EVM

Guidelines for Schedule Displays

, , ,

EVMS & SDG: Schedules Display Guidelines for Organized Diplays and Earned Value Management

An Organized Approach to Improving Schedule Displays

Paul F. Bolinger 7/1/2014

 

This paper was originally published in the College of Performance Management’s Measurable News, third quarter 2014.

This paper establishes a set of guidelines to improve the display of schedules.

Research into human perception has brought an understanding of the ways that information display can be improved to speed up recognition and provide clarity. The guidelines presented here focus only on schedule information displays and are based on research by authors Colin Ware and Stephen Few [reference]. An example schedule display is developed as part of the paper to help the reader understand the application of the guidelines.The goal of displaying information is to aid the thinking of the reader. Research by Ware and Few informs us that there is some “pre-attentiveperception [reference] processed by the eye-brain combination. This is subconscious perception. The faster this front-end perception is accomplished, the faster overall perception and then cognition can be accomplished. In other words, the faster the reader can start to think about the meaning of the schedule. If the display is set up so that the reader just “gets it” without having to go piece by piece through the details, then the reader can move quickly on to their thought processes about the schedule. This paper is part of the effort to develop and disseminate the practice of building better top level executive type summary schedules for major projects.

Too often, large amounts of time and effort are put into project planning and scheduling only to be unavailable for, or hidden from, general usage by the obscurity of the systems used and the lack of neat clean ways to provide quality graphical schedule information at the project summary level. There are already tools available to build high impact top level schedules linked to the detailed networks below; now we have guidelines to help us use those tools to make our schedule displays even better.

The Schedules Display Guidelines (SDG)

In this paper, we will look at some defined guidelines and examples of what should be best practices in displaying schedules. Each schedule display guideline [SDG] has been derived from underlying research into human perception and processing of visual information. Colin Ware & Stephen Few have written very important works about information display, and Ware has published a set of guidelines on display of information in general. This paper adopts the guideline approach Ware used effectively, and specifically applies those guidelines to the display of schedules.

Each schedule display guideline will be stated, explained, and supported with an example. The assumption is that these schedules rest upon a disciplined lower level set of high quality schedules that meet the generally accepted scheduling guidelines (GASP). We are focused on the display of schedule information, not on the scheduling techniques and measures.

Guidelines and Supporting Arguments

[SDG 1.0] Identify the intended viewers of the schedule and prepare the display accordingly. Each audience can have a different level of interest in a project or program schedule. The right display approach for one audience can easily be totally wrong for another. For top level schedules, the display should present summary material relevant to the needs of the audience.

Some examples of target audiences are:

  1. Customers – who are interested in understanding the project from their point of view; when do they get what they ordered and what is their involvement.
  2. Company executives – who are interested in understanding the project and having a tool (the schedule) to use to inform others about the project.
  3. Project Team – who are interested in having a useable and understandable road map they can refer to as they proceed along the path to the goal.

The example provided later in this paper will be for customer executives intended to help them to follow progress and to explain the project to others. These executives want a one page overview schedule linked up from the detailed electronic schedules that they can confidently use to brief others on their project.

[SDG 2.0] Identify the environment; what is it you are going to describe in your schedule. Questions you must resolve before you make key decisions about the display are; will you be dealing with multiple projects, a single project, a single project with multiple goals, a single project with multiple high-level players like team mates or subcontractors, multiple phases of a project, a short period or a long period?

The example provided later in this paper is a single project for a U.S. Department of Defense customer. It will span multiple years and include design, fabrication, assembly, testing and support efforts to document the system. This is not a real project but represents the type of challenges found in real projects.

[SDG 3.0] Understand the project you are going to display. What is unique about the project? What message needs to be given to help the viewer understand the project? Remember that important details are obscured in the network centric scheduling software; the summary level schedule is the place where crucial components can be highlighted and emphasized.

The example project provided later in this paper is one in which a shipboard fire control system, consisting of hardware and software components, will be upgraded to meet new threats. Running parallel to this effort, the target drone fleet will be upgraded to be able to simulate the new threats. The shipboard modifications and the upgraded drones will be performed by two major sets of suppliers. The two parts of the project must come together for live fire testing. What should be emphasized is the parallel development of the shipboard system with the modifications to the target drones under the DoD project life cycle, with its various reviews and customer participation coming together at the goal.

[SDG 4.0] Design the type of schedule based on the audience, environment, and specific uniqueness of the project to provide the message you have. A comprehensive high level project roadmap might be just the thing for a schedule to be used with the customer or company executives, while a birds-on-a-wire type schedule might be better for combining multiple projects that must be shown together. A phased type schedule would work best on a multi-phased project. For the project team, the schedule should focus on their particular challenges. Each of those choices yields a different looking display.

The example will be a comprehensive high level project roadmap that includes the two major efforts, along with the supportability tasks needed to make an entire project. Because it is a single project, the use of birds-on-a-wire, phased, or other multi-project orientations have been discarded in favor of a road map approach. The road map is the highest level summary, but is intended to cover the entire project, start to finish, on a single page no larger than 11×17. To meet this challenge the display software will be used to “hand pack” the plan onto the single page before it is linked to the underlying network schedules.

[SDG 5.0] Select the background and frame to best fit the environment for the schedule. How the display is framed and subdivided significantly impact on how it is viewed. Do you want a plain blank background or do you want to subdivide the background in any way? Should your schedule have horizontal swim lanes to focus on sequential related work? Do vertical lines help you make your point? What calendar display should you use? Should you have a legend; do you need one?

Background color selection must be done in coordination with the color scheme for the symbols so that the proper amount of contrast can be established to help let the symbols stand out on the background. The correct background color will enhance the readability and impact of the display.

Because this example is a U.S. Navy project, colors in the blue and gold realm will be used in the background. In this case, swim lanes would make it more difficult to portray the two major efforts of the project coming together since swim lanes tend to keep elements separate. Because the project is a multi-year, vertical drop lines for the years will be used to help the viewer see the plan unfold across them. The background is a light color that recedes into the frame of the calendar. The calendar shows three levels: year, quarter, and month for clarity.

Milestones Professional 2012 Version | Schedules Display Guidelines (SDG) example #1

All graphic examples in this paper were produced using Milestones Professional 2012 Version.

[SDG 6.0] Group the display to best tell the story of the project, emphasizing the project flow from start to the various goals. Grouping is one of the key decisions in building the display. This is best done when the groups are natural or logical. The groups can be vertical groups related to timing like phases, horizontal groups of related types of work, groups by performer or supplier, or done to emphasize some other important grouping. If a project has a single goal, the waterfall top-to-bottom and left-to-right approach might be best. If the project has more than one goal, you should evaluate if the work can be grouped to show those various thrust or interest areas? If the project has some major subprojects or major players, would those factors lead you to a specific grouping set of criteria?

In this example two major groups will be built to show the shipboard and the drone efforts as groups coming together for the goal. A third group will be put at the bottom to contain miscellaneous work.

Milestones Professional 2012 Version | Schedules Display Guidelines (SDG) example #2

[SDG 7.0] Select and use as small a set of standard symbols as you need to cover the environment. Symbols should be standardized across the schedules developed by an organization or company. Once a usable set of symbols is employed and used rigorously, the level of ease of perception, recognition, and interpretation will improve and the speed of comprehension will grow.

The idea of standardizing is a way to help us move more quickly from perception to cognition. After all, we are using the schedule information so that we can think about the schedule, the project, the issues, the outcomes, and so on. That is cognition or analysis. The schedule is a tool to help us with our cognition so we don’t want the schedule itself, the way it is presented, to get in the way. On the contrary, we want to have the best way to quickly get the message to the thinking part of our brains.

[SDG 7.1] Landmark milestones should be unique in shape and color as well as position. Landmark symbols are important symbols that would show on every page or would show on the prime contractor and subcontractor schedules to anchor the various versions in the eyes and minds of the readers.

Because this is a U.S. Navy project the shape of a ship has been used as the landmark symbol for top level milestone. The other symbols show milestones as triangles so that they come to a point at a specific date. Other bars are used to show durations and durations with special attributes. These special task bars will help the reader spot uniqueness in the plan. Deliveries are shown as a unique diamond shape to help the eye find them on the plan.

Milestones Professional 2012 Version | Schedules Display Guidelines (SDG) example #3

[SDG 8.0] Use a few basic colors to differentiate and highlight your schedule display; red, green, yellow and blue are good choices for basic presentations. Colors are easily perceived if selected carefully. The research indicates the colors best suited to display. Colors can be a negative factor if they have emotional content.

In this example the same symbols will be kept but colors will be modified for emphasis. The shipboard tasks will be one color scheme while the drone tasks will be another. Deliveries will be a consistent green diamond since green provides the idea of “go”. Ancillary tasks will default to the shipboard scheme rather than having a third color scheme which would make the plan less readable. Where the two efforts come together, the final joint effort will be highlighted by color.

Milestones Professional 2012 Version | Schedules Display Guidelines (SDG) example #4

[SDG 9.0] Prioritize the display to enhance the story. Priority can be established by size, color, sequence or a combination of techniques. Priority in schedule display leads the viewer through the schedule so it is an important concept and an important attribute of the display.

Place important landmark milestones at the top. Prioritize your groups in logical order according to the specific project goals. In this example, the shipboard systems will be positioned just below the landmark milestones and will waterfall down to the right to the goal. This implies that the shipboard system work “leads off” and is of high importance. The drone systems will flow upward from the bottom left to the goal, The “Vee” shape will emphasize the supportive nature of this effort and how the two major thrusts come together at the goal.

Milestones Professional 2012 Version | Schedules Display Guidelines (SDG) example #5

[SDG 10.0] Add comments to the schedule at important decision points, important transition points, and to enhance comprehension where that is needed. Movement from one phase to another is an important transition that you could explain. The sequential transition from design, to build, to testing marks major changes in the type of work on a project; these points would be logical places for comments. Decisions that dramatically affect the project should be mapped onto the schedules and highlighted with comments. For example, the decision whether or not to authorize additional product builds, or other follow-on efforts, are important points in a plan.

[SDG 11.0] Examine the display and analyze it according to its adherence to the guidelines as well as its impact. Does it get the job done? Modify as needed to complete the display. Try it out on people to see if they can spot weaknesses or suggest improvements.

Here is the final example of the plan. Review and analyze this display in terms of its adherence to the guidelines and how far it goes in providing the top level executive summary schedule needed for the project.

Milestones Professional 2012 Version | Schedules Display Guidelines (SDG) example #6

The analysis of the final overall example shows the elements added that correspond with the schedule display guidelines.

Milestones Professional 2012 Version | Schedules Display Guidelines (SDG) example #6 details

Paul F. Bolinger is an Engagement Director with Humphreys & Associates consulting in project management with a specific emphasis on project scheduling. His experience with project scheduling tools like Primavera and Microsoft Project has proven there is a need for high level well-constructed schedule displays. He has consulted on many projects including electronics, aerospace, nuclear power, shipbuilding, and construction.

Guidelines for Schedule Displays Read Post »

Management Reserve; Comparing Earned Value Management (EVM) and Financial Management Views of “Reserves”

, , , , , , , , , ,
Management Reserve & Earned Value ManagementPerhaps you have witnessed the collision of earned value management’s views on “management reserve” with the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and the finance department’s views on “balance sheet reserves.” Most companies tend to organize EVM, the function, reporting to either the programs’ organization or to the finance organization. Either will work but either can fail if the two organizations do not understand the interest of the other.

In this article we will outline three areas. The first will be EVM and Management Reserve (MR). The second will be finance and balance sheet “contingencies, loss provisions, or reserves.” The third will compare the two views and identify where they are similar and where they differ.

We will use two terms for both EVM and Financial Management; “in play” and “on the sideline.” “In play” for EVM means that it is in your Performance Measurement Baseline (PMB) and Budget at Completion (BAC). “On the sideline” for EVM means “not in scope” therefore in MR. “In play” for financial management means recorded on the balance sheet (e.g.: current liability; an accrued liability). “On the sideline” for financial management means not recorded on the balance sheet, because it is more likely than not that a liability has been incurred.   If material, however, it will likely be disclosed in the notes to the financial statements, even if it is not recorded on the balance sheet.

 

Earned Value Management and Management Reserve

A program manager and his or her team must deal with – mitigate – risk or be consumed by those risks as they become issues. There are two types of risks, known and unknown. The known risks are entered into a risk register, and their likelihood and consequence are determined. Mitigation for those known risks is done at the activity level in a program’s Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) (Planning and Scheduling Excellence Guide — PASEG page 141, ¶ 10.3.1). Mitigation of known risks is part of the PMB (in the BAC) and is therefore “in play.”

The second type of risk – unknown or unknowable risks – are covered by management reserve if within the Scope of Work (SOW) of the existing contract. If contractor and customer conclude that the realized risk is outside the existing contract, then an Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) would likely be created by the contractor; and a contract modification would be issued by the authorized customer contracting officer if they agreed.   The program manager should ask this question of his team: what work is “at risk” and what work is not “at risk?” Does labor or material present more risk? Management reserve “is an amount of the overall contract budget held for management control purposes and for unplanned events” (Integrated Program Management Report–IPMR DI-MGMT-81861 page 9, ¶ 3.2.4.6). Management reserve is “on the sidelines.” MR has no scope. MR is not earmarked. MR stands in waiting.

 

Earned Value Management Reserve (MR) Compared To Financial Management “Contingency”

Because the audience reading this blog is most likely from the EVM community, I’ll offer a Financial Management example of a company that faces many risks and must manage those risks or be consumed by them. Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries (stock symbol: MO) are in the tobacco, e-Vapor and wine business. Altria’s history clearly shows that the company measures and successfully mitigates the risks they face. Altria faces a blizzard of litigation each year and must protect its shareholders from that risk. So how does Altria manage known risks (mostly from litigation) and how does Altria handle unknown risks?

Altria is a publicly traded company and its annual report (10K) is available on-line to the public. This data is from their 2014 annual report.

I am an MBA, not a CPA, so I’ll stick to Altria’s 2014 balance sheet. For those not familiar with financial statements, a balance sheet has on its left hand side all of a company’s assets – what the company owns and uses in its business (current assets = cash, accounts receivable, inventory; long term assets = property, plant and equipment). The right hand side of a company’s balance sheet shows current and non-current liabilities and shareholders’ equity. The top right hand side of the balance sheet includes current and non-current liabilities (accounts payable, customer advances, current and long-term debt, and accrued liabilities like income taxes, accrued payroll and employee benefits, accrued pension benefits and accrued litigation settlement costs) and the bottom of the right hand side of the balance sheet includes shareholders’ equity consisting of common and preferred stock, paid in capital and retained earnings.

Altria’s 2014 annual report shows under current liabilities; accrued liabilities; settlement charges (for pending litigation Contingency note # 18) a value of $3.5 billion dollars. The 2013 amount was $3.391 billion dollars.

So Altria has “in play” $3.5B for litigation for 2014. In financial terms, Altria has recorded $3.5 billion in expense related to the litigation, probably over several years as it became more likely than not that a liability had been incurred and was reasonably estimable. In EVM terms Altria has $3.5B in their baseline, or earmarked, or in scope for litigation (court cases).

What happens if Altria ultimately has more than $3.5B in litigation settlement costs? What does Altria have waiting on the “sidelines” to cover the unknown risks? Essentially Altria has on its balance sheet waiting “on the sidelines” $3.321 billion in cash and the ability to borrow additional funds or perhaps to sell additional shares of stock to fund the settlement costs. In EVM terms Altria has $3.5B in its baseline (on its balance sheet) to manage the risks associated with litigation. Altria’s market capitalization at the market close on May 17, 2015 was $52.82 billion and its 2014 net revenues were $24.522 billion. It is reasonable to understand that Altria has more than enough MR.

 

Differences Between EVM MR and Financial Management Balance Sheet Reserves

In EVM, MR is only released to cover unplanned or unknown events that are in scope to the contract but out-of-scope to any control account. A cost under-run is never reversed to MR, and a cost over-run is never erased with the release of MR into scope.

In industry in general, and Altria in particular, if the “in play” current liability for settlement charges of $3.5B are not needed (an under-run), then Altria will reverse a portion of the existing accrued liability into income, thereby improving profitability. If Altria’s balance sheet reserve of $3.5B is insufficient, then Altria’s future profits will be reduced as an additional provision will be expensed to increase the existing reserve (an over-run).

[Humphreys & Associates wishes to thank Robert “Too Tall” Kenney for authoring this article.]

Management Reserve; Comparing Earned Value Management (EVM) and Financial Management Views of “Reserves” Read Post »

Variance Analysis, Corrective Action Plans, Root Cause Analysis

, , , , , , , , ,

Variance Analysis “provides EVMS contract management with early insight into the extent of problems and allows corrective actions to be implemented in time to affect the future course of the program.” [NDIA ANSI EIA 748 Intent Guide] Department of Defense Data Item Descriptions: DI-MGMT-81861, Integrated Program Management Report (IPMR) paragraphs 3.6.10xx; DI-MGMT-81466A, Contract Performance Report, paragraph 2.6.3; and DI-MGMT-81650, Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) — paragraph 2.5 — all require analysis for significant variances including cause, impact and corrective action plans.  By comparing the performance against the plan, it is possible to make mid-course corrections which assist completion of the project on time and within the approved budget. The Variance Analysis Report (VAR) is a “living, working document to communicate cause, impact and corrective action”. [See: Chapter 35 Variance Analysis and Corrective Action, Project Management Using Earned Value, Humphreys & Associates, page 707.] Well-written variance analyses should answer the basic questions of why, what and how.

Cause is also known as root cause, nature of the problem, problem statement, issue, or problem definition. Root cause is the fundamental reason for the problem. Root cause is required in order to take preventative corrective action. The explanation of the variance is broken down into each of its components: discuss schedule variances separately from cost variances; discuss labor separately from non-labor; discuss which portion of the variance was caused by efficiency (hours) and which portion was because of dollars (rates) or if the variance was driven by material discuss how much was because of price and how much was because of usage. For more information refer to Humphreys & Associates blog Variance Analysis-Getting Specific.

Once the root cause of the problem has been identified and described, the impact(s) on the project should be addressed. Identify impacts to customers, technical capability, cost, schedule (including when the schedule variance will become zero), other control accounts, program milestones, subcontractors, and the Estimate at Completion, including rationale.

A corrective action (CA) plan should be developed that describes the specific actions being taken, or to be taken, which includes the individual or organization responsible for the action(s). The corrective actions should be directly derived from root cause analysis and related to each identified root cause.   Results from previous corrective action plans should be included.  Occasionally, a successful plan will include interim modifications or fixes in the short term, with long term changes identified as well. When no corrective action for an overrun is possible, an explanation and EAC rationale should be included.  A corrective action log should be used that tracks the actions taken and the status of the corrective plan for each variance analysis cycle.  As was stated in the Humphreys & Associates article:  Corrective Action Response: Planning and Closure – Part 2 of 2  “It is critical that verification methods, objective measures, metrics, artifacts, and evidential products are identified that will verify that the corrective actions are effective.”  Corrective action plans based on clearly a defined root cause facilitates time management action and avoids the occurrence of repetitive problems.

Variance Analysis, Corrective Action Plans, Root Cause Analysis Read Post »

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

, , , , , , ,

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

, , , , ,

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-15-188Better Approach Needed to Account for Number, Cost, and Performance of Non-Major Programsoverview). 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 »

Scroll to Top