Dinner Meeting Presentation
Abstract
Quality Backbone: If you do not start with
a quality project plan, do not track the progress
due diligently and do not ensure grass roots ownership
and accountability, then you cannot expect to benefit
out of any earned value initiative.
EV Threshold Bands: A goal of 1.0 for SPI
/ CPI is ideal. However, it is more practical to
manage using threshold bands or limits. You should
also suspect any favorable SPI/CPI (i.e., > 1.0
meaning either ahead of schedule or under budget)
as it is seldom really the case and often too good
to be true. Up to 10% ahead or behind may still
mean on-schedule and on-budget to allow for normal
planning / estimating inaccuracies.
Portfolio SPI/CPI: Good for upper management
communications but often is least actionable and
hence has questionable value
SPI / CPI Model Extensions:
• EV Risks - Quality / Reliability: PMI's
SPI/CPI standard model does not take into account
quality / reliability of input WBS. Consequently,
GIGO rules (Garbage In Garbage Out). The author
proposes a risk-adjusted model where a WBS-based
risk factor is quantified and applied to correct
the standard SPI / CPI. The risk factor is measured
on the three prime sources of project risks ( i.e.,
Scope, Schedule and Cost) as evidenced in the WBS.
• Hours based SPI / CPI as an workaround
to cost-based SPI/CPI: PMI standard model
is cost based and requires dollarized WBS. Howevr,
most projects typically manage $$ outside the
WBS and most project managers typically are also
schedule focused first, cost focused next (if
at all). The author propses an SPI / CPI work
around based merely on level of effort (hours).
Pain Killers available: Author has developed
MS project tool supporting the above business solutions
and is willing to DEMO if audience is interested
and time permits.
|
