Humphreys & Associates

Common Problems Found in EVM Systems – Recommended Corrective Actions – Part 1

By Humphreys & Associates / April 11, 2014

Humphreys & Associates (H&A) has the opportunity to work with a broad spectrum of clients who operate their Earned Value Management System (EVMS) under the contractual authority of a variety of customers. Many clients have a surveillance program conducted by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), the Department of Defense (DoD) Executive Agent for EVMS which also has a reciprocal agreement with other agencies. Some agencies, such as the Department of Energy (DoE), have their own surveillance programs. H&A also works with many companies to help them “tune up” their EVMS as a part of sound business practices.

In the course of conducting and supporting client reviews, H&A has identified several recurring themes that many organizations allow into their EVMS, and because we often support the resolution of these issues through the Corrective Action Planning process, we can also recommend the most common remedies to prevent or correct them.

This will be a 5 part series that will cover three topics in each article.

The anticipated topics for parts two through five (subject to change) are:

Part 2: Poor use of Percent Complete; Data Integrity Issues; Poor Scope Language.

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

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) The Estimate at Completion (EAC) is systemically out of alignment with cumulative performance with no justification.

The Earned Value Management System Guidelines (EVMSG) define the EAC as the sum of the contract’s cumulative to date Actual Cost of Work Performed (ACWP) plus the company project manager’s best estimate of the time-phased resources (funds) required to complete the remaining authorized work, the Estimate to Complete (ETC). One of the measures that is used to provide a “sanity check” of the reasonableness of the EAC is to compare the To Complete Performance Index (TCPI) to the Cost Performance Index (CPI).

CPI = BCWP / ACWP: An indicator of the cost efficiency at which work is being performed.
TCPI = (BAC-BCWP) / (EAC-ACWP): The cost efficiency that would have to be attained in order to achieve the EAC value being used in the formula.

According the DCMA publication “EVMS Program Analysis Pamphlet” (DCMA-EA PAM 200.1, July 2012), a mathematical difference of 0.10 or greater is used as an early warning indication that the contractor’s forecasted completion cost could possibly be unrealistic, stale, or not updated recently. This is generally measured at all levels of the project, but is often the focus at the control account level.

Having a difference greater than 0.10 does not mean the EAC must be adjusted. Often the TCPI formula will give unusually high or low values when the account being measured is at the beginning or end of its progress. There may be a very good reason for the forecasted efficiency of an Estimate to Complete (ETC) to be out-of-line with its historical efficiency. But often surveillance reveals a large number of accounts that are out-of-line by this measurement, indicating a lack of discipline in an organization’s EAC process.

Most Common Corrective Action Plans:

The first action should be to ensure that the Earned Value Management System stipulates an update to the ETC on at least a monthly basis, and the Control Account Managers (CAMs) are held accountable for their EACs’ realism. This is often accomplished through training, updating processes, and the development of easy to use tool sets. The organization could also require the CAM to justify any control account’s ETC that is out of tolerance with an EAC realism check.

Care must be taken to ensure that the EACs are not being set just to avoid tripping this metric. It is easy to “calculate” an EAC by dividing the BAC by the CPI; however, this does not meet the intent of the guideline requirements.

2) Poor Variance Analysis and Reporting (VAR)

This is probably the most common Corrective Action cited by reviewers performing EVMS surveillance. Because the variance analysis relies completely on the discipline of the CAMs and their support staffs, the process often atrophies for various reasons. Within the variance analysis report (VAR) process, probably the most troublesome is the identification and tracking of Corrective Actions to their logical completion. A well written variance analysis will explain the root cause, impact and corrective action associated with a cost (current period, cumulative, at completion) or a schedule (current period, cumulative) variance. Cost variance explanations should provide a breakdown of the rate versus hours for labor or the price versus usage for material. Schedule variance explanations should focus on identifying the effort that is not being accomplished per the plan, and forecast the Estimated Completion Date (ECD) for when the schedule variance will go to zero. Most important in all of this process is the identification and tracking of the Corrective Actions that are being taken to either mitigate the variance or at least ensure that the variance does not worsen.

Reviewers of VARs often find that there is a lack of clear and concise treatment of the problem, and that many writers of VARs simply reiterate the variance as indicated by the data, such as “The cost overrun is because more hours were expended than originally planned”. Many VARs will point a finger back to the system that generated the data. But the worst offender is the lack of a corrective action plan that includes mitigations steps that address the issue.

Most Common Corrective Action Plans

Poor variance analysis is primarily a discipline issue with the CAMs and their support staffs. Like most discipline issues, this can be addressed by training, adding structure, and incorporating reviews of the VAR process. The writing of VARs is one area where annual refresher training may be needed in order to verify that the concepts are still being practiced. This training should involve the managers in the organizational chain above the CAMs who are responsible for reviewing and approving the variance analysis reports.

It can also be beneficial to add a structured approach to the variance explanation page. This should include required inputs on Root Cause, Impact, and Corrective Action, and may include a link to a corrective action tracking system that allows the user to create and assign mitigation steps plus provide status of previously identified corrective actions. Some organizations have also introduced the scoring of VARs using a scoring template as a feedback mechanism for those writing the reports.

3) Lack of Effective Subcontract Management

The Interim DoD Instruction for 5000.02, “Operation of the Defense Acquisition System” (November 25, 2013), reiterates the requirements for earned value application on all cost/incentive contracts greater than $20M including subcontracts. In the DCMA Instruction 1201, “Corrective Action Process” (September 23, 2013), the importance of subcontract management is stressed with the following:

“Prime contractors have wide latitude as to how they control their supply chain and are ultimately responsible for flow down and execution of contract requirements. When DCMA discovers a noncompliance requiring a Level I or II CAR at a subcontract level, the appropriate CAR (Level I or II) shall be issued directly to the subcontractor with notification to the prime contractor via the prime CMO. The notification to the prime contractor shall be redacted as needed to prevent disclosure of subcontractor proprietary information. In situations where a noncompliance(s) at the subcontract level meets the criteria for a Level III CAR, the CAR shall be issued to the prime contractor.”

Over the past few years, the lack of effective and consistent management of subcontractors with an EVM flow down requirement has been the source of numerous discrepancy reports (DRs), and has been cited as a significant attributor to EVMS disapprovals/de-validations. As noted in the language above, prime contractors are not only responsible for including the correct clauses in subcontracts but also have responsibility for the execution of the contract requirements. When a subcontractor does not follow its own system description, is not in compliance with the EIA-748 Guidelines, or submits reports that do not meet the requirements of the contractual Data Item Description (DID), it is the responsibility of the prime to enforce compliance.

The reasons for ineffective subcontract management are many, but in some organizations enforcement of contractual requirements is the domain of a subcontract administrator/buyer who may not have a firm understanding of the EVMS requirements. Many subcontractors also often resist the surveillance attempts by their prime, or attempt to reject any efforts by their prime to enforce the execution of these types of contractual requirements.

Most Common Corrective Action Plans

The first step in corrective action is a thorough understanding of the contractual requirements and language in the subcontracts. H&A has found numerous examples of incorrect contractual language, or even language implying that the subcontractor reports are for “information only”, thus diminishing the ability of the prime to enforce compliance. The contract should include: 1) A requirement for compliance with the EVM system guidelines in EIA-748, preferably by including the appropriate DFARs clauses (DFARs 252.234-7001 and 7002); 2) the appropriate DID, currently DI-MGMT-81861, referenced in the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) with any special tailoring or reporting guidance documented (for contracts issued prior to June, 2012, the Contract Performance Report DID is DI-MGMT-81466A and the IMS DID is DI-MGMT-81650); 3) language which establishes the right of the prime contractor to conduct reviews, such as Integrated Baseline Reviews (IBRs) and recurring system surveillance.

The prime contractor must then establish a disciplined surveillance program that includes review of all 32 EIA-748 Guidelines on an annual basis at each subcontractor’s facility. This process should also include the procedure for issuing and tracking corrective actions. These surveillance reviews are often conducted jointly with the cognizant DCMA/DCAA for each subcontractor.

And finally the prime must review all reports delivered by the subcontractor for compliance with the appropriate DID, and be prepared to take action when the submitted reports are noncompliant with the CDRL and/or DID Instructions. This action can take the form of a subcontract administrator’s letter requiring adjustments in future reports, rejection and resubmittal of non-compliant reports, or rejection and contractual remedies; such as payment withholds or Award Fee impact, as applicable.

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

April 25th, 2014 – Part 2: Common Problems found in EVMS | Poor use of Percent Complete; Data Integrity Issues; Poor Scope Language.

Common Problems Found in EVM Systems – Recommended Corrective Actions – Part 1 Read Post »

Factoring Subcontractor Data

By Humphreys & Associates / March 14, 2014

If you are a prime contractor Control Account Manager (CAM), how do you plan Budgeted Cost for Work Scheduled (BCWS) and claim Budgeted Cost for Work Performed (BCWP) when the negotiated subcontract value you are assigned to manage differs from your control account budget?

First, let’s understand the facts. You are assigned to manage a deliverable hardware subsystem reporting element in the contract work breakdown structure that will also be reported in the Integrated Program Management Report (IPMR). The history of your subcontract is:

The subcontractor proposed a total price of $110M (Cost $102M and Fixed Fee $8M).
For various reasons, your program manager believed that the final subcontract could be negotiated for 18% less than the proposed price, so your authorized budget is $90M (including fee).
You placed the authorized budget in a planning package until the completion of subcontract negotiations.
The subcontractor will report its IPMR data at the total price level (including fee).
The subcontract was negotiated for a total price of $100M (Cost $95M and Fixed Fee $5M).
You requested that the program manager make up the budget difference from Management Reserve (MR), but the program manager declined.

Factoring the subcontractor’s data is the best approach in this situation. Factoring the subcontractor’s data simply means applying a consistent multiplier to the subcontractor’s budget values: Budgeted Cost for Work Scheduled (BCWS) and Budget at Completion (BAC). The multiplier is developed by dividing the available control account budget by the subcontract price. In the example, the multiplier is .9 and was derived by dividing the CAM’s budget of $90M by the total subcontract value for the hardware system of $100M. This multiplier is applied to the time-phased budget provided by the subcontractor as shown in the table below. This factored budget becomes the prime contractor’s control account budget.

The calculation of the prime contractor’s earned value, also known as the Budgeted Cost for Work Performed (BCWP), simply requires applying the same factor to the subcontractor’s cumulative BCWP each month as shown in the table below. In the example, for the month of March, cumulative subcontractor BCWP of 32 multiplied by the factor of 0.9 yields the prime contractor’s factored BCWP of 29. When calculating the BCWP, the value in the prime contractor’s Earned Value Management System must reflect the same percent complete (BCWP/BAC x 100) as the subcontractor’s reported data; this is illustrated by the highlighted cells in the data example.

Note that factoring does not apply to Actual Cost of Work Performed (ACWP), the Estimate to Complete (ETC) or the Estimate at Completion (EAC) because those values represent actual costs rather than budgeted amounts that must reconcile with the subcontract Target Cost.

Factoring can occur whether the prime contractor’s budgeted amount for the subcontract effort is either greater or less than the subcontract negotiated price. Another instance where factoring is appropriate is when the subcontractor provides IPMR data without fee. The subcontractor’s fee is a cost to the prime contractor and should be included in the prime contractor’s Performance Measurement Baseline (PMB), so factoring is an appropriate technique in this situation.

In summary, remember the following when factoring subcontractor data:

Factoring ensures that the subcontract factored BCWS equals the prime contractor’s budget.
The prime contractor’s factored BCWP must yield a percent complete consistent with the subcontractor’s percent complete.
Factoring does not apply to the ACWP, ETC or the EAC.

Thank you for reading our blog. You can also sign up for our EVMS Newsletter. Give Humphrey’s & Associates a call with questions or to inquire about our classes, certifications and services.

Factoring Subcontractor Data Read Post »

Earned Value: Fun with Numbers or Real Management Data – Answers (part 2)

By Humphreys & Associates / February 28, 2014

This is the second in a two part article on Earned Value: Fun with Numbers Part 1 / Answers

Answers: Earned Value terms used in the context of this article

Management Reserve

Correct Answer: N

In the Earned Value Management System (EVMS) vernacular, Management Reserve (MR) is the budget set aside for Known Unknowns – not Unknown Unknowns. This distinction is important, as the budget at complete (BAC) plus MR equals the Contract Budget Base (CBB).
Management reserve is typically used when an identified risk is realized (Known Unknowns). Once a risk has become a reality, such as re-work, re-test, re-make, more lines of software required, etc., the newly identified work required to satisfy the existing contract SOW must be scheduled and resource loaded (BCWS). This additional budget must be distributed to a CAM (or CAMs) via a work authorization document. The source for this budget is MR and not UB, as UB must have previously been logged with a predetermined budget and associated SOW.
While the Unknown Unknowns could be estimated using simulations, models, etc., the project does not have the luxury to have such a budget set aside initially for an Unknown Unknown occurrence. If an Unknown Unknown becomes a Known, thus the newly identified risk becomes reality, the contractor could use the existing MR to budget this newly identified task or tasks to satisfy the contract requirement or prepare a change proposal for their external customer.
When there is no MR, the contractor could implement an Over Target Baseline (OTB) in the event newly identified risks are realized with prior customer approval, as there is usually insufficient MR remaining.

Schedule Variance

Correct Answer: G

Schedule Variance (SV) = BCWP – BCWS

– The resulting answer will identify the schedule position on the program, a negative answer indicates a behind schedule condition some or all of the program tasks. A positive result indicates an ahead of schedule condition for some or all of the program tasks.
– Always use this information to supplement the Program Schedule tools data which uses actual days/week/months to identify the programs schedule position.

Budget At Completion

Correct Answer: D

The total contract value of all the time phased planned work

Contract Budget Base/Contract Target Cost

Correct Answer:M

The total contract value of all the time phased planned work, plus Management Reserve

Budgeted Cost for Work Scheduled

Correct Answer:A

The Budgeted Cost for Work Scheduled, or BCWS, is the time phased value expressed in hours and/or dollars for all of the authorized budgeted work scheduled to be accomplished on a program. This is the time phased baseline from which all work performed is measured.

Schedule Slip

Correct Answer: J

The amount of time/duration that the planned completion dates have been missed by, the total number of days/weeks/months that an activity is behind to the original baseline dates.

Variance At Completion

Correct Answer: I

Variance at Completion (VAC) is the difference between the Budget at Completion (BAC) and the Estimate at Completion (EAC). VAC can be calculated at any level from the control account up to the total contract. It represents the amount of expected overrun (negative VAC) or underrun (positive VAC)
The VAC is computed by subtracting the EAC from the BAC. A negative result is unfavorable indicates the tasks being measured are forecasting an overrun at completion. A positive result is favorable indicates the tasks being measured are forecasting an underrun at completion.

Estimate At Completion

Correct Answer: F

The Earned Value Guidelines define the EAC as the sum of the contracts cumulative to date Actual Cost of Work Performed (ACWP) plus the company project manager’s best estimate of the time-phased resources (funds) required to complete the remaining authorized work, the Estimate to Complete (ETC). This relationship is often expressed by the formula EAC = ACWP + ETC. Thus, the EAC is a forecast of the project’s final cost. The project manager may revise work priorities, replan remaining tasks on the project schedule and/or adjust the technical approach to complete the project’s goals within the estimated remaining resources. The goal is to complete all of the contract work scope within the Contract Budget Base–CBB(cost) and Contract Completion Date–CCD (schedule).

Actual Cost of Work Performed

Correct Answer: B

The costs actually incurred and recorded in accomplishing the work performed on the program. The costs include Labor, Material/ Sub-Contracts, Other Direct Costs (ODC) and the associated Indirect costs applied to each category.

Estimate To Complete

Correct Answer: E

The Estimate to Complete (ETC) is the company project manager’s best estimate of the time-phased resources (funds) required to complete the remaining authorized work.

Cost Variance

Correct Answer: H

Cost variance (CV) which is calculated as BCWP minus ACWP. A result greater than 0 is favorable (an underrun), a result less than 0 is unfavorable (an overrun).

Program Overrun

Correct Answer: O

The difference between the total Budget and the Estimated Costs at Completion, a negative number indicates an overrun to the program. (A positive number indicates an underrun to the program)

Time Now

Correct Answer: L

Time Now is the end of the current (and cumulative to date) period that the data is being measured against.

Budgeted Cost for Work Performed

Correct Answer: C

The Budgeted Cost for Work Performed (BCWP) is the value of work completed based on the value of the BCWS assigned to that work. This is equal to the sum of the budgets for completed work

Forecasted Program Schedule Slip

Correct Answer: K

The total number of days/months that the program is estimating the completion date of all authorized efforts will exceed the planned Contract Completion Date (CCD). Compare the CCD date to the Estimated Completion Date (ECD)

Estimated Completion Date

Correct Answer: P

The estimated date that all authorized efforts will be completed.

Discussion of the displayed data

The Program began in January, the Time Now (L) is June or approximately 6 months into the effort. There are unfavorable Schedule (G) and Cost (H) Variances. The program was planned (BCWS-A) to complete in March. The Current Estimated Completion Date–ECD (P) is June which indicates a 3 month Forecasted Program Schedule Slip (K). The Budget At Completion (D) Was about $39M (including Management Reserve –MR (N), the Estimate At Completion–EAC (F) is about $56M resulting in a Program Overrun (O) of $17M.

As you can see, selecting key measurement data metrics empowers the program manager with the information to estimate the impacts of early trends in the program. Using the data from analytical tools such as “EMPOWER” allows the program manager to evaluate the current status and develop corrective action and mitigation plans to help minimize the impacts to the overall contract and keep all customers aware of possible outcomes.

We hope you found this two part article on Earned Value: Fun with Numbers useful. Feel free to share or call Humphrey’s & Associates for more information.

Earned Value: Fun with Numbers or Real Management Data – Answers (part 2) Read Post »

Earned Value: Fun with Numbers or Real Management Data? Part 1

By Humphreys & Associates / February 18, 2014

The modern day EVMS engine can provide massive amount of data that often can overwhelm the users. There are some key data points that when developed and reported properly will provide excellent information to the program team so they can focus on the most critical cost/schedule/technical issues.

The most successful EVMS implementations have selected the best data and indices for their programs and use them as a key element in their management tool box.

The following graph depicts a well-balanced selection of Earned Value data that provides key information for making management decisions. How many of the points can you identify and do you know the data each provides? Match each letter with the appropriate terms listed below.

Check back for the next installment in two weeks for the correct terminology and for a brief description on what they mean in managing your programs. Earned Value: Fun with Numbers or Real Management Data – Answers (Part 2)

Earned Value: Fun with Numbers or Real Management Data? Part 1 Read Post »

Exact or Accounting Dates For Baseline Planning & Forecasting to Estimates to Complete – A Survey

By Humphreys & Associates / February 1, 2014

The EVMS Guidelines, and other guidance, are not specific as to whether exact dates must be used to demonstrate system integration between the Work Authorization Document (WAD), Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and Control Account Plan (CAP), or whether the use of accounting month start and complete dates meets the spirit and intent of the EIA-748 requirement.

To determine the industry trend, a survey was conducted regarding which dates contractors are using in the authorization, schedule and cost systems.

Background

Some organizations view the Work Authorization Document (WAD) as the most important EVMS related document in their business management system because it is absolute proof that technical/schedule/cost information comes together in one place. For that reason exact dates are placed on WADs so that charge numbers are not opened before their schedule requires them to be open.

Other organizations are not so precise. They merely enter the first day of the accounting month that an effort is scheduled to commence. Some customer review teams insist on exact dates or they cite noncompliance with EIA-748. Survey participants were asked which dates, exact or accounting month start and complete, are entered in the cost, schedule and work authorization documents to demonstrate system integration. Participants were also asked about exact dates versus accounting month dates for Estimates to Complete (ETC) forecasts, and whether Level of Effort (LOE) tasks were planned in the schedule to obtain full resource loading of their projects.

Results

Fifteen (15) contractors responded to the survey and the results are displayed in the table below. For all 15, the IMS was populated with exact dates for the baseline and current forecast.

Eleven (11) contractors used exact dates in the WADs and cost tool baselines and forecasts, thus matching the IMS.
Three (3) contractors consistently used the accounting month start and complete dates for the WAD baseline and cost tool baseline and forecast dates.
One contractor (Contractor 4) populated the WADs with accounting month dates while exact dates were used in the schedule and cost tools. This contractor indicated that the WADs are being changed to reflect exact actual dates to match the IMS and cost tool and that this was a resource consuming endeavor.

Conclusion

From comments received, the contractors surveyed which use exact dates believe doing so was necessary to demonstrate cost and schedule integration. They also indicated that increased sophistication of cost and schedule tools has made using exact dates much easier than it may have been in the past. Because most of the tools used are able to accommodate exact date integration, it is now recommended that wherever possible, those dates be used in the work authorization, schedule and cost systems.

It is also recommended that changing the WAD dates based on actual start and completion dates is not a logical use of resources in that the schedule and cost tools capture actual performance and the WAD is generally a document that represents the baseline.

For more information about utilizing exact or accounting dates for baseline planning and forecasting to ETC for your projects, call Humphrey’s & Associates today.

Exact or Accounting Dates For Baseline Planning & Forecasting to Estimates to Complete – A Survey Read Post »

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

By Humphreys & Associates / January 17, 2014

Schedule Road-Mapping - Top Level Methodology & Best Practices

Methodology 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 – 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.

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