TheBoozAllenEarnedSchedule Experience pe e ce

Howweveappliedit;whatwevelearned LisaDWolf,EVP,PMP MichelleJones,EVP,PMP

Booz|Allen|Hamilton

DiscussionPoints
y Introduction HowBoozAllenWasIntroducedto y y y y y

EarnedSchedule B i fO Brief Overview i of fWhat Wh Earned E dSchedule S h d l Is I InitialCaseStudies(PreviouslyPresented) N Named dCase C Studies: S di NRO SamplesofHowtoReporttheData I l Implementation t ti Ti Tips

E dS h d l Introduction I d i Earned Schedule

y December, 2007 PMI SeminarsWorld, San Diego y Course regarding IT EVM included an introduction to Earned Schedule Sched le y February, 2009 Brought Mr. Kym Henderson to

Booz Allen corporate headquarters to introduce Earned Schedule to client-based staff y March, 2009 Booz Allen began g introducing g ES to its major government clients

WhatisEarnedSchedule InBrief
y A non-traditional EVM metric y Basis B i for f Schedule S h d l metrics t i in i months, th vice i dollars d ll y Added Value without extra data collection y A technique designed as an early warning of schedule slip y Intended to enable EVM users to compensate for inherent

weaknesses of the SPI metric y Intended to p provide further validation of Critical Path Analysis y
y Basic Earned Schedule terminology
y AT: Actual Time (number of months since project start) y PDWR: Planned Duration for Work Remaining y IEAC(t): Independent Estimate at Complete in months

y Data validity is critical. Earned Schedule, as well as traditional EVM

metrics and forecasts rely on the quality of the inputs

4

EarnedScheduleModelOutputs
BaselineScheduleDurationv. EstimatedDurations
IEAC3(t) IEAC2(t) () IEAC1(t) Baseline 0.0 50.0 100.0
169.6 157 169.4 245.6

IEAC(t) provides a range of Independent Estimates at Complete in months using the programs efficiency factor, similar to the EVM Independent Estimate at Complete in dollars

150.0 TotalMonths

200.0

250.0

300.0

Baseline

IEAC1(t)

IEAC2(t)

IEAC3(t)
To-Schedule-Performance-Index provides the efficiency y factor required q to meet the baseline completion date

Actual Time (AT) 84.93 Months Elapsed

Earned Schedule (ES) 72.62 Months Worth of Work Complete

SV[t]

Earned Schedule Metrics Planned Duration Work Remaining 84.46 Months of Work Remaining

Baseline Duration 72.15 Months Until Original Scheduled Delivery

SPI(t) 1.00

TSPI 1.17

-12.31 Months Behind Schedule

EarnedScheduleBasicConcept
$

The idea is to determine the time at which the EV accrued should have occurred.
PV EV ES
B

Time Now

SVc

SVt

AT

10

For the above example, ES = 5 months that is the time associated with the PMB at which PV equals the EV accrued at month 7.
Copyright2009 Lipke&Henderson

EarnedScheduleBasicMetrics
y Required measures y Performance Measurement Baseline (PMB) the time phased planned values (PV) from project start to completion y Earned Value (EV) the planned value which has been earned earned y Actual Time (AT) - the actual time duration from the project beginning to the time at which project status is assessed y All measures available from EVM

Copyright2009 Lipke&Henderson

InitialCaseStudyFindings
As previously presented at IPM in 2009:
y Executed ES on both Civil and DoD organizations
y Earned Schedule projected the delay before the IMS did y Earned Schedule is useful, even if the project schedule is not robust y For analysis and reporting purposes, we need to calculate Earned

Schedule at the project level. For management and accountability purposes, we need to calculate it at the task area level
y Earned Schedule is only as good as your Earned Value data data. If the

data does not accurately represent the state of the project, it will not be a provide an accurate Estimate At Complete
y Earned E dS Schedule h d l calculations l l ti b by t task k area require i an E Excel l

Spreadsheet, and are not supported by EVM tools yet

8

EarnedSchedule CaseStudy
Thisresearchwasjointlysponsoredby BoozAllen andtheNationalReconnaissanceOfficeCost AnalysisImprovementGroup(NROCAIG). CAIG) However, However theviewsexpressedinthisarticlearethoseof theauthorsanddonotnecessarilyreflecttheofficialpolicyorpositionoftheNROCAIGorany otherorganizationoftheU.S.government.

ObjectiveandContentsofthePresentation
y Objective: Use NRO CAIG Earned Value Management

Data to test Earned Schedule Model, and to draw conclusions as to when it is a value-added indicator
y Earned Schedule Definition y Program g Case Studies
y Program Case Studies include high risk, advanced technology systems. y The PMB can be an aggressive plan with minimal cost and schedule

reserves. Additional cost and schedule reserves are held at the reserves organization level rather than the contract level, at which we use our earned schedule model to forecast contract completion dates.

y Conclusions and Recommendations

SummaryofProgramCaseStudies
ProgramC P CaseSt Studies di ProgramWyear6 ProgramWyear10 ProgramX ProgramY ProgramZ AdditionalEarnedSchedule Data ProgramM ProgramN Civil ITProject Civil ShipbuildingProgram x x x x x x x x x
In sig Co htfu ns l M iste isl n ea t di ng

Quantitative measure,supportingcontroversial ICE Consistentwithotherprogrammetrics Earlywarningofschedule problems Indicatedslip,butextentofslipdilutedbyLOEinEVMbaseline Earlywarningsignofmajorschedule delay Earnedschedule forecastsontime performance foraprogrambeingmanagedtoschedule Earnedschedule consistentwithothermetrics Earlywarningofaschedule slip Accurate projectionofa6 monthdelayindelivery

Insightful: Earned schedule metrics and forecast are a leading indicator of schedule performance or highlight something missed by other analytical techniques Consistent: Earned schedule metrics and forecast are consistent with the other program data Misleading: Earned schedule metrics and forecast are inconsistent with other program status indicators

ProgramW year6Background
y

Program Background y Hardware program with multiple deliveries. In year 6, the Cost Analysis Improvement (CAIG) did an Independent I t Group G I d d t Cost C t Estimate E ti t for f the th program. The Program office was projecting a 2 year schedule slip compared to the program office plan. Earned Schedule Challenge y Would earned schedule have been an indicator that the program delivery would be later than the program office launch date? CPR data (PMB at 75% complete): Cumulative EVM data at the PMB level does not indicate a schedule problem with the program.
Traditional EVM data indicates a minor schedule variance.

Dollars

COSTCUM BCWS COSTCUM BCWP COSTCUM ACWP

Months

ProgramW year6EarnedSchedule
BaselineScheduleDurationv. EstimatedDurations
IEAC3(t) IEAC2(t) IEAC1(t) Baseline 0.0 50.0 100.0
169.6 157 169.4 245.6

CumulativeSPI(t)vs.SPI($)
1.05 1.00 0.95 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.65 SPI(t) SPI($) TargetSPI

150.0 T t lMonths Total M th

200.0

250.0

300.0

Baseline

IEAC1(t)

IEAC2(t)

IEAC3(t)
0.60

Months
A t l Time Actual Ti (AT) 84.93 Months Elapsed E Earned d Schedule S h d l (ES) 72.62 Months Worth of Work Complete SV[t] Earned Schedule Metrics Pl Planned d Duration D ti Work W k Remaining R i i 84.46 Months of Work Remaining B li Duration Baseline D ti 72.15 Months Until Original Scheduled Delivery SPI(t) 0.86 TSPI 1.17

-12.31 Months Behind Schedule

SPI(t) has a downward trend that was not apparent in SPI($). SPI($) Earned schedule forecasts show a problem that was not apparent in other program metrics. In the Cumulative SPI(t) vs. SPI($) chart, the SPI(t) data points drop to zero in months that the program reported ACWP, ACWP but not BCWS or BCWP BCWP.

Program W y year10Background g g
y Program Background
y Hardware program with 5 deliveries. In year 10, the first delivery

was made. d y Earned Schedule Challenge y Are Earned Schedule metrics accurate in a well-performing program? y CPR data (PMB at 87% complete): Cumulative EVM data at the PMB level does not indicate a schedule problem with the program.
Traditional EVM data indicates a minor cost and schedule variance.
BCWS cum BCWPcum ACWPcum

Dollars

Months

Program W y year10EarnedSchedule g
BaselineScheduleDurationv. EstimatedDurations
IEAC3(t) IEAC2(t) IEAC1(t) Baseline 77 0 77.0 77 5 77.5
78 78.9 79.0 79.8

CumulativeSPI(t)vs.SPI($)
1.05 1 00 1.00 0.95 0.90 0.85 0.80
SPI(t) SPI($) TargetSPI

78 0 78.0

78 5 78.5 TotalMonths

79 0 79.0

79 5 79.5

80 0 80.0

0 75 0.75 0.70 0.65

Baseline

IEAC1(t)

IEAC2(t)

IEAC3(t)

0.60

Months

Actual Time (AT) 41 Months Elapsed

Earned Schedule (ES) 40.07 Months Worth of Work Complete

SV[t]

Earned Schedule Metrics Planned Duration Work Remaining 37.95 Months of Work Remaining

Baseline Duration 37.02 Months Until Original Scheduled Delivery

SPI(t) 0.98

TSPI 1.03

0.93 Months Behind Schedule

The program is on target, target according to both traditional EVM and Earned Schedule metrics

Program XBackground g g
y Program Background
y Hardware program with one delivery y Program experienced major delays

y Earned Schedule Objective

y Could an analyst forecast a schedule slip with earned schedule more

accurately than with traditional EVM measures? y CPR Data (PMB at 50% complete): At that time, there was a schedule variance of less than 5%, a slight cost variance, and the contractor was projecting no variance at complete. p There are 3 spikes p in the cumulative data, which were corrected in subsequent months.
Traditional EVM data does not indicate a performance p p problem.
Dollars

COSTCUM BCWS COSTCUM BCWP COSTCUM ACWP

Months

ProgramXEarnedSchedule
BaselineScheduleDurationv. EstimatedDurations
IEAC3(t) IEAC2(t) IEAC1(t) Baseline 0 20 40 TotalMonths Baseline IEAC1(t) IEAC2(t) IEAC3(t) 60 80 100

CumulativeSPI(t)vs.SPI($)
1.05 1.00 0.95 0 90 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.65 0 60 0.60
Earned Schedule Metrics Planned Duration Work Remaining 55.54 Months of Work Remaining

SPI(t) SPI($) TargetSPI

Actual Time (AT) 14 Months Elapsed

Earned Schedule (ES) 12.51 Months Worth of Work Complete

SV[t] 1.49 Months Behind Schedule

Months

Baseline Duration

SPI(t) 0.89

TSPI 1.03

54.05 Months Until Original Scheduled Delivery

The program experienced Th i d major j d delays. l C Completion l ti was 4 years l later t th than th the b baseline li date. At 50% complete (based on BCWP/BAC), the earned schedule model indicates that program delivery will be ~15 months late using the 3 month SPI(t) average calculation. At 75% complete earned schedule indicates a program delivery ~36 months , although the program office still projected an earlier delivery. Long lead items purchased at the beginning of program kept the SPI($) close to 1.0 even though the SPI(t) schedule slipped. point in time, , TSPI indicates that 1.03 efficiency y is needed to deliver on time, , At this p whereas efficiency has been at 89% to date. An improvement of that magnitude is unlikely, based on industry-wide historical data.

ProgramYBackground
Program Background Program Y is an IT System. The baseline contains a high percentage of Level of Effort (vice Discrete) work packages. The program experienced an 11-month schedule delay and an OTB situation one month after the status date presented presented. Earned Schedule Challenge Could earned schedule have forecasted the schedule delay necessitated by the OTB? CPR Data (PMB at 74% complete): shows unfavorable cost and schedule performance.
Traditional EVM indicates a 5% schedule variance.

Dollars

CUMBCWS CUMBCWP CUMACWP

Months

ProgramYEarnedSchedule
BaselineScheduleDurationv. EstimatedDurations
1.05

CumulativeSPI(t)vs.SPI($)
1.00 0 95 0.95 0.90 0.85 0.80
SPI(t) SPI($) TargetSPI

IEAC3(t) IEAC2(t) IEAC1(t) Contractor 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

0.75 0 70 0.70 0.65

T t l M Total Months th Contractor IEAC1(t) IEAC2(t) IEAC3(t)

0.60

Actual Time (AT) 34.73 Months Elapsed

Earned Schedule (ES) 31.47 Months Worth of Work Complete

Earned Schedule Metrics SV[t] Planned Duration Work Remaining 3 26 Months Behind 3.26 Schedule 1.44 Months of Work Remaining

Months
Baseline Duration -1 1.82 82 Months Until Original Scheduled Delivery SPI(t) 0.91 TSPI -0.79

SPI(t) was less favorable than SPI($), SPI($) and the schedule forecast is 3 months late. However, the OTB added 11 months to the schedule. Earned Schedule was diluted by the high percentage of LOE in the baseline. The negative g TSPI indicates the schedule variance is not recoverable.

Program og a ZBackground ac g ou d
y y y

Program Background y This program communicated a favorable forecast up until the month an OTB was announced. announced An independent cost estimate was completed the month prior to the OTB, based on the favorable information Earned Schedule Challenge y Could earned schedule have provided an early warning of a problem? CPR Data (PMB at 84% complete): The month the Independent Cost Estimate was complete, schedule performance was on target and CPI was 0.98.
Traditional EMV data indicates that the program is behind cost, but the schedule is not greatly affected.

Dolla ars

COSTCUM BCWS COSTCUM BCWP COSTCUM ACWP

Months

Program ZEarnedSchedule g
BaselineScheduleDurationv. EstimatedDurations
IEAC3(t) IEAC2(t) IEAC1(t) Baseline 0 100 200 TotalMonths
0.80

CumulativeSPI(t)vs.SPI($)
1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20

SPI(t) SPI($) TargetSPI

300

400

500

1.00

Baseline

IEAC1(t)

IEAC2(t)

IEAC3(t)
0.60

Actual Time (AT) 76.6 Months Elapsed

Earned Schedule (ES) 63.07 Months Worth of Work Complete

SV[t]

Earned Schedule Metrics Planned Duration Work Remaining 56.01 Months of Work Remaining

Months
Baseline Duration 42.48 Months Until Original Scheduled Delivery SPI(t) 0.82 TSPI 1.32

13.53 Months Behind Schedule

The 3 month earned schedule indicator shows a 10-20 year slip, which indicates current baseline cannot be forecast the This should be taken forecast b used d to f h rest of f the h program. Thi h ld not b k as a precise i f of a 20 year slip, but an indication that the program needs to rebaseline, which it did. The underlying cause of schedule underperformance is extensive internal replanning; within each rolling wave period the program moved near-term future work further into the future without extending end date. As the program targets each month, e te d g e d date s a result, esu t, t ep og a met et its ts ta gets eac o t , but would ou d need eed to perform at TSPI 1.32 to meet the baseline date. Data continue to show continued negative trends SPI(t) is indicating a major schedule problem although SPI($) is between 0.99 and 1.00 for the last 24 months of the contract.

NROCaseStudyConclusions
y

g j schedule delays, y , earned schedule can highlight g g For p programs with major schedule problems using EVM data, to a greater extent than traditional EVM metrics. SPI(t) has been shown to exceed reporting thresholds before SPI($), providing earlier indication of schedule problems. For programs without major schedule variance, earned schedule metrics were consistent with other program metrics. If a program contains a significant amount of LOE, Earned Schedule analysis should be performed at a lower level of the WBS, or the forecast will be diluted.

PresentingESData
EstimateatComplete(EAC$) BAC$:BudgetatComplete Estimate at Complete (EACtime)

Independent I d d t Cost Estimates

Planned Duration: number of months Planned End Date: planned end date Status Date: number of months since project start E Earned dS Schedule: h d l number b of f months th of f work k accomplished li h d IEAC1(t) = AT + (PDWR / SPI(t) cum) IEAC2(t) = AT + (PDWR / SPI(t) 3 month) IEAC3( (t) ) = AT + ( (PDWR) ) Project End Date: date from MS Project Schedule

EAC1 =AC+(BAC BCWPcum) EAC2 =AC+(BAC BCWPcum)/CPI EAC2 =AC+(BAC BCWPcum)/(CPI*SPI) EAC3 =AC+(BAC BCWPcum)/(0.8*CPI+0.2*SPI) LRE:Managerslatestrevisedestimate

CAMs latest cost plan

Independent Time Estimates

Critical Path Analysis

CAMs latest schedule plan

24

Reminder: PDWR stands for planned duration of work remaining

PresentingESData
EstimateatComplete(EAC$) BAC$:3,360,686.78 EAC1 =1,040,000 EAC2 =1,080,000 EAC2 =1,134,000 EAC3 =1,081,970 LRE:1,100,000
Estimate at Complete (EACtime) Planned Duration: 21 Months Planned End Date: November 2010 Status Date: 7 Months Earned Schedule: 4 Months IEAC1(t) = 34 Months May 2012 IEAC2(t) = 51 Months December 2012 IEAC3(t) = 28 Months January 2011 Project End Date: 25 Months December 2010

Critical Path Analysis: Data Conversion is forecasted to be 2 months late, and is on the critical path. Therefore, it will push the go-live date out 2 months.

25

ResourcesforAdoptingEarnedSchedule
y EarnedScheduleWebsite,includingpapers

andtrainingresources
y http://www.earnedschedule.com/Home.shtml

y Wiki Wikipedia di Site Sit y http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_ScheduleThird tierbullets

26

EarnedScheduleImplementationTips
y Educate your client or customer y Make take time for adoption y Even if you dont present ES metrics, they could

contribute to better variance analysis y y Needs solid EVM data and a well constructed project schedule
y LOE Tasks, T k Material M t i lC Costs t can dil dilute t ES D Data t

y Run time before presenting to your client or customer is

helpful p
y Helps detect IMS/EV integration problems

y Needs to be used in context of all PM tools y When project is rebaselined you must set ES back to 0
27

WhatWeDiscussed
y How Booz Allen Was Introduced to Earned

Schedule
y Brief Over view of What Earned Schedule Is y Case Studies y Data Reporting y Implementation Tips

28

LisaDWolf,EVP,PMP EVM FocalPoint, BoozAllenHamilton 3018257478

MichelleJones,EVP,PMP LeadAssociate, BoozAllenHamilton 7036332130

29