There are four 'super' measures that predict the eventual outcomes of projects; are the requirements/expectations clear, is the sponsor actively involved in the project, and are processes being followed? The fourth measure, rework probability, is a function of the other three measures (with a few additional factors).

1. The Tale of the Four Missing Metrics
Focusing on the CONDITIONS for Success
© 2013 Joe Hessmiller
1

2. Three Important CONDITIONS to Monitor
• Expectations Management
• Sponsor Involvement
• Process Compliance
To Minimize One Project Risk Factor
• Rework Probability
At 40% of total project costs, Rework is the leading cause of
projects running over budget and beyond schedule.
2
© 2013 Joe Hessmiller
Managing Risk
ESPR “The Missing Metrics”

3. The Four Missing Metrics
• SMART – Are expectations clear?
• SMPL – Is sponsor engaged?
• PAL - Are processes being
followed?
• PRPL – Are causes of
Rework being avoided?
3
© 2013 Joe Hessmiller

4. SMART
Level
Tracks the clarity of
assignments. The higher
the SMART Level, the
higher the level of
understanding of what is
expected. Therefore,
less Rework and less
management intervention
required.
The SMART Level
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
SMART Index
Upper Control Limit
Lower Control Limit
The SMART Level
4
© 2013 Joe Hessmiller

5. SMART
Level
Metric derived from
participant feedback on the
perceived Specificity,
Measurability, Achievability,
Relevancy and Timeframes
for their
assignments/deliverables.
SMART Index
Week
SMART
Index
Upper
Control
Limit
Lower
Control
Limit
Specific Measurable Achievable Relevant
Time-
Based
8/10/2010 76.3 100 75 75 50 80 100 95
8/17/2010 76.3 100 75 75 50 80 100 90
8/24/2010 75.0 100 75 75 50 80 95 95
8/31/2010 82.5 100 75 80 70 85 95 95
9/7/2010 83.8 100 75 80 70 85 100 95
9/14/2010 82.5 100 75 90 70 85 85 90
9/21/2010 87.5 100 75 90 90 80 90 90
9/28/2010 92.5 100 75 100 90 80 100 90
10/5/2010 88.8 100 75 100 90 75 90 95
10/12/2010 86.3 100 75 90 90 75 90 95
10/19/2010 87.5 100 75 90 90 75 95 85
10/26/2010 88.8 100 75 90 90 80 95 85
11/2/2010 92.5 100 75 95 95 80 100 90
11/9/2010 92.5 100 75 95 90 85 100 95
11/16/2010 93.8 100 75 100 90 85 100 95
11/23/2010 93.8 100 75 100 100 85 90 100
11/30/2010 93.8 100 75 100 100 80 95 95
12/7/2010 88.8 100 75 90 90 85 90 90
12/14/2010 92.5 100 75 90 90 90 100 95
12/21/2010 95.0 100 75 95 95 95 95 95
12/28/2010 92.5 100 75 90 80 100 100 100
Components of the SMART
Level
The SMART Level
5
© 2013 Joe Hessmiller

6. SMART
Level
Looks like this project was
back under control once the
Relevance of the
assignments were made
clear to the staff.
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
110.0
SMART Index
Upper Control Limit
Lower Control Limit
Specific
Measurable
Achievable
Relevant
Time-Based
The SMART Level
SMART Level Influencers
6
© 2013 Joe Hessmiller

7. SMPL
Line
Tracks the
participation level of
the senior
management and/or
sponsor.
The SMPL Line
Senior Management Participation Level
Attention
Needed
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
SMPL
Upper Control Limit
Lower Control Limit
7
© 2013 Joe Hessmiller

8. SMPL
Line
In this example, the
level of participation in
meetings, surveys,
and other activities is
compared to the
planned participation
by senior
management
Senior Management Participation Level
Components of the SMPL Line
8
© 2013 Joe Hessmiller

9. SMPL
Line
In this example, the
components of the
SMPL are shown
separately to identify
individual areas
needing improvement.
Senior Management Participation Level
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
SMPL
Upper Control Limit
Lower Control Limit
Status Meeting
Attendenace Rate
APO Response Rate
Decisions
Made/Delegated Rate
SMPL Line Influences
9
© 2013 Joe Hessmiller

10. PAL
Measures likely level of
process adherence
based on conditions that
would tend to lead to
‘short cuts’ on process..
Process Adherence Likelihood
10
© 2013 Joe Hessmiller

11. PAL
This table shows how
problems with EVA
lead to likely
abandonment of
process until project
gets back on track.
May be OK, must be
identified to be
managed.
Process Adherence Likelihood
Components of PAL Line
11
© 2013 Joe Hessmiller

12. PAL
This illustrates the various
components of PAL.
PAL Line Influences
12
© 2013 Joe Hessmiller

13. Project Rework Probability Level
PRPL
Line
Tracks the ‘probability’
of Rework based on
changes in the
conditions that are
known to cause
Rework.
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
PRPL
Upper Control Limit
Lower Control Limit
Attention
Needed
The PRPL Line
13
© 2013 Joe Hessmiller

14. PRPL
Line
SME Involvement,
Team Confidence
Level, Technical
Capability and
Requirements
Stability are
components of PRPL
Line.
Project Rework Probability Level (PRPL)
Week PRPL
Upper
Control
Limit
Lower
Control
Limit
SME
Involvement
Technical
Capability
Requirements
Stability
Confidence
Level
8/10/2010 5.0 20 0 100 100 80 100
8/17/2010 10.0 20 0 80 100 80 100
8/24/2010 12.5 20 0 80 100 80 90
8/31/2010 22.5 20 0 70 90 70 80
9/7/2010 17.5 20 0 80 90 70 90
9/14/2010 16.3 20 0 80 90 75 90
9/21/2010 11.3 20 0 80 90 85 100
9/28/2010 23.8 20 0 80 60 85 80
10/5/2010 23.8 20 0 80 60 85 80
10/12/2010 23.8 20 0 80 60 85 80
10/19/2010 18.8 20 0 65 90 85 85
10/26/2010 21.3 20 0 70 90 70 85
11/2/2010 16.3 20 0 80 90 70 95
11/9/2010 16.3 20 0 80 90 70 95
11/16/2010 16.3 20 0 80 80 80 95
11/23/2010 16.3 20 0 80 80 80 95
11/30/2010 17.5 20 0 80 80 80 90
12/7/2010 12.5 20 0 80 90 80 100
12/14/2010 8.8 20 0 85 90 90 100
12/21/2010 5.0 20 0 90 100 90 100
12/28/2010 0.0 20 0 100 100 100 100
Project Rework Probability Level
Components of PRPL Line
14
© 2013 Joe Hessmiller

15. PRPL
Line
SME Involvement,
Team Confidence
Level, Technical
Capability and
Requirements
Stability influence
rework probability.
Project Rework Probability Level
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
PRPL
Upper Control Limit
Lower Control Limit
SME Involvement
Confidence Level
Technical Capability
Requirements Stability
PRPL Line Influences
15
© 2013 Joe Hessmiller