Upload
graham
View
26
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Project Monitoring and Control with EVA and Burn Graphs. Guy Davis Kendra Hamilton Ed Dantsiguer. Agenda. Origins of EVA EVA Explained EVA Examples Shortcomings of EVA Agile side of EVA Burn Graphs Tools Discussion. Overview of EVA. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Project Monitoring and Control with EVA and Burn Graphs
Guy Davis
Kendra Hamilton
Ed Dantsiguer
Agenda
Origins of EVA EVA Explained EVA Examples Shortcomings of EVA Agile side of EVA Burn Graphs Tools Discussion
Overview of EVA
“The essence of [Earned Value Management Systems] is that some level of detail appropriate for the degree of technical, schedule, and cost risk or uncertainty associated with the program, a target value ….is established.” Paul Solomon 2002.
History of EVA
PERT/Cost (1963) DoD Cost/Schedule Control Systems Criteria
(C/SCSC) (1967). Government Performance and Results Act (1993),
Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, Title V (1994), Clinger-Cohen Act (1996)
EIA-748-1998 “Earned Value Management System” Office of Management and Budget (Circular A-11, Part
7) (2003)
Motivation for EVA
Integrates work, cost, and schedule metrics. Early warning signal. Driving by looking in the front windshield
instead of the rear view mirror. Statistical projection.
U.S. Government requirement.
EVA Explained 1/3
EVA concentrates on project management and control Requires a number of tasks to be
performed before utilizing EVA: Work Breakdown Structure
(WBS) Creation of detailed plan (critical
path plan) Includes all activities that have to
be performed, their durations, costs and relative contributions to the overall deliverable
EarnedValue
Cost
Schedule Technical Performance
EVA Explained 2/3
EVA Explained 3/3
EVA is used to determine current project performance and estimate/forecast future project performance
Based on 3 data points: Budgeted Cost of Work Performed (BCWP) Actual Cost of Work Performed (ACWP) Budgeted Cost of Work Scheduled (BCWS)
Budgeted Cost of Work Performed
Planned (budgeted/estimated) cost of work that has been completed until this point
Answers: “How much was performed work supposed to cost?” Based on features/activities completed and
the budgeted amount for these features/activities in the original project plan
Actual Cost of Work Performed
Actual cost of work that has been completed until this point
Answers: “What was the actual cost of work actually performed?” Based on features/activities completed and
cost of these features/activities in real life
Budgeted Cost of Work Scheduled
Planned (budgeted/estimated) cost of work that was supposed to be completed
Answers: “How much work should have been done and how much was it meant to cost?” Based on features/activities planned/scheduled and
the budgeted amount for these features/activities in the original project plan
Budget at Completion (BAC) is the total funds allocated (budgeted) for this project to complete
Derived Metrics
Schedule Variance (SV) SV = BCWP – BCWS Compares what is done with what was supposed to be
done SV < 0 project is behind schedule
Cost Variance (CV) CV = BCWP – ACWP Compares actual project cost with budgeted project
costs CV < 0 project is over budget
Schedule/Cost Performance Index
Schedule Performance Index (SPI) SPI = BCWP/BCWS SPI < 1 project is behind schedule
Cost Performance Index (CPI) CPI = BCWP/ACWP CPI < 1 project is over budget
Cost Schedule Index (CSI) CSI = CPI * SPI CSI < 1 project is not tracking to plan
The further away CSI is from 1, the less likely is successful project recovery
Using EVA Metrics in Project Control 1/2 Each individual EVA metric is not greatly
useful on its own Metrics need to be considered as a group Ex: Just because a project has a CSI of 1
does not imply that the project is doing well – it may be well ahead of schedule while also being well ahead of its budget
Using EVA Metrics in Project Control 2/2 ACWP metric can be used to project future activity
costs/durations This is called Estimate To Completion (ETC) The end of the projected ETC curve is
the Estimate At Completion (EAC) estimated schedule and cost required to complete the
project based on current productivity and spending Comparison between EAC and BAC shows is the
project is likely to be on schedule and/or on budget Variance at Completion (VAC) schedule difference
between BAC and EAC
Recommended Performance Metric Values
Performance Metric
Green
Yellow
Red
SPI 0.95 and greater
0.90 and greater
Less than 0.90
CPI 0.95 and greater
0.90 and greater
Less than 0.90
VAC 0.05 and lesser
0.10 and lesser
Greater than 0.10
Per the “U.S. Marine Corps Acquisition Procedures Handbook,” June 1997
EVA Task Types
Discrete Effort Activities with start and end time that result in
deliverables Apportioned Effort
Effort required to support discrete effort tasks (Ex: inspections, quality control)
Proportional to the type/size of discrete effort tasks that they support
Level of Effort Overhead activities with no concrete deliverables (Ex:
management and administrative activities)
Crediting Earned Value
Discrete Effort Credited upon completion with actual cost and duration
tracked Apportioned Effort
Credited upon completion of related discrete effort tasks
Level of Effort Credited according to plan (regardless of actual cost
and duration)
Crediting Earned Value Methods
Milestone Events Weighted Milestone Gates Percentage Complete Fixed Formula Level of Effort Percentage Complete and Milestone Gates
EVA Example 1/2
Planned/Scheduled Data: Duration of 10 months Includes 10 features with multiple tasks Budget of $100 million
Actual After 6 Weeks: 55% of the work has been completed $85 million has been spent
EVA Example 2/2Earned Value Analysis
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time, Working Weeks
Cum
ulat
ive
Spen
ding
BCWS
BCWP
ACWP
ETC
Date of progress measurement
Schedule variance Cost Variance
Time variance
BAC
EAC
VAC
Cost Overrun
Success Factors for EVA
Quality of the baseline; need to include all details.
Take action early based on performance indicators.
“I hate everything that merely instructs me without augmenting or directly invigorating my activity” Goethe
Shortcomings of EVA
Based on past performance; assumes constant rate of spend and value creation
Assumes a direct relationship between time and cost. Value measured in technical components, not
expected business value. Project must be fully defined at outset; the devil is in
the details. Time required for measuring project’s progress
EVA Tools
Excel Welcom “Cobra” http://www.welcom.com/ Schedulemaker http://www.schedulemaker.com Planisware “OPX2” http://www.planisware.com/ RiskTrak http://www.risktrak.com/index.htm Winsight http://www.cs-solutions.com/ Primavera Systems http://www.primavera.com/
EVA compared to Agile
Full project view vs. Iterative view Tasks fully defined vs. Changing requirements Attempts to forecast future vs. Determination
of next iteration EVA is not suitable for truly “Agile” projects
EVA in an Agile/Iterative Project
Approach 1: Stories = BCWS Tasks = BCWS in more detail Assignments = ACWP Velocity = BCWP Testable requirements = 0% or 100% BCWP
EVA in an Agile/Iterative Project
Approach 2: Do EVA on individual iterations
Approach 3: Generate micro estimations for current iteration
and macro estimations for future iterations
Burn Graphs
Origins of Burn Graphs Cumulative flow diagrams from lean production
Goal: to provide a succinct view of progress. Allows project sponsors to steer the project. Allows scrum master report visually to
stakeholders. Allows the team to gain experience estimating
by getting direct feedback. (Empowering)
Burn-Down Graphs
Shows remaining estimated effort on item Usually in ideal engineering time (IET hours)
Calculated for any level of task abstraction
Scrum Backlog Graphs Product Backlog Graph
High-level view of overall project progress. Completion date: work left versus resources
available. Quantitative tool for making trade-offs.
Sprint Backlog Graph Detailed view of a single sprint's progress. Sprint signatures: compare current with past
results. First notice of schedule slips seen here.
Not always pretty...
Burn-up Graphs
Shows progress on completion of item Usually displays percentage complete Just the inverse of a burn-down graph
Cumulative Flow Diagrams
Tracks number of features (and status) over time Better for reporting than:
% complete graph of feature milestone percentages Features completed over time
Overview of Burn Graphs
Benefits Easy to compile/track Feedback to the team
and status to the customer
Highlights: Schedule slips Scope creep
Drawbacks Metric choice is key Over-simplification?
Hides dependencies Should be able to
zoom to see levels Traditionalists will resist
implementation?
Burn Graph Tools Open-source
Outreach Project Tool (OPT) XPlanner
Commercial Version One MS Excel
References Anderson, David J. “Using Cumulative Flow Diagrams with FDD”. Feature Driven Development. 2003.
http://www.featuredrivendevelopment.com/node/view/515 Anderson, David J. Agile Management for Software Engineering. Prentice Hall. 2003 Alleman, Glen B., Henderson, Michael, “Making Agile Development Work in a Government Contracting
Environment” Proceedings of the Agile Development Conference, IEEE, 2003. Fleming, Quentin W., Koppelman, Joel M., “Earned Value Project Management: A Powerful Tool for Software
Projects”, Crosstalk, July 1998. Hayes, Heather, “Using Earned-Value Analysis to Better Manage Projects”, Pharmaceutical Technology,
February 2002. Howes, Rodney “Improving the Performance of Earned Value Analysis as a Construction Project Management
Tool”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 2000. Schwaber, Ken and Mike Beedle. Agile Software Development with Scrum. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River,
NJ. 2002 Solomon, Paul J., “Practical Software Measurement, Performance-Based Earned Value,” Crosstalk,
September, 2002.
Discussion Points
Can EVA be applied to agile projects?
What metrics would you use for burn graphs? Would you adopt burn graphs at your
organization?