Forcing Earned Values
in [Project]
|
Prev: corrupt file
Next: Red, Yellow, Green Status
From: RobV on 18 Apr 2010 15:37 Thanks, again, everyone. I appreciate the help. I have been using an approach almost identical to the one suggested in Andrew's last post. The only difference is that in manually entering the Actual Work I used the Task Usage view, and I broke the view into days within weeks. I then entered the actual values in the middle weeks of each month to ensure I did not overlap with adjacent months. For some reason, when MSP calculates the EV for the month, it does not come up with the expected EV. Rather than the expected value of 4 for Feb in my example, it calculates $3.30. To do my experiments, I need the exact earned value. "Andrew Lavinsky" wrote: > Let's say that you baselined with one resource having a standard rate of > $1/hr. For the task in question, you baselined at 15 hours over a duration > of 3 months. > > Then, to get the numbers you seek, I would go to the Resource Usage view, > add the Actual Work row (right click on the chart), and zoom out so that > I see each cell representing a single month. > > Then input your desired EV numbers in each of the cells. (i.e. 0, 4, 5, etc.). > > Based on your AC, you run a cost variance of $2 at some point in the project. > To model this, you'll need to modify the overall Work for the task from > 15 to 17. > > That should get you close to what you need. > > > - Andrew Lavinsky > Blog: http://blogs.catapultsystems.com/epm > > > Thanks to both of you for the comments. Let me explain the challenge > > a bit more. The test schedule needs to produce specific earned value > > by task in a specific time period without introducing task > > constraints. I have included a sample below. I have been able to > > manipulate (a better word than "force") MSP so that it calculates the > > PV as required, but when it calculates the EV, the costs in the target > > time periods are not exactly what they need to be. What I'm trying to > > figure out is how to manipulate MSP so that it calculates the EV in > > the pattern I require. > > > > Here is a sample pattern of Planned Value, Earned Value, and Actual > > Cost. > > By manipulating work and resource utilization %, I can get MSP to > > match the > > PV. I can enter the AC manually. But, how do I get MSP to calculate > > the EV > > in this pattern? > > Jan Feb Mar Apr May > > Task1 PV 5 5 5 > > EV 4 5 6 > > AC 5 5 7 > > "Andrew Lavinsky" wrote: > > > >> Just to add to Gerard's comments, is the issue the fact that the work > >> in your simulation is not being performed according to the schedule? > >> Are you using % Complete or Physical % Complete to calculate costs? > >> If the first, I would wonder if there's an issue with the update > >> calculations and the Status Date that is driving the issue. > >> > >> Either switch to Physical % Complete or review the update options in > >> Tools > Options > Calculations (or is it Schedule - I don't have > >> Project open in front of me) and see if that perhaps is causing the > >> work to be spread inaccurately. > >> > >> "Gérard Ducouret" wrote: > >> > >>> Hello Rob, > >>> > >>> I don't really understand what you mean by "forcing" EV. > >>> By default Project calculates the BCWS and BCWP while you or your > >>> resource > >>> enter actual work (after you set the Baseline and the Status date) > >>> You can display the BCWP in the Earned Value table, and also in the > >>> Task > >>> Usage view (with a timescale) > >>> Gérard Ducouret > >>> > >>> "RobV" <RobV(a)discussions.microsoft.com> a écrit dans le message de > >>> news: 511BE47B-ACA6-4B47-AA55-98169EEE8390(a)microsoft.com... > >>> > >>>> I'm using MS Project to do research on Earned Value and need to > >>>> have > >>>> specific > >>>> EVs in specific time periods for each task in the test schedule. > >>>> The > >>>> schedule needs to be dynamic, i.e., no constraints on tasks. I've > >>>> been > >>>> able > >>>> to get the Planned Values (BCWS) set up, but I'm having trouble > >>>> getting > >>>> MSP > >>>> to assign the required Earned Values (BCWP) within the target time > >>>> period > >>>> for > >>>> each task. I'd appreciate any ideas on how to make this work. > >>> . > >>> > > > . >
From: Andrew Lavinsky on 18 Apr 2010 16:47 Not sure this is the case, but just so we can leave no stone unturned....in your example, assuming you already calculated that the task would have an overrun, then for Feb you should enter 4 X 1.13 (4.52). The way you're doing EV, it's based on % Complete, which is Actual Duration/Duration. When Duration has changed as it has in your example, you also need to change the numerator to get the calculations you're looking for. - Andrew Lavinsky Blog: http://blogs.catapultsystems.com/epm > Thanks, again, everyone. I appreciate the help. I have been using an > approach almost identical to the one suggested in Andrew's last post. > The only difference is that in manually entering the Actual Work I > used the Task Usage view, and I broke the view into days within weeks. > I then entered the actual values in the middle weeks of each month to > ensure I did not overlap with adjacent months. For some reason, when > MSP calculates the EV for the month, it does not come up with the > expected EV. Rather than the expected value of 4 for Feb in my > example, it calculates $3.30. To do my experiments, I need the exact > earned value. > > "Andrew Lavinsky" wrote: > >> Let's say that you baselined with one resource having a standard rate >> of $1/hr. For the task in question, you baselined at 15 hours over a >> duration of 3 months. >> >> Then, to get the numbers you seek, I would go to the Resource Usage >> view, add the Actual Work row (right click on the chart), and zoom >> out so that I see each cell representing a single month. >> >> Then input your desired EV numbers in each of the cells. (i.e. 0, 4, >> 5, etc.). >> >> Based on your AC, you run a cost variance of $2 at some point in the >> project. To model this, you'll need to modify the overall Work for >> the task from 15 to 17. >> >> That should get you close to what you need. >> >> - Andrew Lavinsky >> Blog: http://blogs.catapultsystems.com/epm >>> Thanks to both of you for the comments. Let me explain the >>> challenge a bit more. The test schedule needs to produce specific >>> earned value by task in a specific time period without introducing >>> task constraints. I have included a sample below. I have been able >>> to manipulate (a better word than "force") MSP so that it calculates >>> the PV as required, but when it calculates the EV, the costs in the >>> target time periods are not exactly what they need to be. What I'm >>> trying to figure out is how to manipulate MSP so that it calculates >>> the EV in the pattern I require. >>> >>> Here is a sample pattern of Planned Value, Earned Value, and Actual >>> Cost. >>> By manipulating work and resource utilization %, I can get MSP to >>> match the >>> PV. I can enter the AC manually. But, how do I get MSP to >>> calculate >>> the EV >>> in this pattern? >>> Jan Feb Mar Apr May >>> Task1 PV 5 5 5 >>> EV 4 5 6 >>> AC 5 5 7 >>> "Andrew Lavinsky" wrote: >>>> Just to add to Gerard's comments, is the issue the fact that the >>>> work in your simulation is not being performed according to the >>>> schedule? Are you using % Complete or Physical % Complete to >>>> calculate costs? If the first, I would wonder if there's an issue >>>> with the update calculations and the Status Date that is driving >>>> the issue. >>>> >>>> Either switch to Physical % Complete or review the update options >>>> in Tools > Options > Calculations (or is it Schedule - I don't have >>>> Project open in front of me) and see if that perhaps is causing the >>>> work to be spread inaccurately. >>>> >>>> "G�rard Ducouret" wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello Rob, >>>>> >>>>> I don't really understand what you mean by "forcing" EV. >>>>> By default Project calculates the BCWS and BCWP while you or your >>>>> resource >>>>> enter actual work (after you set the Baseline and the Status date) >>>>> You can display the BCWP in the Earned Value table, and also in >>>>> the >>>>> Task >>>>> Usage view (with a timescale) >>>>> G�rard Ducouret >>>>> "RobV" <RobV(a)discussions.microsoft.com> a �crit dans le message de >>>>> news: 511BE47B-ACA6-4B47-AA55-98169EEE8390(a)microsoft.com... >>>>> >>>>>> I'm using MS Project to do research on Earned Value and need to >>>>>> have >>>>>> specific >>>>>> EVs in specific time periods for each task in the test schedule. >>>>>> The >>>>>> schedule needs to be dynamic, i.e., no constraints on tasks. >>>>>> I've >>>>>> been >>>>>> able >>>>>> to get the Planned Values (BCWS) set up, but I'm having trouble >>>>>> getting >>>>>> MSP >>>>>> to assign the required Earned Values (BCWP) within the target >>>>>> time >>>>>> period >>>>>> for >>>>>> each task. I'd appreciate any ideas on how to make this work. >>>>> . >>>>> >> . >>
From: Jim Aksel on 18 Apr 2010 18:22 This is a good interchange! Let me throw a wrench in all of it for us. There appears to be a bug in Project where BCWP (EV) is always spread to the status date, not the task end date. I can illustrate in MSP that BCWP will grow out to the status date, even if the task is completed on schedule and precisely per the baseline. This is also true even if "spread costs to status date" is UNchecked. I have been in contact with Microsoft about this since March of 2009 through March 2010. Their answer was this is legacy behavior (back to 2003). The EV is accurate as of the status date, but does show variance to plan (baseline) even if the task is worked per the baseline. So, your EV is good on the status date; keep copies of the older files to retain proof. Should you need more information, I have a PDF that explains it; contact me at jeaksel at yahoo dot com. --- If this post was helpful, please consider rating it. Jim Aksel, MVP Check out my blog for more information: http://www.msprojectblog.com "RobV" wrote: > Thanks, again, everyone. I appreciate the help. I have been using an > approach almost identical to the one suggested in Andrew's last post. The > only difference is that in manually entering the Actual Work I used the Task > Usage view, and I broke the view into days within weeks. I then entered the > actual values in the middle weeks of each month to ensure I did not overlap > with adjacent months. For some reason, when MSP calculates the EV for the > month, it does not come up with the expected EV. Rather than the expected > value of 4 for Feb in my example, it calculates $3.30. To do my experiments, > I need the exact earned value. > > "Andrew Lavinsky" wrote: > > > Let's say that you baselined with one resource having a standard rate of > > $1/hr. For the task in question, you baselined at 15 hours over a duration > > of 3 months. > > > > Then, to get the numbers you seek, I would go to the Resource Usage view, > > add the Actual Work row (right click on the chart), and zoom out so that > > I see each cell representing a single month. > > > > Then input your desired EV numbers in each of the cells. (i.e. 0, 4, 5, etc.). > > > > Based on your AC, you run a cost variance of $2 at some point in the project. > > To model this, you'll need to modify the overall Work for the task from > > 15 to 17. > > > > That should get you close to what you need. > > > > > > - Andrew Lavinsky > > Blog: http://blogs.catapultsystems.com/epm > > > > > Thanks to both of you for the comments. Let me explain the challenge > > > a bit more. The test schedule needs to produce specific earned value > > > by task in a specific time period without introducing task > > > constraints. I have included a sample below. I have been able to > > > manipulate (a better word than "force") MSP so that it calculates the > > > PV as required, but when it calculates the EV, the costs in the target > > > time periods are not exactly what they need to be. What I'm trying to > > > figure out is how to manipulate MSP so that it calculates the EV in > > > the pattern I require. > > > > > > Here is a sample pattern of Planned Value, Earned Value, and Actual > > > Cost. > > > By manipulating work and resource utilization %, I can get MSP to > > > match the > > > PV. I can enter the AC manually. But, how do I get MSP to calculate > > > the EV > > > in this pattern? > > > Jan Feb Mar Apr May > > > Task1 PV 5 5 5 > > > EV 4 5 6 > > > AC 5 5 7 > > > "Andrew Lavinsky" wrote: > > > > > >> Just to add to Gerard's comments, is the issue the fact that the work > > >> in your simulation is not being performed according to the schedule? > > >> Are you using % Complete or Physical % Complete to calculate costs? > > >> If the first, I would wonder if there's an issue with the update > > >> calculations and the Status Date that is driving the issue. > > >> > > >> Either switch to Physical % Complete or review the update options in > > >> Tools > Options > Calculations (or is it Schedule - I don't have > > >> Project open in front of me) and see if that perhaps is causing the > > >> work to be spread inaccurately. > > >> > > >> "Gérard Ducouret" wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hello Rob, > > >>> > > >>> I don't really understand what you mean by "forcing" EV. > > >>> By default Project calculates the BCWS and BCWP while you or your > > >>> resource > > >>> enter actual work (after you set the Baseline and the Status date) > > >>> You can display the BCWP in the Earned Value table, and also in the > > >>> Task > > >>> Usage view (with a timescale) > > >>> Gérard Ducouret > > >>> > > >>> "RobV" <RobV(a)discussions.microsoft.com> a écrit dans le message de > > >>> news: 511BE47B-ACA6-4B47-AA55-98169EEE8390(a)microsoft.com... > > >>> > > >>>> I'm using MS Project to do research on Earned Value and need to > > >>>> have > > >>>> specific > > >>>> EVs in specific time periods for each task in the test schedule. > > >>>> The > > >>>> schedule needs to be dynamic, i.e., no constraints on tasks. I've > > >>>> been > > >>>> able > > >>>> to get the Planned Values (BCWS) set up, but I'm having trouble > > >>>> getting > > >>>> MSP > > >>>> to assign the required Earned Values (BCWP) within the target time > > >>>> period > > >>>> for > > >>>> each task. I'd appreciate any ideas on how to make this work. > > >>> . > > >>> > > > > > > . > >
From: Marty on 18 Apr 2010 19:57 Other comments have picked up the quirk in which MS project only calculates EV up to Status date, eg you cant be ahead of schedule. Its better to use a calculated field with a formula, basic one is Cost 1 renamed "Calc EV" and then use formula =[Baseline Cost]*[% Complete]/ 100. For more sophisitcated calculations you could use Physical % complete or other Earned Value Techniques. Remember the link between % Complete and Actual/Remaining Duration. In terms of History, short of using custom Baseline fields somehow the simple solution is to store history outside the tool, eg Excel. Thats why companion tools like Cobra and Winsight exist as EVcum is a point in time calculation. A free download on our web site (www.coreconsulting.com.au called "Simple Earned Value" might help. Cheers
From: RobV on 22 Apr 2010 16:27
Here's my close to this thread. I've concluded that a dynamic (i.e., unconstrained) MS Project schedule cannot be manipulated to produce the Earned Value by time period in the manner required for my research. There were many excellent approaches suggested, but none of them worked. Physical%Complete looked like a good bet, but a defect in the EV calculation (see Jim Aksel's white paper) erroneously spreads the EV across the duration of a task, rendering it ineffective for my purpose. Andrew's creative suggestion to adjust duration in order to produce the target EV worked, but only for a single period. By the time I got the tool to produce the correct EV for the next period, it had automatically modified the EV for the previous period. %WorkComplete looked like a good option, but the tool doesn't support generating EV based on it. With no way to natively produce the desired EV by task by time period, I believe the only approach is to develop a program that calculates the EV as PV times (Actual Work / Work). The PV in Project is correct, and the Actual Work and Work can be input in the desired pattern. It also appears that the required values are timescaled. So, it should be possible to construct such a calculation. Unfortunately, it will not match EV results produced directly by the tool, making verification more difficult. Comments I have gathered through the thread, emails, and conversations have made me realize that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the way MSP performs EV calculations. While this is an opportunity for third-party developers, it's disappointing that MS doesn't respond to its core users and fix the product. "RobV" wrote: > I'm using MS Project to do research on Earned Value and need to have specific > EVs in specific time periods for each task in the test schedule. The > schedule needs to be dynamic, i.e., no constraints on tasks. I've been able > to get the Planned Values (BCWS) set up, but I'm having trouble getting MSP > to assign the required Earned Values (BCWP) within the target time period for > each task. I'd appreciate any ideas on how to make this work. |