Executive Level Schedules: Humphreys & Associates Methodology for Top Level Program Schedule Road-Mapping

Humphreys & Associates IPMRMethodology for Top Level Program Schedule Road-Mapping

The lack of a useful, concise, easily understood top level plan for a project is an issue that our consultants have repeatedly noted. It is way past time for the adoption of more useful and understandable executive level schedules. Having a distinctive top level plan linked to the lower level Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) planning can help differentiate one approach or one project from another.

With the advent of modern scheduling software such as Microsoft Project or Primavera, we have been assisting clients in developing more and more complex Integrated Master Schedules. However, a bigger and more complex IMS does not make the project plan any more accessible or understandable. In fact, it makes having an attractive and useful top level schedule more important.

The Data Item Description (DID) that governs the IMS, the Integrated Program Management Report (IPMR) DI-MGMT-81861, requires a Summary Master Schedule and describes it as:

3.7.1.3.2 Summary Master Schedule. A top-level schedule of key tasks/activities and milestones at the summary level which can be sorted by either the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) or IMP structure (if applicable). It shall be a vertically integrated roll up of the intermediate and detailed levels within the IMS.

The Planning & Scheduling Excellence Guide (PASEG) developed by the NDIA Program Management Systems Committee is a wonderful resource for schedulers. The guide discusses the Summary Master Schedule in a way that avoids specifying it is to be sorted either by WBS or by Integrated Master Plan (IMP) the way the data item description does. It also does not describe the top level as a roll up.  The PASEG describes the Summary Master Schedule as:

Summary Master Schedule – The Summary Master Schedule is ideally a one (1)-page schedule and may also be called a Master Phasing Schedule (MPS), Master Plan or Summary Schedule. As the highest, least detailed schedule, the program’s summary master schedule highlights the contract period of performance, program milestones, and other significant, measurable program events and phases.

The Program Team initially develops the program summary master schedule from the analysis of requirements data during the pre-proposal phase and similar past program efforts. The program team review and approve the program’s top-level schedule, which serves as a starting point in the Top Down planning approach (See Top Down vs. Bottom up Planning). This process continues until contract award to include any changes caused by contract negotiations.

Key components of summary master schedules could include significant items from the following list:

    • Key elements of contract work
    • Test articles
    • Deliverable hardware, software, and documentation
    • GFE/customer-furnished equipment deliveries
    • Key program and customer milestones/events over the life of the contract
    • Subcontract elements

The PASEG further describes the process for developing the Summary Schedule. H&A agrees that this process is the effective one for creating an executable plan. The process makes the top level summary schedule even more important. The process outlined by the PASEG is:

    1. Read and understand the RFP.
    2. Make a high level plan to meet the requirements of the RFP.
    3. Use the high level plan to guide the top-down development of the IMS. This includes building the milestones that represent the Integrated Master Plan (IMP) events, accomplishments, and criteria.
    4. Validate lower level planning back against the top down plan.

In addition to the Data Item Description and the PASEG, H&A suggests that the Summary Schedule have some specific attributes that make it useful. It should be:

    1. Complete – show the key milestones and the entire project top to bottom and across time at a level of condensation that makes sense and is natural to the project.
    2. Easy to read – graphically it should portray the plan in a visually pleasing way that is easy to read.
    3. Easy to follow – flowing from left to right and top to bottom in a sequence that follows the progression of the work of the project.
    4. Self-explanatory – it should tell the story of the project even if adding notes are needed to make the story stand out.

Because the graphics in the IMS tools do not provide those attributes, H&A most often sees clients building some sort of “cartoon” plan, manually drawn in Excel or PowerPoint, and used during the proposal phase until the IMS can be considered solid enough to start using the roll up in the IMS as a Summary Schedule. The problem with this approach is that it is not linked electronically to the IMS; it is not part of the IMS and the data in the two can easily become different.

 The maintenance of the cartoon version is continued in some cases or abandoned. When it is continued it involves labor effort to draw and redraw the plan based on changes and updates. Often the cartoon is abandoned and the roll up approach from the IMS tool takes over. At this point the top level executive type schedule no longer exists and the project plan is no longer readily accessible.

One of the main benefits of having an executive level summary schedule is that the program manager and team can easily tell the story of the project in a one page, coherent, easily understandable plan; and with the proposed methodology this summary schedule is linked to the IMS so the two do not become separated.

Looking at the two examples of a master schedule for the same project shown below, it is apparent that the first one is from Microsoft Project; it has the roll up look and feel to it. The summary bars do not really provide much information other than to indicate there is more information below.

The other example from the H&A methodology is a top level schedule that tells the story of the project in a form that flows the way the project does. It may be in WBS or OBS order but those may not be natural to the flow of the project.  This example is grouped in the order that displays the evolution of the project the way the team thinks of the project. The tie to the underlying IMS is built into the plan. Each milestone or bar on the top level represents one or more tasks within the IMS so a user can find the identification of the corresponding work in the depths of the IMS when needed.

Gantt Chart with Project Tasks
Click image to enlarge
Humphreys & Associates Road Map Chart
Humphreys & Associates Road Map Chart – click image to enlarge

H&A now has developed a methodology supported by commercially available software that follows the guidance of the NDIA Planning & Scheduling Excellence Guide (PASEG) and provides the ease of use and executive level visibility needed in a top level schedule. Now a project can have a useful and demonstrative top level schedule that drives the top down planning effort as recommended in the PASEG.

This methodology was recently used successfully in the aerospace industry to develop the top level executive schedule view that drove the planning of a proposed multi-billion dollar project and to tell the story of the proposed project convincingly. The benefits perceived in that instance were:

  • Enhanced communication with the customer – the story could readily be told on one page.
  • Enhanced communication with company executives – they could easily see what was being planned by the proposal team.
  • Top down planning from the proposal leadership into the Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) early in the proposal process when it counted most and kept all the teams focused on the same plan – everyone knew the plan.
  • Establishment of the System Engineering approach and the Technical/Program reviews as the key points in the plan.
  • Top down electronically linked planning into the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) so that the development of the 5000 line proposed project schedule could be compared upward to constantly verify that the developing plan would support the top level plan.
  • Establishment of time-fences that alert proposal leadership when lower level plans were moving away from established time goals.
  • Rapid effective translation of the developing IMS into the understandable project plan – especially useful in planning meetings within the proposal teams.
  • Because the top level is linked to the lower level, it can be used in meetings to rapidly isolate and find sections of the lower level IMS relating to a particular topic – no more paging, filtering, and searching for a particular area of the project’s  IMS.
  • Proposal quality graphics that did not require artists or artwork to tell the story.

To learn more about the H&A top level project road-map methodology and other EVMS topics, visit our website or call us to discuss your project.  

Humphreys & Associates 35+ years in the EVM community

Executive Level Schedules: Humphreys & Associates Methodology for Top Level Program Schedule Road-Mapping Read Post »

Keeping the EVM Love Alive In Your Organization

,

Keeping the EVM loveAdmittedly, operating an Earned Value Management System (EVMS) in an organization can sometimes be like getting your kids to the dentist.  They know they have to do it, and they will even concede that it may be good for them, but it does not mean they have to like it.

Earned Value provides a framework for integrating the cost, schedule, and technical scope of your project, and is an exceptionally valuable tool for management and project status.  There are, however, a few strategies that can be employed in order to maintain a healthy system by motivating those who operate within the system to do so with a sense of ownership.

Keeping the EVM love alive can follow the simple formula of Push, Pull and Inform.

1)   Push:  Senior Management Must Use the Data and Demand Quality

Having those up the food chain demanding accurate and timely information can be a powerful “push” that maintains interest and focuses efforts on system health and quality.  Organizations where EVM is nothing more than a reporting requirement and is not used for decision making or conveyance of project status, will have a difficult time maintaining a healthy system.  Sometimes negative attitudes towards Earned Value can even start with the customer and flow down to the contractor.

The alternative is in companies in which it is apparent that EVM is deeply embedded in the projects’ culture.  In a multitude of forums, the language of Earned Value is used to describe the status and issues of the project.  In these companies you probably will not see only the obligatory EVM charts in project reviews, but instead see the concepts and outputs of the system used throughout project management.  If poor variance analyses, inaccurate Estimates at Completions (EAC), incomplete baselines, or lack of corrective actions are challenged by the entire chain of management, then chances are those problems will stop being problems and the organizations can begin relying on the information to manage effectively.

2)    Pull:  Keep the System Useful to the Users

A great deal of resources may be invested in an EVMS, and in organizations with a healthy and useful system the return on this investment can be substantial.   Organizations that employ toolsets with timely and accessible reporting of project information help combat the belief that EVM is just a one-way reporting process.  A common interface for data is an “EVM Cockpit”, or some other tool set or reports that make the information easy to access for day-to-day management purposes.  The flip side of this are systems that make data accessibility difficult, or the problems of the system cause the data to be unreliable for prompt decision making purposes.  For example, one of the more important processes in an EVMS is variance analysis; however, when a great deal of time and effort is spent explaining variances that are not related to project performance, it becomes a significant drain on the attitude towards the system.

It is also important that the critical processes of the system are easy to use and understand.  These processes include project baselining, updates to the Estimate to Complete (ETC), statusing the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS), incorporation of changes, preparing variance analyses, and tracking of corrective actions.  Decisions regarding the architecture of the toolsets supporting these processes can significantly impact the attitudes of system users.  In addition, developing tool sets that eliminate the redundancy of data inputs between the cost and scheduling systems can dramatically improve the quality of the Earned Value data.

3)   Inform:  Regular Communication and Continuous Education to the Project Teams are Critical

Like any important management system in an organization, it is important to continually inform and support those who operate within the EVM system.  There is an endless source of special topics and project notifications that can provide useful information to project teams, which will help maintain EVM knowledge and a healthy system.  Some topics, such as preparing quality variance analysis, thorough corrective actions, and valid ETCs, need routine refreshment.

Below are a few suggestions on ways to communicate within the organization:

  • Monthly Internal Newsletter: An excellent mechanism to convey important updates to EV processes or changes that pertain to the business and the industry. This gives employees a chance to keep up with the latest news and developments.
  • EV Blog:  By blogging regularly, an organization can develop themes that are specific to business issues the organization is experiencing. If there are many of the same questions repeated again and again, the blog can be used to answer those questions. This way, people can just refer to the blog if they have questions that are common.
  • Lunch & Learn Sessions: These sessions are an excellent way for all participants to gain further knowledge on a specific topic and ask questions in real time.  This becomes more advantageous as all participants benefit from the group discussion.
  • Quarterly Webinar: This is particularly beneficial for organizations that may have multiple facilities located throughout the country. Specific subjects would be applicable to all sites. All participants, regardless of location, can attend and benefit.
  • Annual Quiz: This is a great way to gauge how well employees are grasping and using EVM. Questions would be centered on topics relating to events that occurred during the year. The quiz could be recurring and mandatory in the same manner as ethics and sexual harassment training.

For more information about keeping the EVM love alive in your organization give us a call at Humphreys & Associates, Inc. We are happy to answer questions.

Keeping the EVM Love Alive In Your Organization Read Post »

Corrective Action Response: Planning and Closure – Part 2 of 2

, , , , , ,

Review Part 1 of Corrective Action Responses addresses Planning and Closure


Responding to a Corrective Action Request (CAR)– Planning and Closure

It is important that the contractor develop a disciplined, standardized approach for responding to a corrective action response.  This not only helps ensure that the responses are complete and contain compliant corrective actions, but that they also represent the position of the entire contractor team.  Below are nine suggested steps for successful Corrective Action Plan (CAP) development.

1)    Review the DRs/CARs with the customer

Prior to developing a corrective action in response to a Corrective Action Request (CAR), the first step is to ensure that both parties, the contractor and the review team, have a mutual understanding of the finding.  This also serves to screen those findings that may have been the result of a misunderstanding with the data or an incorrect statement from a member of the contractor’s team.  It is also recommended that DRs/CARs with similar or duplicative findings be grouped together so that a single Corrective Action Plan (CAP) can be used to address the issue.  When doing this, it is imperative that this approach is communicated to the review team lead and the grouping strategy approved before beginning corrective actions.  This is generally an acceptable approach providing the CAP closures can be traced to the original findings.

2)     Organize for successful CAP management

Once a mutual understanding has been reached on the corrective actions, the contractor must then begin the process of correcting or mitigating the identified issues.  It is critical that the process of corrective action has the participation of key management and organizations that can affect change.  When there are a significant number of findings that are to be corrected, the establishment of a senior management Review Board is a recommended method for managing the process.  The roles of the board are:

    • Ensure a CAP is developed and supported by a structured CAR/DR resolution process;
    • Assign an individual from the responsible organization to lead the corrective action efforts;
    • Review the proposed schedule for the CAP, and monitor progress towards CAP closure;
    • Review and approve all CAR/DR root cause assessments and proposed corrective action including the closure criteria;
    • Serve as the primary point of contact with the Customer for CAR/DR resolution and closure.

3)     Begin a thorough Root Cause Analysis

A tempting direction at this stage is to allow for a quick fix of the identified issue.  This may be acceptable for “just fix it” types of findings such as typos, formula errors, incorrect data runs, etc.; but most findings require a more in-depth approach to ensure that the underlying drivers of the issue are being addressed.  Most organizations have employees who are specialized in root cause analysis, such as Six Sigma or LEAN process improvement advisers. This would be a good time to employ their skills.  Tools such as “The 5 Whys” and the Ishikawa Fishbone Diagram are excellent methods for identifying the root causes.  These tools and processes are extremely effective in uncovering the sources of the problem.

A customer review team often samples a subset of CAMs, processes, or data in its review because of a limited amount of time or resources.  It is often the case that a more thorough root cause analysis conducted by the contractor team will uncover additional issues that need to be addressed and corrected.   The contractor’s obligation to the customer is to provide full visibility regarding the corrective actions associated with those findings identified by the customer.  While it is important that all issues are corrected or mitigated, it is, however, the contractor’s choice to allow visibility into those issues that were not discovered by the customer review team.

4)     Develop and evaluate Corrective Action Plans

A single DR or CAR issued by a customer team may have numerous corrective actions identified in the solution process.  Often a single problem may have corrective actions that entail changes in processes, training, tools, or management approach, or any combination of all of these.  Regardless, it is important to identify corrective actions that will prevent recurrence of similar outcomes, and will not cause or introduce other new or additional problems.  One important benefit of including senior management in the CAP Review Board process is the capability to reach beyond the owners of a particular CAP to influence other stakeholders in the organization who have the responsibility to incorporate corrective actions or who may be impacted by the solutions being identified.

5)     Develop verification closure steps

It is critical that verification methods, objective measures, metrics, artifacts, and evidential products are identified that will verify that the corrective actions are effective.  This includes any exit criteria for any activities in the CAP Integrated Master Schedule (IMS), which is a schedule network that contains all the detailed work packages (including activities and milestones) and planning packages to support the events, accomplishments, and criteria of the Integrated Master Plan  (if applicable). It is directly traceable to the Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) and the contract statement of work. The IMS is critical to CAP success.  On data driven findings, the criteria for verification often involves producing several accounting periods of results as evidence that the corrective actions were effective.  The CAP Review Board is responsible for reviewing the status of the exit criteria, and verifying that the required objective measures have been satisfied.

6)     Develop a detailed Integrated Master Schedule for CAP implementation

A critical component of any project, including corrective action development and implementation, is a detailed IMS containing the project scope and the required dates of completion.  There should be a unique IMS for each CAP that includes:

    1. Root Cause Analysis
    2. Changes to processes, tools, training, and other required system adjustments
    3. Management Review and regular team meetings
    4. Responsibility assignment for each activity
    5. Development of products and artifacts which will demonstrate effectiveness
    6. Validation and Verification steps with Closure Criteria

Resource loading the IMS is an important process, as it communicates to the management team the required personnel to accomplish implementation of the Corrective Action Plans, and can serve as a commitment on its part to support the process until closure.  If there is a lack of available resources available to support the process, this may impact the completion dates established for the corrective actions.  All tasks should be logically networked (with predecessors and successors) without any constraints.  Progress should be based on a 0 to 100% scale without subjective interpretation.  As mentioned above, data validation normally requires several months of data submittals, and these deliveries should be milestones in the IMS.  Completion milestones should include notifying the customer of corrective action implementation and confirmation by the customer that the implementation is complete.  Each activity should also have fields which identify the CAR or DR number, the EV Process Area and Guideline, the responsible manager for the CAP, and a unique ID number for each task.

Reviewing the CAP IMS and the accomplishment status is a critical role of the CAP Review Board.

7)     Submit CAP and CAP IMS to the customer for approval prior to implementing the Corrective Actions

While some corrective actions may be straight forward responses to simple findings, it is important to reach a mutual agreement of the CAP approach prior to implementation.  Often the customer’s approval of the CAP is a required step before proceeding.  Important in this agreement is consensus on the artifacts and data sets that will be delivered, along with the timing of the deliveries.

One topic that may need to be addressed with the customer review team is a cutoff date for data corrections.  For example, it is important to reach agreement on the “as of” date for clean data, because changing historical data is usually an unnecessary step.  Occasionally a corrective action is delayed until a new contract modification is implemented or a new contract baselined before a correction can be implemented and verified.  These conditions need to be agreed upon with the customer prior to proceeding.

8)     Implement Corrective Action Plans and track progress to successful completion

One path to the escalation of a CAR to Level IV*, and possibly the introduction of Business System payment withholds, is the failure to successfully implement an agreed upon Corrective Action Plan.  Many organizations discover that the actual implementation of the approved corrective actions is the most difficult part of the process.  Sometimes a successful plan will include interim modifications or fixes in the short term, with long term changes identified as well.  If for example, the issue were with the integration between the  MRP and EVM systems, an interim solution may involve a change in the interface or translation of data between the systems while in the long term a replacement of the MRP is required.  It is important to have CAP solutions that not only mitigate the findings, but also can also be implemented in an acceptable period of time.

It is also important to meet interim commitments of data, processes, or any agreed to delivery of an artifact.  If the execution of a CAP will be delayed for any reason, this should be communicated quickly to the customer.

9)     CAR closure and follow-up

When the issuer of the CAR is satisfied that the contractor’s corrective actions are appropriate to prevent recurrence of the noncompliance, and the solutions have been verified to be effective, the contractor will be notified that the CAR is considered closed.  Even after closure, the areas identified as needing improvement are often targeted for periodic follow-on reviews; so it is important that management attention is maintained to sustain the corrective action.  A well organized and disciplined internal surveillance program is often the best safeguard against future discrepancy reports.

For more information about responding to Corrective Action Requests, contact our consultants at Humphrey’s & Associates.

*Link to part 1 of Corrective Action Response: Sources

Corrective Action Response: Planning and Closure – Part 2 of 2 Read Post »

Corrective Action Response: Sources – Part 1 of 2

Skip to Part 2 of Corrective Action Responses addresses Planning and Closure


Sources of Corrective Action Requests

Earned Value Management System by DAUA healthy part of any system, including an Earned Value Management System (EVMS), is regular review and surveillance by both those who operate within the system (the contractor) and those customers who rely on information from the system to manage programs.  The DCMA and the DCAA have the responsibility to conduct surveillance for all Department of Defense (DoD) contract efforts that require Earned Value regardless of whether a validated system is required. Similar guidelines exist for those agencies that do not use the DCMA for surveillance, such as the Department of Energy.

In addition, other reviews such as an Integrated Baseline Review (IBR) or technical program reviews are also conducted during the life cycle of most programs.  Normal results of system surveillance and program reviews are findings or issues discovered during the review.  The findings are usually documented in Corrective Action Requests (CARs) and Discrepancy Reports (DRs).  Often, the DR form is used to identify the finding, which is delivered to the contractor in the CAR form.

The current guidance used by the DCMA for conducting surveillance is the Standard Surveillance Instruction (SSI), which can be found on the DCMA Guidebook.  In addition to system surveillance, the DCMA EVM Center conducts Compliance or Validation reviews that may result in corrective actions required by the contractor.  Currently the DCMA is evolving its approach to the compliance evaluation of DoD contractor systems.  Because of a desire to standardize across its reviewing organizations and the reduction in resources available to conduct on-site reviews, the DCMA is transitioning to establishing predefined success criteria and testing methods to evaluate the compliance of each guideline using data submitted by the contractor.

This does not change the components of a compliant EVMS; it merely adjusts the priority of the review steps required for a compliance rating.  Regardless of the method, a complete EVMS should consist of:

  • A set of procedures that are compliant with the EIA-748 Guidelines and followed by the contractor organization;
  • System output, or data, that is valid, reliable, and auditable.  This data will have demonstrable integrity and compliance to EVM requirements;
  • A disciplined work force that uses the EVMS to manage programs and accurately inform the customers of current status, future conditions, and management decisions.

Discrepancy Reports are documented whenever issues are discovered during the system review that involve  non-compliance with contract requirements, including the EIA-748 and the Data Item Descriptions (DID) for the Contract Performance Report (CPR) or the Integrated Project Management Report (IPMR), or the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS).  The finding is documented in a Discrepancy Report (DR), which identifies the EVM Process Group (Organizing, Scheduling, Accounting, etc.) and the specific guideline regarding the finding.  Additional information might include the source of the issue such as the CAM name, Control Account title, or the process document that was reviewed.  The DR may also include attachments or exhibits which provide examples of the discrepancies.

The DCMA, or the DCAA, may choose to communicate the DRs in the form of a CAR.  The severity of the findings determines the level of the CAR issued:

  • Level 1: For more minor issues that require no special management attention to correct.  Usually directed to the working level personnel of the contractor.
  • Level II:  For non-compliance that is systemic in nature and could adversely impact cost, schedule, or performance if not corrected.  A Level II CAR may be the result of Level I issues that are found across several programs or involve several CAMs.  They are issued to the contractor’s management level responsible for the process with a copy to the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO).
  • Level III:  For non-compliance where cost, schedule, technical performance, resources, or management process issues have unfavorably affected program performance and have not been corrected.  These may also be issued when the Corrective Action Plans associated with Level II CARs have been unsuccessful.  In addition, noncompliance with any of the sixteen foundational guidelines will immediately be classified as a Level III CAR.  Level III CARs are issued to the contractor’s top tier business manager at the site where the discrepancies were noted.  This CAR level may trigger other reviews such as a review for cause or a compliance review, which could result in a suspension of the contractor’s EVMS validation.
  • Level IV:  Generally results from an escalation of a Level III CAR, but issued to the contractor’s corporate level.  They are often used to advise the contractor of contractual penalties; such as payment withholds, termination for default, suspension, etc.

Both Level III and IV CARs may result in a “business system” withhold.  DFARs 252.242-7005* identifies 6 business systems that may result in payment withholds if significant deficiencies are found, these are: Accounting, Earned Value Management, Cost Estimating, Material Management and Accounting, Property Management, and Purchasing.  Deficiencies found in a single business system may result in up to a 5% withhold; however, if there are multiple business systems cited for deficiencies the withholds may be as much as 10%.

At this point, the submittal of a quality and timely Corrective Action Plan (CAP), and following through with implementation of the actions is critical.  If the contractor submits an acceptable CAP within 45 days of the Contracting Officer’s (CO) intent to withhold payments, and the CO believes the contractor is implementing the plan, the withholds may be reduced to 2%.  However, if at any time the CO determines that the contractor is not following through on the corrective actions, the payments may be increased to 5%.

When the CO determines that corrective actions are implemented and are expected to correct the significant deficiencies, the CO will discontinue withholding payments and release any payments previously withheld.  Previously withheld payments are not released when the withhold is reduced from 5% to 2%; only when the corrective actions are proven to correct the findings.

In part 2 of Corrective Action Response, we will address Planning and Closure.

*Resource blog – DFARS 252.234-7001 – “Thou Shalt Do Earned Value”

Corrective Action Response: Sources – Part 1 of 2 Read Post »

The Responsibility Assignment Matrix (RAM)

Responsibility Assignment Matrix by Humphreys & AssociatesThe Responsibility Assignment Matrix (RAM) is a graphic representation that reflects the integration of project participants such as work teams, subcontractors, and internal organizations with individual Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) elements to form Control Accounts (CA).

The RAM shows the WBS on one axis and the Organizational Breakdown Structure (OBS) on the other. The intersection of these axes designates who is responsible for what products or services and is known as the control account.  After detail planning is completed, the RAM is dollarized and then depicts the total budget for each CWBS element and the total budget for each respective control account manager.

The Responsibility Assignment Matrix not only helps ensure that someone is responsible for all contractual work scope; it also verifies that there is only one individual assigned with responsibility for that work.  When developing a RAM, the level of the organization and the CWBS level should not be driven so low that costs to maintain the EVMS become excessive. Finding the most optimum balance of cost, schedule, and technical visibility generally provides the best definition for the control account.

The Responsibility Assignment Matrix is always a part of the data call information requested for EVMS reviews.  It is a good document to easily determine the value of control accounts as well as view them by organization/function and Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) element.

Traceability between the RAM and other program documentation must always be maintained.  The RAM is updated whenever there is a change to control account budgets.  The budget for a control account shown on the RAM should always equal the budget on the work authorization document for that control account.   The sum of all budgets identified to control accounts on the RAM should also equal the amount of distributed budget shown in the Contract Budget Base Log.  The sum of the control account budgets plus Undistributed Budget equals the Performance Measurement Baseline (PMB).   Finally, these budgets will trace to the Contract Performance Report (CPR) or the Integrated Program Management Report (IPMR) in Formats 1 and 2.

If you have any questions regarding the Responsibility Assignment Matrix (RAM) feel free to contact Humphreys & Associates or leave a question on the blog.

The Responsibility Assignment Matrix (RAM) Read Post »

The Benefits of Using Nine EVMS Process Groups

The benefit to a contractor initially developing its management system and the documentation of that management system in a System Description Document (SDD) using the Nine Process Groups is to clearly and completely structure its SDD in a natural grouping of related topics.

Below are the Nine Process Groups mapped to the EIA-748 Guidelines:

Nine Process Groups mapped to the EIA-748 Guidelines by Humphreys & Associates, Inc.

Guideline Areas

Process Groupings

  • Organization
  • Planning, Scheduling & Budgeting
  • Accounting Considerations
  • Analysis & Management Reports
  • Revisions & Maintenance
  1. Organizing
  2. Scheduling
  3. Work Authorization
  4. Accounting
  5. Indirect Management
  6. Management & Analysis
  7. Change Management
  8. Material Management
  9. Subcontract Management

Why not use the five EVMS sections (guideline groupings) for organizing an SDD?  The 32 guidelines were chronologically organized into these five sections rather than by process.  When a program is started, the focus is to “Organize”.  This includes activities such as:

  • Organizing the staffing  and work (OBS and WBS)
  • Integrating the management control systems and the company’s processes
  • Integrating the WBS with the OBS to establish control accounts
  • Identifying the organization that is responsible for managing the overhead costs

These are all activities that occur prior to the next phase “Planning, Scheduling, and Budgeting”.  This type of grouping is also an excellent method for teaching the basic concepts of EVMS.  An Earned Value course organized in this manner has a natural flow, because each one of the five guideline areas builds upon the concepts of the one before.

An SDD, however, should describe an already established system rather than a concept, and the best framework in which to understand that system is not with a chronological orientation.  Using the five EVMS areas approach often results in a document that is muddled, with disjointed flows of information.  For example the topic of Indirect Cost Management is covered in six different guidelines across four different guideline areas.  Similarly, Subcontract Management is represented in eight guidelines across four guideline areas.  An SDD using the structure of the five EVMS areas would need repeated coverage of these topics throughout.  Many companies also have organizational disciplines represented by several of the nine process groupings, e.g., Subcontract Management, Material Management, Indirect Management, and Accounting are often organizations within the company.  Their associated processes represent the flow of the organization as well as the earned value management system.  The clearest method for designing, reviewing and documenting an earned value management “system” is to structure the system using the nine process groups.  The nine process grouping also follows the DCMA EVMS Cross Reference Checklist and its Management System Characteristics (MSCs) to accommodate contractor system structuring.

Additional chapters or section such as pre-contract award/proposal process, risk and opportunity, and system surveillance could be included in the system description, as they also involve earned value management.

In summary, while either approach could be used to construct the Earned Value Management System, the nine process group structure has proven to be the best architecture for an EVMS document.

For additional information about EVM education, EVMS Consulting or the Nine EVMS Process Groups, feel free to contact Humphreys & Associates.

The Benefits of Using Nine EVMS Process Groups Read Post »

Scroll to Top