finally, let’s say you ask yourself how likely it is that you end up on the high side instead of the low side. If your answer is it is much more likely to encounter conditions that slow you down, you would modify the formula to use one and a half times the worst case (25 + 180 + 135)/6 = 57 minutes. That longer duration shows the impact of your impromptu risk analysis and provides a duration that has a much higher probability of being achievable.

    Now think about the same scenario but conducted by you interviewing three people who drive the same route to work. That would approximate the Delphi method.
  1. All or something less. It may not be necessary to analyze every task to the degree suggested. Even if you could do the analysis along the top several critical paths that would be an improvement. If you were to apply numerical factors to the tasks in related portions of the project that would be impactful. For example, all mechanical design tasks or all software development tasks.

What is the best approach?

You will need to analyze your project and determine which approach or approaches would yield useful information at a reasonable cost. If you apply your own thinking on how to improve your duration estimates, you will undoubtedly find a method most suitable for your situation. Depending on a project’s complexity and risk factors, you may also find it useful to take a more formal approach. Conducting a schedule risk assessment (SRA), a probabilistic assessment of a project’s outcome, can help you gain a better understanding of where the duration risk exists in the schedule.

H&A earned value consultants and scheduling subject matter experts often assist clients to establish basic guidance to help scheduling personnel to get into the habit of adequately defining tasks and using techniques to improve duration estimates. This is critical to be able to produce well-constructed and executable schedules to improve the likelihood of achieving project technical, schedule, and cost objectives.

H&A offers a range of project scheduling training workshops that can help schedulers to implement industry best practices. These workshops also cover how to take the next step to implement advanced scheduling techniques such as schedule risk assessments to ensure the schedule is realistic and achievable. H&A earned value consultants and master schedulers often provide one-on-one mentoring using the scheduling tool of choice to help scheduling personnel work through the learning curve of using advanced network scheduling techniques to produce executable schedules.  

Call us today at (714) 685-1730 to get started.

Improving Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) Task Duration Estimates Read Post »

Merging Earned Value Management System Descriptions

By / / , , ,
, , ,

Are there best practices that apply when a company with an approved/certified Earned Value Management System (EVMS) acquires another company that also has an approved/certified EVMS in place? What happens with the EVM System Descriptions as well as related processes and procedures? What about the various project control tools being used? How do you level set the project control proficiency levels of personnel using the EVMS? Schedule and cost level of detail and data architecture also come into play. For example, project performance data is often used at the corporate level for financial analysis, portfolio analysis, and external reporting and may require data to be organized in a specific manner. Is the EVMS providing reliable status, forecast completion date (FCD), and estimate at completion (EAC) information to management? 

What are your options?

H&A earned value consultants have observed different approaches and often assist companies with determining their strategy. Assuming you are the acquiring company, you could:

  1. Require the acquired company to use your EVMS. 
  2. Let them continue using their EVMS for an agreed upon timeframe or indefinitely.
  3. Take the best of both and establish a new and improved EVMS.  

Each option has its pros and cons. There are also other implications for at least the acquired company. DCMA will need to conduct an Integrated Baseline Review (IBR) and/or a compliance review if the acquired company’s EVMS assessment is no longer applicable. If you make significant modifications to your EVM System Description, DCMA will need to review the revised System Description to determine whether it still complies with the EIA-748 Standard for EVMS guideline requirements.

Things to Consider

  • What do you want to achieve?

    If the goal is to establish a common EVM System Description across the corporation, the strategy will need to reflect that. Define the business objectives that clearly articulate the benefits of using a standardized approach that can help to create and implement the plan to achieve your goal. In this example, that could narrow your path forward to either option 1 or 3 depending on the state of your EVMS.

  • What is the state of your current EVM design and System Description?

    Do you already have a best in class corporate level system in place? If yes, option 1 is a good fit. The strategy would be to create a plan to transition the acquired company to your EVMS. A single EVMS is easier to maintain and to train people on how to use it effectively. Commonality makes it easier to move personnel between projects.

    Perhaps your company is fine with different EVM Systems at a business unit level. For example, perhaps the business units have a different customer base (DoD versus DOE), and the requirements are different. In this case, it may make sense to go with option 2. We recommend being prepared to do an in-depth assessment of the acquired company’s EVMS to become familiar with it, gain an understanding of how project personnel use it, and evaluate the quality of the schedule and cost data. It is imperative that you have a good understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the acquired company’s EVMS. You may find best in class practices that you could incorporate into your EVMS. On the other hand, you may discover issues you need to address with a corrective action plan. Some of them may be as simple as providing desktop instructions for the schedulers or control account managers (CAMs). The more difficult are actions taken to change the culture such as resistance to providing visibility into the data.

    Option 3 may be good path in situations where you know there are components in your EVMS that need to be streamlined or enhanced. It provides an opportunity to fix known issues with your EVM design or System Description. It could also be an opportunity to replace a mix of software tools or home-grown tools with a standard set of commercial off the shelf (COTS) schedule, cost, and analysis as well as risk tools. Integration with a standard Agile tool may also come into play. In this case, your strategy may be to create a working group from both companies to create a best in class corporate EVMS. 

  • Structure of the EVM System Description.

    There may be “layers” to it that makes it easier to accommodate unique business unit environments. For example, perhaps you have established a corporate level System Description that states what the company does to comply with the EIA-748 guidelines when an EVMS is contractually required or what is required to satisfy internal management needs for project/portfolio analysis (no external customer management system or reporting requirements). The corporate level system should define specific rules all business units are expected to follow. The business units define how they comply with the corporate requirements (their specific process). A good approach is to also allow project managers to define project directives to specify project unique requirements as long as they comply with the corporate and business unit requirements.

    In this example, option 1 is a good fit. The strategy would be to help the acquired company to establish revised EVM processes that align with the corporate requirements similar to other business units in the corporation.

Other Considerations

Your strategy and tactical plan must address identified risks and opportunities. A common challenge is resistance to change. A potential risk mitigation approach could be to bring in the acquired company’s personnel as part of a joint corporate management team with the goal to create a single best in class EVMS. It is essential to establish ownership in the new or revised process. An example from one H&A client illustrates the importance of taking ownership in the EVMS as part of a successful transition.

“We didn’t force what we had on them, nor did we give in. We have a corporate EVM System Description. When we acquired the company, we brought them in to do a revision of the System Description, as the decision was made that we will operate as one company. They are now using that System Description and are using the same EVM cost tool. We are working other initiatives to harmonize other systems. It was surprisingly not contentious. We incorporated their leads into the organization with minimal disruption. We also have corporate training, which they supported and some of their legacy folks are leading that. The company as a whole changed, rather than forcing our way on them. Not many major differences between us, but inclusion of the folks from the acquired company as well as business groups was key. Frankly, one of our legacy divisions was harder to work with than anyone from the company we acquired.” – EVMS Director, A&D Contractor

While this is an example of where things went well, your risk mitigation approach should be prepared for situations where the teams do not agree upon the documented process, tools, or training that could result in an impasse. Knowledge of the current internal environment and personnel mix can help to determine the best mitigation strategy. A strong leadership team must be in place to ensure teams are working to achieve common objectives and to amicably resolve differences with a target completion date.

The tactical plan must also include a robust training plan that covers the revised EVMS process, procedures, and any new tools. This is critical to ensure project personnel gain a good understanding of what changed, who is responsible for what, workflow, requirements such as data coding or level of data detail, and how to use the tools effectively. Role based training is often useful to ensure project control personnel, schedulers, CAMs, and others are following the documented procedures specific to their day-to-day tasks. Desktop instructions are also useful to ensure project personnel are using the software tools effectively in alignment with the documented process and procedures.

What to do if you find yourself in this situation?

It often helps to start with a gap analysis of your or the acquired company’s EVM design and System Description as well as assess how project personnel implement the system and the quality of the data. H&A earned value consultants often conduct an EVMS gap analysis to provide a fact-based and independent analysis of the EVMS, project personnel proficiency levels, and quality of the schedule and cost data. Once you are able to identify and quantify the strengths and weaknesses of the system, you are in a better position to determine your best strategy that aligns with your corporate business objectives and goals.

Over the years, H&A earned value consultants have observed first-hand what strategies and tactics for designing and implementing a best in class EVMS ensures success in a variety of business environments. We can also help you avoid common pitfalls that can derail the best laid plans – it is often the case a client didn’t realize there were hidden risks, or they had made incorrect assumptions.

We can help you determine the right strategy for your situation. Call us today at (714) 685-1730 to get started.

Merging Earned Value Management System Descriptions Read Post »

Scroll to Top