Concept: The necessary balance between the value of R-tasks and that of IC-tasks is woven into the fabric of ES theory. The underlying math guarantees it. At the same time, the balance also conflicts with common intuitions.
The clash between ES’s formal framework and gut reactions sets the stage for Pro’s and Con’s.
Practice: Let’s start with the Con’s, as they reflect our immediate response to the connection between R-tasks and IC-tasks. Then, we’ll move to the Pro’s, as they reflect a more measured response to the relationship.
Con: Consider the implications of the following scenarios:
Say you decide to work ahead on a set of tasks, accepting that you might later be haunted by rework. According to ES, you must at the same time accept that there will be delays due to impediments and constraints.
Similarly, say that you decide to switch resources off a set of tasks, accepting that their progress will be impeded or constrained. According to ES, you must also accept that a corresponding amount of rework will emerge.
The implications conflict with intuition. Why think that the amount of rework leads to an equal amount of impediments and constraints? Conversely, why should value that is impeded or constrained dictate value likely to require rework?
Surely, experience points in a different direction:
It seems that work done prematurely can just happen to occur. We sometimes observe work being done ahead without thinking that other work will be impeded or constrained as a consequence.
Equally, it seems that impediments/constraints can just happen to occur—they are not necessitated by rework. Granted, by working ahead, we sometimes use resources that might have been applied to other tasks and that can result in their start being delayed. But, surely, we can start work early without always causing delay elsewhere.
What's behind the conflicts with intuition?
Think fast: heavy objects fall faster than light ones, right? Intuitively, the answer is, Yes. Causal thinking such as this is fast, instinctive, and it packs a powerful psychological punch.
The same punch lies behind the intuition that R-tasks and IC-tasks are independent: they are not causally connected so they must be independent. Right?
Pro: Conflict with intuition is not conclusive. If it were, many formal frameworks would be in trouble. For instance, science has a long history of conflict with intuition.
Just as science counters the intuition that an object’s weight causes it to fall faster, so ES theory counters the intuition that R and IC are independent because they are not causally connected.
In ES, the necessary balance is demanded by the math, but that doesn’t mean it is purely formal, lacking psychological or practical impact. Why not?
The answer is in the footing for the math: “Without principles, practices and processes have no home on which they can be validated”. [1]
The “home” for ES is a deceptively simple principle: Earned Schedule is the time at which the value currently earned (EV@AT) should have been earned (PV@ES). [2] It is the balance point between R-tasks and I/C-tasks. [3]
The principle is normative, as signaled by the use of the word, “should”. How are normative principles justified? “Normative reasoning…specif[ies] standards or principles for action and practices, which if adopted may also be formative for the states of affairs to which activity leads.” [4]
On time delivery is a desired “state of affairs” for projects. Conformance with the plan is formative for achieving that state.
If we take the principle seriously, we must adhere to the schedule or pay the price. The “price” is two-fold: value earned before (R-tasks) and value earned after (IC-tasks) it was planned.
By managing both, we improve schedule performance.
Thus, the ES principle ensures the practical significance of the math. The math entails the necessary balance. So, the necessary balance has practical significance, regardless of conflicting causal intuitions.
Notes:
[1] Alleman, 2020, January 12; see also, Alleman, 2020, March 05.
[2] Lipke, 2008. For an exegesis of the principle, see Appendix A.
[3] For proof, see Appendix B.
[4] O’Neill, 2018, in “Normative reasoning in scientific practice”, italics added.
References:
Alleman, G. (2020, March 05). All Project Success Starts with Applying Principles. Retrieved from https://herdingcats.typepad.com/my_weblog/2020/03/all-project-success-starts-with-applying-principles.html.
Alleman, G. (2020, January 12). Quote of the Day. Retrieved from https://herdingcats.typepad.com/my_weblog/2020/01/quote-of-the-day-6.html.
Lipke, W. (2008). Schedule Adherence: A Useful Measure for Project Management. CrossTalk, April 2008.
O'Neill, O. (2018). Scientific inquiry and normative reasoning. In From Principles to Practice: Normativity and Judgement in Ethics and Politics. (pp. 40-52). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316286708.004. |
