Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Integrated master plan (imp) - the foundation of the program success

588 views

Published on

Technical Performance Measures provide assessment of Physical Percent Complete in Earned Value Management Systems in ways not possible with simple measures of progress to plan stated by Control Account Managers

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Integrated master plan (imp) - the foundation of the program success

  1. 1. Integrated Master Plan The Foundation for Program Success Starting with the Integrated Master Plan provides clear and concise descriptions of what “done” looks in units of measure meaningful to the decision makers. Measures of Effectiveness (MoE), Measures of Performance (MoP), Technical Performance Measures (TPM), Key Performance Parameters (KPP)
  2. 2. Agenda for Our Workshop •  Explain the importance of using an IMP to create a picture of what done looks like •  There is a study of the 3 options we are exploring to better connect technical performance to cost and schedule •  Provide hands on example to create one of those options 2  
  3. 3. The Situation •  There is evidence that BCWP and actual program technical performance are not connected. •  There are several possible reasons: –  Connecting TPM to EV starts with the IMP, and the IMP is not mandated for ACAT1’s –  The Systems Engineering community is not always connected with the EV community –  The DI-MGMT-81861 IPMR DID states the IMP is “optional.” –  The guides do not clearly state how the SE community and EV community should be working together to get the TPMs into the PMB 3  
  4. 4. 4 Root Causes of ACAT1 Program Performance Shortfalls Unrealis)c  Performance  Expecta1ons,   missing  Measures  of  Effec1veness  (MoP),   and  Measures  of  Performance  (MoE)   Unrealis)c  Cost  and  Schedule  es1mates   based  on  inadequate  risk  adjusted  growth   models.   Inadequate  assessment  of  risk  and   unmi1gated  exposure  to  these  risks   without  proper  handling  plans.   Unan)cipated  technical  issues  without   alterna1ve  plans  and  solu1ons  to  maintain   effec1veness.   Unan1cipated   Cost  and   Schedule   Growth   The  Lens  of  the  Performance   Assessment   “Borrowed”  with  permission  from  Gary  Bliss,  Director,   Performance  Assessments  and  Root  Cause  Analyses   (PARCA),  Office  of  Assistant  Secretary  of  Defense  for   Acquisi1on.  Originally  Observa1ons  from  AT&L/PARCA's   Root  Cause  Analyses  February  16th,  2011   4   IPMR  is  our  lens  to  reveal  early   unan1cipated  growth  in  Cost  and   Schedule  through  early  assessment   of  physical  percent  complete,  .e.g.   Technical  Performance  Measures  
  5. 5. Elements of Program Success 5   Objec1ve  Status  and  Essen1al  Views  to  support  the  proac1ve  management  processes  needed   to  keep  the  program  GREEN   Risk  Management   SOW   Techncial  and  Opera1onal   Requirements   CWBS  &   CWBS  Dic1onary   Integrated  Master  Plan   (IMP)   Integrated  Master  Schedule   (IMS)     Measures  of   Effec1veness   Measures  of   Performance   Technical  Performance   Measures   JROC     Key  Performance  Parameters   Program  Specific   Key  Performance  Parameters   Technical  Performance   Measures  Status   Earned  Value  Management   System   Performance  Measurement  Baseline   SOO   ConOps   WBS   5  
  6. 6. Value of the IMP/IMS to the PM† •  Systematic approach to program planning, scheduling, and execution. •  Provides a tool for improved day-to-day program execution and for on going insight into program status by both government program office personnel and contractor personnel. •  Helps in the development and support “what- if” exercises and identifies and assesses candidate problem workarounds. •  Focuses and strengthens the government- contractor team. †Integrated  Master  Plan  and  Master  Schedule  Implementa4on  and  Use  Guide,  V0.9,  21  Oct  2005   6  
  7. 7. Drivers of Technical Performance Measures Start with Mission Need MoE   KPP   MoP   TPM   Mission   Need   Acquirer  Defines  the  Needs  and  Capabili1es   in  terms  of  Opera1onal  Scenarios   Contractor  Defines  Physical  Solu1ons   that  meet  the  needs  of  the  Government   Opera)onal   measures  of  success   related  to  the   achievement  of  the   mission  or   opera)onal   objec)ve  being   evaluated.   Measures  that   characterize   physical  or   func)onal  aCributes   rela)ng  to  the   system  opera)on.   Measures  used  to   assess  design   progress,   compliance  to   performance   requirements,  and   technical  risks.   Government   Contractor   7  The  CPM-­‐200C  Presenta1on  has  the  background  on  MoE’s,  MoP’s,  and  KPP’s  
  8. 8. Key Performance Parameters (KPP) •  KPP’s are performance attributes of a system considered critical to the development of an effective military capability. •  JROC mandatory KPPs – JCIDS Manual, §B-A-2, 19 Jan 2012 8   1.  Force  Protec)on  (FP-­‐KPP)  –  protec1on  of   personnel  by  preven1ng  or  mi1ga1ng  hos1le   ac1ons  against  friendly  personnel,  military   and  civilian.   2.  Survivability  –  speed,  maneuverability,   detectability,  and  countermeasures  that   reduce  a  system’s  likelihood  of  being   engaged  by  hos1le  fire   3.  Sustainment  –  provide  a  system  with  op1mal   Availability,  Reliability,  and  Ownership  Cost   to  the  warfighter   4.  Net-­‐Ready  (NR-­‐KPP)  –  verifiable   performance  measures  and  associated   metrics  required  to  evaluate  the  1mely,   accurate,  and  complete  exchange  and  use   of  informa1on  to  sa1sfy  informa1on  needs   for  a  given  capability.   5.  Training  –  ensure  training  requirements  are   properly  addressed   6.  Energy  –  op1mize  fuel  and  electric  power    
  9. 9. PUTTING THE PRINCIPLES INTO PRACTICE How do we demonstrate that using TPMs can provide better status information to the Program Manager 9  
  10. 10. Tactical Situation Analysis System 10   Command  and  Data  Center   Mobile  Sensors  UAV  with  Airborne  Sensors   Ground  Based  Sensors  
  11. 11. TSAS MoE, MoP, and KPPs •  TSASMOE.4 Transport Radius –  Performance Requirement Statement: –  The TSAS shall be transportable within a 3,000 mile radius via a C-17/C-141/C-5 package. •  Refines Higher-Level Requirement: –  JROCKPP.3 SUST Sustainment –  JROCKPP.6 ENGY Energy •  Refined By Lower-Level Requirements: –  TSASMOP.10 Transport Volume –  TSASMOP.11 Transport Weight 11  
  12. 12. EO/IR Weight TPM AvTPM.7 EO/IR Weight •  Performance Requirement Statement: – The UAV EO/IR weight shall be less than or equal to 100 pounds. •  Refines Higher-Level Requirement: – UAVMOP.10 Sensor Weight Capacity •  Specifies: – Component: UAV.1.4.14 EO/IR Electro- Optical / Infrared 12  
  13. 13. Tier 0 IMP/IMS for TSAS Avionics 13  
  14. 14. Tier 1 IMS for TSAS Avionics The  AVTPM.7  TPM  starts  with   the  avionics  components.     The  WP  is  Done  when  the   Systems  Engineers  complete   their  weight  alloca1on  to  each   sensor  subsystem.   14   Other  TPMs  are  used  to  assess  the  comple1on  of  the  WP.     Weight  alone  is  used  for  this  workshop.    
  15. 15. WORKSHOP EXERCISE 15  
  16. 16. The Principles of the Workshop Exercise •  Show the traditional ways of calculating BCWP without being informed by Technical Performance Measures (TPM). – Option A compares traditional CAM performance level with the TPM plan •  Using EO/IR weight as a TPM, calculate earned value from TPM data – Option B should drive BCWP from the actual technical performance 16  
  17. 17. Using Weight as a TPM for the EO/IR •  Weight is our TPM for our EO/IR sensor suite – Threshold (Requirement) – Objective (Goal) – Upper and Lower Control Limits – Plan – Current Value 17  
  18. 18. Option A: Comparing traditional CAM EVM assessment without TPM/QBD Monthly  BCWPs  are  Determined  by  CAM  EVTs   Month   Jan   Feb   Mar   Apr   May   Jun   Jul   Aug   Sept   Oct   Nov   Dec   Upper  Control   Limit   125   125   125   125   125   125   125   125   125   125   125   125   Requirement   Weight   100   100   100   100   100   100   100   100   100   100   100   100   Planned  Weight   120   120   115   115   110   110   105   105   100   100   100   100   Actual  Weight   120   123   128   130   128   120   110   103   103   103   103   103   Percent  Actual/ Planned  Wt   100.0%   97.6%   89.8%   88.5%   85.9%   91.7%   95.5%   101.9%   97.1%   97.1%   97.1%   97.1%   BCWS   $71.2   $63.0   $65.5   $73.3   $68.6   $65.5   $76.4   $65.5   $80.6   $71.8   $67.0   $68.6   BCWScum   $71.2   $134.2   $199.7   $273.0   $341.6   $407.1   $483.5   $549.0   $629.7   $701.4   $768.5   $837.1   ACWP   $71.2   $63.0   $65.5   $78.0   $78.0   $78.0   $76.4   $65.5   $80.6   $71.8   $67.0   $68.6   ACWPcum   $71.2   $134.2   $199.7   $277.7   $355.7   $433.7   $510.1   $575.6   $656.2   $728.0   $795.0   $863.7   BCWP   $71.2   $63.0   $65.5   $73.3   $68.6   $65.5   $76.4   $65.5   $80.6   $71.8   $67.0   $68.6   BCWPcum   $71.2   $134.2   $199.7   $273.0   $341.6   $407.1   $483.5   $549.0   $629.7   $701.4   $768.5   $837.1   SV   $.00   $.00   $.00   $.00   $.00   $.00   $.00   $.00   $.00   $.00   $.00   $.00   SVcum   $.00   $.00   $.00   $.00   $.00   $.00   $.00   $.00   $.00   $.00   $.00   $.00   CV   $.00   $.00   $.00   ($4.72)   ($9.36)   ($12.48)   $.00   $.00   $.00   $.00   $.00   $.00   CVcum   $.00   $.00   $.00   ($4.72)   ($14.08)   ($26.56)   ($26.56)   ($26.56)   ($26.56)   ($26.56)   ($26.56)   ($26.56)   CPIi  (BCWP/ACWP)   1.00   1.00   1.00   0.94   0.88   0.84   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   CPIcum   1.00   1.00   1.00   0.98   0.96   0.94   0.95   0.95   0.96   0.96   0.97   0.97   SPIi  (BCWP/BCWS)   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   SPIcum   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   18  
  19. 19. Option A: EVM Performance 0.40   0.50   0.60   0.70   0.80   0.90   1.00   1.10   1.20   $.0   $100.0   $200.0   $300.0   $400.0   $500.0   $600.0   $700.0   $800.0   $900.0   $1000.0   Jan   Feb   Mar   Apr   May   Jun   Jul   Aug   Sept   Oct   Nov   Dec   CPI/SPI   Thousands   BCWScum   ACWPcum   BCWPcum   CPIcum   SPIcum   19  
  20. 20. Option A: TPM Performance 120   120   115   115   110   110   105   105   100   100   100   100   120   123   128   130   128   120   110   103   103   103   103   103   0.40   0.50   0.60   0.70   0.80   0.90   1.00   1.10   1.20   90   95   100   105   110   115   120   125   130   135   Jan   Feb   Mar   Apr   May   Jun   Jul   Aug   Sept   Oct   Nov   Dec   CPI/SPI   Pounds   Upper  Control  Limit   Planned  Weight   Actual  Weight   CPIcum   SPIcum   20  
  21. 21. Workshop Exercise •  Using BCWS, ACWP, upper control weight or percent planned to actual weight, calculate – BCWP, – BCWPcum – CPIcum and SPIcum 21  
  22. 22. Option B: Use TPMs to Determine Performance Month   Jan   Feb   Mar   Apr   May   Jun   Jul   Aug   Sept   Oct   Nov   Dec   Upper  Control   Limit   125   125   125   125   125   125   125   125   125   125   125   125   Requirement   Weight   100   100   100   100   100   100   100   100   100   100   100   100   Planned   Weight   120   120   115   115   110   110   105   105   100   100   100   100   Actual  Weight   120   123   128   130   128   120   110   103   103   103   103   103   Percent  Actual/ Planned  Wt   100.0%   102.5%   111.3%   113.0%   116.4%   109.1%   104.8%   98.1%   103.0%   103.0%   103.0%   103.0%   BCWS   $71.2   $63.0   $65.5   $73.3   $68.6   $65.5   $76.4   $65.5   $80.6   $71.8   $67.0   $68.6   BCWScum   $71.2   $134.2   $199.7   $273.0   $341.6   $407.1   $483.5   $549.0   $629.7   $701.4   $768.5   $837.1   ACWP   $71.2   $63.0   $65.5   $78.0   $78.0   $78.0   $76.4   $65.5   $80.6   $71.8   $67.0   $68.6   ACWPcum   $71.2   $134.2   $199.7   $277.7   $355.7   $433.7   $510.1   $575.6   $656.2   $728.0   $795.0   $863.7   BCWP   BCWPcum   SV   SVcum   CV   CVcum   CPIi  (BCWP/ACWP)   CPIcum   SPIi  (BCWP/BCWS)   SPIcum   22  
  23. 23. Let’s Go To Work 23  
  24. 24. Some Ideas To Better Connect TPMs to Cost and Schedule •  Strengthen the PARCA’s IPMR Guide •  Provide input to the NDIA guides to include TPMs as performance measures •  Change DI-MGMT-81861 to mandate an IMP for ACAT1 programs at next update cycle •  Other ideas? 24  
  25. 25. Summary of Our Results •  Showed the importance of the IMP in determining what Done looks like –  Provides the full picture of required effectiveness, performance, KPPs and eventually to TPMs –  Allows one to see how technical progress will be achieved over time •  Described and demonstrated one possible way to better connect technical performance to cost and schedule performance. •  Had participants calculate BCWP from the TPM. 25  
  26. 26. Tom  Coonce   Glen  Alleman   Rick  Price   26  
  27. 27. 27  
  28. 28. Appendix   28  
  29. 29. Option B: Calculate EV using TPM (This is one way to do this; there are others) •  Final EO/IR weight is 100 lbs •  TPM Physical % Complete measured each period of performance for Plan versus Actual weight •  Once we reach 100% of planned weight for a given month – Then we can take all the BCWS for the month – Plus BCWP deficits from prior months where planned weight was less than actual weight 29  
  30. 30. One Way to Determine Performance from TPMs •  PCi = 1 – (WtPi – WtAi) / WtPi •  IF PCi < 1 – THEN BCWPi = PCi X BCWSi – ELSE BCWPi = BCWSi + (SVcum i-1) ENDIF •  CPIi = BCWPi /ACWPi •  SPIi = BCWPi / BCWSi These  calcula1on  need  to  be  stated  in  the  Work  Instruc1ons  and   documented  in  the  Quan1fiable  Backup  Data   30  
  31. 31. Option B: Use Plan vs. Actual Weight Percent to Determine Performance Month   Jan   Feb   Mar   Apr   May   Jun   Jul   Aug   Sept   Oct   Nov   Dec   Upper  Control   Limit   125   125   125   125   125   125   125   125   125   125   125   125   Requirement   Weight   100   100   100   100   100   100   100   100   100   100   100   100   Planned  Weight   120   120   115   115   110   110   105   105   100   100   100   100   Actual  Weight   120   123   128   130   128   120   110   103   103   103   103   103   Percent  Actual/ Planned  Wt   100.0%   102.5%   111.3%   113.0%   116.4%   109.1%   104.8%   98.1%   103.0%   103.0%   103.0%   103.0%   BCWS   $71.2   $63.0   $65.5   $73.3   $68.6   $65.5   $76.4   $65.5   $80.6   $71.8   $67.0   $68.6   BCWScum   $71.2   $134.2   $199.7   $273.0   $341.6   $407.1   $483.5   $549.0   $629.7   $701.4   $768.5   $837.1   ACWP   $71.2   $63.0   $65.5   $78.0   $78.0   $78.0   $76.4   $65.5   $80.6   $71.8   $67.0   $68.6   ACWPcum   $71.2   $134.2   $199.7   $277.7   $355.7   $433.7   $510.1   $575.6   $656.2   $728.0   $795.0   $863.7   BCWP   $71.2   $61.5   $58.9   $64.8   $59.0   $60.1   $72.9   $100.8   $78.3   $69.7   $65.1   $66.6   BCWPcum   $71.2   $132.6   $191.5   $256.3   $315.3   $375.4   $448.3   $549.0   $627.3   $697.0   $762.1   $828.7   SV   $.00   ($1.54)   ($6.65)   ($8.46)   ($9.65)   ($5.46)   ($3.47)   $35.23   ($2.35)   ($2.09)   ($1.95)   ($2.00)   SVcum   $.00   ($1.54)   ($8.19)   ($16.65)   ($26.30)   ($31.76)   ($35.23)   $.00   ($2.35)   ($4.44)   ($6.39)   ($8.39)   CV   $.00   ($1.54)   ($6.65)   ($13.18)   ($19.01)   ($17.94)   ($3.47)   $35.23   ($2.35)   ($2.09)   ($1.95)   ($2.00)   CVcum   $.00   ($1.54)   ($8.19)   ($21.37)   ($40.38)   ($58.32)   ($61.79)   ($26.56)   ($28.91)   ($31.00)   ($32.95)   ($34.95)   CPIi  (BCWP/ACWP)   1.00   0.98   0.90   0.83   0.76   0.77   0.95   1.54   0.97   0.97   0.97   0.97   CPIcum   1.00   0.99   0.96   0.92   0.89   0.87   0.88   0.95   0.96   0.96   0.96   0.96   SPIi  (BCWP/BCWS)   1.00   0.98   0.90   0.88   0.86   0.92   0.95   1.54   0.97   0.97   0.97   0.97   SPIcum   1.00   0.99   0.96   0.94   0.92   0.92   0.93   1.00   1.00   0.99   0.99   0.99   31  
  32. 32. Option B: EVM Performance 0.40   0.50   0.60   0.70   0.80   0.90   1.00   1.10   1.20   $.0   $100.0   $200.0   $300.0   $400.0   $500.0   $600.0   $700.0   $800.0   $900.0   $1000.0   Jan   Feb   Mar   Apr   May   Jun   Jul   Aug   Sept   Oct   Nov   Dec   CPI/SPI   Thousands   BCWScum   ACWPcum   BCWPcum   CPIcum   SPIcum   32  
  33. 33. Option B: TPM Performance 0.40   0.50   0.60   0.70   0.80   0.90   1.00   1.10   1.20   40.0%   50.0%   60.0%   70.0%   80.0%   90.0%   100.0%   110.0%   120.0%   Jan   Feb   Mar   Apr   May   Jun   Jul   Aug   Sept   Oct   Nov   Dec   CPI/SPI   TPM  %  of  Plan   Percent  Actual/Planned  Wt   CPIcum   SPIcum   33  
  34. 34. References •  Office of the Undersecretary of Defense Acquisition Technology and Logistics “Interoperability/Systems Engineering and Acquisition Resource & Analysis / Acquisition Management,” Version 0.9, October 21, 2005. •  “Integrated Master Plan (IMP) & Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) Elementary Textbook,” Presented By Integrated Systems, AGS & BMS Program Cost Scheduling & Control R. Scordino / F. Fontanet, IPM 2002 Fall Conference, Nov 2002. •  The Integrated Project Management Handbook, Dayton Aerospace, Inc., 8 February 2002, prepared for Office of the Undersecretary of Defense Acquisition Technology and Logistics Interoperability/ Systems Engineering and Acquisition Resource & Analysis/ Acquisition Management. 34  
  35. 35. References •  “Integrated Life Cycle Management,” Air Force Instruction 63-101/20-101, 07 March 2013. •  “DoD Integrated Master Plan and Integrated Master Schedule Preparation and Use Guide,” 21 Oct 2005. •  “Air Force Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) Assessment Guide, Version 3,” 7 June 2012. •  Planning and Scheduling Excellence Guide, 22 June 2012. •  AFMC (Air Force Materiel Command). “Integrated Master Plan and Schedule Guide,” AFMC Pamphlet 63-5. Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio: 2005. •  PARCA-EVM Assessment Study, Final Report Contract # HQ0034-12A0011-0001, Paul Solomon and David D. Walden, August 13, 2012. •  “Basing Earned Value on Technical Performance,” Paul Solomon, Cross Talk, January/February, 2003, pp. 25-28. 35  

×