cpm500 d _alleman__tpm lesson 3 (v1)

CPM-500(D) : Implementing Technical Performance

Measures

Glen B. Alleman DoD Programs [email protected] +1 303 241 9633

PMI EVM Community of Practice

IPM 2011

mailto:[email protected]

Learning Objectives

2/66

TLO #9: The student will understand the role of Technical Performance Measurement (TPM) in the project office.

ELO #1: The student will recognize the policy requirements for Technical Performance Measures.

ELO #2: The student will recognize the role of Integrated Baseline Reviews in confirming the entire technical scope of work has been planned.

ELO #3: The student will recognize the role of the WBS in supporting Technical Performance Measure requirements.

TLO #9: The student will understand the scope of DCMA’s (or other) TPM software management tool implementation.

ELO #1: The student will recognize the benefits and challenges of Technical Performance Measure implementation.

ELO #2: The student will recognize the use of control limit charts to track Technical Performance Measure metrics.

ELO #3: The student will understand the methodology and approach used to show the effect of Technical Performance Measure on Earned Value.

To Achieve Success …

3/66

We Need to …

©gapingvoid ltd www.gapingvoidgallery.com

Increasing the Probability of

Program Success Means …

Risk

SOW

Cost

WBS

IMP/IMS

TPM

PMB

Building A Credible Performance Measurement Baseline

This is actually harder than it looks! 4/66

A Core Problem With Earned

Value

Earned Value measures performance in units of “money” (BCWS, BCWP, ACWP).

We need another measure of progress in units of TIME.

5/66

Measures Of Progress Must Be In Units Meaningful To The Stakeholders

Doing This Starts With Some Guidance

6/66

Systems engineering uses technical performance measurements to balance cost, schedule, and performance throughout the life cycle. Technical performance measurements compare actual versus planned technical development and design. They also report the degree to which system requirements are met in terms of performance, cost, schedule, and progress in implementing risk handling. Performance metrics are traceable to user–defined capabilities. ― Defense Acquisition Guide

(https://dag.dau.mil/Pages/Default.aspx)

In The End ― It’s All About Systems Engineering

Just A Reminder Of The …

Primary Elements of Earned Value

Cost

Technical Performance

Schedule

Funding margin for under performance

Schedule margin for over target baseline

(OTB)

Schedule margin for underperformance or

schedule extension

Over cost or under

performance

Over cost or over schedule

Over schedule or under

performing

7/66

This Has All Been Said Before.

We Just Weren’t Listening…

… the basic tenets of the process are the need for seamless management tools, that support an integrated approach … and “proactive identification and management of risk” for critical cost, schedule, and technical performance parameters. ― Secretary of Defense, Perry memo, May 1995

Why Is This Hard To Understand? We seem to be focused on EV reporting, not the use of EV to

manage the program. Getting the CPR out the door is the end of Program Planning

and Control’s efforts, not the beginning.

8/66

TPM Handbook 1984

The Gap Seems To Start With A

Common Problem

Many Times, The Information from Cost, Schedule, Technical

Performance, and Risk Management Gets Mixed Up When We

Try to Put Them Together

9/66 9/66

The NDIA EVM Intent Guide Says

Notice the inclusion of Technical along with Cost and Schedule

That’s the next step is generating Value from Earned Value EV MUST include the Technical Performance Measures

10/66

Back To Our Technical

Performance Measures

Technical Performance Measures do what they say,

Measure the Technical Performance

of the product or service produced by the program.

11/66

The real question?

How fast can we safely go?

Yes, the Units of Measure are MPH

12/66

Measure of Effectiveness (MoE)

Measures of Effectiveness … Are stated in units meaningful to the buyer, Focus on capabilities independent of any

technical implementation, Are connected to the mission success.

The operational measures of success that are closely related to the achievements of the mission or operational objectives evaluated in

the operational environment, under a specific set of conditions.

“Technical Measurement,” INCOSE–TP–2003–020–01

MoE’s Belong to the End User

13/66

Measure of Performance (MoP)

Measures of Performance are … Attributes that assure the system has the

capability to perform, Assessment of the system to assure it meets

design requirements to satisfy the MoE.

Measures that characterize physical or functional attributes relating to the system operation, measured or estimated

under specific conditions.


MoP’s belong to the Program – Developed by the Systems Engineer, Measured By CAMs, and Analyzed by PP&C

14/66

Key Performance Parameters (KPP)

Key Performance Parameters … Have a threshold or objective value, Characterize the major drivers of performance, Are considered Critical to Customer (CTC).

Represent the capabilities and characteristics so significant that failure to meet them can be cause for

reevaluation, reassessing, or termination of the program


The acquirer defines the KPPs during the operational concept development – KPPs say what DONE looks like

15/66

Technical Performance Measures (TPM)


Technical Performance Measures …

Assess design progress,

Define compliance to performance requirements,

Identify technical risk,

Are limited to critical thresholds,

Include projected performance.

Attributes that determine how well a system or system element is satisfying or expected to satisfy a technical

requirement or goal

16/66

Dependencies Between These Measures

17/66 “Coming to Grips with Measures of Effectiveness,” N. Sproles, Systems Engineering, Volume 3, Number 1, pp. 50–58

MoE

KPP

MoP TPM Mission

Need

Acquirer Defines the Needs and Capabilities in terms of Operational Scenarios

Supplier Defines Physical Solutions that meet the needs of the Stakeholders

Operational measures of success related to the achievement of the mission or operational objective being evaluated.

Measures that characterize physical or functional attributes relating to the system operation.

Measures used to assess design progress, compliance to performance requirements, and technical risks.

“Measures” of Technical Measures

INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook

Attribute Description

Achieved to Date Measured technical progress or estimate of progress

Current Estimate Value of a technical parameter that is predicted to be achieved

Milestone Point in time when an evaluation of a measure is accomplished

Planned Value Predicted value of the technical parameter

Planned Performance Profile

Profile representing the project time phased demonstration of a technical parameter

Tolerance Band Management alert limits

Threshold Limiting acceptable value of a technical parameter

Variances Demonstrated technical variance Predicted technical variance 18/66

A Familiar Graphic of TPMs

Variance

Planned Value

Planned Profile

Current Estimate

Milestones

Threshold

Upper Limit

Lower Limit

Mea

n T

o B

etw

een

Fai

lure

Time = Program Maturity

Achieved to Date

19/66

TPM

TPMs from an Actual Program

Chandra X–Ray Telescope

20/66

What Does A Real Technical

Performance Measure Look Like?

Not that bagels are not interesting in Lesson 1 and 2, but let’s get ready to look at a flying machine.

21/66

1.1 Air Vehicle

1.1.1 Sensor Platform

1.1.2 Airframe

1.1.3 Propulsion

1.1.4 On Board Comm

1.1.5 Auxiliary Equipment

1.1.6 Survivability Modules

1.1.7 Electronic Warfare Module

1.1.8 On Board Application & System SW

1.3 Mission Control / Ground Station SW

1.3.1 Signal Processing SW

1.3.2 Station Display

1.3.3 Operating System

1.3.4 ROE Simulations

1.3.5 Mission Commands

TPMs Start With The WBS

The WBS for a UAV

1.1.2 Airframe

22/66

What Do We Need To Know About

This Program Through TPMs

What WBS elements represent the TPMs?

What Work Packages produce these WBS elements?

Where do these Work Packages live in the IMS?

What are the Earned Value baseline values for these Work Packages?

How are we going to measure all these variables?

What does the curve look like for these measurements?

23/66

Verifying Each TPM

Evidence that we’re in compliance

CA Do we know what we promised to deliver, now that we’ve won?

With our submitted ROM what are the values we need to get through Integrated Baseline Review. How do we measure weight for each program event?

SFR Can we proceed into preliminary design?

The contributors to the vehicle weight are confirmed and the upper limits defined in the product architecture and requirements flow down database (DOORS) into a model.

SRR Can we proceed into the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase?

Do we know all drivers of vehicle weight? Can we bound their upper limits? Can the subsystem owners be successful within these constraints uses a high fidelity model?

PDR

Can we start detailed design, and meet the stated performance requirements within cost, schedule, risk, and other constraints?

Does each subsystem designer have the target component weight target and have some confidence they can stay below the upper bound? Can this be verified in some tangible way? Either through prior examples or a lab model?

CDR

Can the system proceed to fabrication, demonstration, and test, within cost, schedule, risk, and other system constraints?

Do we know all we need to know to start the fabrication of the first articles of the flight vehicle. Some type of example, maybe a prototype is used to verify we’re inside the lines.

TRR Can the system ready to proceed into formal test?

Does the assembled vehicle fall within the weight range limits for 1st flight – will this thing get off the ground? 24/66

TPM Trends & Responses

Dr. Falk Chart – modified

EV Taken, planned values met, tolerances kept, etc.

25/66

25kg

23kg

28kg

26kg

PDR SRR SFR CA TRR CDR

ROM in Proposal

Design Model

Bench Scale Model Measurement

Detailed Design Model

Prototype Measurement

Flight 1st Article

Tech

nic

al P

erfo

rman

ce M

easu

re

Veh

icle

Wei

ght

The Assessment Of Weight As A

Function Of Time

At Contract Award there is a Proposal grade estimate of vehicle weight.

At System Functional Review, the Concept of Operations is validated for the weight.

At System Requirements Review the weight targets are flowed down to the subsystems components.

At PDR the CAD model starts the verification process. At CDR actual measurements are needed to verify all

models. At Test Readiness Review we need to know how much

fuel to put on board for the 1st flight test.

26/66

1.1 Air Vehicle

1.1.1 Sensor Platform

1.1.2 Airframe

Airframe Weight TPM The WBS for a UAV

1.1.2 Airframe

CA SFR SRR PDR CDR TRR

Planned Value 28.0kg 27.0kg 26.0kg 25.0kg 24.0kg 23.0kg

Actual Value 30.4kg 29.0kg 27.5kg 25.5kg

Assessed Risk to TRR

Moderate >2.0kg off

target

Low 1–2 kg off

target

Low 1–2 kg off

target

Very Low (less than 1.0 kg off target)

Planned Method

“Similar to” Estimate

ROM Program–

unique design model

Program–unique design

model with validated data

Actual measurement of bench–test components

Actual measurement of prototype

airframe

Actual Method

“Similar to” Estimate

ROM ROM ROM

The planned weight is 25kg. The actual weight is 25.5kg. Close to plan! So we are doing okay, right?

27/66

Here’s the Problem

Raison d'etre for Technical

Performance Measures

The real purpose of Technical Performance Measures is to reduce Programmatic and Technical RISK

Risk

SOW

Cost

WBS

IMP/IMS

TPM

PMB

28/66

Buying Down Risk with TPMs

“Buying down” risk is planned in the IMS.

MoE, MoP, and KPP defined in the work package for the critical measure – weight.

If we can’t verify we’ve succeeded, then the risk did not get reduced.

The risk may have gotten worse.

29/66

Risk: CEV-037 - Loss of Critical Functions During Descent

Planned Risk Level Planned (Solid=Linked, Hollow =Unlinked, Filled=Complete)

Ris

k S

core

24

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Conduct Force and Moment Wind

Develop analytical model to de

Conduct focus splinter review

Conduct Block 1 w ind tunnel te

Correlate the analytical model

Conduct w ind tunnel testing of

Conduct w ind tunnel testing of

Flight Application of Spacecra

CEV block 5 w ind tunnel testin

In-Flight development tests of

Damaged TPS flight test

31.M

ar.

05

5.O

ct.05

3.A

pr.

06

3.J

ul.0

6

15.S

ep.0

6

1.J

un.0

7

1.A

pr.

08

1.A

ug.0

8

1.A

pr.

09

1.J

an.1

0

16.D

ec.1

0

1.J

ul.1

1

Weight risk

reduced from

RED to Yellow

Weight confirmed

ready to fly – it’s

GREEN at this point

Increasing the Probability of

Success with Risk Management

Going outside the TPM limits always means cost and schedule impacts.

“Coloring Inside the Lines” means knowing the how to keep the program GREEN, or at least stay close to GREEN.

30/66

So much for our strategy of winning through technical dominance

Connecting the EV Variables

31/66

Integrating Cost, Schedulele, and Technical Performance Assures Program Management has the needed performance information to deliver

on‒time, on‒budget, and on‒specification

Technical Performance Measures

Cost Schedule

Conventional Earned Value

+ =

Master Schedule is used to

derive Basis of Estimate (BOE) not the other way around.

Probabilistic cost estimating uses past performance and cost risk modeling.

Labor, Materiel, and other direct costs accounted for in Work Packages.

Risk adjustments for all elements of cost.

Cost Baseline Earned Value is diluted by

missing technical performance.

Earned Value is diluted by postponed features.

Earned Value is diluted by non compliant quality.

All these dilutions require adjustments to the Estimate at Complete (EAC) and the To Complete Performance Index (TCPI).

Technical Performance Requirements are

decomposed into physical deliverables.

Deliverables are produced through Work Packages.

Work Packages are assigned to accountable manager.

Work Packages are sequenced to form the highest value stream with the lowest technical and programmatic risk.

Schedule Baseline

TPM Checklist

MoE MoP TPM

Traceable to needs, goals, objectives, and risks.

Traceable to applicable MOEs, KPPs, system level performance requirements, and risks.

Traceable to applicable MoPs, system element performance, requirements, objectives, risks, and WBS elements.

Defined with associated KPPs.

Focused on technical risks and supports trades between alternative solutions.

Further decomposed, budgeted, and allocated to lower level system elements in the WBS and IMS.

Each MoE independent from others.

Provided insight into system performance.

Assigned an owner, the CAM and Work Package Manager.

Each MoE independent of technical any solution.

Decomposed, budgeted and allocated to system elements.

Sources of measure identified and processes for generating the measures defined.

Address the required KPPs.

Assigned an “owner,” the CAM and Technical Manager.

Integrated into the program’s IMS as part of the exit criteria for the Work Package. 32/66

Did We Accomplish the Learning

Objectives?

33/66

TLO #9: The student will understand the role of Technical Performance Measurement (TPM) in the project office.

ELO #1: The student will recognize the policy requirements for TPM.

Policies and supporting guidance, with links and reference numbers provided.

ELO #2: The student will recognize the role of IBRs in confirming the entire technical scope of work has been planned.

This is the first place where cost, schedule and technical performance come together – in the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)

ELO #3: The student will recognize the role of the WBS in supporting TPM requirements.

TPMs are first located in the WBS

TLO #9: The student will understand the scope of DCMA’s (or other) TPM software management tool implementation.

ELO #1: The student will recognize the benefits and challenges of TPM implementation.

Progress is measured in units of physical percent complete. TPMs are those units.

ELO #2: The student will recognize the use of control limit charts to track TPM metrics.

We’ve seen notional and actual charts

ELO #3: The student will understand the methodology and approach used to show the effect of TPMs on earned value.

The example of our “flying machine” connects the dots for TPMs, risk, cost, and schedule.

Backup Materials

Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves, or we know where

we can find information on it — Samuel Johnson

35/66

OMB Circular A–11, Section 300 Interim Defense Acquisition Guidebook (DAG) 6/15/09

GAO Report 06–250 Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) Preparation Guide 4/08

DoDI 5000.02, Operation of the Defense Acquisition System (POL) 12/08

WBS Handbook, Mil–HDBK–881A (WBS) 7/30/05

Integrated Master Plan (IMP) & Integrated Master Schedule Preparation & Use Guide (IMS) 10/21/05

Guide for Integrating SE into DOD Acquisition Contracts 12/06

Defense Acquisition Program Support Methodology (DAPS) V2.0 3/20/09

Guide to the Project Management Institute Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide®), 4th Edition

Standard for Application and Management of the SE Process (IEEE 1220)

Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI®)

IEEE 1220: 6.8.1.5 Processes for Engineering a System (ANSI/EIA–632)

NASA EVM Guide NPG 9501.3

Many of Sources for Connecting the Dots

36/66

Office of Management and

Budget

Circular No. A–11, Section 300

Planning, Budgeting, Acquisition and Management of Capital Assets

Section 300–5 – Performance–based acquisition management

– Based on EVMS standard

– Measure progress towards milestones • Cost

• Capability to meet specified requirements

• Timeliness

• Quality

37/66

Need: Accurate Performance

Measurement

GAO Report 06–250 Findings and Recommendations

Information Technology: Improve the Accuracy and Reliability of Investment Information

2. If EVM is not implemented effectively, decisions based on inaccurate and potentially misleading information

3. Agencies not measuring actual versus expected performance in meeting IT performance goals.

38/66

DOD Guides:


Department of Defense Guidelines for Technical Performance Measures

DoDI 5000.02, Operation of the Defense Acquisition System (POL) 12/08

Interim Defense Acquisition Guidebook (DAG) 6/15/09

Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) Preparation Guide 4/08

WBS Handbook, Mil–HDBK–881A (WBS) 7/30/05

Integrated Master Plan (IMP) & Integrated Master Schedule Preparation & Use Guide (IMS) 10/21/05

Guide for Integrating SE into DOD Acquisition Contracts (Integ SE) 12/06

Defense Acquisition Program Support Methodology (DAPS) V2.0 3/20/09

39/66

DoD: TPMs in Technical Baselines and Reviews

DoD Policy or Guide PO

L

DA

G

SEP

WB

S

IMP/

IMS

Inte

grat

ed

Sy

ste

ms

Engi

ne

eri

ng

DA

PS

Technical Baselines: IMP/IMS Functional (SFR) Allocated (PDR) Product (CDR)

Event driven timing Success criteria of technical review

Entry and exit criteria for technical reviews

Assess technical maturity

40/66

DoD: TPMs in Integrated Plans

DoD Policy or Guide PO

L

DA

G

SEP

WB

S

IMP/

IMS

Inte

grat

ed

Sy

ste

ms

Engi

ne

eri

ng

DA

PS

Integrated SEP with: IMP/IMS TPMs EVM

Integrated WBS with Requirement Specification Statement of Work IMP/IMS/EVMS

Link risk management, technical reviews, TPMs, EVM, WBS, IMS

41/66

Guidance in Standards, Models,

and Defense Acquisition Guide

Processes for Engineering a System (ANSI/EIA–632)

Standard for Application and Management of the SE Process (IEEE 1220)

Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI®) – CMMI for Development, Version 1.2

– CMMI for Acquisition, Version 1.2

– Using CMMI to Improve Earned Value Management, 2002

Guide to the Project Management Institute Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide®), 4th Edition

42/66


Measures (TPM)

More Sources

IEEE 1220: 6.8.1.5, Performance–based progress measurement

EIA–632: Glossary

CMMI for Development

Requirements Development

TPMs are key to progressively assess technical progress

Predict future value of key technical parameters of the end system based on current assessments

Specific Practice (SP) 3.3, Analyze Requirements

Typical work product:

TPMs

Establish dates for

– Checking progress

– Meeting full conformance to requirements

Planned value profile is time–phased achievement projected

• Achievement to date

• Technical milestone where TPM evaluation is reported

Subpractice:

Identify TPMs that will be tracked during development

43/66

PMBOK® Guide

10.5.1.1 Project Management Plan

Performance Measurement Baseline:

– Typically integrates scope, schedule, and cost parameters of a project

– May also include technical and quality parameters

44/66

PMBOK® Guide

8.3.5.4 Work Performance Measurements

Used to produce project activity metrics

Evaluate actual progress as compared to planned progress

Include, but are not limited to:

– Planned vs. actual technical performance

– Planned vs. actual schedule performance, and

– Planned vs. actual cost performance.

45/66

TPMs in DAG and DAPS

Defense Acquisition Guide Performance measurement of WBS elements, using

objective measures: – Essential for EVM and Technical Assessment activities

Use TPMs and Critical Technical Parameters (CTP) to report progress in achieving milestones

DAPS Use TPMs to determine whether % completion metrics

accurately reflect quantitative technical progress and quality toward meeting Key Performance Parameters (KPP) and Critical Technical Parameters

46/66

TPMs in DAG

Compare the actual versus planned technical development and design

Report progress in the degree to which system performance requirements are met.

Plan is defined in terms of:

– Expected performance at specific points

• Defined in the WBS and IMS

– Methods of measurement at those points

– Variation limits for corrective action.

47/66

PMBOK®

Guide

11.6.2.4 Technical Performance Measurement Compares technical accomplishments… to … project

management plan’s schedule of technical achievement

Requires definition of objective quantifiable measures of technical performance which can be used to compare actual results against targets.

Might include weight, transaction times, number of delivered defects, storage capacity etc.

Deviation, such as demonstrating more or less functionality than planned at a milestone…forecast degree of success in achieving the project’s scope.

48/66

CMMI–ACQ

Acquisition Technical Management

SP 1.3 Conduct Technical Reviews

Typical supplier deliverables

Progress reports and process, product, and service level measurements

TPMs

49/66

SMS Shall:

Monitor Progress Against the Plan

4.2.12.2 Monitoring – Contractor SHALL monitor progress against plan to

validate, approve, and maintain each baseline and functional architecture

4.2.12.2.2 Required Product Attributes – Each documented assessment includes:

– TPMs, metrics

– Metrics and technical parameters for tracking that are critical indicators of technical progress and achievement

50/66

NASA EVM Guide:


• NASA EVM Guide NPG 9501.3 – 4.5 Technical Performance Requirements (TPR): When

TPRs are used, – appropriate and relevant metrics… – must be defined in the solicitation – Appendix A.7, 14.1 TPR • Compares:

• Expected performance and • Physical characteristics • With contractually specified values.

• Basis for reporting established milestones • Progress toward meeting technical requirements

51/66

See next chart for linkage of technical baselines to technical reviews

Document, Baseline, IMS, EVM Parameter

IMP, Functional Baseline Measures Of Effectiveness (MOE)

IMP, WBS, Functional Baseline Measures Of Performance (MOP)

IMP, Allocated Baseline Technical Performance Measure

IMS TPM Milestones And Planned Values

Work Packages TPM% Complete Criteria

Derivation and Flow

Down of TPMs

52/66

Interesting Attributes of TPMs

Achieved to Date (sounds like EV) Current Estimate (sounds like EAC/ETC) Milestone Planned (target) value (sounds like PV) Planned performance profile (sounds like a PMB) Tolerance band (sounds like reporting

thresholds) Threshold (yep, just what we thought) Variance (sounds like variance!)

53/66