It's the Little Things...

 

In July, Gantthead writers and bloggers will be addressing very large, Olympic-sized themes, so for this, my last blog of June, I thought I’d get some small things out of the way.

First up is the spelling of the possessive impersonal pronoun. “It’s” is a contraction, of “it is.” And yet, when I look at the comments section of major news stories coming across the internet wire, time and time again I see people writing “it’s” when they really mean “its,” as if we should adjust our view on politics or religion based on the fevered rantings of a person who couldn’t pass seventh grade English. When I’m teaching my company’s Variance Analysis Report Preparation class, I make it a point to go up to the white board, and write the word “theirs.” Then, I call on someone in the class.

“What does that say?”

“Theirs.”

“Is it misspelled?”

“No.”

Then, I’ll write “his,” and then “hers,” and call on two more people, who both affirm neither possessive pronoun is misspelled. Then I’ll write “its.” This will invariably elicit giggles.

“You laugh,” I’ll begin, “but I guaran-dam-tee that if I review ten VARs prepared by this organization, I’ll find this error at least once. And you have no idea how stupid that makes us look.”

Next, I want to address those people who insist that any useful Earned Value analysis must be predicated on an extremely accurate estimate. And, if an extremely accurate estimate is not forthcoming, for whatever reason, then, well, the whole EV system must be abandoned. This is idiocy of Cecil B. DeMille proportions, which means, I suppose, that I’ve crossed the threshold from little things to big things, but stay with me. There is no cost management without Earned Value, period. Yet, there are many who either willfully ignore this assertion, or else have a motive for resisting it (yeah, accountants, I’m talking to you!). In order to avoid having a legitimate, simple EV system overtake their bogus faux-cost management system, they will attempt to push the narrative that EV systems are difficult, bulky, and expensive, none of which is true. Which brings us back to the must-have-very-accurate-baselines BS.

The truth is that extremely valuable management information can be gleaned from simple Earned Value systems, even when the time-phased budget is inaccurate. The traditional quick-and easy Estimate at Completion formula, Budget at Completion (BAC) divided by the Cost Performance Index (CPI), can be reduced algebraically to dividing cumulative actual costs (finally! The accountants are relative!) by the cumulative percent complete (on a task, or overall project). This calculation has been shown to be within 10% on projects or tasks that have surpassed the 15% completion point. Note that this piece of information – which has to be considered extremely valuable to anyone intelligent enough to read this blog  – does not require an accurate original estimate. It doesn’t even require a time-phased budget. Those who insist on excessive effort or accuracy in a project’s original budget are actually working against having a legitimate cost management system in place.

Finally, I want to vent my frustration on those who like to pretend they understand Critical Path theory, but really don’t. The most common and obvious manifestation of these people’s ignorance is when they insist that a certain task within the schedule network must be on the critical path, since it’s so important, don’t you know. Of course, whether or not a specific activity shows up on the critical path has nothing to do with its (notice I used the right one?) priority or visibility. It’s (again!) entirely a function of its (three in a row) duration and schedule logic, making anyone who posits to the contrary a mouth-breather.

Schedule logic. Did I say schedule logic? I was once involved in a major project, where the putative project controls contractor had put together a “schedule” in OpenPlan®. Problem was, he had constrained every single activity, both at the beginning and end, and had no – and I do mean none at all – logic ties between activities. When the software refused to calculate the critical path (no doubt sensing the knuckle-dragging intellect behind the scheduler), I was called in to help analyze. When I pointed out that the problem was that all of the activities were constrained, and there was no schedule logic, the project controls contractor geniuses responded by … kicking me off of the project. They actually called in a friend of mine, Brian, from an East coast location of my company, and took him to lunch after having shown him the files.

“So, Brian, what do you think is the problem?”

“All of your activities are constrained. You need to remove the constraints, and add schedule logic.”

“That sounds interesting, Brian. Sell me on that.”

“I’m not going to sell you on that. That’s the way it’s done!”

These are three little things that make me crazy, and I’m sure y’all have more to share. Here’s your chance. Oh yeah, and buy my book (http://www.ashgate.com/default.aspx?page=1751&calctitle=1&pageSubject=956&title_id=11616&edition_id=15149).