EVM Terminology

EVM Terms

Understanding the As Late As Possible (ALAP) Scheduling Option in Practical Terms

By / / , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , ,
Understanding the As Late As Possible Scheduling Option in Practical Terms

Many project professionals have spent entire careers without ever using the As Late As Possible (ALAP) scheduling option, although the underlying idea feels familiar. Why? Because it’s very similar to the “just-in-time” concept widely used in manufacturing and logistics.

In materials management, just-in-time means having what you need arrive exactly when you need it, minimizing storage costs and reducing inventory. The same principle can apply to project labor, but with some important cautions.

The “Right Time” for Project Work

On development or design projects, doing work too early can be counterproductive. If designs change, early work may become obsolete, forcing costly rework. The “right time” to perform a task is often determined by schedule logic. In some cases, however, it can also be guided by the ALAP constraint.

Before we explore when ALAP makes sense, let’s quickly review the two primary constraint options in Microsoft Project (and most other scheduling tools).

ASAP – As Soon As Possible

As soon as possible:

  • Is the default setting for forward-scheduled projects (when you set a project start date).
  • Means tasks are pushed as early as possible, immediately after their predecessors finish.
  • Is ideal when you want the earliest possible completion and clear visibility into float/slack.

In an ASAP chain, every task begins at the earliest opportunity, pushing resources as far to the left as possible on the Gantt chart as illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: As Soon As Possible Scheduling Option
Figure 1: As Soon As Possible Scheduling Option

ALAP – As Late As Possible

As late as possible:

  • Means tasks are scheduled as late as possible without delaying the successor or project finish date.
  • Is used in backward-scheduled projects (those planned from a fixed finish date) or when you want to defer work until the last responsible moment.
  • Microsoft Project automatically places each task at the latest feasible start date that still satisfies all constraints.

Switching a chain of tasks to 100% ALAP dramatically shifts all work to the right on the timeline as illustrated in Figure 2. The impact on management is significant: Every task now has zero total slack, which means any delay, even one day, directly delays the project finish. Multiple paths can appear “critical,” making control and reporting more complex.

Figure 2: As Late As Possible Scheduling Option
Figure 2: As Late As Possible Scheduling Option

When ALAP Makes Sense

There are legitimate reasons to use ALAP selectively. For example:

  • When a task consumes resources you don’t want engaged early (e.g., expensive equipment rental or specialized consultants).
  • For just-in-time deliveries or procurements where early completion has no benefit.
  • When modeling backward scheduling. For instance, working from a fixed delivery date toward today.
  • A mixed schedule. Mostly ASAP but with a few ALAP tasks can balance flexibility, cost control, and realism as illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3: A Schedule Using ALAP and ASAP
Figure 3: A Schedule Using ALAP and ASAP

A Real-World Example

One of H&A’s senior scheduling consultants once faced this exact dilemma while helping to prepare a multi-year, multi-billion-dollar defense proposal for a project with strict annual funding limits. 

With less than two weeks before the submission deadline, the Proposal Director was exasperated: “I keep asking the engineers what can be delayed! Why does everything have to happen up front? The front-loaded schedule is blowing our funding cap!”

A quick inspection revealed the problem: every task was set to ASAP. The entire effort was jammed toward the beginning of the timeline, creating a massive early demand for resources. After several failed attempts to persuade the engineers to move work later, the consultant proposed something unconventional: “Let’s flip the question. Instead of asking what can we delay, let’s ask what must be done now.”

The H&A scheduling consultant converted the entire schedule to ALAP, instantly shifting all work to the far right of the timeline. The resulting view inverted the problem, from overspending early to under-spending, and gave the team a new way to discuss priorities.

In meetings, engineers were asked to move tasks from ALAP to ASAP one at a time, stopping when the annual funding limit was reached. The discussion changed from “Why can’t we do this now?” to “What can we afford to do this year?”

The result wasn’t elegant, but it solved the immediate problem: the funding limits were clearly observed, the resource profile became manageable, and the trade-offs were visible to everyone.

How ALAP Affects Critical Path and Risk

Because ALAP tasks consume all available float, they appear critical even when they may not truly drive the project finish. This can obscure the actual critical path, making it difficult for project managers to distinguish between genuine schedule risks and artificial ones. In Earned Value Management (EVM) environments, this matters. Earned value metrics depend on knowing which tasks drive completion. Excessive use of ALAP can lead to misleading forecasts and distort DCMA data quality metrics such as the Total Float test and the Critical Path test. For this reason, auditors often recommend using ALAP sparingly and documenting the rationale wherever it’s applied. 

Note: in a sophisticated scheduling environment, it is possible to make a copy of the integrated master schedule (IMS) and revert to ASAP to look for critical paths in the normal sense.  

Combining ALAP with Other Constraints

In practice, project managers often use a blend of constraint types. For example, you can combine ALAP with “Must Finish On” or “Start No Earlier Than” dates to simulate external dependencies such as contract milestones, funding release dates, or material delivery windows. This hybrid approach allows the schedule to model reality while maintaining logical control. However, it’s important to track these constraints carefully. Too many “hard” constraints of any type can reduce the schedule’s dynamic nature and make automated forecasting less accurate.

Guidance from Industry and Agencies

Industry and government scheduling guides consistently advise restraint when using ALAP. The DCMA data quality tests consider the presence of ALAP tasks as a potential red flag because they can mask schedule float and obscure the true drivers of program completion. Similarly, the GAO’s Schedule Assessment Guide recommends minimizing artificial constraints and using logic-driven sequencing whenever possible. ALAP may be appropriate for modeling constrained resources or fixed delivery milestones, but it should always be justified and documented. Within DoD and NASA programs, reviewers often require clear evidence that ALAP usage is intentional, controlled, and limited to well-understood modeling cases. It should never be used as a workaround for poor sequencing.

Key Takeaways

  • ASAP emphasizes early starts, clear float visibility, and traditional forward scheduling.
  • ALAP emphasizes delayed starts, tighter resource control, and is useful in backward or funding-constrained planning.
  • Use ALAP sparingly and intentionally as it can obscure float and create multiple critical paths.
  • In creative problem-solving, toggling between ASAP and ALAP can reveal insights about timing, funding, and necessity that might otherwise remain hidden.

Final Thoughts

The ALAP constraint is a powerful but double-edged tool. It can simplify discussions about funding limits, resource phasing, and timing priorities, but it also carries risk if used indiscriminately. Like most features in commercial off the shelf (COTS) scheduling tools, its value depends on the user’s intent and discipline. The best project schedules blend logic, transparency, and flexibility. Understanding when to use ALAP (and when not to) can make the difference between a reactive plan and a truly managed one.

Interested in Learning How to Use More Advanced Scheduling Techniques?

Master schedulers skilled at asking the right questions to solve project management challenges hone their craft based on years of experience and working with other scheduling experts. There are always opportunities to learn more. H&A routinely offers basic, advanced, and tailored scheduling workshops taught by senior master schedulers with decades of experience in all types of project environments using common scheduling tools such as Microsoft Project and Oracle Primavera P6. Give us a call today to get started. 

Humphreys and Associates also offers basic and advanced EVMS training as well as tailored EVMS training that aligns with a client’s EVM System Description. 

Understanding the As Late As Possible (ALAP) Scheduling Option in Practical Terms Read Post »

Maximizing the Value from Integrated Baseline Review (IBR) Investments 

By / / , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , ,

A previous blog, How Integrated Baseline Reviews (IBRs) Contribute to Project Success, provided an overview of the purpose and scope of IBRs as well as the benefits of conducting an IBR. This blog adds to the discussion on the benefits of conducting an IBR. It reflects observations gathered from our earned value consultants while assisting clients to prepare for IBR events. 

As a reminder, IBRs provide the opportunity to verify the:

  • Contractor and the customer have a common understanding of the scope of work, technical requirements, and accomplishment criteria. 
  • Contractor has established an executable performance measurement baseline (PMB) for the entire contractual scope of work that accurately reflects how they plan to accomplish the work within the contractual period of performance, negotiated contract cost, and funding profile. 
  • Required resources have been identified and assigned to the project to accomplish the project’s objectives. For example, the staffing plan accurately reflects the sequence of work as well as resource availability and demand.  
  • Technical, schedule, and cost risks/opportunities have been identified, assessed, and captured in a risk/opportunity register. Risk mitigation actions have been incorporated into the PMB to reduce known threats to an acceptable level. This is often the most valuable component of the IBR to ensure all parties have an understanding of the risks/opportunities, assumptions, and risk mitigation or opportunity capture plans. 

Factors that Contribute to a Successful IBR

Treating an IBR as just a contractual requirement limits its value to all parties. IBRs are essential to the successful execution of any project. IBRs require a focused mindset to clearly define as well as assess the measurable benefits gained for the time and effort invested in the IBR. From our observations, contractors that defined what they expected to gain from an IBR, whether the IBR was contractually required or not, made a measurable difference in the outcomes from the IBR. The effectiveness of an IBR is contingent upon management’s commitment to excellence in implementing their EVMS and their desire to ensure they have reliable and useful data for management visibility and control. And that begins with establishing an executable PMB. 

The following list of factors often influence the perceived value of an IBR and hence the approach a contractor takes to planning and conducting their IBRs. 

  • Recognizing the relative importance of the review.
  • Defining the value or measurable benefits they expect to gain from conducting the review.
  • Well defined risk/opportunity management process. 
  • Timely and sufficient review planning and preparation.
  • Joint or collaborative planning and preparation.
  • Well defined objectives as well as entrance and exit criteria. 
  • Tailoring the IBR approach to best accomplish the review objectives.
  • Communication and expectation management.

These factors were ultimately indicative of whether the IBRs were considered value-added (retrospective assessment by the participants) based on the level of understanding, investment in or attention to, or the degree of success in implementing these factors. Based on H&A earned value consultant’s observations, the single factor that tends to drive the IBR approach is clearly defining the value the contractor expects to gain beyond what is mandatory or contractually required. 

IBR Investment Value

The term “IBR investment value” is purposefully used here. The intent is to invite you to re-assess how IBRs are viewed apart from simply meeting government agency IBR requirements. “IBR investment value” is used to mean a qualitative assessment that encapsulates the value-add or measurable benefits teams often have difficulty defining as well as to help provide the impetus and guiding direction for conducting an IBR. It has both intrinsic and extrinsic properties. 

The intrinsic value of the IBR investment resides in those specific elements of information (as identified by the customer in the form of questions or concerns) that are either exchanged, clarified, or refined through the course of discussions between the customer and performing contractor teams. This intrinsic value can be measured by how well the exchanged information supports:

  • A complete, clear and mutual understanding of the work to be accomplished.
  • The resources needed to get the work done.
  • The detailed plan to perform the work.
  • What resources are available to support the plan.
  • What’s missing or unknown that is needed to complete the work correctly and on time.
  • What risks, issues, concerns, or opportunities are associated with contractor’s concept that need to be fully considered to make the plan work. 

The extrinsic value of the IBR Investment rests wholly in the quality of the exchanges (discussions), and the resulting actions generated from the discussions. This extrinsic IBR value addresses how appropriate, rich and comprehensive the information exchanges were, and answers to questions, such as:

  • Were the discussions responsive to a list of customer information requirements and concerns? 
  • Were the right discussions held? At the right level of detail?
  • Were the right people involved in each discussion? 
  • Did the discussions provide sufficient context? Were they comprehensive? Complete?
  • Did the discussions address associated risks, issues, opportunities or other concerns? Relationships to other discussions/elements?
  • Were all the customer’s questions or concerns answered to their satisfaction?
  • Were the discussions documented to support decisions? Alternatives? Changes? Studies?

The exchanges of essential information (intrinsic value) and the quality of those exchanges (extrinsic value) when combined directly translate to the investment value achieved from the IBR. It characterizes how well the information exchanged provides both teams with the necessary details to successfully define, schedule, budget, and manage the contracted effort relative to the investment into the IBR process. A realistic, risk adjusted PMB helps to prevent schedule delays and cost overruns during project execution that often impact a contractor’s profit margins and tarnishes their credibility with their customers. 

What are the characteristics of a value added IBR approach?  

A successful approach H&A earned value consultants have observed contractors implement is a structured process corporate management actively participates in to ensure they gain the most value from all IBR events. 

This is often an outgrowth from corporate initiatives to retain top project management talent and establishing an EVMS self-governance process. It is part of a corporate culture that is committed to excellence in project management and sustaining a best in class EVMS – becoming efficiently expert at EVM. 

What are some common characteristics of their IBR approach?

  • A chartered authority or corporate team responsible for assisting project personnel with IBR events in addition to EVMS implementation, self governance, and customer surveillance events. A good practice we have seen implemented is to establish rotating members on the IBR teams from different projects as a means to pollinate best practices across projects. It also provides an opportunity to mentor top talent on track to move up to higher management positions.  
  • A standard repeatable process with defined measurable outcomes that can be tailored to the unique project requirements or objectives. This includes maintaining a set of materials for the internal IBR team to effectively plan and execute an IBR as well as to close out any action items. Examples include training materials to prepare project personnel, process description with team member roles and responsibility assignments, data call list, role based interview question forms with assessment criteria, data quality assessment materials and tools, list of data traces to be performed, schedule risk assessment tools, risk/opportunity evaluation criteria, defined assessment criteria (technical, schedule, cost, resources), in-briefing and out-briefing templates, and template to capture action items to track to closure. The corporate team is often responsible for actively maintaining the content for the IBR teams and conducting training. 
  • They place an emphasis on two components that directly impact the quality of the schedule and cost data.  This includes:
    • Well-documented data driven basis of estimates (BOEs) that can be substantiated using historical or bench-marked data with the goal of reducing expert judgement cost estimates to the lowest level possible as a risk reduction strategy.  
    • The quality of the risk/opportunity management plan and the content in the risk/opportunity register. This content directly affects the ability of all parties to gain a better understanding of the risks/opportunities and best options to mitigate a risk or capture an opportunity. A well constructed schedule is required to be able to perform schedule risk assessments (SRAs). SRAs help to identify where duration risk exists in the schedule and to determine a level of confidence in meeting major project milestones as well as the project completion date.  
  • They perform internal IBRs as a standard practice on all projects regardless of contractual requirements. This is particularly important when subcontractors are performing a substantial percentage of the work effort. The corporate team often assists Project Managers with conducting a joint IBR with major subcontractors.  

Need help establishing a corporate IBR process?

H&A earned value consultants often help clients to establish a corporate EVM council or center of excellence with defined responsibilities to ensure project personnel effectively implement their EVMS, integrate risk/opportunity management into the EVMS, as well as define and implement a standard repeatable process for IBRs and self-governance. Clients often need assistance establishing a repeatable process for conducting schedule risk assessments, an essential component of the IBR process. A defined process that clearly articulates the expected measurable outcomes from conducting IBRs is one way to ensure all parties gain the most value from the event with the end objective of ensuring a realistic and executable PMB has been established.  

Call us today to get started.  

Maximizing the Value from Integrated Baseline Review (IBR) Investments  Read Post »

Who Should “Own” Earned Value Management (EVM)? Programs or Finance?

By / / , , , , , ,
, , , , , ,
Who should own erarned value management?

I have read several Earned Value Management (EVM) reports, papers, and articles that debate what company organization should “own” EVM and the company’s Earned Value Management System (EVMS). These debates most often mention the finance department and program organization as common EVM “owners.” The majority opinion seems to be that because EVM is a program management best practice it belongs in the program organization. A minority opinion is that because EVM is denominated in dollars, schedule included, and because EVM reports are financial in nature, EVM belongs in the finance department. Before we dive into this debate, a summary of the responsibilities of a Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and the head of programs is useful. In the Company A and Company B examples to follow, both the CFO and the head of programs reported to the company president.

What are the duties of a Chief Financial Officer (CFO)? 

A CFO has three duties; each measured in the time domain. The first duty of the CFO is as the company’s controller and is responsible to accurately and honestly report past company financial performance. The CFO is also responsible for the current financial health of the company – to ensure that today’s decisions create rather than destroy value. And lastly, the CFO must protect the company’s future financial health and that all expenditures of capital maximize that future financial health. Every business decision, especially those of the CFO, are either good decisions (are accretive – increase shareowner value) or are bad decisions (are dilutive – destroys shareowner value).

What are the duties of the Head of Programs?

The head of programs is typically a Vice President or higher and all program and project managers report to them. The head of all programs has profit and loss responsibility for their portfolio of programs and projects. In addition, each program and project manager is responsible for achieving the technical, schedule, and cost requirements of the contracts they are executing on behalf of the company’s customers. 

A Tale of Two Companies

I have first-hand experience with two companies and how each company decided who should “own” EVM that illustrates the nuances to these two approaches. 

Company “A” had EVM assigned to the finance department. All EVM employees were overhead, even those assigned to a program. A new CFO arrived and quickly decided to reduce indirect costs, declaring that he was “coin-operated.” The new CFO terminated the employment of all EVM employees. Each program attempted to create an EVM branch office but failed. DCMA issued a Level 3 Corrective Action Request (CAR) detailing the EVMS deficiencies and the CFO was fired. A second new CFO arrived and agreed to transfer EVM to the head of programs. The head of programs was instrumental in changing the disclosure statement making EVM personnel assigned to a program a direct charge to that program or contract. The head of programs created a Program Planning and Control (PP&C) organization and demanded all Program Managers and their program members to quickly learn, use, and master EVM. A program control room was built with five screens. Daily 2 pm EVM data-driven reviews were held on short notice. These daily reviews became known as “CAM Bakes.” The EVM and program management culture changed quickly and dramatically at Company “A.”

Company “B” had EVM assigned to the CFO who was as “coin-operated” and unaware of EVM as was the first new CFO of Company “A.” The culture of company “B” was very hostile to EVM, so it probably did not matter who “owned” EVM. The company failed 16 of the EIA-748 Standard for EVMS 32 guideline requirements and they lost their DCMA approved EVMS status. Significant withholdings were imposed and the company’s reputation was damaged. Several top managers hostile to EVM sought employment elsewhere. A new CFO arrived who was also coin-operated – with one difference – the CFO was an expert in EVM. The new CFO formed a partnership with the head of programs. The new CFO was as much a program manager as he was a CFO. The new CFO told his direct reports assigned to each program to “make the program managers successful.” And they did exactly that. 

The new CFO understood that the company was the sum of all its contracts and that every dollar flowed from its customers. The EVM and program management culture at Company “B” changed rapidly.

Who Should “Own” EVM? Programs or Finance?

Returning to our original question of who should “own” EVM, the majority theory is that the program organization should “own” EVM. All else being equal, I tend to agree with this theory. 

However, while theory is suggestive, experience is conclusive. My experience at Company “A” proved that a strong program leader could rapidly change the EVM and program management culture of a company. My experience at Company “B” proved that a CFO could “own” EVM and be successful at changing the company’s EVM and program management culture. The CFO and the head of programs must form an EVM partnership no matter who “owns” EVM. 

Who “owns” EVM at your company? 

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. 

Who Should “Own” Earned Value Management (EVM)? Programs or Finance? Read Post »

How to Get the Most from Your IMS: What Makes an IMS Useful?

By / / , , , ,
, , , ,
How to Get the Most from Your IMS: What Makes an IMS Useful?

A major challenge with an Integrated Master Scheule (IMS) is making the most out of this powerful project management tool. Large and even not-so-large projects are required to have an IMS which adheres to the requirements of the Integrated Program Management Report (IPMR) or Integrated Program Management Data and Analysis Report (IPMDAR) Data Item Description (DID) and meets the schedule data quality checks available. But having met the DID requirements and passing the quality checks does not mean the IMS is being used to get the most information into the hands of decision makers on the project. 

The IPMR or IPMDAR DID, even though detailed and thorough, is generic. The same DID is used on a contract whether it is for an important new hardware-based system, a new software system, or some other goal. The DID misses the point that the type of product on the contract means that unique topics may be the most important. There is no focus in the DID; it is high level and comprehensive. What’s missing are the special interest or special focus schedules that can be drawn from the IMS with good coding, grouping, filtering, and sorting techniques.

Remember that the statement of work (SOW) for the project is really comprised of promises made in the various plans submitted in the proposal and updated after contract award. The System Engineering Management Plan (SEMP), the Software Development Plan (SDP), Make/Buy Plan, Procurement Plan, Test and Evaluation Management Plan (TEMP), and others all contain commitments that should be translated into actions in the IMS. There should be access to the portions of the IMS that show how these commitments will be accomplished.

Examples of Special Interest Schedules

On a new hardware-based project, key pieces of information revolve around getting designs done and into a form to plan for the procurement of the various things needed to build the end items. This information often resides in the IMS but must be pulled out into a “drawing release” schedule. That is a schedule showing the transition from design to 3-D models or drawings. Pinpointing the times and links in the IMS where design becomes actionable for procurement enables the project team and their suppliers to be prepared to execute the procurements. The teams or engineers (designers) and procurement people should be focused on the drawing release schedule with frequent, at least weekly meetings to coordinate.  

One of the serious issues I witnessed on a project was the lack of preparedness in having trained and qualified drawing checkers who could sign-off and release drawings. Because of the need for flight safety considerations, the drawing checker position could only be filled by qualified people. Instead of preparing months ahead for the wave of drawings, the waves were allowed to crash into the far-too-few checkers. What was supposed to be a short cycle became weeks long as drawings sat waiting for release.

As the transition is made from design to production, then the procurement schedule becomes another focused schedule which should show the information about what is being procured, from whom, and when it will be delivered. This information is used by the engineers, procurement, and inventory control people including receiving to understand the timing and volume of inbound items. Frequent coordination with suppliers and internal team members using this focused schedule helps to ensure a smooth process. Will the factory be ready to receive, inspect, process, and store all the inbound items?

What about software development as a special topic focus schedule? This is often needed. The project personnel must be able to quickly understand where in the cycle the software is and when releases will be made as well as what the release is needed for in the overall project. 

Think about all the other important focus areas that could exist on a project. For example, the training effort should be in a focused schedule showing the development of the training material (courseware), training aids, facilities, instructor preparation and anything else needed to execute the statement of work related to training.

Testing is possibly more complicated than training. This includes development of test plans and procedures, as well as the creation of test fixtures and tools. The preparation of test personnel capable of performing complicated tests should be in the focused schedule.

By now you get the idea. The IMS is the combination of all these schedules, the thing that coordinates between and among them. But the focused schedules are the real bread-and-butter of the schedule discipline. It is shocking to see a project where these do not exist. Maybe the managers don’t know they are needed or possibly that they are available. Maybe the schedule team did not prepare for these extractions from the IMS.

If your project does not have focused schedules and does not use them, the project is in jeopardy. These schedules should be generated and used frequently; weekly at least.  Even if the IMS itself is only undergoing a monthly update, the detailed schedules should be much more alive and part of the weekly communication between work teams on the project.

Tips and Suggestions

  • How to get started. Begin with the source documents and their authors, the SEMP, the TEMP, and so on. Make a list of the likely focused schedules that need to be drawn from the IMS. Read them and extract the information you need to build your IMS. If you are just starting the IMS, you could build individual schedules with the authors and then integrate them into the IMS. If you already have built the IMS, you can find the tasks you need and code them so they will appear on the focused schedule. Once coded, extract the focused schedule from the IMS using the applicable coding filters and verify it matches the commitments that were made in the source documents from the various authors. 
  • Hold “report court.” Rather than reading and sorting through all the various plans, schedule a project meeting with the key team members and ask them what reports and what schedules they need to do their jobs. Remind them of the commitments they made in the plans. They can bring or provide a list and description to you, and you can decide “in court” which items you can or cannot incorporate into the IMS. That can help to streamline what is included in the IMS and who is responsible for what. 
  • Create a schedule data dictionary if you haven’t already done so. This is essential to identify standard as well as project unique activity, milestone, or resource coding and how the coding is used so there is a common understanding of the content. The customer will need this information as well as when the IMS is provided as a monthly performance reporting data deliverable (see the IPMDAR Section 2.4.2.20, Data Dictionary for Native Schedule File). It is a prerequisite to ensure consistency in use as well as to establish a level of discipline throughout the IMS development and maintenance process. Ensure tasks always include the necessary coding. Ideally, you did your homework on the likely special topic schedules you need to draw from the IMS before starting to build the IMS. Otherwise you may need to determine various sorting and filter techniques to identify the tasks that require additional coding details. As noted above, once the tasks are coded, you or other project personnel will be able to extract the various special interest schedules from the IMS as needed. 

Need help?

Building a useful IMS for complex projects is not easy. Up front planning for the development of the IMS can help to identify the necessary outline codes and other coding to be able to group, filter, or sort the activities to extract the special topic or special focus details from the IMS. The IMS is an essential communication tool for everyone on the project. How the schedule is constructed and coded makes a difference. H&A scheduling subject matter experts (SMEs) have decades of experience in a variety of complex project environments and can help you avoid common pitfalls. Contact us today.

How to Get the Most from Your IMS: What Makes an IMS Useful? 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 »

Scroll to Top