Dinesh Sharma and Jayeeta Dutta: Simplified Agile EVM -  The Art Of Managing Triple Constraint UA Online PMDay 2021 Website - https://pmday.org/online Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/startuplviv FB - https://www.facebook.com/pmdayconference

1. Simplified Agile EVM -
The Art Of Managing Triple
Constraint
Presenter: Dinesh Sharma and Jayeeta Dutta

2. Agenda
• Some Facts & Figures
• PMs dilemma
• The challenge areas
• SAEVM – A possible solution
• Case Studies
• Inferences and take aways
• Conclusion
2

3. Facts
A study of 5,400 large scale IT projects (projects with initial budgets greater than $15M) finds that the well-known problems with IT Projects are persisting. Among the key findings
quoted from the report:
17 percent of large IT projects go so badly that they can threaten the very existence of the company
On average, large IT projects run 45 percent over budget and 7 percent over time, while delivering 56 percent less value than predicted
Source : McKinsey & Company in conjunction with the University of Oxford
Type of survey : Study on large scale IT Projects
Date : 2012
(Source material : Delivering large-scale IT projects on time, on budget, and on value)
A PwC study of over 10,640 projects
found that a tiny, tiny portion of
companies – 2.5% – completed
100% of their projects successfully.
The rest either failed to meet some
of their original targets or missed
the original budget or deadlines.
These failures extract a heavy cost
– failed IT projects alone cost the
United States $50-$150B in lost
revenue and productivity
Source: Gallop
(Source material:
https://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/152429/cost-bad-
project-management.aspx)
A study of 5,400 large scale IT projects (projects with initial
budgets greater than $15M) finds that the well-known
problems with IT Projects are persisting. Among the key
findings quoted from the report:
1. 17 percent of large IT projects go so badly that they
can threaten the very existence of the company
2. On average, large IT projects run 45 percent over
budget and 7 percent over time, while delivering 56
percent less value than predicted
Source : McKinsey & Company in conjunction with the
University of Oxford
Type of survey : Study on large scale IT Projects
Date : 2012
(Source material : Delivering large-scale IT projects on time, on budget, and on value)

4. 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 : PMI.org
Source: (https://www.workamajig.com/blog/project-management-statistics)

5. Triple Constraint
The three constraints are interdependent -
None of them can be altered without affecting
one or both others
5
3 Most significant restrictions on any
project :
• Scope
• Schedule
• Cost

6. 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.

7. 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.
• Challenge of cost overrun and schedule delays
• Some organizations have taken major implementation
decisions without understanding the heart of Agile
methodologies, practices and how best to implement
them within the organization
• Reduced need of project / program governance and
documentation may lead to less clarity around the
requirements and monitoring of the triple constraint.
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

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. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. SAEVM – Case Study – I
Project Focused

19. 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

20. Stage III: This was the final stage of the project. This stage was relatively smooth as the core project performance was gradually settling down.
However, the key challenge that we faced at this stage was a sudden peak in attrition of important resources. With mature functioning of our
improved agile team the new member were brought to speed and by the end of the project, all essential project performance parameters reached
a healthy levels with SACPI at 1.02 and SASPI at 1.0.
The above stages were very typical to this project but with the help of the SAEVM model different project situations can be handled with the
insights provided by the core KPIs.
Implementation
The project can be considered in three stages of performance
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 and it impacted both on cost and schedule and
created a lag. We looked internally towards improving the
effectiveness of the team. With continuous focus and steps both
SACPI and SASPI could be brought well above healthy levels.
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. As a result, the SASPI started to
further incline but the SACPI declined. With continuous focus on
quality and reduce rework, by the mid of this period quality
returned to healthy levels and additional members could also be
released from the project and the SACPI started to incline to a
reasonable satisfactory level.

21. SAEVM – Case Study – II
Sprint Focused

22. 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.

23. Implementation
The project can be considered in three stages of
performance
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 the productivity of the team
was low and clearly team was incurring more efforts than
budget to meet their time commitments.
With continuous focus and steps both SACPI and SASPI
could be brought well above healthy levels by the end of
this stage with moderate variation.
Stage II: At the mid stage, project showed overall
improvement in SACPI and SASPI variations but started
getting some spikes on SARPI and SAQPI. Upon further
investigation and with certain root cause analysis of the
spikes and process adjustments, it was brought back to the
healthy levels for all KPIs by the end of this stage.
Stage III: This was the final stage which was relatively smooth, previous process improvements seem to have paid off. The variation reduced and
the average value of core KPIs very close to desired value 1.0. Project got completed with both SACPI and SASPI closing at an average around
desired 1.0 with variation much better improved, both other KPIs closed at near 1.0.
The above stages were very typical to this project but with the help of the SAEVM model different project situations can be handled with the
insights provided by the core KPIs.

24. 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.

25. Conclusion
• Customer expectations are changing every day
• The winning proposition is depending on how well we manage
the unknown unknowns
• Sett up proper control mechanism and gain right visibility
• Must have the correct indicators in place for our project work
SAEVM -
Has a low risk of implementation
It coincides with the ethos of Agility
Acts as a control mechanism for project deliverables
25
SAEVM - Brings in excellence from both worlds of Agility
and Project Management

26. Thank You
Your Questions?