NASA PM Challenge 2009Assessing Schedule Health - STAT!                   Glen Harrison & Ken Poole                   NASA...
Agenda1. Purpose1. Purpose2. Background2. Background3. Tool Description3. Tool Description4. Key Benefits4. Key Benefits5....
PurposeIntroduce the NASA developed ScheduleTest and Assessment Tool (STAT)     Capabilities     BenefitsEnhance audience ...
Background           Why Assess Schedules?Because…The schedule may not reflect an accurateand truthful picture (the plan a...
Background (Cont.)         Why Assess Schedules?Other Considerations…1. Schedule may not reflect the total scope of work2....
Background (Cont.)                          Identify Needs                           Identify NeedsRecognized need for imp...
Background (Cont.)                 Objective IMS Credibility IndicatorsHow Many or What Percentage of …1. Tasks/milestones...
Tool Description              COM Add-in for Microsoft Project (.NET 2.0)              Produces Microsoft Excel Charts and...
Key Benefits1. Efficient use of manpower1. Efficient use of manpower2. Enhance schedule quality2. Enhance schedule quality...
Output Examples                  9
Schedule Health CheckCS40 Schedule Health Check                                                                           ...
Schedule Health Check (cont’d.)                          Worksheet tabs provide the                             detailed f...
Schedule Performance Trend300      Project XYZ Schedule Performance & Work-Off Trend Analysis                      Data Da...
Schedule Assessment Summary Report                                                Overall Summary Rating                  ...
Schedule Assessment Summary Report                               Schedule Performance Trend Data         R                ...
Schedule Assessment Summary Report                         Baseline vs. Actual Finishes Analysis                          ...
Schedule Assessment Summary Report                   Schedule Milestone Comparison            R                  Schedule ...
Schedule Assessment Summary Report                                                        To p 5 Critical Path s          ...
Schedule Assessment Summary Report              Logic Relationship Types                              Logic Relationship T...
Schedule Assessment Summary Report                              Remaining Duration Profile                                ...
Schedule Assessment Summary Report                              Management Overview Report                              Pr...
Schedule Assessment Summary Report                    R                Schedule Milestone Comparison: (Weighting 25%)     ...
Demonstration                22
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Harrison.g.poole.k

14,851 views
14,813 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
14,851
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Harrison.g.poole.k

  1. 1. NASA PM Challenge 2009Assessing Schedule Health - STAT! Glen Harrison & Ken Poole NASA/MSFC/CS40 PP&A Team 256-544-3385 & 256-544-2419
  2. 2. Agenda1. Purpose1. Purpose2. Background2. Background3. Tool Description3. Tool Description4. Key Benefits4. Key Benefits5. Output Examples5. Output Examples6. Demonstration6. Demonstration 1
  3. 3. PurposeIntroduce the NASA developed ScheduleTest and Assessment Tool (STAT) Capabilities BenefitsEnhance audience awareness of theimportance of determining schedulecredibility 2
  4. 4. Background Why Assess Schedules?Because…The schedule may not reflect an accurateand truthful picture (the plan and/or statusmay be inaccurate or the schedulingprocess may be flawed) Ignorance or Deceit? 3
  5. 5. Background (Cont.) Why Assess Schedules?Other Considerations…1. Schedule may not reflect the total scope of work2. An inaccurate model of the planned implementation provides an incorrect basis for resource planning3. Schedule may not identify the critical path4. Schedule may not be integrated Internally (task interdependencies) Externally (other NASA Centers, contractor schedules, international partner or university schedules, etc.)5. Improves internal schedule development & maintenance6. Improves/validates Performance Measurement Baseline7. Heightened interest by DCMA in schedule credibility 4
  6. 6. Background (Cont.) Identify Needs Identify NeedsRecognized need for improvements to processes/tools for project schedule development, assessment, analysis, and reporting. Support Automate Automate Report Report Assess Assess Assists Projects in Increased Detailed, Schedule Schedule Efficiency in Intermediate and Assessment for Development Manpower and Executive Level Internal and Time Reporting External Improves & Schedules Validates On- On- Quick-Turnaround Quick- Combination of going Schedule Assessments Objective and Objective Metrics to Credibility Subjective Quantify Schedule Increased Accuracy Reporting Problems in Data 5
  7. 7. Background (Cont.) Objective IMS Credibility IndicatorsHow Many or What Percentage of …1. Tasks/milestones with no predecessors?2. Tasks/milestones with no successors?3. Tasks with no “finish” successors assigned?4. Imposed task/milestone constraints (or deadlines) within schedule?5. Tasks/milestones with missing, inaccurate, or out-of-date status?6. Summary tasks with interdependencies assigned?7. Tasks marked as milestones?8. Task/milestone dates are baselined?9. Tasks/milestones that have very little Total Slack?10. Tasks/milestones have Total Slack values that are too high?11. Tasks with “estimated” durations? (MSP default or placeholder durations)12. Major milestones have slipped?13. Monthly baseline completions are missed and by how much?14. Quantity of SS & FF logic relationships are used? Subjective IMS Credibility Indicators1. Work-off trends (past actuals vs. projected plan)2. Low “Slack” analysis3. Task duration profile 6
  8. 8. Tool Description COM Add-in for Microsoft Project (.NET 2.0) Produces Microsoft Excel Charts and Graphs Wizard Interface used to automate process Schedule Test & Assessment Tool Health Check Trend Analysis ReportingIntegrity & Health Performance Assessment Indicators History & Future Reporting • Current Status Date • Historical completion •Detailed Reports • Remaining Duration rates •Analyst summary • Missing Predecessors • Credibility of planned report • Missing Successors completion rates • Mgmt overview • Quantity of Constraints • Indicates work report • Missing Status “bow-wave” • Completion Stats • Indicates baseline • High/Low Float Stats credibility 7
  9. 9. Key Benefits1. Efficient use of manpower1. Efficient use of manpower2. Enhance schedule quality2. Enhance schedule quality3. Timely schedule analysis3. Timely schedule analysis4. Objective schedule assessment4. Objective schedule assessment5. Easy to use and understand5. Easy to use and understand6. Prerequisite to risk assessment6. Prerequisite to risk assessment 8
  10. 10. Output Examples 9
  11. 11. Schedule Health CheckCS40 Schedule Health Check Overall Project Health Status IndicatorProject Name: Project XYZ IMS 1.19a.mpp 2.1 Y 1.35 RSchedule Status Check for ImprovementsDescription Current Previous Change (C-P)Current Start (Note: earliest activity Early Start Date) 4/5/2006 4/5/2006Current Finish (Note: latest activity Early Finish Date) 7/27/2009 7/5/2009 22 0%Approximate Remaining Work Days 684 668 16 2%Is this schedule externally linked to other schedules? N NStatus Date 10/31/2006 8/30/2006 63Task and Milestone Count (Note: These counts exclude summary tasks) Is the Status Date Current?Description Count % of Total Count % of Total Change (C-P)Total Tasks and Milestones 3057 3021 36Completed Tasks and Milestones 501 16% 387 13% 114 4%To Go Tasks and Milestones 2556 84% 2634 87% -78 -4%Logic (Note: These counts exclude summary and started/completed tasks) Missing Interdependencies & Number of ConstraintsTasks and Milestones Without Predecessors 170 7% Y 290 11% R 120 -4%Tasks and Milestones Without Successors 393 15% R 425 16% R 32 -1%Constraints (Note: other than ASAP including deadlines) 235 9% G 403 15% R 168 -6%Summaries with Logic Ties (see note below) 5 0% G 8 0% G 3 0%Tasks and Milestones Needing Updates Incorrect Status 105 4% Y 235 9% R 130 -5%Actuals after Status Date 40 2% Y 52 2% Y 12 0%Tasks marked as Milestones (Note: having a duration of > 0) 0 0% G 3 0% Y 3 0%Note: The summaries with logic ties number is calculated as a percentage of tasks and milestones.Additional Schedule Information Additional Key IndicatorsTasks with No Finish Ties 17 1% 25 1%Recurring Tasks 33 1% 38 1%Tasks and Milestones with Estimated Duration 1 0% 0 0%Schedule traceable to WBS (Y/N) Y YRealistic Critical Path(s) (Y/N) N NSchedule Baselined Tasks 2783 91% 2569 85%Resource Loaded (Y/N) Partially NTasks and Milestones with 10 days or less Total Float 724 28% 1533 58% -809 -30%Tasks with Total Float > 25% of remaining duration 793 31% 910 35% -117 -4% 10
  12. 12. Schedule Health Check (cont’d.) Worksheet tabs provide the detailed findings for assessment and correction 11
  13. 13. Schedule Performance Trend300 Project XYZ Schedule Performance & Work-Off Trend Analysis Data Date250 Historical Trend in Task Completion Rates Serves as an Indicator in Determining if Planned Rates are Credible200 Actual Finish Current Finish150 Baseline Finish Status Date10050 0Au 04 09Au 05Au 06Au 07Au 08D 04D 05D 06D 07D 08O 4O 5O 6O 7O 8Ju 5Ju 7Ju 9Ap 5Ap 6Ju 6Ap 7Ap 8Ju 8Ap 9Fe 4Fe 5Fe 6Fe 7Fe 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 n- n- n- n- n- n- - - - - g- - g- g- g- g- b- r- b- r- b- r- b- r- b- r- ct ct ct ct ct ec ec ec ec ecJu 12
  14. 14. Schedule Assessment Summary Report Overall Summary Rating Schedule Assessment Summary Report Project XYZ Master Schedule Status As of Oct-06Automated R Schedule Assessment Summary Comments Y Manual stoplightstoplight rating 1. Too early in project to determine if reqd rating can be Criteria: Avg.of Weighted work-off rates are too optimistic. User defined adjustmentbased on Support Rationale 2. Incomplete logic network indicates suspect to the overall rating applied based onperformance R is <= 150 (50%), schedule dates & critical path. additional insightscriteria and Y is 175 - 225 (58% - 75%) 3. Key milestone slips did not reflect and information G is >=250 (83%) impact to Launch readiness date.weighting Schedule Formulation and Integrity Y Schedule Formulation and Integrity: (Weighting 50%) Criteria: (Health Matrix) Key Schedule Formulation and Integrity Indicators Matches Overall 500 15% Project Schedule Indicator 400 Scorecard Value: 300 9% 100 7% 200 2556 4% Stoplight rating and data are 100 Based on 2556 to go tasks and milestones. from current Schedule Health 0 Missing Predecessors Missing Successors Imposed Constraints Inaccurate Status Check Based on 2556 to go tasks and milestones. 13
  15. 15. Schedule Assessment Summary Report Schedule Performance Trend Data R Schedule Performance Trend: (Weighting 25%)Criteria:Past 6 Months vs Schedule Performance & Work Off Act Fcst BL Status Next 6 Months 300 R is >20% 6 Mo Avg Compl = 61/mo. 6 Mo Avg Planned = 175/mo. Y is 11-20% 250 6 Mo Avg Compl =6 Mo Avg Planned = G is <=10% 61 175 200Scorecard Value: 6 Mo Avg Compl =6 Mo Avg Planned = 175/mo.25 150 38139 Historical Trend in Project Start Date: Jun-04 100 Task Completion Rates Serves as an 50 Indicator in Determining if 0 Planned Rates are Apr-06 Jun-06 Aug-06 Oct-06 Dec-06 Feb-07 Apr-07 Credible Project Start Date: Jun-04 Note: Be sure to evaluate whether the numbers provide an accurate analysis 14
  16. 16. Schedule Assessment Summary Report Baseline vs. Actual Finishes Analysis Schedule Baseline vs. Actual Finishes BL Act Fcst Status BER 3500 2 3000 Current Cum Forecast 1.8 Base Exec Rate 1.6 Baseline Execution Rate 2500 1.4Finishes 1.2 2000 1 1500 Cum Baseline 0.8 1000 0.6 0.4 500 0.2 Cum Actual Completions 0 0 Jun- Sep- Dec- Mar- Jun- Sep- Dec- Mar- Jun- Sep- Dec- Mar- Jun- Sep- Dec- Mar- Jun- Sep- Dec- Mar- Jun- 04 04 04 05 05 05 05 06 06 06 06 07 07 07 07 08 08 08 08 09 09 BER = Monthly Baseline Plan Completed / Total Monthly Baseline Plan (Note: BER = DoD “Hit or Miss” Tripwire) 15
  17. 17. Schedule Assessment Summary Report Schedule Milestone Comparison R Schedule Milestone Comparison: (Weighting 25%)Criteria: ID WBS DESCRIPTION BASELINE CURRENT VARIANCE R is >= 20d 26 0 Systems Requirements Review (SRR) 7/11/2006 7/11/2006 0 Y is 11-19d 27 0 Preliminary Design Review (PDR) 9/8/2006 9/8/2006 0 G is <=10d 30 0 Critical Design Review (CDR) 2/20/2007 4/9/2007 35Scorecard Value: 32 0 System Test Readiness Review (STRR) 10/15/2007 10/15/2007 025 33 0 Space Vehicle I&T Start 9/18/2007 11/19/2007 45 36 0 Space Vehicle I&T Complete (Sell off comp 8/28/2008 8/28/2008 0 38 0 Flight Readiness Review (FRR) 10/21/2008 10/22/2008 2 39 0 Launch Readiness Review (LRR) 10/27/2008 10/28/2008 2 40 0 Launch 10/28/2008 10/28/2008 0 Maximum Milestone Limit = 20 NOTE: Key milestone slips are one indicator of unfavorable schedule performance that could impact project completion. 16
  18. 18. Schedule Assessment Summary Report To p 5 Critical Path s 40 Indicates constraints 30 used inappropriately or tasks that have not been Tasks 20 broken down adequately. 10 0 -33 -25 -22 -21 -19 T o tal S lack V alu esIf this % isgreater than If this % is50% then the Schedule Total Slack Analysis greater thanschedule is 1500 50% thentypically too tasks are 41%optimistic probably not Tasks 1000 31% sequencedand needs 28%re-planning. accurately 500 0 Tasks <= 10d TS Balance TS > 25% RD Total Slack Categories Caution: The above total Slack information is based solely on the project’s IMS logic network (i.e.; predecessors, successors, constraints, etc.). Credibility of the data correlates directly to the quality reflected in the Schedule Health Check rating. 17
  19. 19. Schedule Assessment Summary Report Logic Relationship Types Logic Relationship Types Based on Total Schedule Tasks & Milestones Logic Relationship Typeslogic should relationships Network “Finish to Start” be predominately Finish to Start (7606, 89%) Finish to Finish (258, 3%) Start to Start (328, 4%) Start to Finish (328, 4%)Total Relationships: 8520 Total Tasks & Milestones: 3057 (7606, (258, 3%) (328, 4%) (328, 4%) Total Relationships: 8520# of Relationships with Negative lags: 542 Negative lags should be minimal # of Relationships with Negative lags: 542 18
  20. 20. Schedule Assessment Summary Report Remaining Duration Profile Remaining Duration Profile Based on To Go Tasks & Milestones Remaining Duration Profile 900 843 800 Duration profile data indicates the level of IMSTasks & Milestones 700 detail. Task durations 600 512 should be discrete and 500 449 433 measurable 400 300 173 200 79 100 45 22 0 Milestones 1hr - 2wks 2wks - 1mo 1 - 3mo 3 - 6mo 6mo - 1yr 1 - 2yrs > 2yrs To Go Tasks & Milestones: 2556 Total Remaining Milestones: 449 Durations Total Remaining Tasks: 2107 Total Remainingtasks excluded Note: Summary Tasks: 2107 To Go Tasks & Milestones: 2556 Total Remaining Milestones: 449 Note: Summary tasks excluded 19
  21. 21. Schedule Assessment Summary Report Management Overview Report Project: Project XYZ IMS 1.19a Status As of Oct-06 User defined adjustment to the overall rating R Management Summary Comments Y Management 1. Too early in project to determine if required work-off rates are too optimistic based on baseline plan vs. actual finishes to date. 2. Incomplete logic network indicates suspect schedule dates and Comments: The Schedule Performance & Work-off Trend should realistically be yellow. NotOverview Report critical path identification. enough "actuals" history of sustained 3. Key milestone slips did not reflect impact to Launch readiness date. task completions to determine if future required rates are too optimistic. (page 1) Supporting Rationale: Y Schedule Formulation and Integrity: (Weighting 50%) Comments: Key Schedule Formulation and Integrity Indicators Yellow indicator reflects enough weaknesses in the logic network to make schedule data 500 suspect. Incomplete task interdependency 15% 400 assignments along with invalid use of fixed 300 9% task constraints and missing or incorrect 7% task status significantly hinders the ability toProvides a format for brief 200 100 4% identify the project critical path with a reasonable level of confidence. Sound analysis explanation for 0 Missing Predecessors Missing Successors Imposed Constraints Inaccurate Status "what-if" analysis is also hindered. management reporting Based on 2556 to go tasks and milestones. R Schedule Performance Trend: (Weighting 25%) Comments: Schedule Performance & Work Off While the rating indicator is currently red, it Act Fcst BL Status should be noted that based on baseline vs. 300 actual completions to-date it is too early to 6 Mo Avg Compl = 61/mo. 6 Mo Avg Planned = 182/mo. determine if the projected task completion 250 rates are realistically achievable. Therefore, 200 it is recommended that the red performance 150 indicator should be considered yellow to allow for 2 additional months of accomplish- 100 ment data to be considered in the analysis. 50 0 Apr-06 Jun-06 Aug-06 Oct-06 Dec-06 Feb-07 Apr-07 Project Start Date: Jun-04 Schedule Baseline vs. Actual Finishes Analysis Comments: Schedule Baseline vs. Actual Finishes The overall cum actuals to-date shows tracking reasonably well with the baseline plan. However, the BL Act Fcst Status BER the monthly baseline execution rates indicate that more 3500 2 management focus should placed on completing the right Base Exec Index 1.8 tasks. 3000 1.6 2500 1.4 2000 1.2 1 1500 0.8 1000 0.6 0.4 500 0.2 0 0 Se 04 D 04 M 04 Ju 05 Se 05 D 05 M 05 Ju 06 Se 06 D 06 M 06 Ju 07 Se 07 D 07 M 07 Ju 08 Se 08 D 08 M 08 Ju 09 09 p- - - p- - - p- - - p- - - p- - - n- n- n- n- n- n- ar ar ar ar ar ec ec ec ec ec Ju 20
  22. 22. Schedule Assessment Summary Report R Schedule Milestone Comparison: (Weighting 25%) ID DESCRIPTION BASELINE CURRENT VAR Comments: 30 Critical Design Review (CDR) 2/20/2007 4/9/2007 35 Significant project milestones "CDR" & "Space 33 Space Vehicle I&T Start 9/18/2007 11/19/2007 45 Vehicle I&T Start" are each slipping approxi- mately 2 months. These slips should realistically cause slips to "Launch Readiness Review" (LRR) and "Launch" dates, but the schedule does not reflect that. This is a further indication of significant interdependencies that have been Management ommitted or are incorrect. It is recommended that additional review and validation of task sequencing be accomplished by responsible planning and technical leads.Overview Report (page 2) Critical Path Analysis Comments: Top 5 Critical Paths The -33 day critical path which includes 11 tasks 50 does not appear to be credible. Typically, the 40 primary critical path will contain a larger number of task/milestones than the secondary low float Tasks 30 paths. Secondary low float paths are usually 20 spur paths which have some type of inter- 10 dependency to the primary critical path and will not contain as many tasks. This is also another 0 indication that too many date constraints have -33 -25 -22 -21 -20 been assigned within the schedule or too many Total Slack Values long duration tasks are on the Critical Path. Schedule Total Slack Analysis Comments: Schedule Total Slack Analysis This metric indicates a high percentage of tasks 1500 with high Total Slack values. This is a further 41% indication that logic relationships are potentially 1000 incorrect or missing. Tasks 28% 31% 500 0 Tasks <= 10d TS Balance TS > 25% RD X Values Miscellaneous Comments The schedule should be reviewed and validated by appropriate planning and technical leads, with particular attention being paid to task and milestone sequencing and date constraints. 21
  23. 23. Demonstration 22

×