Measurable news-issue-3-2013

THE MEASURABLE NEWS
2013.03
The Quarterly Magazine of the College of Performance Management
mycpm.org
INSIDE
THIS
ISSUE
11 15 27 37
Ensuring Quality in
Project Planning,
Forecasting, and
Execution
By Tom Polen
Earned Schedule – Ten
Years After
By Walt Lipke
Agile & EVM Symposium
By Shobha Mahabir
CPM Global Initiatives
Continue to Evolve
By Kym Henderson
20 USD/AUD | 15 EUR/GBP

THE MEASURABLE NEWS
2013.03
The Quarterly Magazine of the College of Performance Management
mycpm.org
CONTENTS
05 Update from the VP Communications
Mark Phillips
06 Project Performance Management
Barry E. Schuler, Lloyd Carter
07 Laurence Asher “Larry” Stone - A Life Worthwhile
Peter Schwarz
11 Ensuring Quality in Project Planning, Forecasting, and Execution
Tom Polen
14 CPM Board Elections 2013
15 Earned Schedule – Ten Years After
Walt Lipke
24 CPM Awards: The Whys and Wherefores
Lauren Bone
27 Agile & EVM Symposium
Shobha Mahabir
35 EVM World 2013 – The Earned Schedule Track
Walt Lipke
37 CPM Global Initiatives Continue to Evolve
Kym Henderson
40 Vendors/Services
2013 ISSUE 03

THE COLLEGE OF
PERFORMANCE
MANAGEMENT
2013 BOARD & STAFF
PRESIDENT
Gary W. Troop
310-365-3876 • gary.troop@mycpm.org
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
Ray Stratton
714-318-2231• ray.stratton@mycpm.org
VICE PRESIDENT OF FINANCE
Buddy Everage
202-507-4372 • buddy.everage@mycpm.org
VICE PRESIDENT OF ADMINISTRATION
Lauren Bone
UK+44(0)7766974063 • lauren.bone@mycpm.org
VICE PRESIDENT OF CONFERENCE & EVENTS
Barry Schuler
571-557-6574 • barry.schuler@mycpm.org
VICE PRESIDENT OF EDUCATION & CERTIFICATION
Kim Hunter
301-330-3101• kim.hunter@mycpm.org
VICE PRESIDENT OF RESEARCH & STANDARDS
Kym Henderson
61 414 428 537 • kym.henderson@mycpm.org
VICE PRESIDENT OF COMMUNICATIONS
Mark Phillips
248-914-3774 • mark.phillips@mycpm.org
PAST PRESIDENT
Susan Wood
850-585-4830 susan.wood@mycpm.org
EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR
Gaile Argiro
703-370-7885 • gaile.argiro@mycpm.org
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
Stephanie Bautista
703-370-4301 • stephanie.bautista@mycpm.org
THE MEASURABLE NEWS IS AN
OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE
COLLEGE OF PERFORMANCE
MANAGEMENT
EDITORIAL STAFF
Publisher: College of Performance Management
Managing Director: Gaile Argiro
Story Editor: Peter Schwarz
Design: id365.com
Communications VP: Mark Phillips
EDITORIAL COPY
Editorial contributions, photos, and miscellaneous
inquiries should be addressed and sent to the editor
at the College of Performance Management (CPM)
headquarters. Please follow the author guidelines
posted on the CPM web site. Letters submitted to
the editor will be considered for publication unless
the writer requests otherwise. Letters are subject to
editing for style, accuracy, space, and propriety. All
letters must be signed, and initials will be used on
request only if you include your name. CPM reserves
the right to refuse publication of any letter for any
reason. We welcome articles relevant to project
management. The Measurable News does not pay for
submissions. Articles published in The Measurable
News remain the property of the authors.
ADVERTISING
Advertising inquiries, submissions, and payments
(check or money order made payable to the College
of Performance Management) should be sent to
CPM headquarters. Advertising rates are $1000 for
inside front or back cover (full-page ad only), $800
for other full-page ads, $500 for half-page ads, and
$300 for quarter-page ads. Issue sponsorships are
available at $2500 per issue. Business card ads are
available for $100 per issue (or free with full-page
ad). Rates are good from January 1, 2013 – December
31, 2013. College of Performance Management
reserves the right to refuse publication of any ad for
any reason.
SUBSCRIPTIONS
All College of Performance Management publications
are produced as a benefit for College of Performance
Management members. All change of address or
membership inquiries should be directed to:
College of Performance Management
101 South Whiting St, Suite 320,
Alexandria, VA 22304
Ph 703.370.7885 • Fx 703.370.1757
www.mycpm.org
All articles and letters represent the view of the
authors and not necessarily those of College of
Performance Management. Advertising content does
not signify endorsement by College of Performance
Management. Please notify College of Performance
Management for single copy or reproduction
requests. Appropriate charges will apply.
© 2013 by the College of Performance Management.
All rights reserved.

© 2012 SAFRAN NORTH AMERICA, LLC. PROTEUS ENVISION IS A REGISTERED TRADEMARK OF SAFRAN NORTH AMERICA LLC.
ALL OTHER TRADEMARKS MENTIONED HEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS
SAFRAN NORTH AMERICA, LLC
Phone: 866-389-6750 l Fax: 866-381-7336 l www.safranna.com
THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOLKIT
B� S�� N�� A��
Full functionality from project planning through execution, resource management, costing, performance
management and analytics
The Fastest Critical Path Method network analysis engine on the market with flexible calendaring
Integration of Schedule and Cost from the Ground Up Saving you Time, Money and Labor by eliminating
reconciliation after the fact
ANSI/EIA‐748B Earned Value Management compliance
Rapid entry of data , designed as an open system
Fastest multi‐user environment on the market –Scalable from the desktop to the Enterprise
Flexible Setup and structuring of information— Robust Security
Visualize cost, schedule, risk and financial data in new ways, transforming raw data into Business Intelligence
Integration of disparate systems regardless of source allowing for full integration of all six DCMA Business Systems
Customizable and instant Graphics, Analytics, and Reports, including the production of the new UN/CEFACT XML
file for cost, schedule and financial information submission and inclusion into DoD and federal agency central
repositories.
Built for both On‐site Implementation and Software‐as‐a‐Service (SaaS) Environments
Full service Business Solutions that tie Business Processes to Technology to realize improved productivity and
ensure credibility
From so�ware solu�ons through professional services, let Safran North America be your one‐stop shop for project excellence.
W� �� .
S��’� P�� M�� T��, ��
�� S�� P��, P�� E��.

THE MEASURABLE NEWS
The Quarterly Magazine of the College of Performance Management | mycpm.org
2013.03
05
UPDATE FROM THE VP COMMUNICATIONS
Mark Phillips, PMP
In this issue we are reaping the rewards of the research, discussions, networking and
presentations from EVM World 2013.
• There is a summary of the Agile + EVM track that begins the process of aggregating the
latest thoughts of how Agile and EVM can work together.
• There is a summary of the Earned Schedule track and a copy of the keynote speech
covering the last 10 years of Earned Schedule.
• There is a short but timely article reporting on a discussion session that took place on
the need for a Project Performance Management body of knowledge, and what that
means.
• Tom Polen, from Acumen (which was recently acquired by Deltek), describes methods
for determining and ensuring quality in project planning, forecasting and execution.
• Our VP of Research, Kym Henderson, provides an overview of recent developments in
the evolution of CPM’s global initiatives.
EVM World is also a time for us to get together, as a community and reflect. There is a warm
tribute to Larry Stone from his family and friends, put together by Peter Schwarz.
I encourage you to spend time with this issue, as a snippet of the numerous activities,
advancements and discussions going on in our community. I would also remind you of
the great webinars we offer every month. Over the past few months we’ve hosted An
Introduction to EVM by Eleanor Haupt and a PARCA webinar on EVM as a Beacon in the
Cloud of Program Execution. In the coming months scheduled presentations include A
Comparison of EVMS Standards around the globe by Tony Barrett and Glen Alleman on
Adding Agile to EVM.
Then, before you know it, we’ll have the opportunity to come together again, as a community,
in person at the Integrated Program Management event in the Fall (ipmconference.org).
The Measurable News, our in-person events and our monthly webinars are a few of the
ways in which your College of Performance Management is working to add value to our
community. As always, if you have further ideas on how we can help or would like to discuss
current initiatives, don’t hesitate to reach out to me at mark.phillips@mycpm.org. We hope
you enjoy this issue of The Measurable News.
Mark Phillips, PMP
Vice President – Communications

THE MEASURABLE NEWS 2013.03
06 The Quarterly Magazine of the College of Performance Management | mycpm.org
The CPM Membership recently approved new CPM Mission and
Vision Statements:
MISSION STATEMENT
Share, promote, and advance the best of planning, control, and
performance management for projects of all sizes and complexity.
VISION
Be globally recognized as the world’s authority on earned value
management and other project performance management techniques.
Though the Vision specifically addresses project performance management, this is not
a discipline that currently has a body of knowledge associated with it. A search of the
internet does not provide a specific definition, however, there are multiple (multiple 10’s) of
conferences that address the subject.
At EVM World 2013 we, the authors, held a workshop to discuss project performance
management and to see if there is a need to develop a body of knowledge around the
subject. At the workshop the authors presented their initial thoughts on project performance
management. Lloyd presented his concept that project performance management embrace
various disciplines to include Leadership, Cultural Change and Deployment of Systems
(e.g. EVM, Balanced Score Card...). Barry presented his concept that project performance
management embrace the notion that any disciplined method that sets a baseline and uses
that baseline to measure performance can be considered part of the body of knowledge. As
part of the workshop the attendees added valuable input to the conversation. Though no
definitive conclusions were reached during the workshop several important themes emerged:
Project Performance Management should address:
• Performance measures should focus on prediction of program performance.
• Performance measures should be presented as a suite of measures for the program
manager to choose from based on program needs.
• Performance measures from programs across the enterprise should be able to be
combined into an enterprise assessment of performance.
• Performance measures should encompass pre-project, project-execution, and post-
project assessments
The workshop provided enough information to determine that more work is needed to
investigate the need for a body of knowledge in project performance management. The
authors will continue to pursue the subject over the next 12 months and look forward
to hearing your ideas on the concept. Also, look for more sessions related to project
performance management at next year’s EVM World in San Antonio, TX, May 21-23, 2014 –
look for information on the CPM website, mycpm.org.
Barry E. Schuler
barryeschuler@verizon.net
Lloyd Carter
carterll@sbcglobal.net
PROJECT PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

THE MEASURABLE NEWS
2013.03
07
OVERVIEW In March of this year, our community lost one of its greatest contributors
to the development, growth, and perpetuation of the Earned Value
Management (EVM) concept. But, we who knew him understand that we
lost much more than that aspect of his life.
EARLY YEARS
Larry, as he preferred to be addressed, was born in Boston, Massachusetts on November 22,
1914. He graduated from high school in 1931. He went on to graduate from the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1935 with a BS, Business and Engineering Administration.
(Editor’s note: He once told me that, during his matriculation at MIT, he lived in Newton, MA,
and commuted to Cambridge each day by streetcar.) Following graduation from MIT, he
was employed in manufacturing near Boston in the areas of product design and production
supervision.
AN ARMY OFFICER CAREER
Larry was commissioned in the Army Reserve in 1936, and went on active duty in 1939. His
first posting, in 1939, was to the Springfield Armory in Springfield, MA. At the time, the Army
had just accepted as standard equipment the new Garand rifle developed at Springfield
Armory. It was in the process of expanding its manufacturing facilities to mass produce the
rifle. For the next seven years, he played key roles in Garand production, which progressed
from hand-fashioned prototypes to mass production of more than 1000 rifles per day. Not
surprisingly, the Army retained him at the Armory throughout the duration of the Second
World War until victory was achieved. (Editor’s note: During one conversation, Larry
informed me that although he attempted to get transferred to Europe or the Pacific, he was
denied because of the criticality of his assignment to the production of the Garand rifle – the
primary infantry weapon in WWII.) During the war, he rose from 1ST Lieutenant to Lieutenant
Colonel. He continued his distinguished military career from 1947 to 1965 as an Ordnance
Officer, serving in Germany in the Army of Occupation, Hawaii (Editor’s note: Larry said it
was payback for 8 years at the Armory), California, Fort Leavenworth, KS, Michigan, and
thence to Washington, D.C. After serving for 26 years, he retired from the Army in 1965.
AN ARMY CIVIL SERVANT CAREER
Having spent the first phase of his life devoted to professional, ethical, and dedicated
service on active duty, he commenced his career’s second phase in 1965 as an Army
Civil Servant at the Army Materiel Command (AMC). In this capacity, he became one of
the key pioneers in the development, implementation, refinement and use of the “Cost/
Schedule Control Systems Criteria (C/SCSC)” and evolving it to the current “Earned Value
Management System.” As an adjunct to his position, he was also the Army representative
to the Performance Measurement Joint Executive Group, which was formed to coordinate
C/SCSC amongst the armed services. These significant, innovative approaches are used in
all major Department of Defense (DoD) acquisitions, and have been adopted for use by the
civilian agencies of the U.S. Government. In addition, the world-wide use of these principles
has spread at a rapid pace over the past 25 years.
As a result of his dedicated service, Larry received several AMC awards for exceptional
and outstanding service including the Department of the Army Commander’s Award for
Civilian Service, and the Distinguished Guest Lecturer Award from the Defense Systems
Management College.
LAURENCE ASHER “LARRY” STONE
COLONEL UNITED STATES ARMY
1914 – 2013, A LIFE WORTHWHILE
Contributions and Recollections by his Family and Friends, Collated and Edited by Peter Schwarz

08 The Measurable News 2013.03 | mycpm.org
REMINISCES FROM LARRY’S ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND YEARS
Wayne F. Abba: “Larry was the consummate professional and gentleman. He was a role
model and mentor when we worked together at HQ AMC in the early 70s and a trusted
confidant and advisor after I joined the Office of the Secretary of Defense staff. I was
proud to stand with Larry in 1996 when we both received the Driessnack Award from our
professional colleagues.
“Larry was excellent at developing high-level policy. Among the objectives he and his fellow
EVM pioneers established for EVM was ‘To bring to the attention of, and encourage, DoD
contractors to accept and install management control systems and procedures which are most
effective in meeting their requirements and controlling contract performance’ – an objective
that remains as timely and relevant today as when he helped develop it decades ago.
“But Larry also was precise and attentive to detail. I think of him whenever I see someone
make the common mistake of using ‘of’ rather than ‘for’ in Budgeted Cost for Work
Scheduled and Budgeted Cost for Work Performed. His contributions to our profession are
legion and his influence lives on in those of us who were privileged to work with him.”
Allan J. Bryant: “I first met Larry Stone in 1970 and went to work for him full-time at HQ AMC
in 1980, continuing until he retired. From my first contact with Larry, I was impressed by his
adherence to the purpose and principles of the C/SCSC while still being flexible to change
in order to keep them consistent with needs of the programs at hand. After Larry retired, I
was asked to take his place until I retired in 1998. During that time, I tried to maintain Larry’s
principles.
I retired from C/SCSC-EVM consulting in 2010, spanning 53 years from my first accounting
job in the private sector. During all my working years, both private and public, I never worked
for anyone that was more professional, yet more kind, considerate, thoughtful and helpful
than Larry Stone. He will always be a giant in my memory.”
Gary C. Humphreys: “Larry was my surrogate father when I was in the Army, far away from
home. We could speak about anything on which I needed guidance. He was the most patient
boss a young Lieutenant could have. The environment he created allowed for our Cost and
Economic Information Office (CEIO) to excel in our obligation to validate the quality of
Earned Value Management Systems (then Cost/Schedule Control Systems) while providing a
way to fairly adjudicate any differences of opinion between Army personnel and contractors.
Larry’s approach and example paved the way for many to a career inside the Government, in
industry, or as consultants, dedicated to improving the efficacy of program management.
... Larry, thank you for being all that and more, boss...”
Harvey Mymit: “He would come in with his modest brown bag lunch consisting of a sandwich
and a piece of fruit. He also was on one of my teams as the lead for the Organization criteria
[of the C/SCSC]. He was the editor in chief for every correspondence going out of the office
regarding interpretive guidance for Earned Value, because he was an excellent writer and
communicator. He respected the office’s charter so much that he opted to retire rather than
lose the position during a Reduction in Force.”
A DEFENSE CONSULTANT CAREER
Larry “retired” again in 1992 after a productive 27 years in the Army Materiel Command, but
his passion for contributing his talents was not dissipated. He entered the defense consultant
field in 1992 to convey his expertise in what was still identified as C/SCSC. During this time,
Larry was assigned to support the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO), which
morphed into the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO), and thence into the Missile
Defense Agency (MDA). However, his focus remained on the advancement of earned value as
a management tool, which was also undergoing a period of transition.
In 1996, Larry also received a significant earned value award, The Hans “Whitey” Driessnack
Award, sponsored by the Performance Management Association (PMA) (now College of
Performance Management) for his contributions to the betterment of the cost/schedule
management system. The award ceremony was held at the PMA conference in Boston.
Soon, Defense Department decisions evoked a name change and re-oriented the philosophy
in the approach to the management system. The term Cost/Schedule Control Systems
Criteria (C/SCSC) was changed to Earned Value Management System (EVMS). An Assistant
Secretary of Defense memorandum established the Integrated Baseline Review to provide
both industry and Government a better understanding of the intricacies, costs, and schedule

09The Measurable News 2013.03 | mycpm.org
of the work to be accomplished under major contracts. As increasing responsibility for EVMS
on major DoD contracts was transferred to industry, joint government-industry meetings
were held to discuss and agree to the content of the new EVMS Guidelines, which were
to replace the 35 C/SCS Criteria. Eventually, 32 EVMS Guidelines were adopted by mutual
agreement. Larry was intimately involved in these actions, as a mentor, a contributor and
as an implementer. In addition, he collaborated on many MDA internal EVM directives and
handbooks to implement and coincide with existing DoD policy. (Editor’s note: My position
as his supervisor and working partner on many of these endeavors enabled me to benefit
from Larry’s mentoring and tutelage when he discerned that it was needed. His work ethic
and knowledge were unsurpassed in my experience.)
In addition, a multi-service group was formed to compose a new DoD guide for Earned Value
Management of which Larry was a principal member. This document became known as the
“Earned Value Management Implementation Guide (EVMIG).” Larry and several colleagues
from government and industry received the David L. Packard Award for Excellence in
Acquisition in 1998 for implementing “a shift in Earned Value Management ownership and
responsibility from government to industry.”
As Larry’s career progressed into the 21st century, he never lost his enthusiasm for his
work and his dedication to helping others in understanding the earned value requirements.
Although, he moved to Napa, California permanently in 2006, he kept in touch with EVM
developments by email. (Editor’s note: I sent him significant developments in EVM, to which
he was always responded graciously.)
REMINISCES FROM LARRY’S DEFENSE CONSULTANT YEARS:
Peter Schwarz: “Larry personified the word “expert”, a word that is often misused in current
times. Whenever we discussed an issue, he always understood the “why” in addition to the
dictum. His dedication and work ethic were bolstered by a precise and analytical mind, and
a conscientious, thorough approach to the task at hand. He was the ultimate gentleman,
always soft-spoken, but firm in his convictions. His mastery of the English language was
evident in both his professional and personal writings. If Larry used a word to describe a
process, procedure, or even a casual observation, you could be certain that it was the right
choice. Whenever Larry created or reviewed a document, he would provide a concise reason
for his recommended course of action. Seeing the logic of this approach, I adopted it for
my use in similar situations. We collaborated on many projects over our 14 year professional
relationship, and I can honestly state that Larry was the best working partner I ever had,
including both my Navy and civilian employment.
“Larry was my friend as well as my colleague. He was always considerate and thoughtful. I was
honored that he attended my 60th birthday party, hosted by my daughter. I was all the more
surprised when he gifted me with a Mensa publication containing a myriad of puzzles and
other conundrums. Larry expected too much from me, however, as I have only solved a few
over the years.
“In one of my last correspondences with Larry in 2009, I sent him some material on the
Springfield Armory that my brother had sent to me with his recommendation that Larry
consider writing a book on the Garand rifle production during the war. Larry, as always self-
effacing, replied that “probably no one would read it.”
Editor’s note: My thanks to Gary Humphreys, Wayne Abba, Harvey Mymit, Al Bryant, and Major General
Robert Rosenberg, US Army (RET) for their help and contributions.

Fall 2013
Register Now!
Bethesda, MD
Basic Proj Sch 09/16-09/17 14 PDUs
Basic EVMS 09/18-09/20 20 PDUs
Boston, MA
Adv Proj Sch 10/07-10/08 14 PDUs
Adv EVMS 10/09-10/10 20 PDUs
Irvine, CA
Basic Proj Sch 10/21-10/22 14 PDUs
Basic EVMS 10/23-10/25 20 PDUs
Adv Proj Sch 11/04-11/05 14 PDUs
Adv EVMS 11/06-11/07 20 PDUs
SEMINAR REGISTRATION
www.smawins.com/publicseminars | 949 975 1550 x269
18400 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 500 | Irvine, CA 92612
CHOOSE YOUR DESTINATION
PROJECT SCHEDULING
and EVMS SEMINARS

THE MEASURABLE NEWS
2013.03
11
How can you measure the quality of a project plan? Can the quality of
the project management process itself be measured? How do I know if
the project forecast is reasonable and accurate? If these questions were
posed to various project personnel, there will certainly be more than one
answer given. Why? Some view “quality” as a simple series of measures
and techniques, but in reality, the pursuit of quality for program planning,
forecasting, and execution is a multi-front battle. It is a battle worth fighting
and one that can be successful.
MEASURING SCHEDULE QUALITY
The first step in measuring schedule quality is understanding and agreeing on the criteria
used to define ‘quality’. Several agencies and organizations have established guidelines to
measure quality. These agencies, including the Government Accountability Office (GAO),
the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and even software analytics companies
such as Acumen, have developed sets of common measures for evaluating just how qualified
a schedule is. This trend has been replicated by many organizations internally, creating
a company-wide set of standards for evaluation. These standards generally focus on a
quantitative approach.
From a technical perspective, a critical path method schedule has compulsory elements.
Tasks must have clear descriptions, logical links, and calculated values such as dates and
float. Techniques that can undermine the schedule calculation should be minimized, such as
hard constraints, unnecessarily complicated logic, overuse of leads and lags, and insufficient
detail (high duration) within activities.
Each of the items above can be measured. From an efficiency of time and cost standpoint,
they are best measured in software designed for the purpose. In short, quantitative metrics
can be measured easily and quickly with the correct tool.
Quantitative vs. Qualitative
Can quality end here?
No. Quantitative metrics are the necessary foundation of the quality evaluation process.
This metric-based evaluation should be performed early and often in the development of a
proper project schedule, rather than end at the point of project baseline. The best method
of building quality into the process starts with the early development of the schedule and
continues on, rather than delaying such an evaluation until the schedule has been fully
constructed.
The qualitative view requires the ability of the project team to answer the following question,
“does this schedule represent a meaningful, realistic view of project execution?” Quantitative
metrics help with “meaningful,” but measuring “realistic” is a bit trickier.
Risk Assessment
Achieving schedule realism first requires an assessment by program personnel to determine if
each step required in the development of the project goals is accurately and comprehensively
captured. The next step toward realism is an honest, thorough discovery of specific risks,
opportunities, and the probability and potential impact of each. These may include events
that can be controlled and mitigated and those that cannot, such as weather events.
While various methods exist to evaluate risk to forecasted schedule completion date and
cost, a Monte Carlo simulation performed on the complete, detailed schedule proves to
INTRODUCTION
ENSURING QUALITY IN PROJECT PLANNING,
FORECASTING, AND EXECUTION
Tom Polen, Solutions Architect, Deltek

be the most reliable indicator. While some approaches to risk focus on the critical path or
high-level schedule abstracts, risk evaluation on all paths and all levels of detail is critical.
Sequences of activities with low perceived risk, in the midst of a risk workshop, can emerge
as program drivers during a comprehensive risk assessment.
Duration Uncertainty and Risk Events
Critical to this process is the ability to assign duration uncertainty to all schedule levels while
capturing probable risk events and assigning them to the appropriate scheduled items.
Also, weather impacts and other potentially uncontrollable risks must be accounted for and
mapped to all tasks that may be affected.
When the risk factors have been identified and assigned, the risk simulation will provide
probable outcomes of project execution. Program management will often treat this
information in one of two ways. The first approach is to ignore the outcome of the risk
exercise and proceed as originally planned. The second approach is to adopt the risk outputs
as a probable project outcome and, if necessary, optimize the project schedule to maintain
alignment with original cost and schedule delivery goals.
Taking an Impact-based Approach
A diligent risk assessment exercise will often produce probable outcomes that are not in line
with the committed project goals. A proactive impact-based approach to risk mitigation is
the first step. The simulation will indicate which risks are impacting the project plan the most.
The past approach is to mitigate the perceived “big hitters.” The progressive approach is to
map the risks to all related tasks, run the simulation, and observe the impact of “stealth risks,”
those items that have not been highly discussed, but are revealed as significant threats to
project execution during the analysis.
Opportunities should be evaluated alongside threats. It is common for risk workshops to
focus on pessimistic aspects of execution; however, attention to innovation and efficiency
may produce unexpected yet possible improvements in project delivery time and cost. The
opportunities should be tracked in the same format and linked to the schedule in the same
fashion as threats.
Finally, when mitigation and opportunities have been identified, mapped to the schedule,
and risk simulations performed, the results may indicate a low probability of project success.
While it may be viable for the program manager to request schedule and/or cost relief from
their sponsor, there is an additional option—project acceleration and optimization.
ACCELERATION AND OPTIMIZATION
Rules-based acceleration may assist the project team to meet schedule and cost objectives
despite the risks to successful completion. Establishment of ground rules for optimization
is critical. For example, the program manager may decide that task durations cannot be
reduced, but he may see opportunity to reduce lags and remove hard constraints that are
extending the overall project duration. In the event that durations can be reduced, he may
choose to limit such reductions of the original values in order to maintain the credibility and
achievability of the schedule. Alternatively, the program manager may determine that only
tasks of exceptionally long duration will be subject to acceleration.
The crucial aspect of acceleration is the establishment and adherence to the ground rules.
It may be very convenient to simply cut all task durations in half; however, the result will
be a project plan that cannot be executed! If the result is not a credible, achievable plan, a
different optimization strategy may be needed.
THE FUTURE OF MEASURING QUALITY
The landscape of quality definition and action is changing. Several years ago, simply
performing quantitative evaluation of quality was a time consuming and unrewarding
process. Tools exist today to allow quantitative measures to be reviewed instantly. Leaders
within U.S. government program offices and audit agencies agree—the future of program
quality, forecast evaluation, and execution measurement begins with automated, repeatable
processes performed early and often. The time, cost, and effort required to measure quality
has become insignificant while real, actionable results are produced.
The same leaders agree that the time saved gathering quantitative results provides more
time to review qualitative, less tangible quality indicators. Additionally, the quantitative
information, when gathered early in plan development, can provide fuel for a risk-based
approach to qualitative review. In other words, these two approaches of quality can work

CONCLUSION
strongly together, with metrics results providing the impetus for thorough examinations of
very specific aspects of the project plan. Before metric-based analysis could be performed
instantly, this targeted approach to quality evaluation was not viable.
Ultimately, all components are needed to realize schedule quality. Everything from a solid,
well-constructed baseline, a realistic picture of project risk, plan optimization, to a plan that
stays relevant throughout project execution are mandatory elements of project success.
Absolute perfect quality is rarely achieved, but active management and continual assessment
of the schedule, cost, and risk throughout implementation will dramatically increase chances
of project success and a satisfied sponsor.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Tom Polen, Solutions Architect at Deltek, has 18 years of experience scoping, designing, developing,
and implementing scheduling and earned value management systems in the telecommunications,
transportation, insurance, and defense industries. Tom’s overall vision is to help the field of project
management to focus on analysis rather than development of data and information used to support
analysis.
For more information, call 1-512-291-6261 or visit www.projectacumen.com. E-mail inquiries to
acumeninfo@deltek.com.
Acumen’s software products ensure that each and every project and portfolio meets planning
and process requirements, and remains on track for a successful execution time and again.
Acumen Fuse®
- Diagnose and resolve shortcomings
Acumen Risk™
- Identify and reduce cost and schedule risk exposure
Acumen 360™
- Accelerate time frames and recover delays
www.projectacumen.com/betterprojects
Better planning, Better performance, Better projects.... Acumen.
When quality is the only option.
Improved program health and performance.
info@projectacumen.com | +1 (512) 291-6261

ANNOUNCEMENT The College of Performance Management announces the upcoming election that will start
on August 15, 2013 and close September 16, 2013 at 5:00 pm (EST in US). Board positions
open for election this year are Executive Vice-President, Vice-President Finance, Vice-
President Research & Standards, Vice-President Conference & Events - EVM World, Vice-
President - Conference & Events - IPMC and Vice-President Global Outreach. Candidates for
these positions are as follows:
Executive Vice President
• Wayne Abba
• Nick Pisano
• Ray Stratton
Vice President of Finance
• Yelena Andrianova
• Buddy Everage
• Jay Patterson
Vice President of Research and Standards
• Victor omo Agege
• Dale Gillam
Vice President of Global Outreach (NEW)
• Marco Buijnsters
• Raf Dua
• Paul D. Giammalvo
• Kym Henderson
• Bill Mathis
• Fernando Roque
• J. Greg Smith
As no candidates were nominated for the following positions, the Governing Board will
appoint a member to fill these vacancies:
• Vice-President Conference & Events - EVM World
• Vice-President - Conference & Events – IPMC
Resumes and candidate information will be posted to the CPM website. To review this
information go to: www.mycpm.org/about-us/elections/
On August 15th you should have received an email from “Elections OnLine” with a link and
Login information to vote. If you did not receive the email in your InBox, please be sure to
check your Junk mail or Spam filtered folders for this email.
All CPM members current at 31st July are eligible to vote. You are encouraged to participate
because the election results will determine your organization’s future leaders and direction
for your organization.
For further information and/or questions please contact:
Gaile Argiro
Gaile.Argiro@mycpm.org
703-370-7885 or
Lauren Bone
lb@boneconsultingltd.com
CPM BOARD ELECTIONS 2013

THE MEASURABLE NEWS
2013.03
15
ABSTRACT

The article is based on the 31 May
keynote presentation at EVM
World 2013.
EARNED SCHEDULE – TEN YEARS AFTER
By Walt Lipke, PMI® Oklahoma City Chapter
Earned Schedule is an extension to Earned Value Management. The
method provides considerable capability to project managers for analysis
of schedule performance. From the time of the public’s first view of Earned
Schedule with the publication of “Schedule is Different” in the March 2003
issue of The Measurable News, its propagation and uptake around the world
has been extraordinary. This article will cover the capabilities of the method
and challenges encountered, progressing through the significant extensions,
to its present status.
ORIGIN OF EARNED SCHEDULE
This is the ten year anniversary of Earned Schedule (ES). During its relatively short existence,
ES has made a large impact on Earned Value Management (EVM) and project management,
as well. Frankly, I have been extremely surprised by its uptake in EVM application and
academia, including research.
In my keynote at the recent EVM World conference, I recounted the story of how ES came
about. In 2002, I was involved with software process improvement in an organization that
had nearly achieved Level 5 of the Software Engineering Institute Capability Maturity Model
(SEI CMM®). Only one Key Process Area, Defect Prevention (DP), remained to satisfy the
achievement of Level 5.
Software organizations were attempting to satisfy DP by applying Statistical Process Control
(SPC) to defect counts from the quality process of software development, i.e. inspections
and reviews. My belief was that this approach to achieve DP could possibly cause sub-
optimization of the development process. This later was shown to be true.
My thought was to use management indicators that encompassed most of the development
process. By encompassing the process, the improvement would more generally be beneficial
and more likely have positive impact. We were employing EVM; thus, it seemed reasonable to
apply SPC to the cost and schedule performance indexes, CPI and SPI, respectively. After all,
EVM was used in the project execution phase, generally eighty percent of the effort.
Before much action was taken to investigate this approach, I attended the College of
Performance Management (CPM) 2002 spring conference, at which a presentation was
given by Quentin Fleming. In his presentation the statistics based research of CPI by Dr.
Christensen was discussed. It was fascinating material, and due to the statistical nature of the
research it led me to believe I was on the right track with using CPI to satisfy the DP attribute
of the CMM®. However, later that evening after some reflection, I realized Mr. Fleming did not
mention anything about SPI.
The next morning as I walked through the courtyard of the hotel, I happened to encounter Mr.
Fleming, with his suitcase, on his way to checkout and leave the conference. I told him I had
attended his presentation and that I was really interested in the statistical testing and study
of CPI behavior. I then asked, “Has any comparable research been accomplished for SPI?” Mr.
Fleming responded saying, “No there hasn’t. You do know that SPI fails for late performing
projects.” …Yes, I knew that, but sometimes you just don’t make the connection. It was then
obvious, with the known failure mode of SPI, reliable statistical analysis of the indicator was
not possible and therefore the SEI CMM® Level 5 key process area, Defect Prevention, could
not be satisfied using the SPI indicator.
This was my dilemma. I needed a reliable schedule indicator for software process
improvement; thus, the impetus for creating ES. Originally, ES had a single purpose; i.e.,


1. For the definitions of PMB,
EV, and PV, refer to the Practice
Standard for Earned Value
Management [PMI, 2011].
provide a path for achievement of CMM® Level 5. There was no intention for ES to be made
available to other EVM practitioners. Only after the schedule indicators from ES proved
reliable from several months of prototyping on software projects did I realize that the
method held potential for the EVM community. This led to the publication of The Measurable
News article “Schedule Is Different” [Lipke, 2003].
THEORY AND CAPABILITIES
The fundamental concept of ES is shown in figure 1. As the description reads, “The idea is to
determine the time at which the earned value (EV) accrued should have occurred.” The time
duration associated with the point on the Performance Measurement Baseline (PMB) where
planned value (PV) is equal to EV is Earned Schedule.1
For the EV accrued, ES provides a
measure of how much has been earned of the planned duration (PD) of the project.
ES is computed from the simple formula:
ES = C + I
C is determined by comparing EV to the periodic values for PV, i.e., PVn
. C is the largest value
of n satisfying the condition, EV ≥ PVn
. I is an interpolation using the equation:
I = (EV – PVC
) / (PVC+1
– PVC
)
Indicators
Having ES, the time based schedule indicators are formed, Schedule Variance (time) and
Schedule Performance Index (time), abbreviated as SV(t) and SPI(t), respectively. The
indicators are computed using the following formulas:
SV(t) = ES – AT
SPI(t) = ES / AT
where AT is the actual time, i.e. the duration from the start of the project to the time at which
EV is measured.
These indicators perform reliably for both late and early performing projects, whereas the
EVM schedule indictors fail for late performing projects, as Mr. Fleming related. Furthermore,
the time-based indicators always converge to the actual result at project conclusion.
where AT is the actual time, i.e. the duration from the start of the project to the time at
which EV is measured.
These indicators perform reliably for both late and early performing projects, whereas
the EVM schedule indictors fail for late performing projects, as Mr. Fleming related.
Furthermore, the time-based indicators always converge to the actual result at project
conclusion.
Figure 1. Earned Schedule Concept
Forecasting. The SPI(t) indicator has made forecasting duration possible from
EVM performance data, using the simple formula [Henderson, 2004]:
IEAC(t) = PD / SPI(t)
where IEAC(t) is Independent Estimate at Completion (time-based)
Figure 1. Earned Schedule Concept
Forecasting
The SPI(t) indicator has made forecasting duration possible from EVM performance data,
using the simple formula [Henderson, 2004]:
IEAC(t) = PD / SPI(t)
where IEAC(t) is Independent Estimate at Completion (time-based)


2. The terms, Confidence Limits
and Confidence Level, come from
the mathematics of statistics.
To fully define them and the
calculation methods for this
application is beyond the scope of
the article. The reader, if interested
in having a greater understanding,
is referred to my book, Earned
Schedule [Lipke, 2009].
From this basic forecasting, very powerful statistical forecasting has evolved. In figure 2 the
nominal forecast is the graphed line in the middle. The upper and lower lines are Confidence
Limits, determined from SPI(t), variation in the periodic values of SPI(t), and a choice of
Confidence Level, usually 90 or 95 percent.2
For the figure, there is a 90 percent probability
that the final duration will occur somewhere between the upper and lower graphed lines. As
the project progresses, it is observed that the spacing of the two lines narrows, and that they
converge along with the nominal forecast to the actual duration.
4
Figure 2. Statistical Forecasting
Prediction. For cost analysis, EVM has the To Complete Performance Index
(TCPI), an indicator describing the performance efficiency needed for the remainder of
the project to meet a specific cost objective. Until ES, a comparable indicator did not
exist for schedule analysis.
ES facilitates the creation of the To Complete Schedule Performance Index
(TSPI), formulated as follows:
TSPI = (PD – ES) / (ED – AT)
where ED is the estimated or desired project duration.
As with TCPI, TSPI can be computed for any desired completion objective. For
schedule the durations of interest are, generally, PD and the duration to the customer,
derived from the product delivery date.
A useful quality of both TCPI and TSPI is that they provide information
concerning whether the project objective is achievable and whether a poor performing
project is recoverable [Lipke, 2009]. Discrete TSPI values provide management with
decision information:
TSPI Duration objective is achievable
TSPI > 1.10 Duration objective is unachievable
1.00 < TSPI Recovery may be possible
Either TCPI or TSPI can be formulated such that it is dependent upon two
variables, the performance index at a specific status point and the fraction complete.
For schedule analysis, the formulation is:
TSPI = (1 – K) / (R - K/SPI(t))
where K = ES/PD and R = ED/PD
Figure 2. Statistical Forecasting
Prediction
For cost analysis, EVM has the To Complete Performance Index (TCPI), an indicator
describing the performance efficiency needed for the remainder of the project to meet a
specific cost objective. Until ES, a comparable indicator did not exist for schedule analysis.
ES facilitates the creation of the To Complete Schedule Performance Index (TSPI), formulated
as follows:
TSPI = (PD – ES) / (ED – AT)
where ED is the estimated or desired project duration.
As with TCPI, TSPI can be computed for any desired completion objective. For schedule the
durations of interest are, generally, PD and the duration to the customer, derived from the
product delivery date.
A useful quality of both TCPI and TSPI is that they provide information concerning
whether the project objective is achievable and whether a poor performing project is
recoverable [Lipke, 2009]. Discrete TSPI values provide management with decision
information:
TSPI ≤ 1.00 Duration objective is achievable
TSPI > 1.10 Duration objective is unachievable
1.00 < TSPI ≤ 1.10 Recovery may be possible
Either TCPI or TSPI can be formulated such that it is dependent upon two variables, the
performance index at a specific status point and the fraction complete. For schedule analysis,
the formulation is:
TSPI = (1 – K) / (R - K/SPI(t))
where K = ES/PD and R = ED/PD
This formulation provides the project manager (PM) with the ability to “look ahead.” For the
specific duration objective, the PM can determine when the project becomes unrecoverable
and the time available for a corrective management intervention.
Critical Path
Especially for large projects, analysis of Critical Path (CP) performance is aligned with
schedule experts, segregated from the EVM analysts. ES provides a method using EVM
data to assess CP performance, thereby providing an alternative and cross-check to the
schedulers’ assessment [Lipke, 2009].

The technique treats the CP as a separate project. The PMB for the CP is created from the
PV in its tasks. Then, using the EV accrued within the CP tasks, ES for CP performance is
computed. Continuing, SV(t), SPI(t), and IEAC(t) can be determined for the CP.
The CP values for the indicators and forecast are then used for comparison to the schedulers’
assessment. As well, additional management information is available from the comparison of
the CP computed values to the ES analysis for the total project. Inconsistency in compared
values is cause for deeper analysis.
From reported application, the forecast from the schedulers’ CP analysis is consistently
optimistic because it does not account for the current schedule performance efficiency. The
schedulers’ method adds the schedule variance of the completed work to the planned duration,
expecting the remaining work to be performed as planned. Because the ES method accounts
for efficiency, EVM analysts have indicated earlier identification of CP performance issues.
Schedule Adherence
The schedule is an embodiment of our best understanding of how to accomplish the
project. It follows then that the planned schedule is crucial to project success, and that
project managers should do their utmost to ensure project execution conforms to it. The
planned schedule is the most efficient path for executing the project; any deviation leads to
inefficiency and very likely other problems ….such as constraint reduced production, idle time,
skills mismatch and poor quality output, in turn, requiring rework. Therefore, it is not enough
to have knowledge of the execution efficiency, SPI(t). Additionally, project managers (PM)
need to know how well the process is being followed.
ES provides the capability to determine whether the accomplishment is in agreement with
the expectation from the planned schedule [Lipke, 2009]. The value of ES identifies the
PV which should have been accomplished in every task. By matching the EV accrued to PV
expectation, an indicator of schedule adherence (SA) is formed, termed the P-Factor. When
matching is perfect, P equals 1.00 and when there is no correlation, P is 0.00. As the project
progresses P tends to increase, concluding at the value 1.00 at completion.
The concept of SA, along with the P-Factor, facilitates very useful analysis. Tasks are
pinpointed which may have constraints or impediments hindering project accomplishment.
With this information, management has the opportunity to investigate and remove the
hindrances. As well, tasks having the potential for future rework are identified. Significantly,
the value for project rework can be forecast, thereby providing management with the
potential cost impact from the lack of schedule adherence.
Discontinuous Performance
There are conditions during project execution, generally for small, short duration projects,
that can cause error in the calculated values for the ES indicators and duration forecasts.
These conditions are the following:
1. Down Time – periods of performance in which no work has been planned or scheduled
2. Stop Work – periods during execution where management has halted performance
ES calculation methods have been developed to accommodate these conditions [Lipke,
2011]. Without the methods, the distorted indicator and forecast values have the potential to
cause unneeded and possibly erroneous management action. The ES calculation methods
addressing Down Time/Stop Work have been shown to yield improved indicators and
forecasts. Improvement is seen in both accuracy and rate of convergence to the actual result.
Longest Path
Research performed by Dr. Mario Vanhoucke has shown that ES forecasting performs best
when the topology of the network schedule is serial [Vanhoucke, 2009]. Furthermore, as the
network topology becomes more parallel, the research indicates that the forecast values are
less reliable.
The most recent evolution of ES forecasting was created to utilize the serial topology
research finding. For this methodology, all of the serial paths to completion in the schedule
network are identified. For each a PMB is created and used for forecasting, similarly to the
method described earlier for CP analysis. The serial path having the longest duration forecast
is theorized to best represent the project.


3. The insert was authored by Dr.
John Singley and Eleanor Haupt
of the College of Performance
Management.
having the longest duration forecast is theorized to best represent the project.
Figure 3. Longest Path Forecasting
Figure 3 illustrates the comparison of forecasts, the normal to longest path (LP).
The visual supports the improvement expectation in ES forecasting provided by LP. As
Figure 3. Longest Path Forecasting
Figure 3 illustrates the comparison of forecasts, the normal to longest path (LP). The visual
supports the improvement expectation in ES forecasting provided by LP. As observed, the
variation of the LP forecast is reasonably uniform around the actual duration, whereas the
total project forecast has much more variation in converging to the actual duration.
The results from the notional data example are compelling. However, they are insufficient to
say LP forecasting should be adopted and employed without further examination and testing.
I am hopeful, with additional confirmation and tools for applying LP, the methodology will
provide significant improvement of ES forecasting for network schedules whose topology is
highly parallel.
CHALLENGES
Although ES has become well accepted, it has not always been. After the seminal paper,
“Schedule is Different” and the subsequent paper, “Earned Schedule: A Breakthrough
Extension to Earned Value Theory?,” by Kym Henderson [Henderson, 2003] were published,
an over exuberance developed. There was even some discussion favoring replacement of the
EVM schedule indicators with those from ES, SV(t) and SPI(t). The exuberance was quelled;
however, an insert to the PMI Practice Standard for EVM, 1st edition, was created to generate
awareness of ES and to gain feedback from trial applications [PMI, 2005].3
From that beginning serious resistance to ES developed. Possibly, the initial rejection
came from a view that Kym and I had little credibility in the EVM community. From their
perspective, we had limited EVM experience and were new members of CPM. Some ridiculed
the method and its advocates from the long held position that the only way to perform
schedule performance analysis is to directly employ the schedule. Others added the quizzical
argument, stating that although EVM has indicators with “schedule” in their description, they
were never intended to be used for schedule performance analysis. A few, in the extreme,
used intimidation tactics to discourage the use and propagation of ES.
Next came the questioning of the mathematics of the ES calculation. Although the
description of the calculation method was made in the seminal article, including application
examples, there were assertions that ES is an interpolation made from the linearization of
the entire PMB. Of course, it is not. ES does use linear interpolation, but only for a single
performance period. After the initial flurry of discussion, the misinterpretation of the ES
calculation appears to be resolved. It has not reappeared in several years.
Presently, there remains skepticism about ES, most likely connected to resistance to change.
Rigidity is a difficult obstacle to overcome. Logic and reasoning are set aside while opinion,
emotion, and political power become the position determinants.
This residual skepticism affects whether ES is accepted by the EVM community and fully
incorporated into the EVM practice. Across the globe, there is considerable evidence of
increased application of ES, indicating its general acceptance. An eventual preponderance of
usage may overcome the skeptics; only time will tell whether ES is adopted.

AFFIRMATION
Significantly, Kym Henderson’s article verified the performance of the ES indicators from
application to real data [Henderson, 2003]. Several advantages were cited for ES:
1. Simplicity of the calculations
2. Time-based indicators as opposed to the cost-based EVM indicators
3. No additional data required
4. Indicators perform reliably for either early or late performing projects
5. Indicator values converge and resolve to the actual project result
In his article, Mr. Henderson summarized the examination of ES, saying:
“The retrospective analysis of ES using my own EVM projects’ data, …has confirmed with
remarkable precision the accuracy of the ES concept and ES metrics …when
compared to their historic EVM counterparts.”
As well, other independent successful trials of the ES method were subsequently reported,
most notably is one at Lockheed Martin conducted by Robert Handshuh. Additional to the
trials, research was performed which confirmed the performance of ES. Dr. Mario Vanhoucke
and Stephan Vandevoorde using methods of simulation compared ES to other EVM based
methods of duration forecasting [Vanhoucke, et al., 2007]. They formed the conclusion:
“The results reveal that the earned schedule method outperforms, on the average, all other
forecasting methods.”
Most recently, Captain Kevin Crumrine and Lieutenant Colonel Jonathon Ritschel of the USAF,
using EVM data from 64 major defense projects, examined performance of the schedule
indicators from EVM and ES [Crumrine, et al., 2013]. Crumrine and Ritshcel made the
comparison using statistical hypothesis testing methods. Their conclusion, with regard to the
schedule indicators from each methodology, was made as follows:
“This research finds Earned Schedule to be a more timely and accurate predictor than Earned
Value Management.”
Affirmation of ES is noted in several other venues, as well:
1. Positive feedback from application globally
2. Incorporation into EVM analysis tools – EV Engine, IPM Pro, Visi Trend, ProTrack, and
Project Flight Deck
3. Inclusion in EVM training from various sources
4. Inclusion in project management coursework at several universities globally
5. Appearance in project management textbooks
6. As a topic of interest in several published research articles (academic journals,
occurring globally)
RESOURCES
For those using ES or those who want to begin, there are several resources available. The one,
perhaps of the greatest value, is the ES website, www.earnedschedule.com. The website has a
considerable amount of material, including news, publications, presentations, calculators, and
much more. With very few exceptions the materials are free for download and individual use.
The website began in February 2006. In that first month it received approximately 6000
“hits.” The website has become increasingly more popular and is now receiving approximately
55,000 hits per month, and recently had a count of over 63,000.
Another good source for ES material is the PMI EVM practice standard [PMI, 2011]. The
standard includes Appendix D, Schedule Analysis Using EVM Data, which predominantly is a
description of ES. And of course my book, Earned Schedule, is available.

ES facilitates considerable schedule performance analysis capability from EVM data. The
capabilities offered by ES – time-based indicators, duration forecasting, prediction, critical
path, schedule adherence, constraint/impediment identification, rework cost, discontinuous
performance, and schedule network topology – previously were not believed possible.
It is my opinion that acceptance of ES should help to popularize EVM. With the inclusion of ES,
EVM can make the case that, now, in a single method, project cost and schedule can be managed.
Even without full acceptance the impact of ES can no longer be ignored. It is being used
world-wide in many venues – large and small projects, and in academia, as well.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The following people, journals, and organizations are acknowledged for their contribution to the
advancement and propagation of Earned Schedule: Kym Henderson, Eleanor Haupt, Dr. John Singley,
Ray Stratton, Steve Wake, Alex Davis, Mick Higgins, Dr. Mario Vanhoucke, Stephen Vandevoorde, Robert
Van De Velde, Major John Garrett, Norm Brown, Peter Schwarz, Greg Smith, The Measurable News, PM
World Today, PM World Journal, Crosstalk, International Journal of Project Management, College of
Performance Management, and the Project Management Institute.
RECOMMENDATION
Earned Schedule has endured for ten years. ES has proven itself through application, prototyping, and
testing in real and simulated environments. It is propagating world-wide in use, in academic coursework
and research. I believe it is time for ES to be normalized to EVM. ES needs to be integrated into
EVM guidance; it should become a normal component of EVM training; and, ES capability should be
commonplace for EVM analysis tools.
REFERENCES
Crumrine, K., J. Ritschel. “A Comparison of Earned Value Management and Earned Schedule as Schedule
Predictors on DOD ACAT 1 Programs,” The Measurable News, 2013 Issue 2: 37-44
Henderson, K. “Earned Schedule: A Breakthrough Extension to Earned Value Theory?,” The Measurable
News, Summer 2003: 13-23
Henderson, K. “Further Developments in Earned Schedule,” The Measurable News, Spring 2004: 15-22
Lipke, W. “Schedule is Different,” The Measurable News, March 2003: 31-34
Lipke, W. Earned Schedule, Raleigh, NC: Lulu Publishing 2009
Lipke, W. “Earned Schedule Application to Small Projects,” PM World Today, April 2011: Vol XIII, Issue IV
Lipke, W. “Speculations on Project Duration Forecasting,” The Measurable News, 2012 Issue 3: 1-7
Project Management Institute. Practice Standard for Earned Value Management, 1st Edition, Newtown
Square, PA.: PMI, 2005
Project Management Institute. Practice Standard for Earned Value Management, 2nd Edition, Newtown
Square, PA.: PMI, 2011
Vanhoucke, M., S. Vandevoorde. “A Simulation and Evaluation of Earned Value Metrics to Forecast Project
Duration,” Journal of the Operations Research Society, October 2007, Vol 58: 1361-1374
Vanhoucke, M. Measuring Time – Improving Project Performance Using Earned Value Management,
London: Springer 2009
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Walt Lipke retired in 2005 as deputy chief of the Software Division at Tinker Air Force Base. He has over
35 years of experience in the development, maintenance, and management of software for automated
testing of avionics. During his tenure, the division achieved several software process improvement
milestones, including the coveted SEI/IEEE award for Software Process Achievement. Mr. Lipke has
published several articles and presented at conferences, internationally, on the benefits of software
process improvement and the application of earned value management and statistical methods
to software projects. He is the creator of the technique Earned Schedule, which extracts schedule
information from earned value data. Mr. Lipke is a graduate of the USA DoD course for Program
Managers. He is a professional engineer with a master’s degree in physics, and is a member of the
physics honor society, Sigma Pi Sigma (SPS). Lipke achieved distinguished academic honors with the
selection to Phi Kappa Phi (FKF). During 2007 Mr. Lipke received the PMI Metrics Specific Interest Group
Scholar Award. Also in 2007, he received the PMI Eric Jenett Award for Project Management Excellence
for his leadership role and contribution to project management resulting from his creation of the Earned
Schedule method. Mr. Lipke was selected for the 2010 Who’s Who in the World.
WRAP UP

As you may be aware, the College of Performance Management has been newly transformed
as an independent entity, after a mutual and amicable separation from the Project
Management Institute (PMI®
).
Come join us and get involved in shaping the exciting future of the “new” CPM!!!
Membership is $85/year and renewals are $50. Register online at www.mycpm.org.
CPM is the premier organization for earned value management (EVM) and project planning and controls.
As an international, non-profit organization, CPM is dedicated to project management and performance
management.
CPM Objectives
• Promote Earned Value Management and Project Planning and Control: Foster the recognition and use of earned
value management and other project planning and control techniques as integrating processes for project management
• Disseminate Information: Provide opportunities for the exchange of ideas, information, solutions and applications
• Improve Community: Encourage and enable the advancement of theory and application through research,
standards, and education
• Grow Professionals: Provide our diverse membership of project management professionals with growth
opportunities through leadership, education, networking, and other benefits of a professional association
• Enhance Membership and Benefits: Improve membership benefits and expand our membership base through
continued development of a professional association
Membership Benefits
• Discount to CPM Conferences
• Access to latest information on performance management
• Networking with other professionals, industry leaders, and academia
• Quarterly magazine, The Measurable News
• Access to CPM electronic library
• Monthly Webinars
Conference
• Earn PDUs for Project Management Professionals
• Update skills
• Network
• Participate in EVM Training and Certificate Program
Active members, serving on a committee, as a speaker, volunteer or
as a member of the Governing Board, gives you the greatest reward
of all – contributing your knowledge and experience to benefit others!
For more information, email execadmin@mycpm.org or call (703) 370-7885
The “New” College of Performance
Management (CPM) – JOIN NOW!
Join CPM now at www.mycpm.org
PMI is a registered mark of the Project Management Institute, Inc.

Membership Type: New Member Renewal
Name: Date:
Company/Organization:
Select one: Government Employee Industry
Academic Consulting
Address Type: Work Home
Address:
City: State: Zip/Post Code: Country:
Phone (Daytime): Phone (Evening):
Email Address:
Select one: New - Annual Membership Dues - $85
Renewal - Annual Membership Dues - $50
Payment: Visa Mastercard Check Enclosed
American Express Discover
Card Number:
Exp. Date: Security Code: Billing Address Zip Code:
Signature:
PLEASE RETURN THE COMPLETED APPLICATION WITH PAYMENT BY FAX OR MAIL:
College of Performance Management
101 S. Whiting Street, Suite 320
Alexandria, VA 22304
Fax: (703) 370-1757; outside US – Country Code +1-703-370-1757
For more information, contact ExecAdmin@mycpm.org or call (703) 370-7885; outside US – Country Code +1-703-370-7885
BECOME A COLLEGE OF PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT MEMBER
Register on line at www.mycpm.org

OVERVIEW You probably know that CPM offers several Awards, but did you know what
these Awards represent? I’d like to introduce two of these awards and
explain a little about the attributes of those for whom they were named. By
understanding the people honored by the establishment of the Award and
the calibre of those who have been recipients I hope you will be inspired
to look at your own professional circle and identify those who are taking
Project Control to the next step in its evolutionary journey.
Do you have the vision to spot peers of those described below? If you do see someone you
think might be deserving please nominate them for one of these prestigious accolades:
DRIESSNACK DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD
Lieutenant General Hans H. “Whitey” Driessnack was assistant vice chief of staff,
Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. He also served as senior Air Force
representative, U.S. Delegation to the Military Staff Committee, United Nations.
Gen. Driessnack started his career by serving a year in the Navy before entering
Syracuse University. Commissioned into the Air Force, he became a fighter pilot and
flight commander during the Korean War, flying 25 combat missions. He worked at the
Headquarters Systems Command at Andrews Air Force Base and worked his way up to
become comptroller of the Air Force in 1978. He was named assistant vice chief of staff in
1981 and also served as the senior Air Force representative to the United Nations.
In July 1963 General Driessnack transferred to Headquarters Air Force Systems
Command, Andrews Air Force Base, and was assigned to the Office of the Deputy Chief
of Staff, Comptroller, as a research and development officer in the Management Systems
Development Division. From May 1964 to June 1968, he was a management system
specialist in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Financial Management).
He then returned to Air Force Systems Command headquarters as chief, Cost Information
and Management System Division, in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, Comptroller.
Although demonstrating a life-long commitment to learning and increasing responsibility
and leadership, it was in the 1970s in particular that “Whitey” Driessnack had the
opportunity to build on the seminal EVM work pioneered by A Ernest “Ernie” Fitzgerald.
Until then the use of PERT/Cost was predominant in government project control, involving
a continually revised Estimate to Complete (ETC) that was proving unreliable. “Whitey”,
initially an advocate of PERT/Cost, was introduced to an alternate concept created to
redress the unreliability of the ETC, called Earned Value. This was embodied by Fitzgerald
into the original Airforce Cost/Schedule Planning and Control Specification (CSpec).
Driessnack went on to champion this into becoming adopted by the US Department of
Defense in 1967 as the Cost/Schedule Control System Criteria (C/SCSC), the foundation
upon which Earned Value Management is based today.
General Driessnack’s accolades include:
• graduated from Charles E. Gorton High School in 1945;and received a bachelor of science
degree in civil engineering from Syracuse (N.Y.) University in 1951;
• received a master’s degree in business administration from the Air Force Institute of
Technology, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, in 1959; graduated from Squadron
Officer School in 1956; graduated from Air Command and Staff College in 1963; graduated
from the Naval War College, Newport, R.I., in 1970; and graduated from the advanced
management program of the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration in 1971;
• promoted to lieutenant general Aug. 22, 1978, with same date of rank;
• military decorations and awards include the Distinguished Service Medal, Legion of Merit
CPM AWARDS: THE WHYS AND WHEREFORES
By Lauren Bone, Vice President Administration

with two oak leaf clusters, Meritorious Service Medal, Air Medal with oak leaf cluster, Air
Force Commendation Medal with two oak leaf clusters, Presidential Unit Citation emblem,
Air Force Outstanding Unit Award ribbon, Air Force Organizational Excellence Award
ribbon and the Republic of Korea Presidential Unit Citation emblem.
After his military retirement, he worked for six years for a defense contractor, United
Technologies, and then retired a second time in 1989. Even then his commitment to his
community continued with his involvement in building an Air Force retirement community
(Falcons Landing) in the Washington DC area. He formed the Air Force retired officers
community board and served as its chairman.
He was considered a leader in project management, so much so that shortly after his second
retirement the College of Performance Management named its highest award in his honor.
If you have read any Earned Value literature you will recognise the recipients of this award as a
pantheon of the champions of Earned Value Management and Project Controls leadership:
1992 – Robert R. Kemps
1994 – Gary Christle
1995 – Quentin Fleming
1996 – Wayne Abba
1996 – Larry Stone
1997 – Gary Humphreys
2003 – Robert Pattie
2004 – David Christensen
2006 – David Muzio
2009 – Tony Finefield
Is the next deserving recipient someone you know? Here are the attributes required:
• has made major contributions to project performance management policy, concepts, and
practices, which have national and international implications;
• has provided critical contributions to the evolution of Earned Value Management and
project planning and control standards, research, and education;
• has promoted the exchange of theory, development, and application among project
management professionals.
GARY CHRISTLE LEADERSHIP EXCELLENCE AWARD
Gary Christle was responsible for US Department of Defense (DoD) Acquisition policy as
embodied in the DoD 5000 series documents. This responsibility included the role of Defense
Acquisition Board executive secretary, establishment of Acquisition Program Baselines, and
supervision of the monthly Defense Acquisition Executive Summary process for monitoring
the cost, schedule and technical status of major acquisition programs. He was also responsible
for policies regarding contractors’ internal cost and schedule control systems (Earned Value
Management Systems (EVMS)) and was a member of the DoD Cost Analysis Improvement
Group. Gary retired from Federal Service in October 2000 as the Deputy for Acquisition
Management, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics).
Subsequently as an independent consultant, Gary has also undertaken program
management process assessments of business units of several major Defense contractors.
He is currently with the Center for Naval Analyses. As a Senior Fellow with the Center for
Naval Analyses Mr. Christle has published reports on Headquarters reorganization, project
office organization, program manager training, acquisition metrics, balanced scorecards,
earned value implementation, and risk management for executives.
Throughout his distinguished career Gary has consistently worked collaboratively with
industry, encouraging both leadership on all sides of the table and the development
and ownership of appropriate project control standards to be applied when working
with US Government and in particular, US DOD. He initiated the Integrated Performance
Management Council which was ultimately responsible for the transformation of C/SCSC
(initiated by Driessnack – see above) into Earned Value Management Systems guidelines
embodied by the industry sponsored ANSI 748.
Gary’s leadership fostered an extensive body of knowledge. He made available to
government researchers, notably the Air Force Institute of Technology under Dr David
Christensen’s tutelage, the DoD earned value data base. He encouraged collaboration
with friendly foreign countries, leading to creation of a multilateral memorandum of

SUMMARY
understanding among Australia, Canada and US defense organizations and parallel but less
formal arrangements with Japan, New Zealand, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
Gary Christle’s many awards reflect his distinguished career:
• Distinguished Military Graduate of Northeastern University; and holds a DoD level III
certification in Program Management
• recipient of the Northeastern University Outstanding Alumni Award in the Field of Public
Service; recipient of the Defense Distinguished Civilian Service Medal (twice); recipient of
the Presidential rank designation of Meritorious Executive; recipient of the David Packard
Excellence in Acquisition Award; the General Hans H. Driessnack Distinguished Service
Award; recipient of the Vice President’s “Hammer” Award.
• When with the Project Management Institute CPM endowed an annual scholarship in his name.
• frequent guest lecturer and Honorary Professor of the Defense Acquisition University ; and
• CPM has established this leadership award in his name!
There has to date only been one recipient of the Gary Christle Leadership Excellence Award:

2009 – Dr. Robert B. “Bob” Rovinsky
Does someone you know have the attributes to merit this Award? They include:
• a leader in his or her community;
• will have promoted an environment of cooperation whether it is between customer and
supplier or within the government or a company;
• not a one-time effort but ongoing examples of leadership;
• has made significant contributions to the development and/or understanding of earned
value management that historically has and will continue to distinguish their work. The
contribution should be a definable body of work as demonstrated through one or more of
the following: speaking, teaching/training, research, publications, professional practice, etc
Inspired to identify and reward the new leaders in our community? Nomination Forms for
either of these Awards can be downloaded from: www.mycpm.org/about-us/awards/
2013 Nominations close on 30 September, 2013.
Proposal Support
EVMS Staff
Augmentation
EVMS Compliance
Review Preparation
Integrated Baseline
Review (IBR)
Preparation
EVMS
Implementation
EVMS Design and
Documentation
EVMS Requirements
or Gap Analysis
EVMS and
Project Management
Training
Humphreys & Associates
EVMS
Consulting Services
Humphreys & Associates offers a complete range of
EVMS consulting services. From proposal preparation
and management system gap analysis to mock
compliance reviews or contractor self-
surveillance and third party validations, H&A is
the authority in EVMS.
As the industry recognized leader in
EVMS training, H&A offers regularly
scheduled Earned Value Management
System, Project Scheduling, and Advanced
Earned Value Management Techniques public
workshops.
H&A now offers a Control Account
Manager (CAM) Certification Program – ideal for
anyone looking to improve their EVM expertise and distinguish
themselves with a professional certification.
Interested in learning more?
Visit our web site at www.humphreys-assoc.com or call us today at (714) 685-1730

THE MEASURABLE NEWS
2013.03
27
INTRODUCTION A practice symposium track titled “AGILE+EVM” was presented at EVM
World 2013. The interest in the subject was evident by the large number
of attendees, at some times >20% of the conference attendees. The track
would not have been possible without the support of our presenters
and their employers: Scott Dalessio (Grant Thornton), Joy L. Villagomez
(Lockheed Martin), Josh Breen (Grant Thornton), Glen Alleman (PrimePM),
Pete Zafros (Grant Thornton), Ron Terbush (Lockheed Martin). This article
summarizes the six presentations within the track.
BACKGROUND
Earned Value Management has traditionally been applied to the waterfall type of
development with fixed scope and fixed technical requirements. The Agile methodology
continuously analyzes both the scope and technical requirements to keep pace with the
customer’s evolving environment. With Agile, the cost and schedule are fixed; therefore the
customer gets the most value achievable at a known cost and on a predetermined date.
INTRODUCTION TO AGILE & SCRUM
Agile is an alternative to the traditional and waterfall project management methodologies.
The term Agile was introduced in the Agile Manifesto of 2001.1
Agile is based on iterative
development used primarily in software development. It focuses on adaptive planning
and evolutionary development that is rapid and flexible. The Agile methodology is value
- and vision - driven, and it has iterative cycles. It involves poly-skilled teams which foster
communication and make sure that they have the required documentation for a project.
Similarly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) focuses on “modular development”,
which is referenced in OMB guidance on Contracting Guidance to Support Modular
Development.2
Some aspects of using Agile that need to be understood include:
• Agile is NOT a silver bullet for software development problems
• Agile does not mean no planning, processes, or documentation
• Agile is not appropriate for every type of project
As Scott Dalessio, a presenter at EVM World 2013, stated, “Agile is a silver mirror not silver
bullet.” Zac Gery explains this as the foundation of Agile does not solve problems; it helps
identify potential obstacles. All decisions whether good or bad are reflected using the
methodology.3
Agile is not appropriate for every type of project. It is adaptive and flexible;
however, you need to determine what makes sense for the team.
The results of the 7th Annual State of Agile Development Survey4
showed that Scrum
was used by over 50% of respondents; it is the most widely adopted agile method. Scrum
is an iterative and incremental project delivery framework that relies on organized, self-
managing, and cross-functional teams. The Scrum roles include the product owner, the
Scrum Master, and the team. The Scrum lifecycle is depicted in Figure 1 below.
AGILE & EVM SYMPOSIUM
By Shobha Mahabir

2
framework that relies on organized, self-managing, and cross-functional teams. The Scrum roles include th
product owner, the Scrum Master, and the team. The Scrum lifecycle is depicted in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1: Scru m Lifecycle 5
Scrum meetings comprise of the following activities:
3 Applying Elements of Agile
Even if a project is not labelled “Agile”, applying a few elements of the methodology may still be beneficial.
two programs presented at the conference by Ron Terbush and Joy Villagomez illustrated some successes o
evolving from waterfall to Agile methodology in selected process. These areas include management of
expectations, scope, and risk with a system backlog; implementation of Just in Time planning and risk-base
3 Zac Gery,” Reflections in Scrum’s Silver Mirror”, 16 June 2012.
<http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/494380/ReflectionsplusinplusScrum-27splusSilverplusMirror>.
4 7th Annual State of Agile Development Survey: <http://www.versionone.com/pdf/7th-Annual-State-of-Ag
Development-Survey.pdf>.
5 Source: Copyright 2008-2010 Mitch Lacey <http://www.mitchlacey.com>.
Vision
Product
Backlog
Sprint
Backlog
Daily
Scrum
Meetings
2-4 week
sprint
Incremen
tal
Functioni
ng
software
Release
Planning
• Release kickoff
• Project planning
• Product backlog
• Release dates set
Sprint
Planning
• Sprint kickoff
• Feature collaboration
• Feature estimation
• Feature prioritization
Daily Scrum
• Fifteen minutes daily standup
• Three questions
• Coordination of activities
• Identification of risks
Sprint
Review
• End of sprint
• Demo
Sprint
Retrospective
• Team self-assessment
• Continuous process improvement
Figure 1: Scrum Lifecycle5
2
respondents; it is the most widely adopted agile method. Scrum is an iterative and incremental project de
framework that relies on organized, self-managing, and cross-functional teams. The Scrum roles include
product owner, the Scrum Master, and the team. The Scrum lifecycle is depicted in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1: Scru m Lifecycle 5
3 Applying Elements of Agile
Even if a project is not labelled “Agile”, applying a few elements of the methodology may still be beneficia
two programs presented at the conference by Ron Terbush and Joy Villagomez illustrated some successes
evolving from waterfall to Agile methodology in selected process. These areas include management of
expectations, scope, and risk with a system backlog; implementation of Just in Time planning and risk-ba
3 Zac Gery,” Reflections in Scrum’s Silver Mirror”, 16 June 2012.
<http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/494380/ReflectionsplusinplusScrum-27splusSilverplusMirror>.
4 7th Annual State of Agile Development Survey: <http://www.versionone.com/pdf/7th-Annual-State-of-
Development-Survey.pdf>.
5 Source: Copyright 2008-2010 Mitch Lacey <http://www.mitchlacey.com>.
Vision
Product
Backlog
Sprint
Backlog
Daily
Scrum
Meetings
2-4 week
sprint
Incremen
tal
Functioni
ng
software
Release
Planning
• Release kickoff
• Project planning
• Product backlog
• Release dates set
Sprint
Planning
• Sprint kickoff
• Feature collaboration
• Feature estimation
• Feature prioritization
Daily Scrum
• Fifteen minutes daily standup
• Three questions
• Coordination of activities
• Identification of risks
Sprint
Review
• End of sprint
• Demo
Sprint
Retrospective
• Team self-assessment
• Continuous process improvement
APPLYING ELEMENTS OF AGILE
Even if a project is not labelled “Agile”, applying a few elements of the methodology may
still be beneficial. The two programs presented at the conference by Ron Terbush and Joy
Villagomez illustrated some successes of evolving from waterfall to Agile methodology
in selected process. These areas include management of expectations, scope, and risk
with a system backlog; implementation of Just in Time planning and risk-based statusing;
executing cycles of iterative development with continuous integration, verification, and
validation; partnering EVM reporting with Agile burn-down charts; and enabling program
success by being structured, yet flexible.
During the iterative development cycle, focus is placed on results, not progression.
Feedback from user testing sessions can be incorporated into the next cycle through rapid
feedback loops. At the iteration level, weekly and monthly percent complete feedback is
done for EVM status. Weekly, on-demand feedback using iteration backlog is provided on
total percent complete and individual tasks hotspots that provide a quick way to identify,
organize and scan what is important. At the cycle level, weekly feedback is provided on
the watch list across iterations. This feedback is driven by independent test assessment of
requirements and user story satisfaction. The completion trend for the cycle is done at the
work package level.
It is important not to lose sight of the backlog and to take a step back to look at the data at
various levels. Key areas to focus on are the budget and cycle, together known as iteration

planning – how to map a waterfall budget to the Agile lifecycle. Just in Time planning
methodology, where work is planned in near term to incorporate lessons learned from prior
cycles, is critical. Continuous verification and validation occurs during each iteration. Shared
lessons learned include:
• Don’t wait to integrate. The team is responsible for continuous iteration.
• Don’t wait to verify. Test representatives on the team continuously check requirements-
based functionality during the iteration via dry runs.
• Don’t wait to validate. The team works to continuously check user acceptability during
the iteration.
• Don’t wait to measure verification/validation progress. The team continuously monitors
iteration-level progress via iteration backlog percent done. Test or CMO independently
monitors application-level progress via percent done through user stories and/or
requirements satisfaction
Some of the challenges with the initiation of Agile Development included organization
culture, roles and responsibilities, staffing, and co-location. Having a champion for process
improvements is crucial to the success of an Agile program. Members of the team stepped
up as coaches, did the research, and coached their team members to understand the
philosophy of Agile Scrum. Continuous learning through book clubs assisted with adhering
to the process at first, the team then made use of retrospectives to reflect on efficiency.
Sprint zero, a preliminary sprint focused on preparing for the first sprint, is a necessity
and upfront planning is essential. Short sprints mean more repetitions, which lead to more
practice and greater improvement.
METHODS TO APPLY EVM TO AGILE
Traditional EVM under the waterfall methodology requires up-front planning to implement
the requirements of a system. It determines budget and schedule for the entire scope of
the work. Progress is tracked to the original budget and schedule. Traditional EVM is less
flexible with limited ability to make changes throughout the process.
Agile uses a more dynamic approach. It breaks down high-level features in increments
(sprints) after budget and schedule have been determined. This approach allows for
continuous baseline revision to reflect the work completed (story points) during sprints.
Progress is measured by making allowances for iterative changes.
Adopting EVM to Agile projects uses Agile Scrum processes to produce EVM metrics. It
utilizes planned accomplishments, called story points, as a basis for determining Earned
Value (EV); however, EV is not taken for partial completion. Story points are earned with
the item and accepted by the users or customers. Therefore, the EV technique of 0/100
percent is used. Frequent changes to the baseline are allowed when story points are added
or removed, typically the end of each sprint.
Agile terms differ from the traditional EVM due to the integration of sprints and story points.
• Budget at Complete (BAC) - the planned budget for the release or project
• Planned Percent Complete (PPC) – the number of current sprints divided by the total
number of planned sprints
• Actual Percent Complete (APC) – the total number of story points completed divided by
story points planned
The most significant change is in the EVM calculations for Planned Value (PV) and Earned
Value (EV).
• Planned Value (PV) [progress against planned sprint schedule] = PPC x BAC
• Earned Value (EV) [progress against planned budget] = APC x BAC
• Note that Planned Value is defined using sprints, while Earned Value is defined using
story points.
Some leading practices shared by Josh Breen during the Agile + EVM Practice Symposium:
• The basis of EVM is an accurate baseline
• The baseline in Agile EVM must be established at the beginning of a release
• Progress needs to be measured at defined boundaries
• The initial data points are needed when planning the baseline:
• Number of planned sprints
• Length of the sprints
• Number of story points planned for release
• Budget planned for the release
• Start and end dates

• The planned work in a release is expressed in stories, which are quantified story points
• At the start of each sprint, stories are selected from the product backlog and serve as the
baseline for the sprint
• Stories may not be added or removed during the sprint, and no value is earned for partial
completion of a story
• If an assigned story is not completed during a sprint, it is placed back into the product
backlog to be baselined in a later sprint
• Progress and performance are measured at predefined boundaries
• After each iteration (sprint or release), the product backlog must be reviewed, and the
future baseline must be adjusted to account for past performance.
INTEGRATING AGILE WITH EVM
Whether the methodology is traditional or Agile, the goal is to increase the probability
of program success. ANSI-748B is the Earned Value Management standard. While the 32
ANSI-748B criteria are designed to deliver value, touch points identified by Glen Alleman
provide the basis for connecting the dots.
ANSI
Criteria #
EVM Criteria Agile Approach
1 Define WBS Features and stories define tasks
2 Identify organization Self-organizing team
5 Integrate OBS and WBS Self-organized teams with customer
6 Schedule work Iterations and releases
7 Identify deliverables and
milestones
Working software at the end of each iterations
8 Set time phased budget Fixed length iterations and releases
16 Record direct costs Fixed staff = level of effort
23 Determine variances Velocity measures missed features
25 Sum data and variance Missed features moved to next iteration
26 Manage action plans Replan missed features, adjust velocity
28 Incorporate changes Replan missed features, adjust velocity
Table 1: Eleven Critical EVM Criteria with Agile
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) announced in June 2012 the “Contracting
Guidance to Support Modular IT development” that provides guidance to empower
agency leadership and Integrated Project Teams to support rapid delivery of workable
solutions. From the National Defense Acquisition Act (NDAA) section 804, it seems that the
Department of Defense (DoD) is ready to embrace Agile methodologies as depicted in the
view of DoD IT Acquisition Lifecycle’s Impact on Agile below.
23 Determine variances Velocity measures missed features
25 Sum data and variance Missed features moved to next iteration
26 Manage action plans Replan missed features, adjust velocity
2 8 Incorporate changes Replan missed features, adjust velocity
Table 1: Eleven Critical EVM Criteria with Agile
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) announced in June 2012 the “Contracting Guidance to Support
Modular IT development” that provides guidance to empower agency leadership and Integrated Project Teams
to support rapid delivery of workable solutions. From the National Defense Acquisition Act (NDAA) section
804, it seems that the Department of Defense (DoD) is ready to embrace Agile methodologies as depicted in the
view of DoD IT Acquisition Lifecycle’s Impact on Agile below.
Figure 2: Business Capability Lifecycle (BCL) Acquisition Business Model6
6 Federal Implementation and Support for Agile
Figure 2: Business Capability Lifecycle (BCL) Acquisition Business Model6

FEDERAL IMPLEMENTATION AND SUPPORT FOR AGILE
In the GAO’s study on “Software Development: Effective Practices and Federal Challenges
in Applying Agile Methods” 32 practices and approaches were identified as effective for
applying Agile software development methods to IT projects.7
There were ten practices that
were used and found effective by officials from the five federal agencies that were part of
the study:
• Start with Agile guidance and an Agile adoption strategy.
• Enhance migration to Agile concepts using Agile terms, such as user stories (used to convey
requirements), and Agile examples, such as demonstrating how to write a user story.
• Continuously improve Agile adoption at both the project and organizational level.
• Seek to identify and address impediments at the organization and project level.
• Obtain stakeholder/customer feedback frequently.
• Empower small, cross-functional teams.
• Include requirements related to security and progress monitoring in your queue of
unfinished work (the backlog).
• Gain trust by demonstrating value at the end of each iteration.
• Track progress using tools and metrics.
• Track progress daily and visibly.
Pete Zafros shared solutions to some of the challenges highlighted in the GAO’s study:
Process Challenge Solution
Scope &
Planning
• Scope statements are often too
specific to allow for innovation or
not focused enough to effectively
manage a project
• Scope is defined upfront and all
requirements must fit within the
scope
• Use business architectures, strategy
documentation, process analysis to
define the major functions of the
systems
• Understanding scope will minimize
rework and ensure the system is built
in a sound fashion
Budget &
Procurement
• Upfront budgeting can force either
waterfall requirements processes or
inflated budget requests
• Extended procurement processes
cause the early on-boarding of
staff which leads to periods of low
utilization and lack of optimized
efforts
• Address budgets iteratively or at the
portfolio level to allow for improved
fluidity of funding between projects
• Use precise procurements for
defined tasks
• Seek extensive skill sets,
communication skills and agile
experience for less defined tasks
Schedule
& Cost
Estimation
• Schedule and cost estimation are
the most flawed aspects of software
development and the most common
reason for perceived project failures
• Attempt to make iterative estimates
to the greatest extent possible
• Establish consistency in scope and
requirements between projects to
build historical data that can be used
effectively
Requirements • A solid foundation of scope and
broad system requirements are
not typically established prior to
development causing rework
• Staff had difficulty identifying
which requirements/issues must be
addressed immediately and those
that do are not
• Identify scope and broad stroke
implementation requirements
upfront
• Build detailed requirements
according to business priority,
common understanding and
technical feasibility
• Requirements are not Yes or No,
they are Now or Maybe Later
Development • Skill sets may be less broad than the
optimal agile developer and lead to
bigger teams than usual
• Requirements are not always broken
enough to allow for development
while unknowns and dependencies
exist
• When teams are large focus
communications around business
context rather than status updates
• Paired programming can prevent
dependencies on individuals, provide
developers a broader understanding
of their efforts and build skill sets

Measurable news-issue-3-2013

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à Measurable news-issue-3-2013

Similaire à Measurable news-issue-3-2013 (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Measurable news-issue-3-2013