Principles of Enterprise Project Management
•Download as PPT, PDF•
1 like•316 views
the integration of planning, scheduling, cost, and reporting requires a clear and executable system, architecture. This project provides the first step in integrating Microsoft Project Professional with Cost View and wInsight to form an Enterprise Project Management platform.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Principles of Enterprise Project Management
Similar to Principles of Enterprise Project Management (20)
More from Glen Alleman
More from Glen Alleman (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Principles of Enterprise Project Management
- 1. Glen B. Alleman 5.18.05 Enterprise Project Management Case Study The integration of planning, scheduling, cost, and reporting requires a clear and executable system architecture. This project provides the first step in integrating Microsoft Project Professional with Cost View and winSight to form an Enterprise Project Management platform
- 2. Glen B. Alleman 5.19.05 Scope of Enterprise Project Management Aligning resource management, schedule and cost through collaborative applications: Cost management system Time and Labor Microsoft Project Professional™ Deliver integrated capabilities to: CAMs, Planner, IPTs through Project Web Access (PWA), Project Professional (desktop) and Cost View.
- 3. Glen B. Alleman 5.19.05 Themes of Enterprise Project Management Application Integration Theme Outcome Seamless integration between applications Ease of use, training, auditing Data integrity avoids “manual” verification Trust of data and work processes “Pull” (rather than push) paradigms provide integrity, timeliness, and robust architectures. Stateless (asynchronous) systems easier to use and maintain Concurrency of data in the hands of the users Flexible of data configuration Focused on project level use for planning and resource management Focused on SSC use for cost management
- 4. Glen B. Alleman 5.19.05 The Challenge of Integrating Heterogeneous Systems “Federation” is a better term than “Integration” Systems are loosely coupled and operate asynchronously Data exchanged between system with integrity Type definition (units of measure) Range verification Calendar mapping Reconciliation done through tools rather than by hand Data exchanged through “bridge” applications Semantics of the data travels with the exchange Federation goals All data is trusted and traceable to its source – Data Integrity Duplicate transactions produce in a single result – Indepotence Transactions can be reversed, replaced, or undone – Reversibility Inconsistent data cannot be entered into the system – Referential integrity
- 5. Glen B. Alleman 5.19.05 High Level Integration Architecture Data Interfaces use existing formats, mapped during output process. Data created at the point of origin, no down stream processing. Data “pulled” from one system to another at users request
- 6. Glen B. Alleman 5.19.05 Data, Format, Semantics, Integrity Units of measure across the three systems (Project Server, winSight, Cost View) Dollars? Time? Resources? Truncation options Characters – how much detail must be carried in each database record? Values – can monetary and duration records be “scaled?” Breakdown structure maintenance WBS fidelity – how far down the WBS tree can routine changes be made to meet project needs? Resource structures – how will named resources be allocated CAM structures – how far down the WBS tree will the CAMs be able to make routine changes (subcontractors)
- 7. Glen B. Alleman 5.19.05 IMP for the Bridging Project Define Baseline Configuration Server configuration defined Desktop configuration defined Project profile understood with impacts User profile understood with impacts Define minimum external interfaces Data exchange formats defined Exchange workflow defined Validation of data and workflow complete Deployment minimum baseline system for defined users resources defined Cost View interface functionally complete
- 8. Glen B. Alleman 5.19.05 What Does “Done” Mean for HST HRDVM? Planner creates a resource loaded schedule in chosen scheduling tool Integrates schedule to and from contributors to form a true Integrated Master Schedule Costs assigned to resources roll up to integrated cost database (Cost View) Actuals arrive from ERP system Project performance displayed in EV terms
- 9. Glen B. Alleman 5.19.05 Deliverables Baseline platform for compliance with the most RFPs Manloaded schedule IPT members integrated Integration of Project Server with Cost View for corporate level reporting of project performance Rolled up costs for labor and ODC’s Integration of subcontractors and IPT members to enable a distributed execution of the program Project Web Access Systems architecture for full rollout IDEFØ architecture for major components and their interactions
- 10. Glen B. Alleman 5.19.05 Enterprise Project Deliverables System requirements analysis Reconfirmation of previous planning tools requirements Profile of user community System architecture Data elements Process elements Business process description Deployment Plan Hardware and software components Operational requirements Parametric cost models Risk mitigation plan
- 11. Glen B. Alleman 5.19.05 Enterprise Top Level System Requirements
- 12. Glen B. Alleman 5.18.05 Cost and Schedule Integration Integrating Microsoft Project and Artemis Cost View is a critical success factor for Enterprise Project Management
- 13. Glen B. Alleman 5.19.05 Cost and Schedule Integration Issue: Microsoft Project can not export BCWS and BCWP directly to CostView™: Microsoft Project calculates time-scaled BCWS using only the standard Gregorian calendar. Lockheed Martin uses unique accounting calendars. If BCWS, calculated using a standard calendar, were uploaded to CostView, using a LMC unique calendar, the data would be erroneous MS Project can calculate earned value (BCWP) at the task level but can not rollup task level BCWP into specified work-package To upload MS Project files to CostView they must be in a specific format
- 14. Glen B. Alleman 5.19.05 Cost and Schedule Integration Solution: Compliance Software Technology Export forProject™ can fully integrate MS Project and Artemis CostView Compliance Software Technology, Inc. (CSTI) provides Earned Value Management Systems compliant with OMB A-11, Section 7 and the American National Standards Institute/Electronic Industries Alliance (ANSI/EIA) Standard 748. CSTI is a Gold Certified Microsoft Partner, serving customers including ITT Industries, Northrop Grumman, ManTech Solutions and Technologies Corporation, Applied Signal Technology, Inc., and Computer Science Corporation, supporting the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), U.S. Department of Energy (DoE), NASA, IRS, and other government entities. CSTI also serves companies in Petrochemical, Construction, Manufacturing, and Airline Industries.
- 15. Glen B. Alleman 5.19.05 Cost and Schedule Integration Users can define custom accounting calendars with CSTI’s Export forProject User pick dates of accounting periods
- 16. Glen B. Alleman 5.19.05 Cost and Schedule Integration Tasks rolled up into Work Packages and Control Accounts Project Percent Work Complete calculates Earned Value Progress using identical methods to AMS RTP
- 17. Glen B. Alleman 5.19.05 Cost and Schedule Integration CostView read only file formatted from Microsoft Project Directly imported to CostView
- 18. Glen B. Alleman 5.19.05 Cost and Schedule Integration Tests summarize and calculate BCWS and BCWP in Microsoft Project and transfer it to a live CostView database. Calculations compared to RTP’s output to ensure the integrity of Microsoft Project’s calculations. BCWS and BCWP from the 1,500 line schedule were successfully imported into a CostView database BCWS and BCWP files generated for the 5,500 and 15,500 line schedules but were not loaded into CostView, because of the lack of CostView test server space
- 19. Glen B. Alleman 5.19.05 Cost and Schedule Integration Test processing time results Processing Time 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 1,500 Tasks 5,500 Tasks 15,500 Tasks # of Resource Loaded Tasks Time(minutes) BCWS BCWP
- 20. Glen B. Alleman 5.19.05 Cost and Schedule Integration Next steps for program Build CostView database Construct Control Accounts and Work-packages Construct Cost Allocation Module and rate tables Map Charge numbers to Control accounts Complete Schedule and resource load with hours Detail plan schedule for first rolling wave Resource load tasks, using hours, for first rolling wave Load BCWS into CostView
- 21. Glen B. Alleman 5.18.05 Risk and Risk Mitigation In any IT project the discovery and mitigation of risk is as important as the functional operation of the system
- 22. Glen B. Alleman 5.19.05 Risk and Mitigation Risk Mitigation Requirements elicitation not focused on business operations Define business operations in IDEFØ before moving to technical requirements Consistent application requires training, support and monitoring “Step – action” processes, Rummler Brache swim lanes, and other flow-based documentation and training Functional partitioning of hardware, databases, systems, operations, and processes not well defined Zachman-like architecture Business process model Enterprise model System model Technical model As built Functioning enterprise Project management not focused on the user “Joint” participants in Enterprise Project Management project
- 23. Glen B. Alleman 5.19.05 Mind Map Approach Capture issues, relationships, opportunities Collect solutions Map solutions to Zachman or similar enterprise plan Gain consensus from all participants Users Process Management stakeholders IT stakeholders Develop IMP/IMS for Enterprise Project Management
- 24. Glen B. Alleman 5.19.05 Mind Map of Current Issues
- 25. Glen B. Alleman 5.18.05 Thinking About Enterprise Project Management Deploying Enterprise Project Management is fraught with difficulties, very few if which are technical.
- 26. Glen B. Alleman 5.19.05 Thinking About Enterprise Project Management Enterprise IT Systems are driven by standardization Server side functions and database schemas benefits from standardization End user functionality is driven by customer needs, contract requirements and many times familiarity Standardization limits choice This is a “trade space” Operational cost / savings Support cost / savings Customer compliance cost / savings
- 27. Glen B. Alleman 5.19.05 Thinking About Enterprise Project Management “Generally Accepted Accounting Practices” (GAAP) defines the standards for general ledger, balance sheet and accounting software Customer needs, specific program processes define the standards for Enterprise Project Management At the point of contact between Enterprise and Customer need Customer facing needs have little interest in the enterprise process if they conflict with customer need Enterprise needs have little concern about localizations driven by customers Blending the requirements for enterprise consistency and customer localization is the challenge of Enterprise Project Management
- 28. Glen B. Alleman 5.19.05 Thinking About Enterprise Project Management Separation of Concerns is the path to success for Enterprise Project Management Keys to success Define shared data and work processes Define localized data and work processes Isolate data and process to eliminate undesirable impacts of enterprise processes Push all “extra effort” onto the localized processes
Editor's Notes
- This presentation is an overview of the “bridging” activities for the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) HST Robotic Vehicle (HRV) RFP compliance. The RFP calls out in PM-100 the use of Project Professional Server and Project Web Access. The Master Plan and high level Master Schedule along with the deliverables and a discussion of the issues and their resolution are provided in this presentation. Using the bridging activities as a starting point, Microsoft Project, Cost View, winSight, and SAP form the basis of an enterprise project management system that can be syndicated across Space Systems.
- The term “enterprise project management” has many meanings, depending on the vendor, the business domain, and the operational details of the project or program. In this context “enterprise project management” is defined as: Seamlessly integrated project management applications Seamless data transfer between these applications
- During this effort there are some key “Themes” that should be kept in mind: The current method of integrating enterprise scale system is through XML (Extendable Markup Language) Data integrity is a first order concern. Since 3rd parties and possibly “strangers” will be using the system, protections against bad data need to be in place The system must operate in a “pull” paradigm. Data is exchanged between two systems, by the user of one system “pulling” data from another system when it is needed. This avoids any synchronization issues as well as “wait states” when the system is not available.
- Integrating the three core systems – Project Professional, Cost View and winSight can be done in several way. The first approach is to exchange “flat files” (common delimited files) between systems. There are several reasons for avoiding this approach in the long run: Data integrity depends on maintaining a frozen data structure on both ends of the transaction Typos, mis-located data, and other damaged data items can not be detected until they are entered into the system The current approach to integrating Microsoft and Oracle based products is through XML. For the HST HRDVM project and for the intermediate term flat files will be the data exchange format.
- The IDEF0 process is a method to model decisions, actions, and activities in an organization or system. IDEF0 was derived from the Structured Analysis and Design Technique. The US Air Force commissioned the authors of SADT to develop a function modeling method for analyzing and communicating the functional perspective of a system. In 1993 the Computer Systems Laboratory of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released IDEF0 as a standard for functional modeling in FIPS Publication 183. Functions are shown as “boxes.” Inputs arrive on the left show data that triggers the activity. Outputs exiting on the right are the results on the activity Controls arriving on the top guide or regulate the activity. Mechanisms arriving at the bottom define the systems, people, or equipment used to perform the function. IDEF0 diagrams are developed in a hierarchical sequence starting with the “do all work” top diagram then increasing levels of detail. This diagram is the top-level (A0) diagram for the Integrated Project Management System. Good diagrams have 3 to 6 function boxes. Boxes are numbered for traceability. IDEF0 diagrams are not flow charts but they do show the sequence of data processing. This diagram should not be seen as a sequence of events, but as the relationships between the actions of the system and the data on which these actions are performed.
- The major accomplishments of this bridging effort include: The installation and operation of Project Professional for the HST HRV project An interface between Project Professional and Cost View The creation and use of a resource loaded master schedule for HST HRV
- This is the current “elevator speech” for the system
- At the conclusion of this project there are four (4) major deliverables.
- At the conclusion of this project there are four (4) major deliverables.