1. Utilizing EVMS: A “Must Have” for the Project Manager
PMI Spring Symposium
April 18, 2015
Michael P. Cary, PMP
Sr. Program Manager
DRS Technologies, Inc.
1

2. • 26+ years in the commercial and defense industries
• Various positions including: PM, technical consultant, systems engineer, team leader,
project engineer and electrical engineer
• Currently Sr. Program Manager for DRS Training and Control Systems in FWB, FL
• Commercial background (15 yrs.):
• R&D, Systems Integration, Test, QA, QC in Manufacturing and Automation IPTs
• Consulting roles for automotive and electronics manufacturing including: Chrysler, Honda,
Mercedes-Benz, Philips, Panasonic, Viscom
• Sr. Product Manager for BSecure Technologies delivering SaaS products
• Defense/Aerospace background (11 yrs.):
• Technical and acquisition support roles w/ Jacobs Engineering
• Program manager within DRS, responsible for new product development,
process improvement, and production integration for Combat Training Systems
• Bachelor’s in Electrical Engineering from Auburn University
• Certified Technical Trainer on SMT equipment
• Certified Project Management Professional (PMP) since Feb 2009
• Active volunteer with PMI Emerald Coast FL Chapter
Bio Summary:
2

3. Topics for today’s discussion:
• How does a PM utilize EVM output ?
• Defining program success via each Phase:
• Program Initiation
• Planning
• Execution
• Monitoring and Control
• Closeout
• Tips and Techniques for program success
3

4.  Skills/Tools
◦ Hard Skills (40%)
 EVMS
 MS Project / scheduling
 WBS
◦ Soft Skills (60+%)
 Leadership
 Communication
 Negotiation
◦ SENSE OF HUMOR (100+%)
4

5. Program Initiation:
• Proposal Phase complete
• RFP/SOW review process
• Review Basis of Estimate (BOE): Stick to the Process
• General Requirements defined?
• Ground Rules and Assumptions
• Project Team initially formed
• PM typically is the integrated team lead
5

6. Do Don’t
+ Engage Entire Team in BOEs - Be a “Super” PM; Delay involvement
+ Be Open to all ideas/concerns - Rule with iron fist; Help if necessary
+ Capture ALL assumptions - Discuss but not document
+ Incorporate Risk/Oppty in EAC - Be persuaded there’s NO risk
Program Initiation:
BOE example
6

7. Program Planning:
• Contract Award
• Final requirements agreed upon by ALL stakeholders
• Get each dept. to validate & sign-off on Baseline hours
• Planning is done BEFORE the kickoff meeting!
• Tips and Techniques
 The Good, Bad, and Ugly methods
 Tailored Plans and established processes vs “we don’t need those”…
 Get buy-in and agreement from all Dept Leads PRIOR to kickoff
 IF BOEs vs WBS don’t directly correlate with IMS: this could be
a bumpy ride—hard to manage and control overall cost/schedule
if these don’t match; The baseline does not change!
 Decide how EV metrics will be reported and to whom
IMS example
7

8. Do Don’t
+ Involve all Dept. Leads with IMS/WBS - Communicate w/ just ”favorites”
+ Capture all risks/concerns - Take risk assessment from one source
+ Review RFP/SOW: Rqt’s understood - “Assume” everyone knows deliverables
+ Review Critical Path and Budgets! - “Assume” everyone has reviewed
baseline artifacts & contract
Program Planning
8

9. Program Execution:
• Project “Kickoff”
 Does everyone know what we’re doing?
 Baseline schedule
 Budget allocated
 Team members assigned
 Roles and Responsibilities DEFINED UPFRONT
• Final Final requirements agreed upon
by ALL stakeholders; Baseline IMS=WBS based EAC
• Ensure all Functional leads know their budgets
• Check again: What defines “project success”?
• Stakeholders kept updated on status (CP & risk/oppty)
RMP example
WBS example 9

10.  RMP: High Risks must be accounted for in your EAC 10
PROGRAM RISK/OPPORTUNITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN
Identification Characterization, Assessment and Analysis Actions and Status Tracking Data
Compute Net Benefit of
Risk Mitigating Actions
Other Information
Risk/Opportunity
Description
Impact
Rating
/Likelihood How soon
is the risk
Estimated
Risk
Impact
effect on
Schedule
Estimated
Risk
Impact
Effect on
Cost
Opportunit
y Rating/
Estimated
Savings
Actual
Impact
from Risk
or
Opportunit
y Mitigation Plan/Status
Affected
WBS/SWO
and
Responsibility Additional Comments BOEs
(4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (16) (17) (14)
SAT delay due to
unknown reasons in
country
Impact > 90 days
CP - >30
days
Cost
Ensure full regresssion dry runs are complete before
FST event; build-in plans for add'l fix/test iterations.
Coordinate with CDA and USG teams to monitor
environment including travel alerts and watches.
7.3
$ Before
Socialize plan for FST test
approval and obtaining
payment for Ship in place
until country ready for
SAT and final shipment.
approx 1 month after
Morocco SAT--CDA
coordinating with Oman
and FMS office
Date Duration $ Amount $ Amount $ After
Likelihood
08/30/15 90
Schedule
Status, Date: 12/23: risk remains unchanged.
11/25: no changes to date. 9/30: no issues at this
time
Responsibility $ Action Plan
~50% J. Jones/D.
Worden
Net Benefit $0
SIR issues during Joint
Integration Testing
Impact > 90 days
CP - >30
days
0 - 1% EAC Cost
Planned for two (2) Joint Intgr. Test events at CDA
with USG/FAAC reps. In order to mitigate system
integration issues prior to SAT
3.2.1.7 and
3.2.2.5
$ Before
LL from past CDA SIL
testing events; planned
for 5 SIRs but only 2
require code changes, re-
CM, re-deliver--approx
4man weeks total
D Date Duration $ Amount $ Amount $ After
Likelihood
05/02/15 30
$58,200 Schedule
Status, Date: 12/23: JSIT now planned for early
March, monitor results if risk mitigated. 11/25:
Coordinating with CDA & USG regarding oppty for
Feb ‘15 testing in combo with Morocco Unique.
10/30: add’ cost for travel to CDA and FAAC Wsim
fix&test iteration. 9/30/14; new risk identified given
intial baseilne Joint test scheduled for OCT 2104 is
replanned for Feb 2015. Pending contract mod will
re-baseline IMS
Responsibility $ Action Plan $58,200
~70%
J. Hitson
Net Benefit -$58,200
2nd Joint Integration Test
not needed
Impact > 90 days
0 - 1% EAC
Cost
Gov't GFE WSIM delivery has been updated to only
require 1 GFE delivery instead of 2
3.2.2.8
$ Before $45,000
Pending results from CDA
test drop on 8 Nov—
results will determine Air
SIL testing in Q1 ‘15
Date Duration $ Amount $ Amount $ After
Likelihood
05/30/15 -$45,000
Schedule
Status, Date: 12/23: Pending JSIT #1 results.
11/25: Results from March ‘15 Integration will realize
this oppty. 10/1/14: coordinating with CDA/FAAC on
success criteria to socialize with USG
Responsibility $ Action Plan
~70%
J. Hitson
Net Benefit $45,000

11. Do Don’t
+ Awareness of team environment - Assume everyone knows each other
+ Always evaluate before acting - Always have to make “the” decision
+ Keep communication channels open - Assume everyone knows the IMS
+ Continually review plans and update - Assume everyone knows mitigation plan(s)
+ Remember big picture; success=… - Get wrapped up: Metrics, issues…
Program Execution
11

12. Examples: IMS + EVMS= WBS based EAC
12

13. Program Monitor and Control:
• Project Monitoring:“Controlling the Chaos”
 Does everyone know what we’re doing (yet)?
 Baseline schedule (when do we re-baseline)
 Budget allocated (we have a budget?)
 Risk triggers and mitigation plans (how are we tracking risk?)
 Team members assigned (Where’s John and Tammy?)
 Firefighting and Super Heroes indicative: lack of or skipping processes
• Requirements/scope creep ( “must” vs “nice” to haves)
• Check weekly (minimum!) CV, SV, CPI, & SPI
• Observe your team for strained relationships
EVMS & EVM weekly example
AI status example
13

14. Example: Using SPI and CPI on weekly basis
 “The Good: Green Program” (<10% variance); look for early warnings
WBS Name EST % BL%
Total Budget
Hrs ETC-Hrs EV-Hrs
Cum_AC
WP BCWS-Hrs
CV-
Hrs SV-Hrs CPI SPI
0.0 Project Summary 61% 63% 9860 4243 6247 1791 -213 1.42 0.97
1.0 Program Management 69% 73% 2560 803 1382 1652 1869 104 -113 1.06 0.94
2.0 System Development 82% 77% 1811 323 996 537 1394 950 93 2.77 1.07
3.0 Product Engineering 60% 74% 1555 625 1104 1434 1158 -504 -228 0.65 0.80
4.0
System Integration and Test
(Product Integration Verification and
Validation) 69% 67% 2014 632 1349 198 1351 1184 31 6.98 1.02
5.0 Production/Manufacturing 93% 93% 78 5 21 11 73 62 0 6.64 1.00
6.0 Configuration/Logistics Management 81% 80% 501 95 155 397 400 9 6 1.02 1.01
7.0 Customer Support and Services 0% 0% 1342 1342 0 14 0 -14 0 0.00 0.00
14

15. Example: Using SPI and CPI on weekly basis
 “The Bad: Yellow Program” (<20%; >10% variance); increase risk boards
15
WBS Name EST % BL%
Total Budget
Hrs ETC-Hrs EV-Hrs
Cum_EV_
Hrs
Cum_AC
WP BCWS-Hrs CV-Hrs SV-Hrs CPI SPI
0.0 Project Summary 61% 63% 9860 6034 4243 6247 1791 -213 1.42 0.97
1.0 Program Management 69% 73% 2560 803 1382 1756 1652 1869 104 -113 1.06 0.94
1.1 Program Planning 100% 100% 108 0 108 108 246 108 -138 0 0.44 1.00
1.2 Program Monitoring & Control 78% 78% 2104 456 926 1648 1406 1648 242 0 1.17 1.00
1.2.1 Update IPS 94% 94% 133 7 126 126 308 126 -182 0 0.41 1.00
1.2.3 Program Execution 80% 80% 1285 259 1026 1026 691 1026 335 0 1.48 1.00
1.2.4 Update EVM/EAC 72% 72% 686 190 496 496 407 496 89 0 1.22 1.00
2.0 System Development 82% 77% 1811 323 996 1487 537 1394 950 93 2.77 1.07
2.1
System Requirements Definition
(Requirements Analysis) 28% 100% 159 114 159 45 17 159 28 -114 2.65 0.28
2.2.2 WSIM and ADIU Detailed Design 263% 100% 19 -31 19 50 50 19 0 31 1.00 2.63
2.3 Support Engineering 89% 100% 229 25 227 204 39 229 165 -25 5.23 0.89
2.3.1 Hard drive effort 81% 100% 135 25 134 110 39 135 71 -25 2.82 0.81
3.0 Product Engineering 60% 74% 1555 625 1104 930 1434 1158 -504 -228 0.65 0.80
3.2 Software/Firmware Engineering 60% 74% 1555 625 1104 930 1434 1158 -504 -228 0.65 0.80
3.2.1
Initial Integration of USG-Furnished
Weapon Simulations 73% 97% 1091 291 819 800 1292 1061 -492 -261 0.62 0.75
3.2.1.1 WSIM Coding 0% 85% 200 200 200 0 209 170 -209 -170 0.00 0.00
3.2.1.2 ADIU Coding 0% 100% 83 83 83 0 108 83 -108 -83 0.00 0.00
3.2.1.3 P5CFG Coding 100% 100% 5 0 5 5 54 5 -49 0 0.09 1.00

16. Example: Using SPI and CPI on weekly basis
 “The Ugly: Red Program” (>20% variance); track daily; aggressively look for opptys
Project Name Date BL% EST % CPI SPI
14540
Project
Summary 12/23/2013 32.6% 15.1% 0.76 0.46
14540
Project
Summary 1/6/2014 38.9% 18.3% 0.79 0.47
14540
Project
Summary 1/13/2014 40.7% 20.5% 0.79 0.50
14540
Project
Summary 1/27/2014 43.8% 24.0% 0.76 0.55
14540
Project
Summary 2/3/2014 45.5% 27.4% 0.78 0.60
14540
Project
Summary 2/10/2014 47.2% 27.9% 0.74 0.59
14540
Project
Summary 2/17/2014 52.4% 28.9% 0.70 0.55
14540
Project
Summary 2/24/2014 56.0% 29.9% 0.68 0.53
14540
Project
Summary 3/3/2014 58.9% 31.8% 0.67 0.54
14540
Project
Summary 3/10/2014 60.3% 32.1% 0.64 0.53
14540
Project
Summary 3/17/2014 62.1% 32.5% 0.61 0.52
14540
Project
Summary 4/7/2014 64.6% 39.1% 0.67 0.61
14540
Project
Summary 4/14/2014 65.0% 43.3% 0.67 0.67
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
12/7/13 1/11/14 2/15/14 3/22/14 4/26/14 5/31/14 7/5/14
%COMP
CPI/SPI
14540 CPI/SPI Trend
CPI SPI BL% EST %
16

17.  EVM output provides PM with insight where issues really are!
17
WBS Name EST % BL%
Total Budget
Hrs ETC-Hrs
Cum_ETC_
Hrs EV-Hrs
Cum_EV_
Hrs
Cum_AC
WP
BCWS-
Hrs
CV-
Hrs SV-Hrs CPI SPI
0.0 Project Summary 61% 58% 7815 -3118 4743 10933 4550 -6190 193 0.43 1.04
1.2.1 Program Monitoring & Control 86% 86% 210 29 -819 181 181 1029 181 -848 0 0.18 1.00
1.2.2
Internal Engineering Status
Meetings 80% 80% 68 13 -154 55 55 222 55 -167 0 0.25 1.01
2.0 System Development 74% 73% 772 203 -293 640 568 1065 566 -497 2 0.53 1.00
2.3 Support Engineering 80% 80% 310 63 -253 266 247 563 247 -316 0 0.44 1.00
2.3.2
General Team Coordination and
Customer Contact 78% 78% 280 63 -278 217 217 558 217 -341 0 0.39 1.00
3.1.3.1 DC-DC CCA Tasks 100% 100% 175 0 -236 175 175 411 175 -236 0 0.43 1.00
3.1.3.2 Analog CCA Tasks 100% 100% 149 0 -498 149 149 647 149 -498 0 0.23 1.00
3.1.3.3 Digital CCA Tasks 100% 92% 387 0 -2278 387 387 2665 354 -2278 33 0.15 1.09
3.1.3.6 Mechanical Design 244% 87% 224 -322 -163 195 546 387 194 159 352 1.41 2.81
3.1.3.8
Initial Integration WIdget
Verification and Confidence testing
with prototype 100% 100% 279 0 -545 279 279 824 279 -545 0 0.34 1.00
3.1.3.9
Integration WIdget/ and
Verification and confidence testing 43% 41% 612 346 -233 410 266 845 249 -579 17 0.31 1.07
3.1.3.10 Internal Integration and Testing 100% 100% 395 0 -207 395 395 602 395 -207 0 0.66 1.00
3.1.3.B
Engineering Rework and SIRS
Digital CCA 0% 75% 320 320 125 0 0 195 241 -195 -241 0.00 0.00
4.0
System Integration and Test
(Product Integration Verification
and Validation) 16% 27% 3044 2549 2198 2222 495 846 812 -351 -317 0.59 0.61
4.1 Test Plans & Procedures 17% 17% 1150 955 756 1150 195 394 195 -199 0 0.49 1.00
4.5.2
Internal factory integration, Build
and Test Execution Qual units (8
each) 24% 67% 753 576 543 535 177 210 505 -33 -328 0.84 0.35
6.0
Configuration/Logistics
Management 76% 70% 1015 244 730 934 771 285 712 486 59 2.71 1.08
TOOL #1

18.  EVM output provides PM with insight where issues really are!
18
Is it really “green”…..

19.  Variance Reports provides PM with a “roadmap” to recovery!
PM has insight to where to
lead IPT in order to:
• Focus on issue & corrective
action
• Opptys to combine tasks
• Reallocate unused hrs to
fast track schedule
19

20.  IMS Resource Work Summary Report validates your Cost Baseline
Next Gen Widget Program
Work Year Month
2013 2014 2015 2015 Total Grand Total
Resources January February March April May June July
Unassigned 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Assembly MFG Specialist Jr 0.00 0.00 10.33 37.58 81.67 113.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 242.78 242.78
Assembly MFG Specialist Sr 0.00 0.00 44.00 43.68 27.70 61.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 177.03 177.03
Data Management Analyst Jr 8.00 92.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 15.22 43.78 79.08 151.08 251.65
Data Management Analyst Sr 76.13 192.82 17.25 0.00 1.92 12.08 78.17 55.58 21.32 186.32 455.27
Designer Jr 4.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.00
Designer Sr 93.00 140.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 233.98
Electrical Engineer Sr 399.00 709.62 49.32 29.15 22.98 35.50 81.00 76.00 0.00 293.95 1402.57
Engineering Coordinator Jr 21.37 94.00 3.75 0.00 1.18 5.35 7.37 6.33 13.18 37.17 152.53
Engineering Coordinator Sr 76.50 38.70 0.00 0.00 1.52 3.47 17.73 9.27 6.00 37.98 153.18
Field Service Engineer Sr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.08 31.15 46.23 46.23
Mechanical Engineer Sr 136.27 66.48 42.23 68.35 71.85 161.52 73.88 97.13 3.60 518.57 721.32
MFG Engineer Sr 0.43 10.92 0.00 23.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.32 29.32 40.67
Production Operations Coordinator Sr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Program Finance Analyst Jr 16.50 15.38 0.90 0.83 22.05 22.95 20.92 24.93 38.58 131.17 163.05
Program Management Mgr Jr 373.28 37.13 0.00 6.40 22.05 22.95 20.92 44.68 27.20 144.20 554.62
Program Management Mgr Sr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 7.10 12.10 12.10
Programs Administrator Jr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Programs Administrator Sr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Programs Analyst Jr 10.38 41.97 3.03 2.75 4.42 4.58 4.18 4.42 2.73 26.12 78.47
Project Engineer Jr 106.75 376.17 24.57 74.82 38.92 68.00 28.77 66.08 25.52 326.67 809.58
Quality Engineer Jr 0.00 9.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.33
Quality Engineer Sr 13.43 59.45 13.02 1.00 20.92 106.68 23.00 24.00 3.60 192.22 265.10
Quality Inspector Jr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Quality Inspector Sr 0.43 0.57 21.30 0.00 6.73 14.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.00 44.00
Software Engineer Jr 0.00 16.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.00
Software Engineer Sr 191.43 189.53 1.05 30.38 0.17 21.00 0.00 63.55 20.82 136.97 517.93
Software Engineer Tech Jr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Software Engineer Tech Sr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Software Engineering Mgr Jr 0.00 1.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.78
Systems Engineer Jr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Systems Engineer Sr 49.50 46.70 0.00 4.07 0.00 19.50 0.00 65.18 20.82 109.57 205.77
Technical Writer Jr 0.00 52.60 16.00 0.00 1.52 5.08 12.78 74.30 1.08 110.77 163.37
Technical Writer Sr 25.50 15.07 0.00 32.20 0.00 0.00 5.25 0.00 2.00 39.45 80.02
Test Engineer Jr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Test Engineer Sr 164.47 895.28 11.60 36.82 40.40 511.47 465.75 211.77 7.22 1285.02 2344.77
Test Technician Sr 0.00 0.00 51.70 66.05 37.20 82.78 0.00 6.00 0.00 243.73 243.73
Toolmaker/Machinist MFG Specialist Jr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Toolmaker/Machinist MFG Specialist Sr 0.00 0.00 12.53 0.00 3.95 8.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.28 25.28
Lab Technician Sr 0.00 14.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.67
Grand Total 1798.85 3147.02 408.17 457.45 434.08 1364.43 860.18 888.10 322.92 4735.33 9681.20
20
TOOL #2

21.  Track variances & corrective actions; Demand accountability
Next Gen Widget Program
Last update = 4/7/15
ID Status
Opened
Date
Due Date
Closed
Date
Priority Action Item Respondent Org. Originator Org. Status / Resolution
Cost Account
or WBS
1 closed 02/05/15 02/11/15 03/03/15 M NG, p/n: 02502500-2 s/n: M00002, was disassembled
and a TCXO cable was discovered to be defective.
J. Jones Test S. Dawkins ENG It is inconclusive if this cable was damaged during the
disassembly/reassembly process. The cable was
replaced. It was proved during troubleshooting, when the
unit is in the "operate" state, an intermittent TCXO
connection can cause a reset. Wires were soldered to the
3.3V, 2.5V, and 1.2V on the Digital CCA and the TCXO
line was coupled, to monitor during vibration. The UUT was
again subjected to AF Random Vertical Profile. A loss of
voltage or TCXO did not occur when the UUT reset.
4.5.2.13A
2 closed 02/19/15 02/23/15 03/06/15 H Incorrect Model for DC-DC CCA. Top Cover rework M. Gaisser Engr S. Dawkins ENG Drawing 09070112 was modified with correct
diementions. GAP pad thinkness was also
updated to reflect proper size modication. BOM
was updated.
1.A.9
3 Open 02/24/15 03/30/15 H The five 09070111 chassis produced by Riverside were
found to be missing a chamfer. These chassis will be
reworked by the vendor.4/1/15 RMA has been created,
% unit are being sent back. Still waiting on quaote for
additional work.
J. Butcher SCM R. Davis SCM Parts to be sent back to the vendor for
correction. None of these chassies were
introduced into the testing Reliefs will be
modified on sheet 3 of the 0970111 chassis.
4.5.2.4A
4 closed 01/21/15 02/11/15 02/11/15 M The 09070110 drawing will update the J1 relief
chamfer. This will provide proper dimensions to account
for using slide lock connector.
M. Gaisser Engr M. Gassier ENG This issue was revealed at TRR. Modifcation is
not part of the test configuration.
4.5.2.4A
5 closed 02/18/15 03/23/15 03/30/15 L Ferrite beads loose: These parts were replaced and
testing continued. It is being recommended these parts
along with L2, p/n: 2743019447h, on the DC/DC CCA,
p/n: 09070331, be epoxied to the board to provide
better structural support.
T.Baugh/R.
Maser
Engr T. Baugh ENG This issues is an corrective action , but does not
effect Root Cause. Pending DRWG Updates
and all internal CCA have been updated.
1.A.9
6 Open 03/03/15 05/11/15 H J1 Slide on connector (aka adapter)--6 wk lead time.
Part on order PO created. Estimated Receive date May
18. requesting expedite date for April 15
J. Butcher SCM S. Dawkins ENG We have establish that the vibration introduced
to the pins in the J1 slide lock interface has
caused deformation to the receiving sockets.
The current receiving socket are an open
contact type (AS37F0S37M0S/AA) which will be
replaced with closed entry or “PosiBand” type
(HAD37F0S37M0S/AA) for increased strength
and durability. We reproduced the reboot issue
and dropped SLDC messages by physically
stimulating the wires in the test cable while
connected to the J1 slide lock connector.
1.A.9 and 999
7 Open 03/17/15 05/11/15 M J1 Jack Screw Interface (Digital CCA)--6wk lead time.
Customied part number created.
M. Gaisser Engr S. Dawkins ENG As a precaution J1 Jack Screw sockets will be
upgrated to “PosiBand” type contact. No failure
in this interface hase been encoutered.
1.A.9 and 999
21
TOOL #3

22. Program Monitor and Control:
Do Don’t
+ Schedule regular team meetings - Estimate your IMS & EVM status
+ Mentor junior staff on reports, - Expect IPT leads to perform all mentoring
status briefings, action plans and run all budgets yourself
+ Leverage as many tools as possible - Re-create reports, start from scratch
+ Continually review plans & update - Assume everyone knows priorities
22

23. Program Closeout:
• Project Closeout: Are we there yet?
 Does everyone know when we’re done?
 Schedule shows 90% but we’re really done…mostly.
 Budget vs Actual cost are now realized; Boss: What’s Return on Sale?
 Team members re-assigned to next project
 Conduct Post Mortem and Capture Lessons Learned
• Review largest variances with IPT Leads
• Reminder: What defines “project success”?
Scorecard example
23

24. Do Don’t
+ Lessons Learned (LL) meeting - Fail to include LL on next bid
+ Team Performance Assessments - Forget to congratulate team
+ Capture process improvement opptys - Discuss but not document
+ Incorporate known risks into future - Be persuaded there’s no need
bids e.g. variances more than 10% for a lessons learned meeting—
”we know what to do now”…
Program Closeout:
24

25. 25