Benchmarking Execution Performance and Earned Value
Download as PPTX, PDF1 like988 views
Brad Arterbury of Acumen, a project management software company, discussed benchmarking execution performance and earned value. There are three types of benchmarking: intra-project, inter-project, and cloud benchmarking. Benchmarking provides context for project analysis and scoring by comparing metrics within and across projects. Key metrics for benchmarking include schedule performance, cost performance, and risk measures from earned value management and industry standards. Benchmarking tools can compare earned value metrics, scheduling quality, and logic quality to evaluate project quality and predict success.
Benchmarking Execution Performance and Earned Value
- 1. Benchmarking Execution Performance and Earned Value EVM World 2012 Conference //
- 2. // Brad Arterbury, PMP ◦ About Me ◦ MBA, Texas State University ◦ Current member of PMI ◦ Wide-ranging business expertise ◦ Role ◦ Currently lead business development efforts: ◦ Information Technology ◦ Aerospace and Defense ◦ Government June 5, 2012 // 2
- 3. // About Acumen ◦ Project management software company ◦ Insight into PM challenges and use of analytics to overcome them ◦ Core concepts ◦ Project success requires a sound plan ◦ Forecast accuracy requires risk consideration June 5, 2012 // 3
- 4. // Benchmarking Defined ◦ To measure according to specified standards in order to compare with and improve one’s own product June 5, 2012 // 4
- 5. // Benefits of Benchmarking ◦ Context given to project analysis and scoring ◦ Internal and external starting point ◦ Portfolio tracking June 5, 2012 // 5
- 6. // Three Types of Benchmarking ◦ Intra-project Benchmarking ◦ Compare ribbons or time phases within the same project against one another ◦ Inter-project Benchmarking ◦ Compare a single project against prior snapshots of the same plan or similar past projects ◦ Cloud Benchmarking ◦ Compare a single project against a database of thousands of like projects June 5, 2012 // 6
- 7. // Metric Requirements ◦ What are metrics? ◦ Measurable, actionable criteria ◦ Schedule, Cost, Risk ◦ Both quality and performance ◦ Industry Standards ◦ Earned Value Management ◦ DCMA 14-Point Assessment ◦ GAO 10 Best Practices June 5, 2012 // 7
- 8. // DCMA 14-Point Assessment ◦ A precursor to EVM analysis ◦ Metrics look at schedule quality primarily ◦ Provides some schedule performance feedback absent of cost data June 5, 2012 // 8
- 9. // Fuse Schedule Index ◦ Nine different schedule checks combined with their proven thresholds ◦ Individually calculated and weighted before compilation ◦ For example, Logic Density should be between 2 and 4 June 5, 2012 // 9
- 10. // Tracking Execution Performance ◦ Percent Complete ◦ Doesn’t account for effort or resources ◦ Baseline Compliance ◦ Performance for start/finish by time phase ◦ Earned Schedule June 5, 2012 // 10
- 11. // Importance of Earned Value ◦ Metrics for performance analysis of cost and schedule in one system ◦ Proven predictor of project success ◦ Established methodology for government contracts June 5, 2012 // 11
- 12. // Benchmarking EVM ◦ In planning and execution, useful to benchmark EVM metrics ◦ Provides context ‒ Validates baseline ‒ Calibrates performance ◦ Benchmark against internal past and external past in parallel or vs. a rollup of thousands of projects June 5, 2012 // 12
- 13. // Metric Analysis for Intra-Project Benchmarking ◦ Group data into ribbons by a common attribute ◦ Group data into time phases ◦ Apply customizable metrics for true project insight June 5, 2012 // 13
- 14. // Intra-Project Benchmarking // ◦ SV // ◦ CV ◦ SPI ◦ CPI June 5, 2012 // 14
- 15. // Inter-Project Benchmarking ◦ Understand variance on the same project over time ◦ Ensure integrity of baselines ◦ Especially useful when applying EVM ◦ Insight into differences of similar projects June 5, 2012 // 15
- 16. // Forensic Analysis ◦ Differences from baseline to status updates ◦ Calendar ◦ Milestones ◦ Critical path ◦ Find causes of delay and cost overruns that are affecting execution performance June 5, 2012 // 16
- 17. // Cloud Benchmarking ◦ Global Project database ◦ Access through Acumen Fuse ◦ Targeted benchmarking using standardized scoring June 5, 2012 // 17
- 18. // Scoring // Fuse Schedule Index™ // Fuse Logic Index™ June 5, 2012 // 18
- 19. // Probability of Success June 5, 2012 // 19
- 20. // Planning = Execution Success 1 Probability of On-Time Completion 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Fuse Schedule Index™ June 5, 2012 // 20
- 21. // Benchmarking Summary ◦ Tools for comparing project quality and performance ◦ Compare EV metrics, 14-Point Assessment metrics, GAO Scheduling Best Practices, and other metrics by project ◦ Schedule and Logic Quality in Acumen Cloud Benchmarking June 5, 2012 // 21
- 22. // Questions? //
- 23. // More Information ◦ White papers: www.projectacumen.com ◦ Software trial: www.projectacumen.com/trial ◦ Twitter: @projectacumen ◦ E-mail: info@projectacumen.com June 5, 2012 // 23