the integration of planning, scheduling, cost, and reporting requires a clear and executable system, architecture. This project provides the first step in integrating Microsoft Project Professional with Cost View and wInsight to form an Enterprise Project Management platform.
The 7 Things I Know About Cyber Security After 25 Years | April 2024
Principles of Enterprise Project Management
1. Glen B. Alleman
5.18.05
Enterprise Project
Management Case Study
The integration of planning, scheduling, cost,
and reporting requires a clear and executable
system architecture.
This project provides the first step in
integrating Microsoft Project Professional with
Cost View and winSight to form an Enterprise
Project Management platform
2. Glen B. Alleman
5.19.05
Scope of Enterprise Project
Management
Aligning resource management, schedule and cost
through collaborative applications:
Cost management system
Time and Labor
Microsoft Project Professional™
Deliver integrated capabilities to:
CAMs, Planner, IPTs through Project Web Access (PWA),
Project Professional (desktop) and Cost View.
3. Glen B. Alleman
5.19.05
Themes of Enterprise Project
Management Application Integration
Theme Outcome
Seamless integration between
applications
Ease of use, training, auditing
Data integrity avoids “manual”
verification
Trust of data and work
processes
“Pull” (rather than push)
paradigms provide integrity,
timeliness, and robust
architectures.
Stateless (asynchronous)
systems easier to use and
maintain
Concurrency of data in the
hands of the users
Flexible of data configuration Focused on project level use for
planning and resource
management
Focused on SSC use for cost
management
4. Glen B. Alleman
5.19.05
The Challenge of Integrating
Heterogeneous Systems
“Federation” is a better term than “Integration”
Systems are loosely coupled and operate asynchronously
Data exchanged between system with integrity
Type definition (units of measure)
Range verification
Calendar mapping
Reconciliation done through tools rather than by hand
Data exchanged through “bridge” applications
Semantics of the data travels with the exchange
Federation goals
All data is trusted and traceable to its source – Data Integrity
Duplicate transactions produce in a single result – Indepotence
Transactions can be reversed, replaced, or undone – Reversibility
Inconsistent data cannot be entered into the system – Referential
integrity
5. Glen B. Alleman
5.19.05
High Level Integration Architecture
Data Interfaces use existing formats,
mapped during output process.
Data created at the point of origin, no down
stream processing.
Data “pulled” from one system to another at
users request
6. Glen B. Alleman
5.19.05
Data, Format, Semantics, Integrity
Units of measure across the three systems (Project
Server, winSight, Cost View)
Dollars?
Time?
Resources?
Truncation options
Characters – how much detail must be carried in each database
record?
Values – can monetary and duration records be “scaled?”
Breakdown structure maintenance
WBS fidelity – how far down the WBS tree can routine changes
be made to meet project needs?
Resource structures – how will named resources be allocated
CAM structures – how far down the WBS tree will the CAMs be
able to make routine changes (subcontractors)
7. Glen B. Alleman
5.19.05
IMP for the Bridging Project
Define Baseline Configuration
Server configuration defined
Desktop configuration defined
Project profile understood with impacts
User profile understood with impacts
Define minimum external interfaces
Data exchange formats defined
Exchange workflow defined
Validation of data and workflow complete
Deployment minimum baseline system for defined users
resources defined
Cost View interface functionally complete
8. Glen B. Alleman
5.19.05
What Does “Done” Mean for HST
HRDVM?
Planner creates a resource loaded schedule in
chosen scheduling tool
Integrates schedule to and from contributors to form
a true Integrated Master Schedule
Costs assigned to resources roll up to integrated
cost database (Cost View)
Actuals arrive from ERP system
Project performance displayed in EV terms
9. Glen B. Alleman
5.19.05
Deliverables
Baseline platform for compliance with the most RFPs
Manloaded schedule
IPT members integrated
Integration of Project Server with Cost View for corporate level
reporting of project performance
Rolled up costs for labor and ODC’s
Integration of subcontractors and IPT members to enable a
distributed execution of the program
Project Web Access
Systems architecture for full rollout
IDEFØ architecture for major components and their interactions
10. Glen B. Alleman
5.19.05
Enterprise Project Deliverables
System requirements analysis
Reconfirmation of previous planning tools requirements
Profile of user community
System architecture
Data elements
Process elements
Business process description
Deployment Plan
Hardware and software components
Operational requirements
Parametric cost models
Risk mitigation plan
12. Glen B. Alleman
5.18.05
Cost and Schedule Integration
Integrating Microsoft Project
and Artemis Cost View is a
critical success factor for
Enterprise Project
Management
13. Glen B. Alleman
5.19.05
Cost and Schedule Integration
Issue: Microsoft Project can not export BCWS and
BCWP directly to CostView™:
Microsoft Project calculates time-scaled BCWS using only
the standard Gregorian calendar. Lockheed Martin uses
unique accounting calendars. If BCWS, calculated using
a standard calendar, were uploaded to CostView, using a
LMC unique calendar, the data would be erroneous
MS Project can calculate earned value (BCWP) at the task
level but can not rollup task level BCWP into specified
work-package
To upload MS Project files to CostView they must be in a
specific format
14. Glen B. Alleman
5.19.05
Cost and Schedule Integration
Solution: Compliance Software Technology Export
forProject™ can fully integrate MS Project and
Artemis CostView
Compliance Software Technology, Inc. (CSTI) provides
Earned Value Management Systems compliant with OMB
A-11, Section 7 and the American National Standards
Institute/Electronic Industries Alliance (ANSI/EIA)
Standard 748.
CSTI is a Gold Certified Microsoft Partner, serving
customers including ITT Industries, Northrop Grumman,
ManTech Solutions and Technologies Corporation,
Applied Signal Technology, Inc., and Computer Science
Corporation, supporting the U.S. Department of Defense
(DoD), U.S. Department of Energy (DoE), NASA, IRS, and
other government entities. CSTI also serves companies
in Petrochemical, Construction, Manufacturing, and Airline
Industries.
15. Glen B. Alleman
5.19.05
Cost and Schedule Integration
Users can define custom accounting calendars with
CSTI’s Export forProject
User pick dates of accounting periods
16. Glen B. Alleman
5.19.05
Cost and Schedule Integration
Tasks rolled up into Work Packages and Control
Accounts
Project Percent Work Complete calculates Earned
Value Progress using identical methods to AMS
RTP
17. Glen B. Alleman
5.19.05
Cost and Schedule Integration
CostView read only file formatted from Microsoft Project
Directly imported to CostView
18. Glen B. Alleman
5.19.05
Cost and Schedule Integration
Tests summarize and calculate BCWS and BCWP in
Microsoft Project and transfer it to a live CostView
database.
Calculations compared to RTP’s output to ensure the
integrity of Microsoft Project’s calculations.
BCWS and BCWP from the 1,500 line schedule were
successfully imported into a CostView database
BCWS and BCWP files generated for the 5,500 and
15,500 line schedules but were not loaded into CostView,
because of the lack of CostView test server space
19. Glen B. Alleman
5.19.05
Cost and Schedule Integration
Test processing time results
Processing Time
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
1,500 Tasks 5,500 Tasks 15,500 Tasks
# of Resource Loaded Tasks
Time(minutes)
BCWS
BCWP
20. Glen B. Alleman
5.19.05
Cost and Schedule Integration
Next steps for program
Build CostView database Construct Control Accounts and
Work-packages
Construct Cost Allocation Module and rate tables
Map Charge numbers to Control accounts
Complete Schedule and resource load with hours
Detail plan schedule for first rolling wave
Resource load tasks, using hours, for first rolling wave
Load BCWS into CostView
21. Glen B. Alleman
5.18.05
Risk and Risk Mitigation
In any IT project the discovery
and mitigation of risk is as
important as the functional
operation of the system
22. Glen B. Alleman
5.19.05
Risk and Mitigation
Risk Mitigation
Requirements elicitation not focused
on business operations
Define business operations in IDEFØ before
moving to technical requirements
Consistent application requires
training, support and monitoring
“Step – action” processes, Rummler Brache
swim lanes, and other flow-based
documentation and training
Functional partitioning of hardware,
databases, systems, operations, and
processes not well defined
Zachman-like architecture
Business process model
Enterprise model
System model
Technical model
As built
Functioning enterprise
Project management not focused on
the user
“Joint” participants in Enterprise Project
Management project
23. Glen B. Alleman
5.19.05
Mind Map Approach
Capture issues, relationships, opportunities
Collect solutions
Map solutions to Zachman or similar enterprise plan
Gain consensus from all participants
Users
Process Management stakeholders
IT stakeholders
Develop IMP/IMS for Enterprise Project
Management
25. Glen B. Alleman
5.18.05
Thinking About
Enterprise Project Management
Deploying Enterprise Project
Management is fraught with
difficulties, very few if which
are technical.
26. Glen B. Alleman
5.19.05
Thinking About Enterprise Project
Management
Enterprise IT Systems are driven by standardization
Server side functions and database schemas benefits
from standardization
End user functionality is driven by customer needs,
contract requirements and many times familiarity
Standardization limits choice
This is a “trade space”
Operational cost / savings
Support cost / savings
Customer compliance cost / savings
27. Glen B. Alleman
5.19.05
Thinking About Enterprise Project
Management
“Generally Accepted Accounting Practices” (GAAP) defines
the standards for general ledger, balance sheet and
accounting software
Customer needs, specific program processes define the
standards for Enterprise Project Management
At the point of contact between Enterprise and Customer need
Customer facing needs have little interest in the enterprise
process if they conflict with customer need
Enterprise needs have little concern about localizations driven by
customers
Blending the requirements for enterprise consistency and
customer localization is the challenge of Enterprise Project
Management
28. Glen B. Alleman
5.19.05
Thinking About Enterprise Project
Management
Separation of Concerns is the path to success for
Enterprise Project Management
Keys to success
Define shared data and work processes
Define localized data and work processes
Isolate data and process to eliminate undesirable impacts
of enterprise processes
Push all “extra effort” onto the localized processes
Notes de l'éditeur
This presentation is an overview of the “bridging” activities for the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) HST Robotic Vehicle (HRV) RFP compliance. The RFP calls out in PM-100 the use of Project Professional Server and Project Web Access.
The Master Plan and high level Master Schedule along with the deliverables and a discussion of the issues and their resolution are provided in this presentation.
Using the bridging activities as a starting point, Microsoft Project, Cost View, winSight, and SAP form the basis of an enterprise project management system that can be syndicated across Space Systems.
The term “enterprise project management” has many meanings, depending on the vendor, the business domain, and the operational details of the project or program.
In this context “enterprise project management” is defined as:
Seamlessly integrated project management applications
Seamless data transfer between these applications
During this effort there are some key “Themes” that should be kept in mind:
The current method of integrating enterprise scale system is through XML (Extendable Markup Language)
Data integrity is a first order concern. Since 3rd parties and possibly “strangers” will be using the system, protections against bad data need to be in place
The system must operate in a “pull” paradigm. Data is exchanged between two systems, by the user of one system “pulling” data from another system when it is needed. This avoids any synchronization issues as well as “wait states” when the system is not available.
Integrating the three core systems – Project Professional, Cost View and winSight can be done in several way. The first approach is to exchange “flat files” (common delimited files) between systems. There are several reasons for avoiding this approach in the long run:
Data integrity depends on maintaining a frozen data structure on both ends of the transaction
Typos, mis-located data, and other damaged data items can not be detected until they are entered into the system
The current approach to integrating Microsoft and Oracle based products is through XML.
For the HST HRDVM project and for the intermediate term flat files will be the data exchange format.
The IDEF0 process is a method to model decisions, actions, and activities in an organization or system. IDEF0 was derived from the Structured Analysis and Design Technique. The US Air Force commissioned the authors of SADT to develop a function modeling method for analyzing and communicating the functional perspective of a system.
In 1993 the Computer Systems Laboratory of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released IDEF0 as a standard for functional modeling in FIPS Publication 183.
Functions are shown as “boxes.”
Inputs arrive on the left show data that triggers the activity.
Outputs exiting on the right are the results on the activity
Controls arriving on the top guide or regulate the activity.
Mechanisms arriving at the bottom define the systems, people, or equipment used to perform the function.
IDEF0 diagrams are developed in a hierarchical sequence starting with the “do all work” top diagram then increasing levels of detail. This diagram is the top-level (A0) diagram for the Integrated Project Management System. Good diagrams have 3 to 6 function boxes. Boxes are numbered for traceability.
IDEF0 diagrams are not flow charts but they do show the sequence of data processing. This diagram should not be seen as a sequence of events, but as the relationships between the actions of the system and the data on which these actions are performed.
The major accomplishments of this bridging effort include:
The installation and operation of Project Professional for the HST HRV project
An interface between Project Professional and Cost View
The creation and use of a resource loaded master schedule for HST HRV
This is the current “elevator speech” for the system
At the conclusion of this project there are four (4) major deliverables.
At the conclusion of this project there are four (4) major deliverables.