Practice Symposia Project Scheduling Track

Transcription

1 Practice Symposia Project Scheduling Track Coordinator: Dale Gillam PS-13 Implementing the GAO Scheduling Best Practice within an Organization Brian Evans, Pinnacle Management Systems, Inc. Kathy Evans, MCR, LLC PS-14 Live! - iecd Battle Royale Live! Yancy Qualls, Humphreys & Associates PS-15 Critical Thinking on Critical Path Analysis Rick Price, Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company Glen Alleman, Niwot Ridge, LLC PS-13 - Implementing the GAO Scheduling Best Practices and Will It Withstand a DCMA Assessment Brief Session Summary: GAO identified 10 scheduling best practices in the GAO Schedule Assessment Guide (GAO-16-89G). Attempting to improve scheduling within an organization using the GAO scheduling best practices can be a difficult challenge. Presenters will discuss their attempt to change the current scheduling practices of an organization by implementing the GAO scheduling best practices and a discussion regarding whether a schedule that follows all of the GAO best practices will stand up to a DCMA schedule assessment. This session is intended for those interested in implementing the GAO Scheduling Best Practices within their organization who have a contractual EVMS requirement. Expanded Session Description: GAO identified 10 scheduling best practices in the GAO Schedule Assessment Guide (GAO-16-89G). Attempting to improve scheduling within an organization using the GAO scheduling best practices can be a difficult challenge. Implementing the GAO scheduling best practices within an organization involves making implementation choices. Among those choices are implementing radical change or phased change and making the change mandatory or voluntary. Presenters will discuss their on-going attempt to change the current scheduling practices of an organization by implementing the GAO scheduling best practices. As a part of the presentation, a discussion will be held on whether implementing the GAO scheduling best practices will you re your schedule compliant with the DCMA 14 Point Assessment. Attendees will have an opportunity to learn how this process is

2 working and to leverage anything from this work in progress or offer advice on how to improve the situation. This session is intended for those who are responsible for scheduling or who use a schedule as part of their Earned Value Management System and are interested in implementing the GAO Scheduling Best Practices within their organization. Expected Key Takeaways for Participants: Attendees will have an understanding of (1) the GAO Scheduling Best Practices, (2) lessons learned in implementing the GAO Best Practices within an organization and (3) how the GAO Best Practices map to the DCMA 14 Point Assessment. Brian M. Evans, PMP, EVP, PSP, DRMP, Managing Consultant, Pinnacle Management Systems, Inc. Voice: (703) brian.evans@pinnaclemanagement.com Brian Evans, a Managing Consultant at Pinnacle Management, has 30 years of full life cycle experience in large-scale program and project management experience with Federal civilian agency and DoD clients. He has developed and taught program and project management courses for Pinnacle Management, American University, the Federal Aviation Administration and private clients. Mr. Evans is a subject matter expert in program/project management, scheduling, and earned value management. He has experience in controlling and simultaneously integrating multiple large, complex, multidisciplinary projects in an uncertain environment. Mr. Evans implements earned value management systems for his clients and his own projects. He has experience with Primavera P6 on construction and other IT related projects in addition to experience in performing schedule risk analyses. Brian has formal training in Primavera and Microsoft Project. In addition, he understands the linkage of schedule analysis to cost analysis and EVM. Prior to joining Pinnacle Management, Mr. Evans worked for MCR, LLC; IBM; PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP; Litton Industries; PRC, Inc.; and Advanced Technology, Inc. Brian holds the following certifications: Project Management Institute (PMI) Project Management Professional (PMP), PMI Scheduling Professional (PMI-SP), PMI Risk Management Professional (PMI-RMP), AACE, International (AACEI) Earned Value Professional (EVP), (AACEI) Planning and Scheduling Professional, AACEI Decision and Risk Management Professional (DRMP), International Institute for Learning, Inc. (IIL, Inc.) Microsoft Project 2003 Orange Belt, and IIL, Inc. Microsoft Project 2003 Blue Belt. He has earned a M.Sc. Technology Management, University of Maryland University College; and a B.Sc. Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University.

3 Katherine Koman Evans, MCR, LLC Voice: Ms. Evans is a visionary leader with over 15 years of strategy to implementation experience.in earned value management and enterprise scheduling. She has deep knowledge in program acquisition and schedule analysis with hands-on experience on projects assessed at CMM Level 3 and CMM-I Level 5. Ms. Evans has over fifteen years experience providing support to both government and commercial clients such as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency (NGA), Small Business Administration (SBA), U.S. Veterans Administration, Air Force Operational Test & Evaluation Center (AFOTEC), Sandia National Laboratory, the Navy, and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Ms. Evans implements earned value management (EVM) systems and provides schedule development and analysis for clients and has experience in performing Schedule Risk Analyses. Ms. Evans was a member of the team that developed the GAO's Best Practices for Project Schedules Guide (GAO G) and actively participates on GAO's Cost, Schedule, and EVM Expert Working Group. She has as formal training in scheduling tools (Primavera, Microsoft Project). In addition, she understands the linkage of schedule analysis to cost analysis and EVM. She has developed and taught FAC P/PM Level 1, 2, and 3 curricula. Prior to MCR, LLC, Ms. Evans worked for PRC, Inc. Ms. Evans earned a BA in Economics from DePauw University. PS-14 Live! - iecd Battle Royale Live! Brief Session Summary: iecd (Independent Estimated Completion Date) formulas use past performance to objectively predict future completion dates. The iecds can then be compared to the IMS forecast to confirm (or cast doubt on) the schedule s accuracy. But there are many iecd formulas, so which ones are the best? And which ones tap out early? Live during this session, we will simulate 1000 s of project outcomes to see which iecd formula is the champion! Expanded Session Description: Do you trust your IMS? Or do you fear CAMs are providing clear sailing forecasts, despite the rough seas experienced so far? Wouldn t it be nice if there was some sort of objective test that could be performed instead of simply relying on a gut feeling? Well there is. The Critical Path, or better yet, an SRA should provide the most accurate forecasts of project completion - but they are both based on subjective inputs such as

4 expected logic Remaining Duration. Therefore their results are somewhat subjective and can be skewed (consciously or unconsciously). On the other hand, an iecd (independent Estimated Completion Date) applies past (demonstrated) performance to the remaining effort to determine when a project will complete - if we maintain that same pace. And since an iecd is based on objective/measurable inputs (past performance and remaining effort), we can derive an objective (unbiased) completion estimate. But there are many potential iecd formulas, all based on various combinations of BCWS and BCWP. Do iecds based on cost fare better than those based on time? Which iecd formula is the most reliable? Or is one more reliable early in a project, but less reliable toward the end? We will simulate 1000 s of projects live during this session to determine what works and what doesn t. And the audience will help set the parameters for the simulations. Project length BAC shape of the BCWS/BCWP curves performance sample window these are all parameters you will help set before we run our simulations and crown the iecd Heavyweight Champion of the World! Expected Key Takeaways for Participants: The reliability of forecasted dates in the IMS is influenced by the soundness of the logic network and the accuracy of remaining duration estimates. iecds can objectively help to validate (or call into question) the accuracy of your IMS. In this session we will explore which iecds yield the most accurate results. Yancy Qualls, Humphreys & Associates Phone: (817) yancy.qualls@humphreys-assoc.com Between Bell Helicopter and Lockheed Martin, Yancy Qualls has over 20 years of experience as a full-time scheduler in the Aerospace and Defense industry. Yancy currently serves as an Engagement Director for Humphreys & Associates. In this capacity he assists others in their effort to manage more effectively whether through training, mentoring, or system implementation. Yancy is a frequent presenter and panelist at national conferences. Yancy also serves on the Board of Directors for the NDIA IPMD and is the co-lead of their Planning and Scheduling Working Group (PSWG). In addition, Yancy was a cowriter of the Planning and Scheduling Excellence Guide (PASEG) and the Predictive Measures Guide. Yancy earned a B.S. in Industrial Engineering from Texas A&M University and an MBA from Texas Christian University. In addition, Mr. Qualls currently holds both the PSP and PMI-SP professional scheduling certifications.

5 PS-15 Critical Thinking on Critical Path Analysis Brief Session Summary: What s critical about YOUR critical path? Perhaps understanding why we perform critical path analyses is more valuable than identifying the current longest path of your program. Maybe the current longest path is just that-the current longest path. Tunnel vision on THE critical path calculated by scheduling software may hamper program decision making. This symposium addresses expanded thinking and use of critical path analyses to identify and manage additional paths facilitating on-time enditem delivery. Expanded Session Description: Knowing the longest path(s) in your program is important but managing the schedule of a complex development program can t end with that. The word critical says: This needs extra attention. When a program is complete it s easy to look back and say The critical path was the longest path. Looking forward during a program requires you to identify which paths are most likely to become the longest paths. Managing these paths gives you a greater probability of meeting your contractual delivery requirements. Gaining insight into all paths that have a significant probability of impacting the delivery of a program is the key. Integrating risk management with program management is best way of gaining this insight. This symposium will address assessing and managing both deterministic and probabilistic critical paths as a means of improving program schedule performance. Expected Key Takeaways for Participants: Successful program management requires going beyond management of the calculated critical path (aka: longest path). What s really critical about critical path analysis is finding ways of identifying and managing paths that are likely to drive your end item deliverable when all is said and done. Identifying these paths as early as possible provides the best opportunity to manage them successfully. Rick A. Price, Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company rick.a.price@lmco.com Phone: (303) Rick is a Project Management and Planning Operations Principal with Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company with more than 35 years of experience managing spacecraft, launch vehicle, and missile development programs, as well as site activation, and test facility construction projects. His areas of expertise include program planning and scheduling, IMP/IMS development, EVM policy and practice implementation, subcontract management and integration, and major proposal efforts (proposal development, independent review teams, and subcontract source selection evaluations). Currently, his primary focus is mentoring, coaching, and teaching program management fundamentals and techniques across all Lockheed

6 Martin business areas. Mr. Price is an active member of the NDIA Integrated Program Management Division and the Planning and Scheduling Working Group. He is also the industry co-chair for the Joint Space Cost Council Scheduling Subcommittee. Glen B. Alleman, Niwot Ridge, L.L.C. Phone: (303) Glen B. Alleman leads the Program Planning and Controls practice for Niwot Ridge, LLC. Mr. Alleman recently completed research for the Office of the Secretary of Defense s Performance Assessments and Root Cause Analyses (OSD-PARCA) on using Risk Buy-Downs metrics to inform cost and schedule performance.