EVMS

Establishing a Robust EVMS Self-Governance Process

By / / , , ,
, , ,
Establishing a Robust EVMS Self-Governance Process

A previous blog, Benefits of an EVMS Self-Governance Process, discussed why establishing a self-governance or self-surveillance process is important and how an effective process builds confidence with the customer. With a structured and repeatable process in place, effective self-governance demonstrates management’s commitment to maintaining the EVMS and open communications with the government customer. Self-disclosure and quickly addressing EVMS compliance issues are essential.

H&A earned value consultants often assist contractors to implement a robust self-governance process as their level of EVMS maturity increases over time. This blog highlights how H&A provides support and technical expertise to help a DOE contractor to do just that.

Developing the Self-Governance Process and Tools

H&A is a strong teammate in the development and implementation of a robust EVMS self-governance process for TRIAD at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). TRIAD is the prime contractor that provides laboratory management and operations for LANL. H&A is involved in developing tools, refining processes, establishing business rhythms, and summarizing data necessary to support the implementation of a leading-edge EVMS self-surveillance capability. The H&A team is also instrumental in developing the tools necessary to analyze, review, and act on the monthly data set TRIAD provides to the DOE EVMS compliance team.

These tools generate the DOE EVMS compliance metrics (automated and manual) in accordance with the DOE EVMS Metric Specification to ensure TRIAD is able to view the data the same way as their DOE counterparts. Once the tools generate the DOE EVMS compliance metrics, the results are passed to the TRIAD System Surveillance Officers (SSOs) to review and confirm flagged items are either actual fails or exempted/justified based on the rationale captured in the tool. For failed metrics, the SSOs and the project teams use the source data from the tool to identify the root cause and proactively correct EVMS compliance issues. Each month the EVM compliance data is collected across projects, summarized, and graded at the TRIAD level, and then gathered into an EVMS compliance dashboard for TRIAD leadership review and action.

Monthly Self-Surveillance Process

The monthly self-surveillance process includes the following activities.

  1. For each project, the tool generates the automated metrics from the DOE compliance flat files and then collects the results of manual testing into a single file with all 183 DOE metrics. This tool enables an SSO to review the flags, access the source cost and schedule data, apply exemptions/waivers, and then share the data with the project team to resolve issues. By trending this data across the project’s life cycle and capturing SSO exemptions and monthly actions, the team can analyze the data, determine root causes, address issues, and capture historical EVMS compliance actions in one place.
  2. An EVMS summarization tool then collects the results from each project and rolls the lower-level results into a summary TRIAD level. Each metric grade (Pass/Fail/Caution) considers weighted EVMS performance across multiple projects to ensure grading is aligned with the exit criteria for the DOE corrective action plans. In addition to TRIAD level grading for each metric, the summary tool also rolls up the metrics to the 10 EVMS Maturity Subprocess areas and 56 Attributes of an EVMS which is documented in the Compliance Assessment Governance (CAG) Appendix to the DOE EVMS Compliance Review Standard Operating Procedure (ECRSOP). This summarization tool provides the subprocess area and attribute grading at both the project and TRIAD levels. By viewing the data across projects and time, the EVMS core team can quickly identify systemic or project level issues.
  3. A set of tailored EVMS compliance summarization metrics is presented in a “dashboard” configuration for the EVMS core group and senior leadership to review. Leadership uses this summary data to determine where they need to dive deeper into the data and whether TRIAD is meeting their EVMS compliance targets.

Figure 1 illustrates this management level dashboard view. 

Figure 1: Example of the Summary Level Compliance Metrics Across Projects

Figure 1: Example of the Summary Level Compliance Metrics Across Projects

  1. The team also developed and uses a flat file analysis tool that is aligned to the DOE data integrity and quality checks (DIQs). This tool is used for projects transitioning into DOE Critical Decision (CD) Milestones 2 or 3 execution phases that require submittals to the DOE Project Assessment and Reporting System (PARS). This tool ensures the project flat files meet the DOE data quality standards. Like the 183 metrics tool, the flat file tool enables analysts to isolate data quality issues, review the source data, and then determine and track how the team will resolve or justify each issue. In addition to preparing for PARS submittals, these DIQ assessment metrics are also generated monthly to help assess on-going system integration integrity.

Establishing a Best-in-Class Self-Governance Process

In addition to supporting the monthly self-surveillance process, these tools and processes are instrumental in supporting the active surveillance portion of TRIAD’s self-governance efforts. The active surveillance team uses the same tools to summarize and review the “data call” sets in preparation for their reviews. Just like their DOE counterparts, the TRIAD active surveillance team analyzes the 183 DOE compliance metrics to focus their inquiries and document review findings. The H&A team was instrumental in planning, executing, and closing out the recent TRIAD active surveillance that was observed and lauded by the DOE EVMS compliance team.

By supporting the design, development, planning, and execution of all facets of a leading-edge DOE self-governance process, the H&A team helped to ensure our LANL customer has the robust EVMS compliance capability necessary to meet the rigorous DOE EVMS compliance requirements.

As this case study demonstrates, with H&A’s help, TRIAD successfully implemented a structured and repeatable self-governance process with analysis tools that capture objective measures and metrics to actively demonstrate compliance and issue resolution to their customer.

H&A earned value consultants can do the same for you. Call us today at (714) 685-1730 to get started. 

Establishing a Robust EVMS Self-Governance Process Read Post »

Benefits of an EVMS Self-Governance Process

By / / , ,
, ,

Contractors with a cognizant federal agency (CFA) approved or certified Earned Value Management System (EVMS) are expected to establish and execute an annual EVMS self-governance plan. Sometimes also called self-surveillance or self-assessment, the objective is the same. The contractor is responsible for establishing an internal process to ensure their EVMS, as implemented at the contract/project level, continues to:

  • Provide valid, reliable, and auditable information for visibility into technical, schedule, and cost progress with fact-based performance analysis. Project personnel have timely information about actual conditions, trends, and potential problems to implement effective corrective actions.
  • Maintain the integrity of the performance measurement baseline (PMB) for measuring completed work and to manage the remaining work.
  • Comply with the EIA-748 Standard for EVMS guidelines.

Equally important, the contractor is responsible for ensuring project personnel are:

  • Following the process and procedures described in their approved EVM System Description.
  • Establishing and maintaining quality schedule, cost, and risk/opportunity data.
  • Routinely using the EVMS (process, procedures, and tools) and EVM data to proactively manage their work effort.

Why is a self-governance process important?

With an established self-governance process and data-driven analytics, a contractor can objectively demonstrate to their customer that EVM and the use of EVM data is an integral part of their project management process. Establishing a culture of self-disclosure of issues and resolution ensures the EVMS is actively maintained, and project personnel understand the importance of their role in implementing the EVMS. Everyone must have confidence in the EVMS to provide timely, relevant, and actionable information to effectively manage and control projects.

An effective self-governance process provides the structure to routinely observe and assess how the EVMS is implemented on projects. This structured process documents what is assessed and how it is assessed using defined objective measures such as data quality metrics that can be analyzed over time to track the occurrence and resolution of issues.

What are the benefits of implementing a self-governance process?

There are a number of benefits to implementing a self-governance process for the contractor as well as the government customer.

The contractor’s management benefits from increased visibility into the “health” of the EVMS. Consistently verifying the system is implemented and used as intended instills confidence. They know they can depend on the EVMS to provide timely, reliable, and actionable information for visibility and control.

Routinely analyzing the results from the self-governance activities provides fact-based information a contractor can use to implement actions that improve the EVMS process and procedures, the means and methods project personnel use to implement the EVMS, or the training methods and content. With a structured and repeatable process in place, the contractor can:

  • Quickly identify and quantify process, people, or tool issues as well as the potential impact to meeting project objectives. Early identification of a problem often helps to mitigate the impact to the project.
  • Identify the root cause of the issue. Is it a recurring theme (a systemic issue) or a unique to a single project? This helps to determine the best way to resolve the issue.
  • Determine what actions are the most effective in mitigating the impact or resolving the root cause. Measuring and verifying outcomes helps to ensure the corrective action achieves the desired result.
  • Identify best in class practices that could be used on other projects. This is often overlooked as a positive outcome of the self-governance process that encourages continuous system improvements and innovation in project implementations.
  • Provide best practice guidance and support to encourage early correction or quick resolution of implementation issues. This helps to increase project personnel proficiency levels. Knowing structured fact-based self-governance assessments are conducted helps to reinforce the message that EVM practices are an integral part of managing projects.

It also builds confidence with the customer. Implementing a process of self-disclosure and corrective actions implemented demonstrates an on-going commitment to maintaining the EVMS. It also demonstrates the willingness to maintain open communications. The benefit of this approach is that it can help to:

  • Reduce the need for onsite government customer reviews or shorten the duration of a surveillance visit. When the contractor is providing regular information about their internal process to verify the health of their EVMS and internal corrective actions, it demonstrates the EVMS is being used as intended and remains compliant with the EIA-748 guidelines.
  • Minimize disruptions to project personnel. This is a direct result of reducing the need for customer reviews. Internal self-governance activities, system or tool improvements, or training can be scheduled to avoid impacting project personnel’s ability to accomplish project objectives.
  • Ensure long-term sustainability of the EVMS. An EVMS should be continually maintained to ensure process, procedures, and tools reflect current requirements. The goal should be to take advantage of opportunities to streamline procedures, improve the quality of the schedule and cost data, upgrade tools, and enable data integration/traceability to reduce the time and effort required to manage project work effort.

What are the characteristics of an effective self-governance process?

An effective self-governance process should be visible, structured, and endorsed by management. Key characteristics and features include:

  • Leadership engagement that encourages continuous improvement and a culture of compliance.
  • Encourages issue identification and tracking with timely closure and verifiable results.
  • A chartered authority structure with cross-organizational engagement that routinely interacts with leadership. This approach develops a broader base of internal expertise and experience.
  • A data-driven methodology to routinely assess system health using clearly defined and independently positioned oversight with a clear line to senior management.
  • Effective, consistent, and defined structured approach that is repeatable and sustainable.
  • Encourages improving project personnel skill levels using proven training  and mentoring techniques.
  • Transparency and means to collect feedback, both critical and praiseworthy.

Need help establishing a self-governance process? 

H&A earned value consultants often assist clients to create and implement a repeatable and sustainable self-governance process to verify their EVMS continues to support the EIA-748 guidelines as well as to assess how project personnel are implementing the EVMS. The objective is to establish a structured process to collect fact-based information useful for creating action plans to address identified deficiencies in the EVMS, how the EVMS is implemented, data quality, or the proficiency levels of project personnel. This structured process is also used to track action plans to closure and verify results.

An industry best practice is to include the EVMS self-governance or self-surveillance process in the EVM System Description along with other artifacts such as the EVMS self-governance charter. Contractors often use government customer surveillance artifacts such as DCMA or DOE automated or manual metrics as the basis to assess the quality of their schedule and cost data as part of their self-governance or self-surveillance process.

If you need help updating your EVM System Description to include a self-governance process, or need to create a self-governance plan, call us today at (714) 685-1730 to get started.

Benefits of an EVMS Self-Governance Process Read Post »

How Integrated Baseline Reviews (IBRs) Contribute to Project Success

By / / , , , ,
, , , ,

What is an Integrated Baseline Review or IBR?

An IBR is a formal review of a contractor’s performance measurement baseline (PMB) a customer conducts shortly after contract award or other project events to gain confidence in the contractor’s ability to deliver and meet contract objectives. Conducting an IBR helps to assure there is mutual agreement on the scope of work, schedule, resource requirements, and budget to meet the customer’s needs. It also assures there is a mutual understanding of the project’s risks and opportunities as well as how they will be managed.

Conducting an IBR is often a contractual requirement along with the requirement to implement an earned value management system (EVMS). Contractual documents specify the time frame for when the IBR must occur after contract award. This is typically within 90 to 180 calendar days. A customer may also conduct an IBR at critical milestones, funding gates, when transitioning to another project phase, or when significant changes are incorporated into a PMB.

What an IBR is Not

An IBR is not an EVMS compliance review. The intent of an IBR is not to devolve into a review of the contractor’s EVMS and whether it complies with the EIA-748 Standard for EVMS guidelines. That said, the contractor must be able to demonstrate they have a disciplined project control system in place. The contractor should be able to demonstrate to the customer that the project’s scope of work is properly planned, scheduled, resourced, budgeted, authorized, and managed using their project control system.

What are the benefits of conducting an IBR?

Conducting an IBR contributes to successful project execution because it helps to ensure a realistic PMB has been established.

IBRs provide the opportunity for the contractor and customer to verify:

  • There is shared understanding of the scope of work, technical requirements, and accomplishment criteria. As the work breakdown structure (WBS) is decomposed into manageable product-orientated work elements, it provides a common frame of reference for communication between the contractor and customer. The WBS dictionary should capture the technical requirements that must be met as well as expected deliverables and outcomes. The contractor must have a clear understanding of customer’s needs, assumptions, and expectations to be able to create a realistic schedule and budget plan. The IBR provides the opportunity for the contractor to verify the scope of work details with the customer before the project execution phase begins. In instances where the technical requirements evolve over time as work progresses, rolling wave planning is often used to detail plan the current work effort with more macro planning for future work effort to ensure the entire scope of work is included.
  • An executable PMB has been established for the entire contractual scope of work. The PMB should accurately reflect how the contractor plans to accomplish the work within the contractual period of performance and negotiated contract cost. The customer’s funding profile may also determine the timing of activities and when resources are required. The schedule and budget should be in alignment. The budget time phasing should reflect the schedule activities and resource requirements. It is also useful to verify appropriate earned value methods and techniques have been selected for the work packages to assure objective and meaningful project performance can be measured and reported as work progresses.
  • The required resources have been identified and assigned to the project. This contributes to producing an executable schedule and budget plan. The staffing plan should accurately reflect the sequence of work and skill mix as well as resource availability and demand to accomplish the project’s objectives. Flat loading labor hours may not accurately reflect common challenges of ramping up resources after contract award or the availability of critical resources for specific tasks. Other resource factors include the timing or availability of critical or high value materials as well as subcontractors responsible for performing work or providing services.
  • Project technical, schedule, and cost risks/opportunities have been identified and assessed. This also contributes to producing an executable schedule and budget plan. Where possible, risk mitigation actions have been incorporated into the PMB to reduce known risks to an acceptable level. For example, the timing or duration of activities as well as resource requirements may need to be adjusted. Schedule margin activities may be incorporated into the integrated master schedule (IMS). It also provides fact-based information to determine the amount of management reserve set aside to handle realized risks. This is often the most valuable component of the IBR. It is essential all parties have an understanding of the identified risks or opportunities, potential impact if they are realized, and risk mitigation or opportunity capture plans.

Why it is important to verify these details during an IBR?

A realistic schedule and budget plan helps to prevent cost growth surprises because of technical, schedule, or budget challenges. The better the up-front planning, the less the likelihood of cost growth during project execution. It also increases credibility with the customer. The contractor can demonstrate their ability to deliver to the customer needs and manage the work effectively.

Benefits of Preparing for an IBR

Establishing a project’s PMB is a significant and often formal event as it signals the transition from the planning to execution phase. It represents the culmination of the integrated planning, scheduling, budgeting, work authorization, and risk/opportunity management processes.

A common best practice is to conduct an internal baseline review regardless of whether a formal IBR with the customer is required prior to setting the PMB. Implementing a standard process to conduct an internal review of the complete set of project data and artifacts with the project personnel assures an executable schedule and budget plan has been established to accomplish the contractual scope of work within the contractual period of performance and negotiated contract cost in alignment with the contract’s funding profile.

These internal reviews help to ensure there is a common understanding of the scope of work, major project events, planned sequence of work, schedule of deliverables, resource requirements, time phased budget, funding profile, and project risks/opportunities. It also provides an opportunity to verify the quality of the integrated schedule and cost data as well as top down and bottom up traceability. 

Need help preparing for an IBR?

A common earned value consulting service H&A provides is conducting a mock IBR with project personnel to prepare for the formal customer IBR. The objective is to conduct a thorough assessment of the project’s PMB to verify it reflects the entire contractual scope of work and technical requirements as well as identified technical, schedule, cost, or resource risks that may impact the ability to execute the work as planned. This provides an opportunity to correct any issues with the PMB prior to the IBR event.

Another standard earned value consulting service we offer is conducting IBR training for project team members. H&A earned value consultants can help you to establish a standard internal process to verify an executable PMB is in place for a given project. Once again, the objective is to prevent cost growth surprises and management is aware of the project’s risks and opportunities that may impact profit margins. 

Call us today at (714) 685-1730 to get started. 

How Integrated Baseline Reviews (IBRs) Contribute to Project Success Read Post »

Who Owns Subcontractor Management Reserve (MR)?

By / / , , ,
, , ,
Who Owns Subcontractor Management Reserve?

Subcontractor, Prime Contractor… Customer?

There has long been discussion regarding who “owns” a subcontractor’s Management Reserve (MR).  Some believe that since the entire contract value was awarded by the prime contractor to the subcontractor, the MR belongs to the prime.  Unfortunately, they might have been influenced by some of their customers who believe a prime contractor’s MR belongs to the customer – even to an extreme in which the customers interject themselves in the prime contractor’s decision process in using their MR. So contractors might figure that if the customer is doing that to them, they should do the same to their subcontractors.

DCMA Cross Reference Checklist

They may try to justify this by pointing out that in the DCMA Cross Reference Checklist (CRC dated 22 March 2019) Guideline # 14 Sub-question b asks:  

“Is major subcontractor Management Reserve (MR) incorporated and traceable to the prime contractor’s EVMS?”

While this might sound to some as though it justifies the argument that the MR belongs to the prime, it really doesn’t.  The actual guideline 14 question is simply asking if the contractor implementing EVMS (in this case the subcontractor) simply does or does not “Identify management reserves and undistributed budget.”  Since the subcontractor is implementing their management system on their contract with the prime, the only requirement is that the subcontractor identifies a Management Reserve (MR) amount (which could be zero, by the way). If they do, then (strangely) subquestion b puts the onus on the prime contractor to reflect the subcontractor’s MR in their EVM system [i.e., strange because how would a subcontractor demonstrate to a review team that their MR is being reflected in the prime’s EVM System?]. This question would be more appropriate if the subcontractor was also the prime to a lower-tier subcontractor.

Reporting vs. Ownership

The above only addresses the reporting of a subcontractor’s MR, but what does the government documentation actually say about the “ownership” of the subcontractor’s MR?

Note: A point to remember in this entire discussion is that the Guidelines, the EVMIG, the Cross Reference Checklist (CRC), and the EVMSIG were written to apply to any contractor required to implement EVMS on a contract – whether they be a prime contractor to a government customer or a subcontractor to a prime contractor (their “customer”).

EVMSIG Chapter 3 Introduction

The EVMSIG Chapter 3 Introduction (pg. 17) says this about MR:

“An allowance is made for a portion of the CBB to be withheld outside of the PMB as Management Reserve (MR) for internal management control purposes. MR is intended to provide the contractor with a budget to manage risk within the established contract scope (Guideline 14).”

As this introductory paragraph points out, MR is established by the contractor (or the subcontractor) for their internal management control purposes to have budget to manage risk within the contract scope. There is no mention of customer involvement in the decision-making process.

Para 3.9 (Guideline 14), Intent of Guideline

A more definitive statement in the EVMSIG is: “Para 3.9 (Guideline 14), Intent of Guideline” in the second paragraph – bullets and underlines have been added for emphasis:

  • “MR belongs to the contractor Program Manager, not the Government,…” [ergo, NOT the prime in a prime/ sub relationship]
  • [It] “provides the contractor with a budget for unplanned activities within the current program scope. MR enables program management to respond to future unforeseen events within the work scope of the program by distributing budget to mitigate program risks.”
  • “To establish MR, the contractor’s program management sets aside budget based on the program’s risk management process and assessment.”
  • [MR] “is not a source of funding for additional work scope or the elimination of performance variances.”
  • “MR is not a contingency fund and may neither be eliminated from contract prices by the customer during subsequent negotiations nor used to absorb the cost of contract changes.” And finally,
  • “MR belonging to a major subcontractor must be incorporated into the prime contractor’s EVMS with traceability to the subcontractor’s reported MR.”

Subcontractor Reports

This last bullet specifically points out that the MR belongs to the subcontractor, and that it must be reflected in the prime’s EVMS as reported by the subcontractor.  Some choose to include a subcontractor’s MR in their own MR value; having it there, however, increases the risk of having the prime think they have more MR to use when, in fact, they do not.  The subcontractor’s MR is not the prime’s to use, so the prime would need a very good mechanism in place to keep the two MR amounts separated.  This needed segregation becomes more complicated if the prime has more than one subcontractor.  Regardless of where the contractor places the subcontractor MR, EVMS requires it to be traceable to the MR value the subcontractor reports.

A Contractor’s Control Mechanism

Management Reserve (MR) is something that is allowed to provide a contractor with flexibility in handling the unknowns on a contract.  It doesn’t matter if it is a prime contractor to a government customer or a lower-tier subcontractor to a higher level (or prime) contractor.  MR is a contractor’s control mechanism and should not be subjected to any level of customer involvement.  The guidelines and implementation/ interpretation documentation try to control improper uses of MR (e.g., covering performance variances, performing out of scope work, etc.), but customers – at all levels – should not interject themselves in a contractor’s decision-making process on the use of MR. Remember also, if customers involve themselves in that process, there is a risk that their perceived “direction” to the contractor could make them complicit in poor MR decisions.

Who Owns Subcontractor Management Reserve (MR)? Read Post »

EVM Training – Decision Making & Charlie Munger – Part 1

By / / , , , , ,
, , , , ,

Large Radio Antenna with Dawn Sky in the Background image for EVM Training - Decision Making and Charlie Munger blog post

Tendency Toward Misjudgment – Part 1

Charlie Munger and EVM Training

So, what does Charles (Charlie) T. Munger, Vice Chairman of Berskshire Hathaway and partner of Warren Buffet have to do with EVM training? Decision Making.  You can imagine the big-money decisions he has helped Buffett make during the many years of building up the legendary outfit. Along the way, he kept track of the happenings around him that through various speeches and writings espoused some clear thinking. Born in Omaha in 1924, Charlie began working with Warren at Buffett & Son, a grocery store owned by Warren Buffett’s grandfather. Eventually graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law in 1948, Charlie moved into the business world.

Psychology of Human Misjudgment

This blog is narrowly focused on what I gleaned from Charlie’s writings about the “psychology of human misjudgment.” Looking to see how this information could be used to help guide a EVM training workshop on the topic of decision making, I went through each of the 25 “tendencies” that he defined and discussed. I would never have guessed that we humans have 25 tendencies that impinge on our thinking processes, but after studying his list, I think he nailed it. Most of the tendencies are backed up with some reference to psychological studies; so be assured Charlie did not make them up. This blog will treat them in numerical order and will add thoughts from the Humphreys & Associates earned value training material on decision making that will make the Charlie Munger points more specific to the subject at hand.

In our EVM training material, we emphasize the process of decision making is critical, and Charlie thought so way before I did. Bad decisions can come from good processes, but that is less likely than bad decisions coming from no process or, even worse, from a bad process. At one point Munger advises the use of checklists can help navigate through the minefield of human tendencies toward misjudgment. An amazingly timely idea, because here at Humphreys & Associates we are just wrapping up our work on “The Big Book of Project Management Checklists” that is aimed at doing just that.

Blocking Human Misjudgement

What about human misjudgment? It appears we humans are fraught with innate tendencies that, if not blocked, can lead us to make misjudgments. A misjudgment would be a wrong decision in terms of this blog. With all that follows in the blog about misjudgment, we are trying to discern a sound process for earned value decision making, with tools like decision trees, that can help avoid or counter the influences of the counterproductive tendencies. Developing your decision-making process should involve findings tactics that help you avoid or defeat or neutralize these tendencies in your EVMS processes.

Tendency #1 – Reward and Punishment Super-Response

Let’s cover one tendency as an example. Tendency #1 is called the “Reward and Punishment Super-Response Tendency.” The word “super” attached to the idea of response to reward is to emphasize that this is a case of over responding. We all know people move toward what is incentivized; they seek the reward. It must be obvious that, if the wrong thing is incentivized, people will be moving in the wrong direction. According to Munger, there is a strong tendency to move toward the reward; an overly strong tendency. Charlie cites some great examples from his experience. Your decision-making process should include some “clearing the minefield” efforts early on in the process to make sure that the decision will not be made in a move toward a reward that would be wrong for the situation. A simple example could be that you are involved in deciding about launch-ing a long-term effort that would cost quite a bit that does not have certainty to the outcome. If you are incentivized toward short terms profits, then you have the biased tendency to discard the idea in favor of short term gains.

Deprival Super-Reaction Tendency

There is a potentially related tendency called the “Deprival Super-Reaction Tendency.” This is the tendency to feel more pain from a loss than to feel pleasure from a gain of the same amount or thing. According to this tendency, there is more motivation associated with avoiding pain than making a gain. The see-saw is weighted in one direction. How counterproductive is that tendency toward carefully considered decision-making? If we are trying to make a gain in our decision process, we are not only fighting the facts of the situation but also our innate bias against taking a risk. The idea can be seen in the commonly observed action of throwing good money after bad. A loss is imminent, so the decision is to spend more to head it off to potentially save the day and avoid the pain; is that wise? Think about the situation where someone says or is known to think that “I will not be denied no matter the cost.” You probably do not want that kind of thinking involved in your decision making. Now think about a situation where tendency #1 and tendency #2 both align against one of the options being considered. Would an option that faces the tendency to risk some pain of loss and to move against a potential reward stand a chance if those tendencies were not neutralized?

Blog Series

Hopefully you get the idea now. This blog will be followed by another that covers some of the remaining tendencies identified by Charles T. Munger. I hope to learn more from and will translate what I learn here and in our EVM training material. Stay tuned.

EVM Training – Decision Making & Charlie Munger – Part 1 Read Post »

Scroll to Top