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

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)

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

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 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

Perform

ance

Assessmen

t

“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

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

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

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

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

PUTTING THE PRINCIPLES INTO PRACTICE

How do we demonstrate that using TPMs can provide better status information to the Program Manager

9

Tactical Situation Analysis System

10

Command and Data Center

Mobile Sensors UAV with Airborne Sensors

Ground Based Sensors

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

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

Tier 0 IMP/IMS for TSAS Avionics

13

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.

WORKSHOP EXERCISE

15

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

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

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

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

Thou

sand

s

BCWScum ACWPcum BCWPcum CPIcum SPIcum

19

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


CPI/SPI

Poun

ds

Upper Control Limit Planned Weight Actual Weight CPIcum SPIcum

20

Workshop Exercise

•  Using BCWS, ACWP, upper control weight or percent planned to actual weight, calculate – BCWP, – BCWPcum

– CPIcum and SPIcum

21

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

Let’s Go To Work

23

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

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

Tom Coonce Glen Alleman Rick Price

26

Appendix

28

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

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

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

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


CPI/SPI

Thou

sand

s

BCWScum ACWPcum BCWPcum CPIcum SPIcum

32

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%


CPI/SPI

TPM % of P

lan

Percent Actual/Planned Wt CPIcum SPIcum

33

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

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

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

Technology

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