DoD EVMS Archives - Humphreys & Associates

EVMS and Agile Implementation FAQ’s

By Humphreys & Associates / February 4, 2016 / agile management, agile method, agile planning, agile project management, agile systems, DoD EVMS, EVM, EVMS, evms planning, project management, wbs

agile management, agile method, agile planning, agile project management, agile systems, DoD EVMS, EVM, EVMS, evms planning, project management, wbs

Title Image - EVMS and Agile Implementation FAQs

These are some of the frequently asked questions we receive when discussing EVMS and Agile implementations within the same company or on the same project.

Question 1: What documentation do you have that I can use to help me understand EVMS and Agile and how they are implemented?

Answer 1: There is expansive EVMS documentation, and the EVMS guidelines are well documented. On the other hand, there is little in the way of Agile documentation since the Agile mindset is to be lean and not to document unless absolutely necessary. The DOD released an
EVMS and Agile Program Manager’s Desk Guide that can be used for quick reference. H&A has done the homework and has created training for EVMS and Agile.

Question 2: What is the comparable Agile term or artifact for this EVMS artifact (for example the WBS)?

Answer 2: There is no roadmap between EVMS and Agile that is hard and fast. The best approach would be to identify “similar to” situations or likenesses. For example the EVMS WBS is similar to the Product Backlog within Agile. The Steering Committee of The World Congress in Computer Science, Computer Engineering and Applied Computing reported on Constructs to Support Agile and EVMS

Question 3: What roles within the PMO are there for EVMS and for Agile and how do they relate?

Answer 3: In Agile there is no real “management” role. So the PMO roles that are management titled are not germane to Agile. And in the opposite direction, the Agile roles do not really exist within EVMS. For example the Agile “Product Owner” is a person with a customer view of the product and speaks for the customer. In a stretch this could be a high level Software or System Engineer with requirements responsibilities. The Scrum Master is a facilitator on the Scrum team and there is no corresponding EVMS role. The team members organize themselves so there is no team lead like the Control Account manager in an EVM System.

Question 4: Since the Sprint in the Agile/Scrum approach is defined as a time-box with a fixed end date, how do you reconcile that with the EVMS approach of working the task until it is done?

Answer 4: The EVMS baseline can be set above the Sprint level and can correspond to known “mandatory” delivery points such as release deliveries. This will then align the Agile deliveries to the EVMS structure and the two can work together.

Question 5: Does the fact that Agile/Scrum Sprints have very short durations cause a problem with EVMS performance measurement?

Answer 5: Not at all since teams update their progress daily. But it is preferable if the Sprints are four weeks or less and align with the cut-off dates for the EVMS. In that way the EVMS can pull the stated performance from the teams and use it as the input for the EVMS without any translation work. If a Sprint crosses an EVMS period, that would need special consideration.

Question 6: Since Agile work is not really budgeted, how does that reconcile with the EVMS need for budgets and budget control?

Answer 6: Budgets will be held in packages in the EVMS based on the plan for the Sprints and the teams doing the Sprints. The Agile weighting of work will be within the same packages but is not considered to be budgeting; it is weighting of milestones, if anything.

Question 7: We do not like the idea of the 0/100 EV Technique even with milestones. At our company we have an allowance to earn partial credit for milestone work. How does that fit into the EVMS and Agile implementations?

Answer 7: Agile wants to measure work when done. The work should be in such small stories, or tasks, that they are in-process for only a matter of days. Partial credit should not be needed in this situation; if it is, then perhaps there are issues with work definition.

Question 8: Agile applies to software development, but can we use it for other types of work?

Answer 8: Yes. It is a misconception that Agile is for software only. If you are creative you can find ways to use Agile Development in many areas. One company reports it uses it for circuit design and breadboarding resulting in significant time savings.

For additional information about EVMS and Agile see the blog post:

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

EVMS and Agile Implementation FAQ’s Read Post »

Earned Value Management | Integrated Program Management Report (IPMR) XML Electronic Submittals

By Humphreys & Associates / April 28, 2015 / CEFACT, Data Exchange Instructions, DID, DoD EVMS, EVM, IPMR, UN, XML

CEFACT, Data Exchange Instructions, DID, DoD EVMS, EVM, IPMR, UN, XML

One of the major changes in the 2012 IPMR Data Item Description (DID) was the requirement to use the DoD-approved XML schemas and guidelines to electronically submit formats 1 through 4, 6, and 7. The DoD-approved XML schemas were developed under the auspices of the United Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business (UN/CEFACT), a formal international organization for establishing electronic business standards. The DoD-approved XML guidelines are the Data Exchange Instructions (DEIs) or business rules for using the UN/CEFACT XML schemas to support the data requirements in the IPMR DID. This XML electronic submittal format replaces the ANSI X12 Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) transaction sets 839 and 806 found in the previous reporting DIDs, the 2005, DI-MGMT-81466A, Contract Performance Report (CPR) and the 2005, DI-MGMT-81650, Integrated Master Schedule (IMS).

The purpose of using a software vendor neutral international standard to submit data to the DoD was to eliminate the need for any specific toolset or proprietary database at either end. Contractors can use their toolset of choice or internally developed applications to produce the XML instance files and electronically submit the data. For the various DoD end-users, they can use their toolset of choice or internally developed applications to read the XML data for their use and analyses.

The business owner for the DoD IPMR Data Exchange Instructions is the OSD Office of Performance Assessments and Root Cause Analyses (PARCA), Earned Value Management (EVM) Division (https://www.acq.osd.mil/evm). The electronic submittals are designed to support the OSD EVM Central Repository (https://dcarc.cape.osd.mil/EVM/EVMOverview.aspx), a joint effort between the Defense Cost and Resource Center (DCARC) and OUSD/AT&L, managed by PARCA. The EVM Central Repository provides a secure centralized reporting, data collection and distribution of EVM data environment for the DoD acquisition community.

There are a number of UN/CEFACT XML related resources available to contractors, software vendors, and government users on the DCARC EVM Central Repository web site.

Select the UN/CEFACT XML navigation option to download the base UN/CEFACT XML schemas as well as the Data Exchange Instructions for the IPMR formats. There are three primary DEIs. One for Formats 1 through 4 (can include Format 5 data as an option), one for Format 6 (the IMS), and one for Format 7 (time phased historical data). Also on this web page is a link for a digital file signing tool; this works as an outer envelope that contractors can use to digitally sign and secure an XML instance file submission to the EVM Central Repository.

Select the EVM Tools navigation option to download the XML instance file IPMR Schema/DEI Checker or XML instance file viewers. The schema/DEI checker can be used to verify a given XML instance file conforms to the basic XML schema requirements as well as the business rules defined in the DEIs. The XML instance files viewers can be used to read and display the XML data content in a more human friendly format.

A number of the commercial off the shelf (COTS) software vendors have submitted their IPMR outputs for testing to the EVM Central Repository to verify their XML outputs can pass the Central Repository data submission validation process. A number of contractors also tested outputs produced from their internal application systems (no COTS tool was used). This testing was part of the implementation verification process for completing the Data Exchange Instructions. To confirm a software vendor has successfully completed the process to verify their tool-set outputs can be successfully read and uploaded to the Central Repository, send an email to the EVM Contact for PARCA listed on the DCARC EVM Central Repository web site (Contact Us navigation link).

PARCA has also recently taken ownership of the XML schema and DEI Change Control Board (CCB) and related process. The intent is to use the PARCA Issue Resolution process (https://www.acq.osd.mil/evm/ir/index.shtml) for software vendors, contractors, or other end users to submit change requests for the base UN/CEFACT XML schemas or IPMR Data Exchange Instructions.

Earned Value Management | Integrated Program Management Report (IPMR) XML Electronic Submittals Read Post »

DoD Earned Value Management System Interpretation Guide | EVMSIG

By Humphreys & Associates / April 2, 2015 / ACAT, DoD EVMS, EVM, EVMSIG, GAO, IPMR

ACAT, DoD EVMS, EVM, EVMSIG, GAO, IPMR

The updated DoD Earned Value Management System Interpretation Guide (EVMSIG), dated February 18, 2015 was released in March, 2015.

This DoD update, per the GAO, focuses on “(1) problems facing the cost/schedule control system (CS2) process; (2) progress DOD has made with reforms; and (3) challenges DOD faces in fostering and managing potentially significant changes”.

The update commences with:

EVMSIG INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of Guide

Earned Value Management (EVM) is a widely accepted industry best practice for program management that is used across the Department of Defense (DoD), the Federal government, and the commercial sector. Government and industry program managers use EVM as a program management tool to provide joint situational awareness of program status and to assess the cost, schedule, and technical performance of programs for proactive course correction. An EVM System (EVMS) is the management control system that integrates a program’s work scope, schedule, and cost parameters for optimum program planning and control. To be useful as a program management tool, program managers must incorporate EVM into their acquisition decision-making processes; the EVM performance data generated by the EVMS must be timely, accurate, reliable, and auditable; and the EVMS must be implemented in a disciplined manner consistent with the 32 EVMS Guidelines prescribed in Section 2 of the Electronic Industries Alliance Standard-748 EVMS (EIA-748) (Reference (a)), hereafter referred to as “the 32 Guidelines.”

The DoD EVMS Interpretation Guide (EVMSIG), hereafter referred to as “the Guide”, provides the overarching DoD interpretation of the 32 Guidelines where an EVMS requirement is applied. It serves as the authoritative source for EVMS interpretive guidance and is used as the basis for the DoD to assess EVMS compliance to the 32 Guidelines in accordance with Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Subpart 234.2 and 234.201 (References (b) and (c)). The Guide provides the DoD Strategic Intent behind each guideline as well as the specific attributes required in a compliant EVMS. Those attributes are the general qualities of effective implementation that are tested in support of determining EVMS compliance as it relates to the 32 Guidelines. As applicable, the DoD Strategic Intent section may clarify where differences in guideline interpretation exist for development and production type work. DoD agencies and organizations charged with conducting initial and continuing EVMS compliance activities will establish amplifying agency procedures and/or guidance to clarify how they are implementing this Guide to include the development of evaluation methods for the attributes associated with each of the 32 Guidelines.

1.2 EVM Policy

The Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-11 (Reference (d)), the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 34.2 and Part 52 (References (e) through (h)) require federal government agency contractors to establish, maintain, and use an EVMS that is compliant with the 32 Guidelines on all major capital asset acquisitions. Based on these federal regulations and the DoD Instruction 5000.02 (DoDI 5000.02) (Reference (i)), the DoD established the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 234.201 (Reference (c)), which prescribes application of an EVMS, via the DFARS 252.234-7002 EVMS clause (Reference (j)). When EVM reporting is contractually required, the contractor must submit to the government an Integrated Program Management Report (IPMR) (DI-MGMT-81861) (Reference (k)) to report program cost and schedule performance data. The IPMR is being phased in to replace the Contract Performance Report (CPR) (DI-MGMT-81466) and the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) (DI-MGMT-81650). Hereafter, for simplicity purposes, the term “IPMR” is used to reference legacy or current CPR/IMS DIDs. There are times in this Guide when the IMS reference is to an output of the contractor’s internal management system, i.e., a work product, which may not be referred to in the same context as the IPMR. [The full EVMSIG update is found here.]

Furthermore, also in March, 2015 the GAO released its “Report to the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives: Defense Acquisition | Better Approach Needed to Account for Number, Cost, and Performance of Non-Major Programs”.

An overview:

The Department of Defense (DOD) could not provide sufficiently reliable data for GAO to determine the number, total cost, or performance of DOD’s current acquisition category (ACAT) II and III programs (GAO-15-188 “Better Approach Needed to Account for Number, Cost, and Performance of Non-Major Programs” overview). These non-major programs range from a multibillion dollar aircraft radar modernization program to soldier clothing and protective equipment programs in the tens of millions of dollars. GAO found that the accuracy, completeness, and consistency of DOD’s data on these programs were undermined by widespread data entry issues, missing data, and inconsistent identification of current ACAT II and III programs. See the figure below for selected data reliability issues GAO identified. [The full GAO-15-188 document is found here.]

DoD Earned Value Management System Interpretation Guide | EVMSIG Read Post »