The core concept underlaying the Critical Path Method (CPM) is there is one best way to undertake the work of the project and this can be accurately modelled in the CPM schedule. This premise does not hold for either distributed projects, or projects applying Lean Construction management. These two types of projects differ, lean is a management choice, whereas distributed projects are a physical fact:
–  Distributed projects are ones where the physical distribution of the elements to be constructed means significant amounts of the work can be done in any sequence and changing the sequence when needed is relatively easy.
–  Lean construction is a project delivery process that uses Lean methods to maximize stakeholder value and reduce waste by emphasizing collaboration between everyone involved in a project. To achieve this the work is planned and re-planned as needed by the project team focusing on optimising production.

In both cases, the flexibility in the way the detailed work is performed and the relative ease with which the sequence can be changed means CPM is ineffective as a predictor of status and completion.

Our latest article WPM for Lean & Distributed Projects looks at how Work Performance Management (WPM) can be used to assess both the current status and the projected completion for these types of project, regardless of the number of sequence changes made to the overall plan.

Download WPM for Lean & Distributed Projects from: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-SCH-041.php#WPM-Dist

See more on WPM as a valuable tool to add to you project controls system: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-SCH-041.php#Overview

We all know (or should know) that when a project is running late, the predicted completion date calculated by the ‘critical path method’ (CPM) at an update tends to be optimistic, and this bias remains true for predictions based on simple time analysis as well as schedule calculations made using resource leveling.

There are two primary reasons for this:

1. The assumption in CPM is that all future work will occur exactly as planned regardless of performance to date. The planned durations of future activities do not change.
   
2. The burning of float has no effect of the calculated completion date until after the float is 100% consumed and the activity become critical.

For more on this issue see Why Critical Path Scheduling is Wildly Optimistic!

Having an optimistic schedule for the motivation of resources to perform in not all bad – the updated CPM schedule shows the minimum level of performance needed to stop the situation deteriorating. The problem is more senior managers also need a reliable prediction of when the project can realistically be expected to finish and CPM cannot provide this. A more realistic / pessimistic view is obtained by apply the principles of Work Performance Management (WPM) to a CPM schedule, using ‘activity days’ taken from the CPM schedule as the metric.

Our latest article, WPM Solves CPM Optimism, uses a simple CPM schedule to demonstrate the differences in the calculated project completion dates between CPM and WPM. The value of WPM is stripping away the optimism bias inherent in CPM scheduling (particularly early in the project), thereby providing management with a clear indication of where the project is likely to finish if work continues at the current levels of productivity. These predictions are not a statement of fact, change the productivity and you change the outcome! A similar approach can be used to assess projected completion dates based on a simple manual bar chart.

To download the article, and see more on augmenting CPM with WPM to enhance controls information: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-SCH-041.php#WPM-CPM

Work Performance Management (WPM) is a methodology developed by Mosaic Project Services Pty Ltd to offer a simple, robust solution to the challenges of providing rigorous project controls information on projects that cannot (or are not) using CPM and/or EVM. It works by setting an expected rate of working using an appropriate metric, then measuring the actual work achieved to date. Based on this data, WPM can assess how far ahead or behind plan the work currently is, and using this information calculate the likely project completion date and VAC.

The basis of the calculations used in WPM are the same as is used in Earned Schedule (ES), however, WPM is much simpler to set up and use. The only two requirements to implement WPM are:

• A consistent metric to measure the work planned and accomplished, and
• A simple but robust assessment of when the work was planned to be done.

Our latest article, How WPM Works, explains in detail the processes and calculations used in WPM, and the outputs produced.

Understanding the current status and projected completion is invaluable management information for Agile and other projects where CPM schedules are not used, and even where a project has a good CPM schedule in place this additional information is useful. Then by plotting the trends for both the current variance (WV) and VAC management also knows how the project is tracking overall.

Download How WPM Works: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/Mag_Articles/AA038_-_How_WPM_Works.pdf

For more on WPM see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-SCH-041.php#Overview

Work Performance Management (WPM) is a new project controls tool that is being developed by Mosaic Project Services. WPM is designed to calculate the current status, and predicted completion date for any project in a consistent, repeatable, and defensible way. It is primarily intended for use in projects, applying Agile or Lean Construction management approaches, where traditional CPM scheduling cannot be used effectively, but will add value on most projects. The types of projects where WPM can provide an effective controls tool include:

• Relatively small projects requiring a straightforward controls system
• Large projects with a single primary deliverable that is easy to measure
• Large projects using CPM where there is a need to overcome the CPM optimism bias[1]
• All project applying Agile[2] and Lean Construction approaches where the project team determine the sequence of working
• Distributed projects[3] where CPM is inappropriate, and management has chosen not to use the ES extension to EVM.

WPM is an easy to use, robust, performance measurement system. The two requirements to implement WPM are:

• A consistent metric to measure the work planned and accomplished, and
• A simple but robust assessment of when the work was planned to be done

Based on this data, WPM can calculate how far ahead or behind plan the work currently is, and based on this information, the likely project completion date (assuming work will continue at the current rate). Recording the status and expected completion at each update provides reliable trend information. This means there is no longer any excuse for, a project team, senior management, and/or the organization’s governing body, ‘not to know’ how the work of each project is progressing.

For a more detailed overview of WPM, see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-SCH-041.php#Overview

Or download Overview of WPM: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/Mag_Articles/AA037_-_Overview_of_WPM.pdf

[1]     For more on WPM and the CPM optimism bias see:
https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-SCH-041.php#WPM-CPM

[2]     For more on applying WPM to Agile and Lean projects see:
https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-SCH-041.php#WPM-Agile

[3]     For more on applying WPM to distributed projects (and a definition of distributed projects) see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-SCH-041.php#WPM-Dist

Project controls are facing a dilemma, on one hand there is a strong push to make projects agile and adaptive, on the other the need for on time delivery, organisational reporting requirements, and the law of contracts require precision and certainty from project control systems. For a wide range of projects, traditional critical path scheduling (CPM) is no longer fit for purpose, a new controls paradigm is needed.

CPM is based on scientific management concepts. It assumes there is one best way to undertake the work of a project, management know what this is, and their intentions can be modelled in a CPM schedule. While the CPM paradigm remains true for many projects, experience shows there are also many where this assumption is simply not correct including both soft and distributed projects. In this type of project, there is an ongoing level of flexibility in the sequencing of work that can be exploited to the benefit of the project and the client. However, most of the available management tools such as burndown charts, Kanban boards, sprint planning, last planner, etc., are specific to a methodology, focus on optimising work in the short term, and lack a rigorous predictive capability. 

This presentation define the characteristics of projects that are not suited to CPM, including agile, adaptive, and distributed projects, and describe an approach for managing this type of project based on agile and lean, while recognising there are likely to be some mandatory sequences that must be followed. WPM offers a rigorous framework for identifying progress and predicting the project completion date based on the quantity of work achieved compared to the quantity planned to be accomplished.

This presentation is part of an ongoing project focused on identifying the challenges, and opportunities created by adapting an improved management approach to control agile, adaptive, and distributed projects focused on optimising resource productivity.

Download the presentation: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PDF_Papers/P214_Controlling_agile_and_distributed_projects.pdf

See more on WPM: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-SCH-041.php#WPM

In a recent paper, Scheduling Challenges in Agile & Distributed Projects, we developed a classification framework of project characteristics to help define the potential usefulness of CPM scheduling:

1. Physically constrained – there is only one viable work sequence – The CPM paradigm is ideal for this type of project.

2. Practically constrained – management has agreed the one best work sequence. The CPM paradigm is ideal for this type of project.

3. Overarching constraints – there is a required overall sequence of working, with a degree of flexibility in the way the detailed work is performed to achieve the overall objectives. The CPM paradigm may be useful at the high level in a Class 3 project, but has significant limitations at the detail level.

4. Arbitrary constraints – there is no required sequence of working (as in Class 1 or 2), but management has decided to impose a detailed sequence of work as a matter of choice. The CPM paradigm is imposed for little or no practical benefit. Should be managed as Class 3

Building on from this starting point, in the paper we identified two general types of project in Class 3, ‘soft projects’, typically managed using Agile methods and ‘distributed projects’ where the work consisted of a set of deliverables dispersed over an area with no (or limited) real constraint on the order the work is accomplished. Both Agile and Lean offer methods for optimizing the work on Class 3 projects, but when you are applying adaptive work processes how do you assess completion and deal with claims for delay and disruption?

The answer to assessing status and predicting the current expected completion date for Class 3 projects appears to be solved by the concept of Work Performance Management (WPM) offers a simple, robust tool for assessing status and calculating the expected completion regardless of the actual sequence work is being performed.

WPM looks at the quantity of work produced, compared to the quantity planned to be produced. Provided you know what the project has to produce, and have a means of measuring the production, WPM works!  If management does not know what has to be produced and has no way of defining this, it is questionable if the endeavour is a project.

For more on WPM see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-SCH-041.php#WPM

The next challenge will be developing a protocol for assessing delay and disruption in Class 3 projects, more on this later.

Our latest paper, Predicting Completion in Agile & Distributed Projects, has been published in the June Project Management World Journal (PMWJ).

This paper is part of an ongoing mission to develop a general solution to the challenge of reliably predicting the expected completion date in projects where CPM and EVM are not being used. Our previous paper, Scheduling Challenges in Agile & Distributed Projects identified two general types of project, where CPM does not work as an effective controls tool, soft projects and distributed projects.  In both types there is no one ‘best way’ of completing the work, the sequence can be easily changed as needed. And, when development methodologies such as Agile are used, there is a deliberate intention to let the project team, in consultation with the client, decide what is best to work on next. This is the antithesis of a predetermined logical sequence of work that is expected to be followed and can therefore be represented in a logic diagram. Earned Value Management (EVM) can work in these situations, which introduces Earned Schedule (ES) as a viable option for predicting completion. Unfortunately, EVM is rarely used most normal projects and ES is an extension to EVM.

The solution we are proposing is Work Performance Management (WPM). WPM adopts a similar approach to ES, but is a self-sufficient tool, it can work without a schedule, or EVM. All that is required to run WPM is:

1. An impartial measure of the work planned to be accomplished distributed over the project duration.
2. An assessment of the work achieved to a point in time using the same metric.

The WPM spreadsheet does the rest.  The results from a sample project are in the diagram above.

The paper Predicting Completion in Agile & Distributed Projects, outlines the theory and practice supporting WPM.  The spreadsheet, sample projects and instructions on using the WPM spreadsheet can be found at: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-SCH-041.php#WPM