Rolling Wave Planning

Schedule Health Metrics

By /

What are Schedule Health Metrics?

Schedule Health Metrics by Humphreys & AssociatesAt the heart of every successful Earned Value Management System (EVMS) is a comprehensive Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) that aligns all discrete effort with a time-phased budget plan to complete the project.  As such, the IMS must be complete and accurate to provide the necessary information to other EVMS process groups and users.  The IMS may be a single file of information in an automated scheduling tool, or a set of files that also includes subcontractor schedules.

For any medium to large project, the IMS may contain thousands of activities and milestones interconnected with logical relationships and date constraints to portray the project plan.  Schedule Health Metrics provide insight into the IMS integrity and viability.

Why are Schedule Health Metrics important?

For a schedule to be useable, both as a standalone product and as a component of the EVMS, standards have been developed to reflect both general scheduling practices and contractual requirements.  Schedule Health Metrics contain checks designed to indicate potential IMS issues.  Each check has a tolerance established to help focus on particular areas of concern.  The individual metrics should not be considered as a pass or fail score, but should be used as a set of indicators to guide questions into specific areas of the IMS.

For example, if there is an unusually large number of tasks with high total float properties, a review of the logic in the IMS is warranted.  At the end of the analysis, if the Control Account Manager (CAM) responsible for the work, with the help of the Planner/Scheduler, can explain why the high float exists, then the issue is mute.  Metrics are simply a method to help isolate issues in a large amount of data.  In this example, the analysis will continue to depict issues with this CAM’s data, but those issues are not indicative of failure.

What are the standards?

From the beginning of automated scheduling systems in the 1980’s, attempts have been made to take advantage of the scheduling databases for the purpose of metrical analysis.  The maturity of scheduling software tools has provided better access to metrics in both open architecture databases and with export capabilities to tools such as Microsoft’s Excel and Access products. With the availability of the new tools, new analysis techniques were developed and implemented.

Several years ago, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) reviewed the various Schedule Health Metrics being used within the US Government and selected 14 tests they believed to be the best tests of an IMS.  Because they support a wide variety of customers from the DOD, NASA, and DOE, they have developed these checks with thresholds that should be common to all types of programs, but not specific or restrictive to a particular one. The thresholds help bring focus to the issues in the schedule under review.  With agreement between the customer, the DCMA and the contractor, they may be altered in some cases to reflect the unique nature of a project.

Unless otherwise indicated, the DCMA Health Metrics apply only to incomplete activities or tasks in the IMS, not milestones, with baseline durations of 1 day or longer. This set also excludes Level of Effort (LOE) and Summary tasks because they should not be driving the network.  The DCMA 14 point Schedule Health Metrics are:

1.  Missing Logic

The test: The percentage of incomplete activities that do not have a predecessor or successor.

The threshold: 5%.

For a schedule to function correctly, the tasks must be logically linked to produce a realistic mathematical model that sequences the work to be performed.

2.  Activities with Leads

The test: The percentage of relationships in the project with lags of negative 1 day or less.

The threshold: 0%.

The project schedule should flow in time from the beginning to the end.  Negative lags, or leads, are counter to that flow and can make it more difficult to analyze the Critical Path.  In many cases this may also indicate that the schedule does not contain a sufficient level of detail.

3.  Activities with Lags

The test: The percentage of incomplete activities that have schedule lags assigned to their relationships.

The threshold: 5%.

An excessive use of lags can distort an IMS and should be avoided.

4.  Relationship Types

The test: The percent of Finish to Start relationships to all relationships.

The threshold: 90%.

A project schedule should flow from the beginning of the program to the end.  Finish to Start (FS) relationships are the easiest and most natural flow of work in the IMS, with the occasional Start to Start (SS) and Finish to Finish (FF) relationship as required.  Start to Finish relationships should not be used because they represent a backward flow of time and can distort the IMS, as do the overuse of SS and FF relationships.

5.  Hard constraints

The test: The current definition includes any date constraint that effects both the forward and backward pass in the scheduling engine.  These include any date constraint that says ‘Must’ or ‘Mandatory’, ‘Start On’ or ‘Finish On’, and ‘Start’ or ‘Finish Not Later Than’ date constraints.

The threshold: 5%.

Hard constraints limit the flexibility of the IMS to produce reliable Driving Paths or a Program Critical Path.  Techniques using soft constraints and deadlines can allow the schedule to flow and identify more issues with float values.

6.  High Float

The test: Percentage of tasks with High Total Float values over 44 days.

The threshold: 5%.

A well-defined schedule should not have large numbers of tasks with high total float or slack values.  Schedules with this condition may have missing or incorrect logic, missing scope or other structural issues causing the high float condition.  The DCMA default threshold of 44 days was selected because it represents two months of effort.  Individual projects may wish to expand or contract that threshold based on the length of the project and the type of project being scheduled; however, any changes in thresholds should be coordinated with the customer first to confirm the viability of the alternate measurement.

7.  Negative Float

The test: The percentage of activities that have a total float or slack value of less than zero (0) days of float.

The threshold: 0%.

When a schedule contains tasks with negative float, it indicates that the project is not able to meet one or more of its delivery goals. This is an alarm requiring redress with a corrective action plan.  Please see the Negative Float blog for additional discussion.

8.  High Duration

The test: A percentage of tasks in the current planning period with baseline durations greater than 44 days.  This check excludes LOE, planning packages and summary level planning packages.

The threshold: 5%.

Near term tasks should be broken down to a sufficient level of detail to define the project work and delivery requirements.  These tasks should be shorter and more detailed since more is known about the immediate scope and schedule requirements and resource availabilities.  For tasks beyond the rolling wave period, longer duration tasks in planning packages are acceptable, as long as the IMS can still be used to accurately develop Driving Paths to Event Milestones and a Program Critical Path to the end of the project.

9.  Invalid Dates

The test: Percentage of tasks with actual start or finish dates beyond the Data Date, or without actual start or finish dates before the Data Date.

The threshold: 0%.

The check is designed to ensure activities are statused with respect to the Data Date in the IMS.  Claiming actual start or finish dates in the future are not acceptable from a scheduling perspective, but can also create distortions in the EVM System by erroneously claiming Earned Value in the current period for future effort.  Alternately, if tasks are not statused with actual start or finish dates prior to the Data Date, then they cannot be logically started or finished until at least the day of the Data Date, if not later.  If the forecast dates are not moved to the Data Date or later, the schedule cannot be used to correctly calculate Driving Paths to an Event Milestone, or calculate the Program Critical Path.

10.  No Assigned Resources

The test: Percentage of incomplete activities that do not have resources assigned to them.

The threshold: 0%.

This is a complex check because of two basic factors: 1) resources are not required to be loaded on tasks unless directed by the contractor’s internal management requirements, and 2) some tasks such as Schedule Visibility Tasks (SVTs) and Schedule Margin tasks should not be associated with work effort.  If the contractor chooses not to load resources into the schedule the options are:

  1. Associate basic quantities of work with tasks and define in a code field, transfer those quantities to the EVM cost system and verify the traceability between the IMS quantities and the associated budgets in the cost system.
  2. Maintain the budgets entirely in the EVM cost system and provide a trace point from the activities in the IMS to the associated budgets in the cost system.  The trace points are usually in the form of control account and work package/planning package code values.

In either case, care must be exercised so that Schedule Visibility Tasks are reviewed and confirmed to ensure that work is not misrepresented to either the contractor or the customer.

11.  Missed Activities

The test: Percentage of completed activities, or activities that should have been completed based on their baseline finish dates, and failed to finish on those dates.

The threshold: 5%.

Many people view this as a performance metric.  That is true, but it is also used to review the quality of the baseline.  For example, if a project has a 50% failure rate to date, what level of confidence should the customer have in future progress?  Is the baseline a workable plan to successfully complete the project?  Does the EVM System reflect the same issues as the IMS?  If not, are they correctly and directly connected? These are questions that should be addressed by the contractor before the customer or other oversight entities ask them.

12.  Critical Path Test

The test: Select a task on the program Critical Path and add a large amount of duration to that task, typically 600 days.

The threshold: The end task or milestone should slip by as many days as the delay in the Critical Path task.

This is a test of the integrity of the schedule tool to correctly calculate a Critical Path.  If the end task or milestone does not slip by as many days as the artificial delay, there are structural issues inhibiting this slip.  These issues may be logic links, hard constraints or other impediments to the ability of the schedule to reflect the slip.  These issues should be addressed and corrected as the schedule data is to be relied upon to provide meaningful information to management.

13.  Critical Path Length Index (CPLI)

The test: The Critical Path length + the Total Float on the Critical Path divided by the Critical Path Length.  This formula provides a ratio that puts the Critical Path Float in perspective with the Critical Path length.

The threshold: .95 or higher.

If the program is running with zero (0) Total Float on the Program Critical Path, then the ratio is 1.00.  If there is negative float on the Program Critical Path, then the ratio will fall below 1.00 which indicates that the schedule may not be realistic and that project milestones may not be met.

14.  Baseline Execution Index

The test: The number of completed activities divided by the number of activities that should have been completed based upon the baseline finish dates.

The threshold: .95 or higher.

This check measures the efficiency of the performance to the plan.  As such, some people also dismiss this as a simple performance metric, but as in the case of Metric #11 (Missed Tasks), this is also a measurement of the realism of the baseline plan.  As in Metric #11, if the schedule performance is consistently not to the plan, how viable is the plan?  How viable is the EVMS baseline?  How accurate is the information from the baseline that Management is using to make key decisions?  Metrics #11 and #14 may reflect the result of the effort being performed on the contract, but also represent the quality and realism of the baseline plan.

What are additional metrics that help identify schedule quality issues?

The DCMA’s 14 point schedule assessment should be considered a basic check of a schedule’s health, but by no means is the only check that should be used to analyze an IMS.  More industry standard checks are identified in other documents, including the Planning and Scheduling Excellence Guide (PASEG) revision 2.0 (6/22/12). The PASEG is a National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) product and was developed in cooperation between industry and the Department of Defense. Section 10.4, Schedule Execution Metrics, discusses in greater detail some of the Health Metrics identified above, as well as other metrics including the Current Execution Index (CEI) and the Total Float Consumption Index (TFCI).

In addition to these metrics, checks should be performed on activity descriptions, activity code field values, risk inputs, Earned Value Techniques and other tests to assure alignment of the IMS with its partner information systems.  These systems include, but are not limited to the MRP system, the cost system, program finance systems and the risk management system.  The IMS in an integral component of a company’s management system, therefore issues with the IMS data will be reflected in the other components of the EVMS.

All of the above health checks can be performed manually with the use of filters and grouping functions within the scheduling tool; however, they may take too much time and effort to be successfully sustained.  The marketplace has tools available to perform these and other checks within seconds, saving time and cost, allowing schedule analysts and management to devote valuable time to address and resolve the issues.  With the aid of these tools, a comprehensive schedule health check can be performed as part of the business rhythm instead of an occasional, time available basis.

Summary

Schedule Health Metrics are an important component of the schedule development and maintenance process.  While the DCMA has established some basic standards for schedule health assessments, the 14 metrics should not be considered the only checks, but just the beginning of the schedule quality process.

Schedule checks should be an integral part of the schedule business rhythm and when issues are identified, they should be addressed quickly and effectively. Significant numbers of tasks that trip the metrics, or persistent issues that are not resolved, may require a Root Cause Analysis (RCA) to identify the reasons for the problems and to develop a plan to address them.

Give Humphreys & Associates a call or send us an email if you have any questions about this article. 

Schedule Health Metrics Read Post »

Common Problems Found in EVM Systems and Recommended Corrective Actions – Part 3

By /

Part 3: IMS Health Problems; Data Item Non-Compliance; Planning Package Misuse

This is the third part of a five part series regarding common findings discovered in Earned Value Management Systems (EVMS) reviews and the recommended corrective actions to help mitigate those findings.  The previous two articles discussed:

Part 3: IMS Health Problems; Data Item Non-Compliance; Planning Package Misuse

The topics anticipated for parts four and five are:

Part 4: Misalignment between BCWP and ACWP; Freeze Period Violations; Failed Data Traces.

Part 5: Inappropriate use of PERT and LOE; Misuse of Management Reserve; Administrative CAMs.

1.  IMS Health Problems 

Several years ago the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) issued the 14-Point Assessment Metrics. Twelve of the metrics are related to the “health” of the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) while the remaining two (critical path length index and baseline execution index) are “tripwire” metrics for schedule performance.  Of the 12 health metrics, H&A has found that most discrepancy reports (DRs) are associated with missing logic, high total float, and high duration.

Missing Logic:  The DCMA uses logic checks to identify any incomplete tasks that are missing a successor or predecessor, or both.  As a rule of thumb, all activities should be tied to at least one predecessor and one successor with the exception of the first and last activities (respectively) in the project.  By the DCMA’s standards, there is an allowance of 5% for activities not having these types of relationships; but some believe that may be too loose.  In the Planning and Scheduling Excellence Guide or PASEG (National Defense Industrial Association, June 2012, version 2.0) states that all discrete tasks (excluding receipts/deliveries, LOE and summary tasks) should have at least one predecessor and one successor as even one missing logical tie could adversely affect the program’s ability to successfully execute the contract.

High Total Float:  Total float (or “total slack” for Microsoft Project users) is the amount of time an activity can be delayed or expanded before the finish date of the project is affected.  In the DCMA Program Analysis Pamphlet (DCMA-EA PAM 200.1, April 2012), any incomplete tasks with total float greater than 44 working days are considered as having high total float;  an allowance of 5% is also given before this metric trips a red flag.  The primary drivers for inappropriate high total float are missing successor linkages or planning well in advance of need.  For this metric, however, there are many conditions that may drive a high total float value that are perfectly legitimate.  This is especially true for longer projects and production projects that often receive materials well advance of need.

High Duration:  The DCMA Program Analysis Pamphlet classifies incomplete activities with a baseline duration greater than 44 working days as having “high duration”, and again have applied a 5% threshold to the metric.  The fear of very long tasks is that they may not provide enough precision for measurement of accomplishment and will introduce subjectivity into the statusing process.  As with total float, there may be conditions that drive high duration activities that are justifiable.  This is often the case when activities are representative of schedules outside of the IMS, such as at subcontractors or manufacturing planning systems.

Most Common Corrective Action Plans

The IMS is a critical management tool, and the purpose of the health metrics is to ensure that it provides an accurate plan and reliable forecasting for program management and execution.  The basic approach to resolving DRs written for IMS health issues is to first take all the necessary steps to improve the real health of the schedule using the metrics as indicators.  This includes a thorough review of the linkages, relationships, and task durations on an ongoing basis.  Organizations should establish a health check “rhythm”, to be used to review the IMS prior to customer submittal.  This process should also require the CAMs and their scheduling support staff to justify any conditions that may drive tripping a metric.

The contractor should work with its customer to gain a mutual understanding of the conditions that may legitimately result in high total float and high duration activities.  Contractors should try to avoid taking illogical actions, such as adding unnecessary linkages or arbitrarily breaking tasks into small durations simply to meet the metric requirements.  The IMS health metrics are simply indicators of potential issues.  If the nature of the program were one where relatively higher total float values or high durations are to be expected, the appropriate thresholds for tripping a metric may be higher than the standard 44 days.  In these cases, it is worth having a discussion with the customer to establish  new metric thresholds.

2. Data Item Noncompliance

The reports that are generated from an EVMS or IMS, and delivered to the customer, are usually placed on the contract by the incorporation of a Data Item Description (DID) and included in the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL).  As of June, 2012, both earned value and schedule reporting are included in the Integrated Program Management Report (IPMR), DI-MGMT-81861.  It is important to generate the system reports in accordance with the appropriate DID as the requirements have changed with progressive releases.

Prior to the IPMR DID, IMS reporting was required per DI-MGMT-81650.  For EVM reporting, the previous DID was DI-MGMT-81466A, Contract Performance Report (for contracts established between March, 2005 and June, 2012), and before that was DI-MGMT-81466 or the Cost Performance Report.  The release of the Contract Performance Report DID in March 2005 also eliminated the use of the Cost/Schedule Status Report (C/SSR, DI-MGMT-81467) for new contracts.  There are, however, active contracts which use any one of the above DIDs as the requirements document for earned value and schedule reporting, and compliance of the submitted reports is evaluated against the DID that is required on each contract.

Data Item Descriptions are not just guidelines for reporting, they stipulate the contractual requirements for the documents. There are 203 uses of the word “shall” in the current IPMR DID, and some of these “shall statements” refer to a list of many requirements.  Any planned deviation, or tailoring, from the DID must be approved by the Procuring Authority and documented in the CDRL (DD 1423-1 on DoD contracts).  Section 3.0 of the “IPMR Implementation Guide” (OUSD AT&L PARCA, January 24, 2013) provides tailoring guidance for the IPMR.

Software programs used to generate the IPMR formats have reduced the amount of data specific errors in the reports; however, there are many requirements in the IPMR that are not related to data reporting.  In the requirements for the Format 5 (Explanations and Problem Analyses), for example, there are nine discussion requirements in addition to the required explanations for cost and schedule variances that exceed the variance thresholds.  The narrative portions of the IPMR cannot be generated by a software tool.

A contributing factor in the delivery of poor data items is when the customer encourages noncompliance or does not provide feedback on submitted reports.  It is easy to fall into apathy regarding compliance to the DID when there is no motivation to do so.  This situation, however, does little to convince other reviewers, such as the DCMA, that noncompliance is allowable.

Most Common Corrective Action Plans

When DID noncompliance is found and communicated to the contractor, the best immediate approach is correction and resubmittal of the document.  Noncompliance is most likely a discipline issue which requires a structured approach to developing the report, training the personnel who are responsible, and a thorough review prior to submittal.  Many organizations develop checklists that are used to ensure that all the requirements have been met prior to submittal.  There are also training materials available which can provide cell-by-cell instructions to make the proper entries into these reports (H&A has a DVD titled “Contract Performance and Funds Status Reports (CPR/CFSR) Completion and Reconciliation”).  It may be worthwhile to develop a “buddy system” with another program or another part of the company to exchange outside review and evaluation of data items.  This type of accountability can be mutually beneficial.

3. Planning Package Mismanagement

A planning package is far-term effort in a control account that cannot yet be subdivided into detailed work packages.  Planning packages share similar attributes as work packages, such as a time phased budget, a scope of work, start and finish dates, and must have enough detail in the IMS to support the development of a critical path.  There can be no accomplishment or actual costs recorded against the scope and budget that is defined in a planning package.  When enough information is available to detail plan the planning packages, they are converted to work packages.  This is done through a process called “Rolling Wave Planning”, and it is a good practice to have the detailed information available for at least six months in advance.  Advanced detailed planning is an effective approach to avoid unpleasant surprises, such as lack of availability of the necessary resources or the necessity to begin a hiring exercise.  In addition, near term lack of detail in the Integrated Master Schedule may drive improper or incomplete logic ties, which will impact total float and critical path analyses.

Company EVMS System Description Documents (SDDs) should provide guidance for rolling wave planning, including rules for any baseline adjustment in the current or near term periods.  It is important that planning packages are not allowed to exist in the current or past periods.  It is also improper for any actual costs (ACWP) or performance (BCWP) to be recorded against a planning package.  Most earned value engine software tools prohibit this, but some contractors have been known to override that prohibition in the toolset.  In addition to ACWP and BCWP, there should also be no cumulative BCWS in the current period for any planning package.  Cumulative BCWS is the most noticeable evidence that a planning package was not converted to a work package in a timely manner.

Most Common Corrective Action Plans

The most common corrective action is to conduct a monthly analysis of the EVM data to identify planning packages that are nearing the planning period.  While it is the responsibility of the control account manager (CAMs) to convert planning packages to work packages, Project Controls can easily provide the CAMs with a list of planning packages needing conversion.  If there is no guidance or process written for rolling wave planning, these should be developed to provide instructions to the CAMs and the support staff.  It is also critical that organizations maintain the restrictions in the earned value engines to prohibit the accrual of earned value or actual costs for planning packages.

Please contact Humphreys & Associates if you have any questions on this article.

Common Problems Found in EVM Systems and Recommended Corrective Actions – Part 3 Read Post »

What Does it Mean When Somebody Says “We use EVM Lite” – Part 1

By /

Here is why Humphreys & Associates takes an interest in this approach to Earned Value Management.

Earned Value Management (EVM) “lite” or EV Lite is a hot topic because people recognize that budgets versus actual costs are not meaningful enough for assessing true project technical/schedule/cost status. An awareness exists that there is a significant advantage to using Earned Value (EV) measurement to manage projects.

The EVM Lite approach is common for Independent Research and Development and Firm Fixed Price (FFP) projects. Therefore, it is important to understand what this term means.

EVM Lite is a title that could mean a combination of any of the following:

  • Relaxation of the level of detail (fewer control accounts of larger size, fewer work packages of larger size with less milestones/technical achievement points and  more dependence on subjective earned value techniques )
  • Less rigor in approvals for Work Authorization Documents (WAD) and Budget Change Requests (BCR)
  • Less rigor in Rolling Wave Planning and enforcement of the freeze period
  • Less rigor in the variance analysis process, including looser variance thresholds
  • Compliance with only the 16 “critical” American National Standards Institute, EIA-748 Guidelines
  • Earned Value Management System (EVMS) not subject to third party verification
  • Less detail in the EVM System Description (fewer examples, no “live” data examples)
  • EVMS Cross Reference Checklist only at the Guideline level

EVM Lite implies an EVMS with relaxed requirements or a less rigorous approach that still meets the spirit and intent of the EIA-748 Guidelines. But it is important to note that none of the descriptions of EVM Lite above would pass muster in a DCMA review to determine whether a contractor’s EVMS complies with the EIA-748 Guidelines and cannot be used in that event.

If a contract mandates the use of an EVMS then EVM Lite is not an option. It is important to us our customers know this. However, if your contract does not mandate the use of EVM, then EVM Lite might be a viable option to pursue if management desires insight into their programs.

Part 2 to follow – Tailoring Approaches to EVM Lite 

What Does it Mean When Somebody Says “We use EVM Lite” – Part 1 Read Post »

EIA 748-C Released: EVMS

By / / , , ,
, , ,

Are you aware that a revision to Electronics Industry Association (EIA) standard 748 Earned Value Management Systems, has been released? The new revision is EIA 748-C. Officials have been discussing the changes at recent industry conferences.

No changes have been made to the 32 EVMS Guidelines in Sections 2.1-2.5 of the standard. The changes are primarily clarifications of the existing text:

Includes a new section about Budget Element Hierarchy. This section describes the components of Contract Target Price from the highest level to the lowest level of cost elements. It includes the same information that is taught in every basic earned value management seminar.

Emphasizes Risk and Opportunity management. Wording has been inserted in numerous sections of the standard (such as comprehensive planning, schedule, management reserve) to emphasize the consideration of risks and opportunities.

Includes Rate and Usage variance formulas in the standard. Labor rate and efficiency variance formulas are now specifically defined in Section 3.8.2. Similarly, material price and usage variance formulas are now specifically defined in Section 3.8.5.

Clarifies Control Account definition. Revisions to the standard note that the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) is extended to the level at which control accounts are established and includes additional clarification regarding multiple control accounts existing within a lowest level WBS element.

Clarifies material progress points: Receipt, Stock, Issue. The revised standard states that the acceptable points for claiming earned value are when material is received, when it is entered into inventory, or when it is issued from inventory.

Clarifies OTB/OTS text. The revised standard corrects the terminology to use
“Contract Budget Baseline” instead of the Performance Measurement Baseline regarding Over Target Baselines (OTB), removes language about partial OTBs, and recommends reviewing the contract for implementation requirements prior to executing OTBs or Over Target Schedules (OTS).

Adds a list of suggested references. All NDIA guides related to Earned Value Management Systems are included as suggested references but not requirements.

Includes numerous minor clarifications.

  • Clarifies that multiple terms are used interchangeably for “scope”
  • Adds acronyms into the definitions in Section 2.6
  • Clarifies that Estimates at Completion (EACs) are summarized through the WBS and OBS
  • Clarifies that the performance measurement baseline must include all authorized changes, including current period changes
  • Clarifies that the System Description is not required to be a stand-alone document
  • Clarifies that there is no mandated Rolling Wave cycle
  • Emphasizes that planning packages must not start in the current period

In summary, EIA 748-C simply clarifies the text of the standard and does not change any of the implementation, reporting, surveillance, or enforcement aspects of Earned Value Management Systems.

Feel free to contact Humphreys & Associates for more information about the EIA 748 revisions or for expertise in implementation of EVMS contractual requirements. 

EIA 748-C Released: EVMS Read Post »

Rolling Wave Planning for Earned Value Management Systems

By / / ,
,

If someone were to ask you: “Can you please give me a detailed explanation of what you will be doing on this date three years from now?” you would probably look at that person as though he or she were crazy.  It would probably be difficult to provide a detailed schedule of events for a date one week from now – although that might be more likely since you know a lot more about what might be taking place next week than what might be happening three years out.

In the early days of earned value management, contractors were expected to detail plan the entire length of a program to establish a “good performance measurement baseline.”  For a year-long development program this expectation might be okay, but for a 10 to 12 year shipbuilding program it might be unreasonable and probably a monumental waste of time.  The program will no doubt change several times before its completion – maybe several times in the first year alone.  With industry’s “help” the government soon realized requiring detail plans on lengthy programs was not always possible – or even meaningful – especially when program requirements are often fluid.

The government and industry agreed that contractors could provide an overall (general, straight-line, “average”, etc.) plan for accomplishing a program very much like what is already done in preparing a proposal, and then provide more details on an incremental basis as more became known about the work to be performed.  The government is not keen on having contractors do detail planning whenever they felt the urge, so they sought to put reasonable rigor into the incremental planning process.  All the work that existed beyond the detail planned work was considered by the government to be general “planning packages”, although contractors were still permitted to detail plan as much of the future work as they wanted.

The government also expected the contractors to identify the planning increments and frequency of planning to ensure there was not a time when the detail planned work was completed and there was no more future work detail planned.  The expectation soon became that contractors were to expand a detail plan from those planning packages into detail planned work packages with enough frequency to ensure there was always a minimum number of months of detail plans in place when the next detail planning event took place.   It also became evident that more months of detail (often called a “planning horizon”) could be provided on production or manufacturing type work vs. for development type effort.

As this “straight-line” plan was converted into detailed work package plans, the straight line became more curved (such as bell curve or skewed bell curves), with more “waves” rolling in as it became time to detail plan.  This type of planning became known as “rolling wave planning”.  Some companies call their process “incremental”, “accordion”, or “inchworm” planning process – the name does not matter, so long as the application of the process results in a minimum amount of detail planned work packages always being in place on a program.

A production program might have, for example, a 9 month planning horizon with a quarterly frequency.  In this scenario, the program starts with 9 months of detail planning in place.  Three months later, the Control Account Manager (CAM) is to look at the next 9 months (6 already detail planned and 3 new months) to make sure the existing detail planning is still good and to plan out in detail those new tasks that should be starting in the new three months of the planning horizon.

A development program however, is likely to use a different planning horizon.  Because of program volatility, it often has a shorter horizon and a higher frequency, such as 4 months of detail planning in place, with a one or two month frequency.

An example for a production program is illustrated below.  The program manager determines production can do detail planning for nine months and then every quarter review the next nine months for:

  • New work scheduled to commence in the next three months of the planning horizon and
  • Five of the six months already detail planned in the prior incremental assessment (depending on the company’s “freeze period”) – WP No. 3 and beyond can be re-plannedRolling Wave Planning

3 Months later: Rolling Wave Planning

Rolling Wave Planning for long term projects is a common area where control account project managers need help.  Humphreys & Associates earned value management experts can provide the guidance you need for your unique production or development project.  Contact us for more information.

Follow us on Facebook and LinkedIn.

Rolling Wave Planning for Earned Value Management Systems Read Post »

Scroll to Top