![Cost Performance - SACPI
Planned/Replan
ned Size
(PSP)
Actual
Completed Size
(ASP)
Work
Completed %
(EV [ASP/PSP])
Total Budgeted
Cost
(TBC)
Total Incurred
Cost
(TIC)
Actual Cost
Consumed %
(AC [TIC/TBC])
Offtrack
Cost
Performance
(SACPI [EV/AC])
Slightly
Offtrack
On
Track
1.0
SP/FP/UCP
or Ideal
Hours
Currency
Value or
Person
Days/Hours
1.0](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/dineshsharma-231221060957-a1e2f49f/85/Agile-Gurugram-2023-I-Simplified-Agile-EVM-The-Art-of-Managing-Triple-Constraint-11-320.jpg)
![Schedule (Time) Performance - SASPI
Planned/Replan
ned Size
(PSP)
Actual
Completed Size
(ASP)
Work
Completed %
(EV [ASP/PSP])
Total Duration
(TST)
Completed
Duration
(CST)
Work Expected
Till Date %
(PV [CST/TST])
Schedule
Performance
(SACPI [EV/PV])
SP/FP/UCP
or Ideal
Hours
Sprints or
Weeks or
Days
1.0
1.0
Offtrack
Slightly
Offtrack
On
Track](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/dineshsharma-231221060957-a1e2f49f/85/Agile-Gurugram-2023-I-Simplified-Agile-EVM-The-Art-of-Managing-Triple-Constraint-12-320.jpg)
![Scope Performance - SARPI
Planned/Replan
ned Size
(PSP)
In Sprint Scope
Change
(RSP)
Scope Change
%
(SC [RSP/PSP])
Scope
Performance
(SARPI [1 - SC])
SP/FP/UCP
or Ideal
Hours
0.9X
0.9X
1.0
1.0
Offtrack
Slightly
Offtrack
On
Track](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/dineshsharma-231221060957-a1e2f49f/85/Agile-Gurugram-2023-I-Simplified-Agile-EVM-The-Art-of-Managing-Triple-Constraint-13-320.jpg)
![Quality Performance - SAQPI
Actual
Completed Size
(ASP)
Delivered
Defect Count
(UDC)
Delivered
Defect Density
(DDD
[UDC/ASP])
Quality
Performance
(SAQPI [1 –
DDD/BDD])
SP/FP/UCP
or Ideal
Hours
0.XX
0.XX
Baseline Defect
Density
(BDD)
1.0
1.0
Offtrack
Slightly
Offtrack
On
Track](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/dineshsharma-231221060957-a1e2f49f/85/Agile-Gurugram-2023-I-Simplified-Agile-EVM-The-Art-of-Managing-Triple-Constraint-14-320.jpg)
Agile Gurugram 2023 I Simplified Agile EVM - The Art of Managing Triple Constraint
- 1. Simplified Agile EVM The Art Of Managing Triple Constraint Presenter: Dinesh Sharma
- 2. ABOUT ME DINESH SHARMA Delivery Head Over 26 years of experience in IT Industry with more than 15 years in Project management. Extensive Project, Program and Delivery Management and more than 10 years into Agile Based Models. Worked with a number of organizations both product based and service based across the globe. Experience working with wide range of domains and technologies. Exceptional track record of delivering a high number of projects and programs with 100% success rate. Authored and published a large number of articles and whitepapers on many topics in Agile and Project Management. Wunderman Thompson Commerce and Technology (A WPP Company)
- 3. AGENDA INTRODUCTION THE SAEVM MODEL CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION
- 4. Why Simplified Agile EVM? Our Technological environment is rapidly evolving The Businesses environment is getting excessively competitive Role of IT increasing yet success rate of IT projects still very low Need for more innovation – SAEVM a possible solution
- 5. Why Projects Fail – Some Facts • Change in the organization’s priorities (39%) • Change in project objectives (37%) • Inaccurate requirements gathering (35%) • Inadequate vision (29%) • Poor communication (29%) Facts Success Rate?
- 6. Traditional Approach Vs Agile Approach – The Challenge • Inability to change with the dynamic and ever- changing market requirements • Remain relevant and to keep up with the competitive pressures is enormous • Gain a competitive advantage the Project Management group must constantly look for innovation, latest tools and techniques, to gain newness, add value and customer benefits. • Adaptability and Change Management sometime being misunderstood and misused leading to reduced effectiveness of teams • Challenge of cost overrun and schedule delays, due to lack of supporting processes • Operating with the approach in a non-agile or hybrid environment, most projects fall in this category Traditional Approach Phases are clearly planned before hand; focus on formal processes; extensive documentation; less customer involvement Agile Approach Projects defined into small tasks; interactive input system of continuous delivery The Challenge Is there a one size that fits all? The Challenge
- 7. Choosing the correct Project Management Technique A PM’s Dilemma Selecting the right Project Management Technique is critical to successfully deliver projects on time and budget based on the two Lifecycle models - Traditional Vs Agile based From the Traditional to Agile; there are a wide range of project management techniques and practices that can be leveraged to maximize success.
- 8. A Possible Solution – SAEVM Model
- 9. Introduces a new way of working on projects to bring in the power of EVM to the agile world and help managing triple constraint effectively towards project success SAEVM Model SACPI SASPI SARPI SAQPI Quality Cost Scope Time Quality It is based on the traditional EVM applied to the projects with an agile context. Although the projects can be very different and the agile maturity and application also varied, but this model can still be applicable in most scenarios Overview
- 10. SCOPE What do we have to accomplish? TIME How much time do we have? COST How much can we spend? Sizing Function Points Use Case Points Story Points Complexity Points Ideal Hours QUALITY Any Quality Considerations? Base Metrics Don’t Miss this metric Budget Effort Dollar Value Team Size Mandatorily Available Target Date(s) No. of Days No. of Sprints No. of months Usually Available No. of weeks Defects No. of UAT Defects No. of Internal Defects Usually Not Specified No. of Post Production Defects Count
- 11. Cost Performance - SACPI Planned/Replan ned Size (PSP) Actual Completed Size (ASP) Work Completed % (EV [ASP/PSP]) Total Budgeted Cost (TBC) Total Incurred Cost (TIC) Actual Cost Consumed % (AC [TIC/TBC]) Offtrack Cost Performance (SACPI [EV/AC]) Slightly Offtrack On Track 1.0 SP/FP/UCP or Ideal Hours Currency Value or Person Days/Hours 1.0
- 12. Schedule (Time) Performance - SASPI Planned/Replan ned Size (PSP) Actual Completed Size (ASP) Work Completed % (EV [ASP/PSP]) Total Duration (TST) Completed Duration (CST) Work Expected Till Date % (PV [CST/TST]) Schedule Performance (SACPI [EV/PV]) SP/FP/UCP or Ideal Hours Sprints or Weeks or Days 1.0 1.0 Offtrack Slightly Offtrack On Track
- 13. Scope Performance - SARPI Planned/Replan ned Size (PSP) In Sprint Scope Change (RSP) Scope Change % (SC [RSP/PSP]) Scope Performance (SARPI [1 - SC]) SP/FP/UCP or Ideal Hours 0.9X 0.9X 1.0 1.0 Offtrack Slightly Offtrack On Track
- 14. Quality Performance - SAQPI Actual Completed Size (ASP) Delivered Defect Count (UDC) Delivered Defect Density (DDD [UDC/ASP]) Quality Performance (SAQPI [1 – DDD/BDD]) SP/FP/UCP or Ideal Hours 0.XX 0.XX Baseline Defect Density (BDD) 1.0 1.0 Offtrack Slightly Offtrack On Track
- 15. Beyond Agile Metrics and Tools Burn-down/ Burn-up Velocity Sprint Goal Compliance Increased Effectiveness and better managed projects
- 17. How to Apply? Project Focused These are projects where the expectation is to manage the project delivery at overall project level. Sprint/Time Bucket Focused These are projects where the expectation is to manage the delivery at sprint or time bucket level. Categorise Calculate Analyse Implement
- 18. How to Apply? Calculate Derived Metrics These are Calculated Metrics and derived from base metrics Calculate Base Metrics These are the data points to be collected based on the categorization Categorise Calculate Analyse Implement Calculate Core KPIs These are KPIs for all core areas – Cost, Time, Scope and Quality calculated from derived metrics
- 19. How to Apply? Categorise Calculate Analyse Implement Identify Root Cause Why the KPIs are showing the current value, identify underlying causes Inference What does the KPI value and trend mean Draw an Action Plan Identify actions to bring the KPIs on track if not on track
- 20. How to Apply? Repeat last 3 steps Identify the tracking frequency and repeat last 3 steps Implement Actions Implement the identified actions Categorise Calculate Analyse Implement
- 21. SAEVM – Case Study – I Project Focused
- 22. This project was for one of our European clients. After a few initial discussions with the customer, it was understood that the requirements were very fluid and non-structured. We started applying SAEVM to the project with two-week sprint cycle and annual release roadmap with releases spread throughout the year. The project started with Quality slightly below par, Scope Performance also slightly below par, other core KPIs completely offset to low value with SACPI at 0.72 and SASPI at 0.55. Case Insight Cost Time Scope Quality
- 23. Stage III: This was the final stage of the project. This stage was relatively smooth as the core project performance was gradually settling down. All essential project performance parameters reached a healthy levels with SACPI at 1.02 and SASPI at 1.0. Implementation Stage I: The initial stage of the project involved a lot of struggle. The SASPI and SACPI clearly indicated the productivity of the team was low Stage II: At mid stage our project started showing satisfactory cost and schedule indicators, yet quality parameters showed no signs of improvement. The team was augmented to support our delivery quality. The project can be considered in three stages of performance
- 24. SAEVM – Case Study – II Sprint Focused
- 25. Case Insight Cost Time Scope Quality All other core KPIs completely offset with high variations on sprint-on- sprint basis. SACPI remained around 0.5 and SASPI around 1 with variation from 0.5 to 2.0. The project was Driven by a competitive and ever-changing business landscape, the requirements coming from the customer were extremely unclear at the start. The project started with quality maintained at healthy level with one spike at the initial stage. The scope performance remained at a healthy level with one spike.
- 26. Implementation Stage I: At the initial stage the project suffered high variation in SASPI and SACPI which clearly indicated that the predictability of the sprints were low. The low average value of SACPI indicated that clearly team was incurring more efforts than budget Stage III: This was the final stage which was relatively smooth, previous process improvements seem to have paid off Stage II: At the mid stage, project showed overall improvement in SACPI and SASPI variations but started getting some spikes on SARPI and SAQPI. The project can be considered in three stages of performance
- 27. Inference and Takeaways • Although the execution of the model was very different in two different categories but we could establish effectiveness and overall performance improvement in both scenarios. • The model’s effectiveness lies in the actions taken based on the measures provided, as with any other data driven models. • Since model is heavily dependent on data it would be crucial to have a good data quality and care should be taken for the same for effective implementation and positive results from the model.
- 28. CONCLUSION The rapidly evolving landscape of technology and business mandates the importance of successful IT project. Future-Forward Strategy Integrating Simplified Agile EVM (Earned Value Management) can enhance project success, complementing traditional Agile metrics and tools.