Concept: A happy by-product of P-Factor calculations is a list of deliverables that are out of alignment with the schedule. The list is helpful, especially on large projects, because it makes it easy to group problem tasks. Grouping them makes patterns more readily visible. That accelerates root-cause analysis and remediation planning.
Practice: Recently, on a large program, ProjectFlightDeck established and operated the PMO. Early in the program, we shared ES metrics with our project sponsor. The numbers showed that one of the projects (call it Project X) was not only late, but the lag was increasing.
Here are the metrics we shared with the sponsor.
Figure 1
Our sponsor appreciated that the metrics warned her of a performance problem. After all, they picked out Project X from more than a dozen in the program. But, she wasn’t satisfied. Seeing the “smoke” wasn’t enough—she wanted to know: where was the fire?
Early in ES history, we would only have been able to identify as culprits deliverables with an Earned Value shortfall—cases in which the deliverable’s Earned Value was less than its Planned Value as of the current time. Although relevant, these cases do not tell the whole story about schedule performance. Notably, they fail to highlight deliverables done out-of-sequence.
Schedule Adherence identifies those deliverables. As Walt Lipke has pointed out, ES is the time at which the value currently earned should have been earned (Lipke, 2008). That makes the ES time a tipping point: the spot in the timeline where Planned Value and Earned Value are equal. By that time, each deliverable should have earned all and only the value planned for it. Any value earned outside that constraint does not adhere to the schedule.
An examination of the value planned and earned as of the ES time (as opposed to the Actual Time) pinpoints the deliverables that are not adhering to the schedule. The examination is a natural consequence of calculating the P-Factor.
As explained in a previous post, where a deliverable’s total value earned is greater than its value planned as of the ES time, the overage is not aligned with the schedule. Such deliverables are being done before their time and are therefore liable for re-work.
Thus, a beneficial side-effect of the P-Factor calculation is that it identifies deliverables that are done out of sequence. Once the culprits are identified, it is easy to group them. That’s especially useful in large programs and projects where there are literally thousands of deliverables, and problems can be scattered across them.
By highlighting the misaligned deliverables, patterns are easier to see and root-cause analysis and remediation easier to do. A snapshot from Project X’s Schedule Adherence report illustrates the point.
Figure 2
Note the Task IDs: they are interspersed widely across the schedule. But, then, look at the descriptions. They all involve specifications: either sign off, updates, or associated business reviews.
Root-cause analysis of those deliverables uncovered the problem. The project had changed the definition of “Done”. To build delivery momentum, the team had decided to allow conditional sign offs. As a result, there was a rush to claim completion of specifications. Lots of work appeared to be finished early.
Unfortunately, rework was likely, as many outstanding issues remained even though the deliverables were declared as finished. To fill in the gaps, team members made assumptions. If the assumptions turned out to be incorrect (almost a certainty), specifications would have to be re-opened and revised. Work contingent on the specs would, in turn, have to be revised, and problems would cascade through the schedule.
The PMO helped the project team to recognize the problem and develop a solution. Essentially, they returned to a more rigorous definition of “Done” and added in deliverables to remediate the specs that had already slipped through. Although the project was not able to regain all the time that had been lost and
exhausted its Contingency, it was able to complete within its Margin.
Without Schedule Adherence’s help identifying where the “fires” were burning, it is unlikely that the problem would have been caught early enough to finish by the Sponsor’s deadline.
Glossary:
Actual Time = the current period
Atomic Task = a work package that produces a tangible deliverable for which there is a clear criterion of completion
Earned Value = aka, Budgeted Cost of Work Performed (BCWP)
ES = Earned Schedule--the time at which the value currently earned should have been earned
ES Time = Project Start Date + amount of Earned Schedule
P-Factor = a measure of schedule adherence
Planned Value = aka, Budgeted Cost of Work Scheduled (BCWS)
References:
Lipke, W. (2011). Schedule Adherence and Rework. The Measurable News, Issue 1 (corrected version).
Lipke, W. (2009). Schedule Adherence …a useful measure for project management. The Measurable News, Issue 3.
Lipke, W. (2008). Schedule Adherence: A Useful Measure for Project Management,” CrossTalk, April. |
