Confusing QBD Baseline Changes with QBD EAC Changes

by Humphreys & Associates on December 11, 2017

Historic Battleship Engine Room

Quantified Backup Data

Quantified Backup Data (aka QBD) has become a requirement for contractors who make use of the “Percent Complete” Earned Value Technique (EVT). This requirement is actually a good thing because it helps eliminate the guesswork previously cited as a flaw in the percent complete EVT. Unfortunately, it has become a good idea gone bad through over-implementation.

The primary problem: Confusing “QBD Baseline Changes” with “QBD EAC Changes.” Many contractors are unnecessarily bogging down their change control process with requests to “change the QBD” when all that is really changing is the detail behind some of the steps in the QBD.

The Cake Example

Let’s take a simple, practical example of baking a cake to illustrate the difference. What follows is an approach found online from one baking company. The example weights have been added by the author.

 

10 Basic Steps to Making Any Cake Step Weight (Percentage of Process)
1.     Select the recipe for the type of cake 2%
2.     Select and prepare (grease) the pans 2%
3.     Preheat the oven 2%
4.     Prepare the ingredients 30%
5.     Mix the ingredients 40%
6.     Put batter in pan and bake the cake 5%
7.     Remove the cake from the pan 2%
8.     Let the cake cool 2%
9.     Make the frosting 10%
10.  Frost the cake 5%

 

For the context of this blog, this bakery’s approach IS the Cake (baseline) QBD. Chocolate cake, pound cake, apple cake, one layer cake, multi-tiered cake, birthday cake, or wedding cake. It does not matter. This bakery approaches making any type of cake with this QBD. Some cakes, however, are more complex than other cakes – not all cakes are created equal.

Steps 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 are standard and would likely have the same “budget weight” in the Cake QBD, regardless of the type of cake. Steps 4, 5, 9, and 10, on the other hand, might be more involved for a complex cake. Remember: Complexity does not change the Cake (baseline) QBD!

Simple Cake vs Complex Cake

Let’s look at the Cake QBD to see how different types of cakes are handled by comparing a Simple Cake, Vanilla with Chocolate Frosting, to a Complex Cake, Apple Walnut German Chocolate.

Follow Steps 1, 2, and 3 (unchanged)

Step 4: Prepare the ingredients

Simple Cake: Gather eggs, milk, flour, cake batter mix.

Complex Cake: Gather eggs, milk, flour, sour cream, walnuts, apples, coconut, lemon juice, pre-cooked apples, chopped walnuts, shaved coconut.

Step 5: Mix the ingredients

Simple Cake: Blend together the eggs and milk. Then add in the flour and dry cake batter mix.

Complex Cake: Blend together the eggs and milk. When smooth, fold in sour cream. Then add in the flour and the cake batter mix. When thoroughly blended, add cooked apples, lemon juice, chopped walnuts, and shaved coconut. Blend until evenly mixed.

Follow Steps 6, 7, and 8 (unchanged)

Step 9: Make the frosting

Simple Cake:  Pre-made chocolate frosting mix.

Complex Cake:  German chocolate frosting mix, add coconut, add chopped walnuts, mix gently until additions are evenly spread throughout mix.

Step 10:  Frost the cake

Simple Cake:  Frost between layers, frost top layer, frost side of cake.

Complex Cake: Frost between layers, frost top layer, frost side of cake. Apply apple wedges on top of the frosted layer, sprinkle on more chopped walnuts, apply frosting flowers around bottom with frosting tool.

As you can see, the 10 Step Cake QBD did not change throughout this process. What did change was the set of ingredients and some of the added lower level steps within the QBD Steps 4, 5, 9, and 10. This might add some cost (EAC) for the added ingredients, and for the additional labor of precooking, chopping, and shaving. However, in the overall context of the Cake Baking process, the steps (QBDs) and the associated weighting of each QBD remained the same. In this bakery, all that changes would be the forecast cost (EAC) for the complex cake over the simple one – i.e., no baseline change request (BCR) is needed to change the QBD!

QBD vs EAC

In this simple example, the QBD is Baking a Cake. It is not “Baking an Apple Walnut German Chocolate Cake.” If this were the QBD, then this bakery would have hundreds of QBDs, depending on the different types and complexities of cakes the bakery could possibly make. For example, would you want a separate QBD for a birthday cake to say “Happy Birthday Johnny”? No, that would be a cost (EAC) for the Frosting QBD Step. The QBD EACs affected would be Step 9, Make the frosting, and Step 10, Frost the cake. Rather than hundreds of QBDs, this bakery has ONE! The cost (EAC) of a cake varies based on the complexity and content of the cake.

This QBD approach applies to any number of other processes. Here are a couple of others:

Flowchart Showing the difference and similarities of the scientific and engineering methods.

Above: Basic idealized steps of the scientific method (left) and engineering design process (right).

*From sciencebuddies.org

 

In this case, the complexity of the problem being addressed might impact the amount of research required or the experiments or brainstorming solutions needed. This could dictate the number of times the yellow box to the right (the re-do box) is required. However, the approach is exactly the same until the process achieves the “Results Align with Hypothesis” (for the scientific method) or the “Solution Meets Requirements” (for the engineering design method), and the results are communicated.

The House Example

Another practical hands-on example could be the steps in building a house:

  1. Grading and site preparation
  2. Foundation construction
  3. Framing
  4. Installation of windows and doors
  5. Roofing
  6. Siding
  7. Electrical Rough-In
  8. Plumbing Rough-In
  9. HVAC Rough-In
  10. Insulation
  11. Drywall
  12. Trim
  13. Painting
  14. Finish electrical
  15. Bathroom and kitchen counters and cabinets
  16. Finish plumbing
  17. Carpet and flooring
  18. Finish HVAC
  19. Hookup to water main, or well drilling
  20. Hookup to sewer or installation of a septic system
  21. Punch list

As with baking a cake, for this builder, the size of the house will make a difference in how much the house will cost, but the QBD approach to building each house is the same. Some of the lower level activities below each QBD step might be more involved. For example, Step 2, Foundation construction might be more involved if the house is to have a basement. Other steps might be more or less involved. Step 17, Carpet and flooring might stop at the concrete slab because the buyers want to have their own custom flooring and carpeting put in later. None of these examples change the 21 QBDs this contractor follows when building a house. The lower level activities will simply cost more or less than other models (the EAC – not the baseline QBD), but the overall weighting of the QBDs for “Building a House” would be the same.

The Scope Has Not Changed

The same approach can be used for engineering drawings, conducting inspection testing, developing a drug for FDA approval, a scientific approach to a health problem, or any other process that follows a standardized approach toward its end product. The key is segregating the EAC aspect from the baseline QBD aspect of the process. Don’t get mired in constantly trying to “change the QBD” when it is not needed.

If the basic steps do not change, the QBD is not changing! More or less granularity in the lower level details beneath each QBD step is handled in EAC space and will be reflected in the cost of the task. You do not need to change the budget. Why? Because the scope has not changed.

Repeat with emphasis. THE SCOPE HAS NOT CHANGED – you are still:

  • Doing an engineering drawing,
  • Resolving a scientific or engineering design problem,
  • Building a house, or even just
  • Baking a cake.

Let’s keep QBDs simple for the CAMs – and keep the change control process uncluttered.

 

Humphreys & Associates can help with your QBD planning and implementation. Contact us at (714) 685-1730 or email us.

Printer Friendly Version

{ 0 comments }

Updates to the Compliance Review Series of Blogs

by Humphreys & Associates on November 20, 2017

Time Lapse of Freeway representing the progress of time.Humphreys & Associates has posted an update to the series of blogs discussing the DCMA Compliance Review (CR) process. “Compliance Review” is a common term used for any type of formal EVM System review DCMA performs to determine compliance with the EIA-748 Standard for EVMS guidelines.  This includes a Validation Review (VR), Implementation Review (IR), and Review for Cause (RFC).

DCMA used to follow a 16 Step compliance review process. This changed to an 8 Step process with the release of the DCMA Instruction 208 (DCMA-INST 208) titled “Earned Value Management System Compliance Reviews.” This instruction was recently updated in March, 2017 to reflect the changes in the DCMA organization structure and other policy guidance.

The four updated blogs include:

  • EVMS Compliance Review Series #1 – Prep for the DCMA 8 Step Review Process. This blog discusses the differences between the old and new steps. It also discusses what you can expect should you need to complete the DCMA Compliance Review process. It is critical you are able to complete each step in the process successfully the first time through to prevent delays. The best way to make sure you are prepared is to conduct a self-assessment, the topic for the next blog.
  • EVMS Compliance Review Series #2 – Contractor Self-Assessment. This blog discusses the importance of conducting a thorough self-assessment of your EVMS. You may or may not have the expertise in-house to conduct this self-assessment. An independent third party can help you prepare for a DCMA compliance review. The objective is to conduct the self-assessment process to simulate everything DCMA will do. DCMA also expects a thorough scrub of the schedule and cost data – data traceability and integrity is essential.
  • EVMS Compliance Review Series #3 – Using Storyboards to Depict the Entire EVMS. Do you need a refresher on the role of storyboards in a compliance review? Storyboards can make a difference in training your personnel and explaining to the DCMA personnel how your EVMS works. Storyboards can take many forms, and if you don’t have one in place, consider starting with the flow diagrams in your EVM System Description.
  • EVMS Compliance Review Series #4 – Training to Prepare for Interviews. This blog highlights the importance of conducting training for your personnel, particularly the control account managers (CAMs), so they are able to complete successful interviews with DCMA personnel. H&A recommends completing a three step training process to proactively address any issues.

Do you need help preparing for a DCMA compliance or surveillance review? Download a copy of the DCMA-INST 208 and read our updated blogs so you have an idea of what is ahead. Humphreys & Associates can help you conduct a self-assessment, perform a data quality assessment, create a storyboard, or conduct training and mentoring for your personnel. Call us today at (714) 685-1730 or email us.

Printer Friendly Version

{ 0 comments }

Formal Reprogramming – What Happened?

October 20, 2017 Earned Value Management (EVM)
Formal Reprograming Graph

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away….an Over Target Baseline (OTB) – by design – was a rare occurrence (and the OTS concept did not even exist as part of Formal Reprogramming). Formal Reprogramming was a very difficult and cumbersome process that most contractors (and the government) really did not like to […]

Read the full article →

Along the IMS Time-Now Line

August 22, 2017 Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)

Recently one of our consultants was instructing a session on the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) with a group of project personnel from one of our larger clients. The group was a mixture of beginners with no real experience in schedules and some much more experienced practitioners; some with more than 10 years of experience. The […]

Read the full article →

Humphreys and Assoc Reviews 7 Principles of Earned Value Management Tier 2 System Implementation Intent Guide

April 27, 2017 ASPR
Thumbnail image for Humphreys and Assoc Reviews 7 Principles of Earned Value Management Tier 2 System Implementation Intent Guide

In this video we review the 7 Principles of Earned Value Management Tier 2 System Implementation Intent Guide published by the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, or ASPR. This Guide is primarily used by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA, on countermeasure R&D contracts that have a total acquisition cost greater […]

Read the full article →

Agile/Scrum Ceremonies and Metrics Useful in EVMS Variance Analysis and Corrective Action

December 7, 2016 Agile

P. Bolinger, CSM October, 2016 Humphreys & Associates How can Agile/ Scrum be used to support EVMS Variance Analysis and Forecasting in a way that provides program managers with cost and schedule integrated information for no extra effort? The discipline of EVMS and the Agile/Scrum practices have several touch-points that are covered in two major […]

Read the full article →