Turki AltamimiSenior Project Manager | STC SolutionsRiyadh, Saudi Arabia
Dear All,
I have a concern about one topic in project management which is Rolling-wave Planning.
I'm in the process of creating a schedule baseline. I would like to use "rolling wave planning" to create my schedule - only put in detailed activities for near future work and high level information for the activities in the far future.
I'm wondering how this works with creating a baseline - as my baseline should be a "frozen" plan to compare my project "actual" as the project is being executed.
I appreciate if you can help me in my situation as I am confused. Shall I baseline only what is clear with adding the high level requirements and related activities, Or I baseline what is clear without adding those they are not clear. Saving Changes...
Product Operations Program ManagerBarcelona, Cataluña, Spain
I would suggest to baseline the entire project with the information you have at any given moment. You may consider splitting the document in various phases, i.e. phase 1 about which you have the most accurate information about, phase 2 a bit more blurry, and so on. By doing that, at the end of each phase you might re-baseline the successive phases. At the end of the project, you may then compare the initial baseline with all the other baselines developed throughout the project life cycle. Saving Changes...
Turki AltamimiSenior Project Manager | STC SolutionsRiyadh, Saudi Arabia
Ok but would that work with the baseline concept. I mean how can i baseline someting not clear yet and for sure this would impact the cost time and scope . Saving Changes...
Product Operations Program ManagerBarcelona, Cataluña, Spain
There is a saying that goes like "garbage in, garbage out". The baseline will be as good as the information you feed in to build in. If there is no way to even get a rough estimate/high level information on ulterior phases or activities, then perhaps it makes sense to rethink the project scope. At least this is how I see it, let's see what other peers think about it.
...
1 reply by Wade Harshman
Feb 01, 2017 11:10 AM
Wade Harshman
...
I agree with Eduard, and I like his idea of setting a unique baseline for each phase. (I might steal that idea, Eduard.) You could even split the phases into distinct projects. That seems better than setting baselines based on rough-order-magnitude estimates or significant unknowns.
To go one step further, why do you need to set a baseline? Pardon the PMI heresy, but when I think of rolling wave planning, I think of projects that have significant unknowns, such as R&D or discovery projects, or projects that lack complete information or have undefined scope. If you have questions that need to be answered before you can plan out later phases, then what value does this baseline add?
You might have a very good reason to set a baseline for later analysis or for corporate governance, I just think it's a question worth asking.
Saving Changes...
Thomas KennedyProject Engineer| BPAberdeen, Aberdeenshire, United Kingdom
I would agree with Eduard, split it into phases, the one you know most about being phase 1. After that build the other phases based on the best available knowledge you have for the high level activities. You can then do 2 things, baseline the first phase which you're happy with or baseline the whole thing. Once you get to the end of the first phase and have enough information for the second repeat the process. Saving Changes...
Sergio Luis ConteHelping to create solutions for everyone| Worldwide based OrganizationsBuenos Aires, Argentina
Please let me say that rolling wave planning is about all project plan. On the other side, is the model you are using to create your plan: adaptative or prescriptive. Inside adaptative models you will find project life cycle process like iterative, incremental, spiral. Inside prescriptive models you will find project life cycle process like waterfall. So, rolling wave planning is an "invention" from the PMI but you have to take into account your life cycle model and life cycle process. On the other side you have to define your products or deliverables where all related to project management are products/deliverables too. If each time you have information you are creating a new schedule by adding new activities then you are working inside an adaptative model using incremental life cycle (at least for all related to project management). With all that say, create or not a baseline depends on your governance model. In our case, we create a baseline after we get the first agreements and because we are taking into account what Barry Bohem`s Code of Uncertainty stated then we are avoiding to all our stakeholders about the baseline (for each project deliverable) will change. In this way we have control about how much iterations we need to have the last plan into each of our project life cycle phases and we can perform optimizations at all level (stakeholders, scope, etc) Saving Changes...
Turki AltamimiSenior Project Manager | STC SolutionsRiyadh, Saudi Arabia
Thank you all for your valuable contribution Saving Changes...
Baselines are the expected and approved schedule, cost, scope and requirements at the given point of time, which means baselines can be changeable as needed during the execution of project. Rolling wave planning is one of techniques to practically plan the activities in the project and can be used under any type of project life cycles, waterfall, incremental and adaptive life cycles. Baselines might be changeable due to application of rolling wave planning but not always. Saving Changes...
Wade HarshmanScrum Master| GDITIndianapolis, In, United States
Jan 31, 2017 4:59 AM
Replying to Eduard Hernandez
...
There is a saying that goes like "garbage in, garbage out". The baseline will be as good as the information you feed in to build in. If there is no way to even get a rough estimate/high level information on ulterior phases or activities, then perhaps it makes sense to rethink the project scope. At least this is how I see it, let's see what other peers think about it.
I agree with Eduard, and I like his idea of setting a unique baseline for each phase. (I might steal that idea, Eduard.) You could even split the phases into distinct projects. That seems better than setting baselines based on rough-order-magnitude estimates or significant unknowns.
To go one step further, why do you need to set a baseline? Pardon the PMI heresy, but when I think of rolling wave planning, I think of projects that have significant unknowns, such as R&D or discovery projects, or projects that lack complete information or have undefined scope. If you have questions that need to be answered before you can plan out later phases, then what value does this baseline add?
You might have a very good reason to set a baseline for later analysis or for corporate governance, I just think it's a question worth asking. Saving Changes...
David HiattPM Consultant| BCforwardFishers, In, United States
A few people have made similar comments, but I think key is to know your governance model and expectations to guide your answer. But if I had my pick, it would be something like this: -Baseline the next phase only -Consider the high level planning of future phases a ‘forecast’ -Execute and manage change to the baseline of the next phase closely -Build in an iteration of plan update near the end of the upcoming phase to detail plan and baseline the next phase, and the subsequent phase forecasts -Repeat the above steps until the last phase is detail planned and baselined -Emphasize for any reporting or review of the holistic plan that the future phase forecasts are much higher risk and subject to change -The associated process and ‘pain points’ for adjusting the current phase baseline, once committed, should be more than future phases forecasts. This is why I would choose to only baseline the next phase. Otherwise, if it’s ‘all in’ and baseline of the entire plan, there is the potential for much more overhead process and difficult conversations explaining baseline changes, when things inevitably do change as unknowns are better defined later. Even so, there would be a leadership review/approval of each baseline, and that might be when the explanations have to be ready for why things have moved, if at all, but at least its on a predictable cadence and may make the rationale easier for the changes. -All this said, expect that you’ll have leadership people ask about total project schedule and total project performance whether you baseline everything or not. That’s unavoidable. So whatever you choose to do about baselining, highly recommend using your various PM tools like Risk Registers and other reporting to be clear that the level of risk and expectations for change should be much different for later phases than current phase. Some people will get this, but even those who do may need to be ‘reminded’ frequently! Saving Changes...
Ghanem AlomariSr. Program Manager| usaFairfax, Va, United States
i would agree with the folks here that the best scenario is to divide your project to phases while baseline could be adjustable based on all approved cost, time and cost for each phase, other way to continue as one phase plan with and apply the best practice schedule for each event with adding more buffers. Saving Changes...
Community Champion
