Emerald Group AACE 2017 is now facing serious issues with cost overruns and schedule delays when compared to original baseline.
Based on week 12 report, the group has recorded the following key progress indicators;
The programme is now critically delayed with only 39.8% complete despite 58.9% of total schedule time lapsed. SPI and BEI and figures further support this at status. This data translates to a 5 week delay on the completion of all deliverables unless action is taken to recover.
Key deliverables which are now considered as critical are summarised in below table;
In addition to the poor SPI and CPI figures, BEI metrics which compare planned and actually completed tasks indicate serious delay to the commencement of cheat sheet and problem solving projects. This delayed commencement is likely to be the result of delayed completion to 2500 word papers as well as time sunk in rectifying weekly reporting.
Based on the above, and the groups assessment of a 5 week programme delay, this represents a difference greater than 10% of the overall duration and CFH has now requested that the works be rescheduled indicate how the balance works are to be completed by the contract date.
In developing a recovery programme, the group can utilise 2 different methods. this blog will look at each method and decide which is most suitable for the recovery schedule.
There are 2 methods to create a new baseline or recovery schedule when using EVM. These include;
Option 1:Leave ACWP and BCWP to date unchanged. Change BCWS(early) and BCWS(Late) date curves showing the impact of changes against revised dates.
Option 2:Set BCWS (early) and BCWS(late) dates to ACWP date. Reschedule remaining works to original dates or revised dates
Development of the Alternatives
When considering Option 1, the method would generally rely on a specific event or change order to be agreed with CFH. This event(s) would provide the basis for amending the original baseline and may reflect omission or additional scope, acceleration efforts, etc.
Option 2, primarily focuses upon the remaining works from the date of rebaselining and the way in which it will be executed.
At this stage, there has been no agreement to revise completion dates. As such all deliverables must be completed by week 24 (**Jan 2018) implying that BCWS (early & late) curves to target 100% completion by the original dates.
The following criteria must be satisfied;
- Planned progress is realigned with actual progress to date to eliminate current reporting delay
- Allows for accurate tracking and monitoring of remaining works and costs to compete all deliverables by week 26
Comparison of the alternatives
Option 1 is only really suited to situations where there has been a series of changes in scope or definable events that have caused the BCWS to change i.e. variations
The delay and cost overrun observed within Emerald Team programme is a result of delayed execution of the activities by the group members, including inefficient use of time and resources such that activities have not been completed within the planned durations and budgets. Initial estimates for time and cost may have also been insufficient leading to overspend and schedule delays.
They are not the result of scope changes.
Option 2 however requires lowering /realignment of the BCWS to meet the actual ACWP allowing for the return of the group’s reporting status to a neutral position.
The future BCWS curves would then be rescheduled by the team members to support stipulated completion dates
Selection of Alternatives
Option 2 appears to satisfy all criteria and will allow for the immediate elimination of perceived delay within the works as well as focusing upon the rescheduling of works to achieve original completion dates. Option 1 is not considered suitable in this instance.
Group Members when preparing their recovery schedules should complete the following tasks
- Revise BCWS figures from week 13 onwards such that BCWS (early and late) are equal to ACWP
- Retain original completion dates as per CFH and re estimate time and cost budgets (BCWS) from week 13 onwards.
- Include both a early and late curve
- Assess and consider remaining work scope compared to remaining time and evaluate potential for scope reductions to support achievement of project objectives
- Review duration estimates previously used and update where observed to be incorrect
- Assess ability to increase working hours and potential to reduce vacation time previously planned.
1. Chapter 9.5 – Performance Monitoring Progress – Guild of project controls compendium and reference (CaR) | Project Controls – planning, scheduling, cost management and forensic analysis (Planning Planet). Retrieved from http://www.planningplanet.com
2. Humphreys, G.C 2011 Project Management Using Earned Value Humphreys associates, Management Consultants. Second Edition, pp 599-610
3. GAO (December 2015). GAO Schedule Assessment Guide, Best Practices for Project Schedules pages 135-145.
Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d093sp.pdf