Utilizing EVMS: A “Must Have” for the Project ManagerPMI Spring Symposium

April 18, 2015

Michael P. Cary, PMPSr. Program Manager

DRS Technologies, Inc.

• 26+ years in the commercial and defense industries• Various positions including: PM, technical consultant, systems engineer, team leader,

project engineer and electrical engineer• Currently Sr. Program Manager for DRS Training and Control Systems in FWB, FL

• Commercial background (15 yrs.): • R&D, Systems Integration, Test, QA, QC in Manufacturing and Automation IPTs• Consulting roles for automotive and electronics manufacturing including: Chrysler, Honda,

Mercedes-Benz, Philips, Panasonic, Viscom• Sr. Product Manager for BSecure Technologies delivering SaaS products

• Defense/Aerospace background (11 yrs.):• Technical and acquisition support roles w/ Jacobs Engineering • Program manager within DRS, responsible for new product development,

process improvement, and production integration for Combat Training Systems

• Bachelor’s in Electrical Engineering from Auburn University• Certified Technical Trainer on SMT equipment• Certified Project Management Professional (PMP) since Feb 2009• Active volunteer with PMI Emerald Coast FL Chapter

Bio Summary:

Topics for today’s discussion:• How does a PM utilize EVM output ?• Defining program success via each Phase:

• Program Initiation • Planning• Execution• Monitoring and Control• Closeout

• Tips and Techniques for program success

Skills/Tools◦ Hard Skills (40%) EVMS MS Project / scheduling WBS

◦ Soft Skills (60+%) Leadership Communication Negotiation

◦ SENSE OF HUMOR (100+%)

Program Initiation:

• Proposal Phase complete• RFP/SOW review process• Basis of Estimate: Stick to the Process • General Requirements defined?• Ground Rules and Assumptions• Project Team initially formed• PM typically is the integrated team lead

Do Don’t

+ Engage Entire Team in BOEs - Be a “Super” PM; Delay involvement

+ Be Open to all ideas/concerns - Rule with iron fist; Help if necessary

+ Capture ALL assumptions - Discuss but not document

+ Incorporate Risk/Uncertainty - Be persuaded there’s NO risk

Program Initiation:

BOE example

Program Planning:• Contract Award• Final requirements agreed upon by ALL stakeholders• Get each dept. to validate & sign-off on Baseline hours• Planning is done BEFORE the kickoff meeting!• Tips and Techniques

The Good, Bad, and Ugly methods Tailored Plans and established processes vs “we don’t need those”… Get buy-in and agreement from all Dept Leads PRIOR to kickoff IF BOEs vs WBS don’t directly correlate with IMS: this could be

a bumpy ride—hard to manage and control overall cost/scheduleif these don’t match

Decide how EV metrics will be reported and to whom

IMS example

Do Don’t

+ Involve all Dept. Leads with IMS - Communicate w/ just ”favorites”

+ Capture all risks/concerns - Take risk assessment from one source

+ Review RFP/SOW: Rqt’s understood - “Assume” everyone knows deliverables

+ Review Critical Path and Budgets! - “Assume” everyone has reviewed baseline artifacts

Program Planning

Program Execution:• Project “Kickoff”

Does everyone know what we’re doing? Baseline schedule Budget allocated Team members assigned Roles and Responsibilities DEFINED UPFRONT

• Final Final requirements agreed uponby ALL stakeholders; Baseline IMS=WBS based EAC

• Ensure all Functional leads know their budgets• Check again: What defines “project success”?• Stakeholders keep updated on status (CP & risk/oppty)

RMP exampleWBS example

RMP: High Risks must be accounted for in your EAC

Impact 30 - 90 daysP - >30 days Cost $ Before

Date Duration $ Amount $ Amount $ After

Likelihood Schedule Responsibility $ Action Plan

~50%

J. Jones/D. Word

Net Benefit $0

Impact 30 - 90 daysP - >30 day0 - 1% EAC Cost $ Before $66,700

D Date Duration $ Amount $ Amount $ After

Likelihood $60,400 Schedule Responsibility $ Action Plan $60,400

~70%

J. Hitson

Net Benefit $6,300

Impact NOW 0 - 1% EAC Cost $ Before $43,582

Date Duration $ Amount $ Amount $ After

Likelihood Schedule Responsibility $ Action Plan

~70%

J. Hitson/J. Jone

Net Benefit $43,582

7.3

3.2.1.7 and 3.2.2.5

3.2.2.8

-$43,582

04/30/15 90

02/15/15

Status, Date: 3/3/15: Pod SAT firm for 6-17 Apr using Block 2A w/100HAA. Coordinating with CDA for possible AUG WSIM SAT#2. 1/23: planning pod SAT in April 6-27 with current s/w baseline; ensure DRS team SERE training completed. 12/23: no change 11/26: No Changes 9/30: USG indicates that FMS customer may require L-Band if S-Band authorization cannot get

Planned for two (2) Joint Intgr. Test events at CDA with USG/FAAC reps. In order to mitigate system integration issues prior to SAT

USG GFE WSIMS delivery has been updated to combine final drops 3&4 into one final delivery on 18 Sept--if Integration results successful, possibility that only 1 joint intgr. Event needed at CDA

Status, Date: 3/3/15: JSIT #1 sucessful, no JSIT #2 required--oppty realized. 1/23: Monitor JIT #1 outcome and determine if needed. Oppty can be realized in early Feb. 12/23: Pending results from March JSIT and TEB for this oppty to realized. 11/26: Pending CDA test results and Feb '15 Joint testing results. 10/30: now planning on Feb '15 test at CDA 9/30: FAAC/GFE WSIM delivery

Ris

kO

ppor

tuni

ty

Morocco SAT delay due to unknown reasons in countryLO

WA

ctiv

e

3

Ret

ired

5

4

2nd Joint Integration Test Event not needed

06/15/15

HIG

HA

ctiv

e SIR issues during Joint Integration Testing

Ensure full regresssion dry runs are complete before FST event; build-in plans for add'l fix/test iterations. Coordinate with CDA and USG teams to monitor environment including travel alerts and watches.

30

Status, Date: 3/3/15: Successful JSIT #1 at CDA 2-6 Feb and test team documents 9 AI's of which only one is DRS. Overall consensus is that there is no need for JSIT #2. Leaving high risk until FST completion. 1/23: Pending JIT results in Feb will determine if risk will be minimized. 12/23: Successful integration at DRS lab now pending JSIT in early March will mitigate this risk. 11/26: Awaiting testing results from CDA prior to formal

Ris

k

If succesful systems testing at CDA, CDA discussing options of re-plan dates for Joint Integration test at CDA from 15 Feb to 15 Dec…approx 2months schedule recovery.

includes travel cost savings; elimniates iterative WBS tasks for WSIM integeration, ADIU code updates, test plan updates and re-testing at bench, pod, and system levels. Total 332 hrs at avg ENG cost of 117/hr= 38,844 + Travel of 4738 = $ 43 582

Socialize plan for FST test approval and obtaining payment for Ship in place until country ready for SAT and final shipment

Day for Day slip if we can't get in country by 6/15/15

LL from past CDA SIL testing events; planned

for 5 SIRs but only 2 require code changes,

re-CM, re-deliver--approx 4man weeks

total 10/28: add'l travel to CDA=8200 and V&V

FAAC WSIM 180hrs

6 man weeks include: 20hrs SW, 8 hrs SE, 18hrs TE, 4hrs SQA, 6hrs TW, 24hrs CM, 4hrs PM = 84hrs total per SIR*2=168hrs total

PROGRAM RISK/OPPORTUNITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN

Identification Characterization, Assessment and Analysis Actions and Status Tracking Data

Compute Net Benefit of Risk Mitigating Actions

Other Information

ID#

Stat

us Prio

rity

Type

Risk/Opportunity Description

Impact Rating

/Likelihood How soon is

the risk

Estimated Risk

Impact effect on Schedule

Estimated Risk Impact

Effect on Cost

Opportunity Rating/Estimated Savings

Actual Impact from

Risk or Opportunity Mitigation Plan/Status

Affected WBS/SWO

and Responsibility Additional Comments

Basis of Estimate for Cost Impact

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (16) (17) (14) (15)

Do Don’t+ Awareness of team environment - Assume everyone knows each other+ Always evaluate before acting - Always have to make “the” decision + Keep communication channels open - Assume everyone knows the IMS+ Continually review plans and update - Assume everyone knows mitigation plan(s) + Remember big picture; success=… - Get wrapped up: Metrics, issues…

Program Execution

Example: IMS + EVMS= WBS based EACID % Complete Task Name Duration Start

1 99% A Typical 13 month POP IMS--Rev 9A Project 1102334 357.8 days Fri 10/12/12

2 99% PROGRAM MANAGEMENT & LOGISTICS 357.8 days Fri 10/12/12

3 100% PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 325 days Fri 10/12/12

58 100% TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT 291 days Fri 10/12/12

67 100% CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT 291 days Fri 10/12/12

73 100% SUBCONTRACT MANAGEMENT 291 days Fri 10/12/12

76 100% DATA MANAGEMENT 291 days Fri 10/12/12

79 93% LOGISTICS 357.8 days Fri 10/12/12

109 100% QUALITY ADMINISTRATION 204 days Mon 1/28/13

113 100% SYSTEM ENGINEERING 105 days Mon 10/15/12

114 100% SYSTEM/SUBSYSTEM REQUIREMENTS 105 days Mon 10/15/12

137 99% PRODUCT ENGINEERING 296 days Mon 10/15/12

138 99% SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT 296 days Mon 10/15/12

227

357 100% CI INTEGRATION & TEST 89 days Fri 1/25/13

363 100% SYSTEM/SUBSYSTEM INTEGRATION 169 days Thu 12/13/12

364 100% LAB DEVELOPMENT 46 days Wed 2/27/13

374 100% INTEGRATION PLANNING 124 days Thu 12/13/12

375 100% DEVELOP INGTEGRATION PLAN 124 days Thu 12/13/12

385 100% SYSTEM INTEGRATION 45 days Mon 6/17/13

386 100% SYSTEM INTEGRATION 45 days Mon 6/17/13

390 97% SYSTEM VERIFICATION & TEST 318 days Fri 10/12/12

391 97% VERIFICATION PLANNING 318 days Fri 10/12/12

418 99% VERIFICATION 110 days Thu 8/15/13

419 99% SYSTEM 110 days Thu 8/15/13

420 99% SYSTEM TEST 110 days Thu 8/15/13

421 100% GOVERNMENT MOD & SIM LAB TESTING

32 day s Thu 8/15/13

422 100% FACTORY SYSTEM TEST (FST) 69 days Tue 8/20/13

429 96% SITE SYSTEM TEST (SST) 25 days Tue 11/26/13

435 100% ECP PREPARATION 38 days Tue 11/26/13

99%

99%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

93%

100%

99%

99%

%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

97%

97%

99%

99%

99%

100%

100%

96%

100%

6/15 7/6 7/27 8/17 9/7 9/28 10/19 11/9 11/30 12/21 1/11 2/1 2/22 3/15 4/5 4/26 5/17 6/7 6/28 7/19June 21 August 11 October 1 November 21 January 11 March 1 April 21 June 11 Au

Program Monitor and Control:

• Project Monitoring: “Controlling the Chaos” Does everyone know what we’re doing (yet)? Baseline schedule (when do we re-baseline) Budget allocated (we have a budget?) Risk triggers and mitigation plans (how are we tracking risk?) Team members assigned (Where’s John and Tammy?) Firefighting and Super Heroes indicative: lack of or skipping processes

• Requirements/scope creep ( “must” vs “nice” to haves)• Check weekly (minimum!) CV, SV, CPI, & SPI• Observe your team for strained relationships

EVMS & EVM weekly exampleAI status example

Example: Using SPI and CPI on weekly basis

“The Good: Green Program” (<10% variance); look for early warnings

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

12/7/13 1/11/14 2/15/14 3/22/14 4/26/14 5/31/14 7/5/14

% COMP

CPI/SPI

14540  CPI/SPI Trend

CPI SPI BL% EST %

Example: Using SPI and CPI on weekly basis

“The Bad: Yellow Program” (<20%; >10% variance); increase risk boards

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

12/7/13 1/11/14 2/15/14 3/22/14 4/26/14 5/31/14 7/5/14

% COMP

CPI/SPI

14540  CPI/SPI Trend

CPI SPI BL% EST %

Example: Using SPI and CPI on weekly basis

“The Ugly: Red Program” (>20% variance); track daily; aggressively look for opptys

Project Name Date BL% EST % CPI SPI

14540Project Summary 12/23/2013 32.6% 15.1% 0.76 0.46

14540Project Summary 1/6/2014 38.9% 18.3% 0.79 0.47

14540Project Summary 1/13/2014 40.7% 20.5% 0.79 0.50

14540Project Summary 1/27/2014 43.8% 24.0% 0.76 0.55

14540Project Summary 2/3/2014 45.5% 27.4% 0.78 0.60

14540Project Summary 2/10/2014 47.2% 27.9% 0.74 0.59

14540Project Summary 2/17/2014 52.4% 28.9% 0.70 0.55

14540Project Summary 2/24/2014 56.0% 29.9% 0.68 0.53

14540Project Summary 3/3/2014 58.9% 31.8% 0.67 0.54

14540Project Summary 3/10/2014 60.3% 32.1% 0.64 0.53

14540Project Summary 3/17/2014 62.1% 32.5% 0.61 0.52

14540Project Summary 4/7/2014 64.6% 39.1% 0.67 0.61

14540Project Summary 4/14/2014 65.0% 43.3% 0.67 0.67

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

12/7/13 1/11/14 2/15/14 3/22/14 4/26/14 5/31/14 7/5/14

% COMP

CPI/SPI

14540  CPI/SPI Trend

CPI SPI BL% EST %

Example: Using SPI and CPI on weekly basis

EVM output provides PM with insight where issues really are!

EVM output provides PM with insight where issues really are!

Track variances & corrective actions; Demand accountability

NGI Qualification Test Action ItemsLast update = 4/7/15

ID Status Opened Date Due Date Closed

Date Priority Action Item Respondent Org. Originator Org. Status / Resolution Cost Account or WBS

1 closed 02/05/15 02/11/15 03/03/15 M NG DLT, p/n: 02502500-2 s/n: M00002, was disassembled and a TCXO cable was discovered to be defective.

J. Jones Test S. Dawkins ENG It is inconclusive if this cable was damaged during the disassembly/reassembly process. The cable was replaced. It was proved during troubleshooting, when the unit is in the "operate" state, an intermittent TCXO connection can cause a reset. Wires were soldered to the 3.3V, 2.5V, and 1.2V on the Digital CCA and the TCXO line was coupled, to monitor during vibration. The UUT was again subjected to AF Random Vertical DLT Profile. A loss of voltage or TCXO did not occur when the UUT reset.

4.5.2.13A

2 closed 02/19/15 02/23/15 03/06/15 H Incorrect Model for DC-DC CCA. Top Cover rework M. Gaisser Engr S. Dawkins ENG Drawing 09070112 was modified with correct diementions. GAP pad thinkness was also updated to reflect proper size modication. BOM was updated.

1.A.9

3 Open 02/24/15 03/30/15 H The five 09070111 chassis produced by Riverside were found to be missing a chamfer. These chassis will be reworked by the vendor.4/1/15 RMA has been created, % unit are being sent back. Still waiting on quaote for additional work.

J. Butcher SCM R. Davis SCM Parts to be sent back to the vendor for correction. None of these chassies were introduced into the testing Reliefs will be modified on sheet 3 of the 0970111 chassis.

4.5.2.4A

4 closed 01/21/15 02/11/15 02/11/15 M The 09070110 drawing will update the J1 relief chamfer. This will provide proper dimensions to account for using slide lock connector.

M. Gaisser Engr M. Gassier ENG This issue was revealed at TRR. Modifcation is not part of the test configuration.

4.5.2.4A

5 closed 02/18/15 03/23/15 03/30/15 L Ferrite beads loose: These parts were replaced and testing continued. It is being recommended these parts along with L2, p/n: 2743019447h, on the DC/DC CCA, p/n: 09070331, be epoxied to the board to provide better structural support.

T.Baugh/R. Maser

Engr T. Baugh ENG This issues is an corrective action , but does not effect Root Cause. Pending DRWG Updates and all internal CCA have been updated.

1.A.9

6 Open 03/03/15 05/11/15 H J1 Slide on connector (aka adapter)--6 wk lead time. Part on order PO created. Estimated Receive date May 18. requesting expedite date for April 15

J. Butcher SCM S. Dawkins ENG We have establish that the vibration introduced to the pins in the J1 slide lock interface has caused deformation to the receiving sockets. The current receiving socket are an open contact type (AS37F0S37M0S/AA) which will be replaced with closed entry or “PosiBand” type (HAD37F0S37M0S/AA) for increased strength and durability. We reproduced the reboot issue and dropped SLDC messages by physically stimulating the wires in the test cable while connected to the J1 slide lock connector.

1.A.9 and 999

7 Open 03/17/15 05/11/15 M J1 Jack Screw Interface (Digital CCA)--6wk lead time. Customied part number created.

M. Gaisser Engr S. Dawkins ENG As a precaution J1 Jack Screw sockets will be upgrated to “PosiBand” type contact. No failure in this interface hase been encoutered.

1.A.9 and 999

Program Monitor and Control:

Do Don’t+ Schedule regular team meetings - Estimate your IMS & EVM status

+ Mentor junior staff on reports, - Expect IPT leads to perform all mentoringstatus briefings, action plans and run all budgets yourself

+ Leverage as many tools as possible - Re-create reports, start from scratch

+ Continually review plans & update - Assume everyone knows deliverables

Program Closeout:• Project Closeout: Are we there yet?

Does everyone know when we’re done? Schedule shows 90% but we’re really done…mostly. Budget vs Actual cost are now realized; Boss: What’s Return on Sale? Team members re-assigned to next project Conduct Post Mortem and Capture Lessons Learned

• Review largest variances with IPT Leads• Reminder: What defines “project success”?

Scorecard example

Do Don’t

+ Lessons Learned (LL) meeting - Fail to include LL on next bid

+ Team Performance Assessments - Forget to congratulate team

+ Capture process improvement opptys - Discuss but not document

+ Incorporate known risks into future - Be persuaded there’s no need bids: variances more than 10% for a lessons learned meeting—

”we know what to do now”…

Program Closeout: