1. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA Earned Value Management (EVM) Capability Project
PM Challenge
Jerald Kerby
February 9, 2011
www.nasa.gov
1

2. Content
• EVM Capability Objectives
• Approach
• Project Life Cycle
• Current State/Gaps within Agency
• Current EVM Capability Project Status
• Lessons Learned/Issues to date
– Actual Costs
– Planning
• Possible Future Issue Papers
• Gaps Update
• Path Forward
• Backups
– ANSI/EIA-748 (32 guidelines)
– Draft NASA EVM Processes
2

3. NASA EVM Capability Objectives
Overall Objective is to develop an Agency EVM capability that complies with the
guidelines in ANSI/EIA-748 and test through two pilots, refine and finalize EVM process
based on test results.
• Provide integrated set of processes, tools, guidance, training and
technical support (people) to develop and demonstrate an
Agency EVM capability.
• Apply lessons learned from previous pilot activities
• Clarify roles at program, project and Center level
• Devise a strategy for EVM software tool licensing and
maintenance
• Provide for the planning, managing, controlling and integration of
“in-house” work at a project’s primary and support Centers
• Integrate “in-house” with contractor data for comprehensive
project performance assessment
• Goal is to apply ANSI/EIA 748 guidelines to enhance EVM
capability.
– Document anomalies if needed
3

4. EVM Capability Approach
• Manage as a project with formulation, implementation, and
operations/maintenance phases
– Approved by NASA Project Management Counclil (PMC) in Dec. 2009
• Maximize use of existing COTS software
• Partner with ESMD, SMD, CFO, CIO, OP, JSC, MSFC, GSFC
• Pilot capability on one Constallation (CxP) project and one SMD project
• Establish a steering committee with members from all Mission Directorates
and Centers
• Commission a peer review board to include EVM practitioners, business
managers, project managers in project oversight.
• Document agreements (via MOU/Project Plan) between Centers, mission
directorates and support offices to define roles and responsibilities.
• Present status twice annually to NASA PMC via Baseline Performance
Review (BPR).
• Once capability is developed and tested via pilot activities, system
operations and maintenance, including licenses and technical support, will
be funded by projects and by the institutions as they implement EVM
4

5. Steering Committee
Steering Committee Email Telephone
OCE Mike Ryschkewitsch mike.ryschkewitsch@nasa.gov 202.358.1823
OCFO Beth Robinson (Chair) elizabeth.m.robinson@nasa.gov 202.358.0978
SMD Mike Luther mluther@nasa.gov 202.358.0260
Roy Maizel (alternate for SMD) roy.a.maizel@nasa.gov 202.358.2630
ESMD
OCIO Gary Cox gary.cox-1@nasa.gov 202-358-0413
Michael Medsker (alternate for OCIO) michael.medsker@nasa.gov 202-358-0637
OP Jim Balinskas james.a.balinskas@nasa.gov 202.358.0445
PA&E Tom Coonce tom.coonce-1@nasa.gov 202.358.4905
MSFC Pam Cucarola pamela.cucarola@nasa.gov 256.544.0092
JSC Cynthia Neal cynthia.s.neal@nasa.gov 281.483.2202
GSFC George Barth george.barth-1@nasa.gov 301.286.5894
GRC James Free james.m.free@nasa.gov 216.433.3339
JPL Dale Johnson dale.m.johnson@nasa.gov 818.354.5453
ARC Carol Carroll carol.w.carroll@nasa.gov 650.604.0267
SSC Jim Bevis james.t.bevis@nasa.gov 228.688.3374
Keith Brock (alternate for SSC) keith.d.brock@nasa.gov 228.688.1311
DRFC
LaRC Dr. David Gilman david.a.gilman@nasa.gov 757.864.4428
KSC Janet Petro janet.e.petro@nasa.gov 321.867.2355
Others
5

6. Peer Review Team
Peer Review Team Email Telephone
OCE Sandra Smalley ssmalley@nasa.gov 202.358.4731
OCFO Kevin Buford Kevin.Buford@nasa.gov 202.358.0405
SMD Chuck Miller chuck.miller@nasa.gov 202.358.0715
Claude Freaner (alternate for SMD) claude.freaner@nasa.gov 202.358.2522
ESMD
OCIO Gerald Smith gerald.smith@nasa.gov 202-358-1372
Kai Moericke (alternate for OCIO) kai.moericke@nasa.gov 202-358-4733
OP Carl Weber carl.c.weber@nasa.gov 202.358.1784
PA&E John Fitch john.fitch-1@nasa.gov 202.358.1228
MSFC Stacy Counts stacy.m.counts@nasa.gov 256.544.6004
JSC Doug Sander douglas.r.sander@nasa.gov 281.244.7391
JSC Justin Mathurin justin.e.mathurin@nasa.gov 281.483.6333
GSFC William Sluder william.h.sluder@nasa.gov 301.286.8976
GRC Bob Sefcik robert.j.sefcik@nasa.gov 216.433.8445
Vince Bilardo (alternate for GRC) vincent.j.bilardo@nasa.gov 216.433.3931
JPL Kevin Rice kevin.l.rice@nasa.gov 818.354.3622
ARC
SSC Robert Ross robert.b.ross@nasa.gov 228.688.2320
Deborah Norton (alternate for SSC) deborah.s.norton@nasa.gov 228.688.1168
DRFC
LaRC Dan Tenney (Chair) daniel.j.tenney@nasa.gov 757.864.6095
LaRC Dr. Barry Lazos barry.s.lazos@nasa.gov 757.864.5731
KSC Franci Brice enid.frances.brice@nasa.gov 321.867.2381
KSC Richard Dobbs richard.a.dobbs@nasa.gov 321.867.7402
KSC Susan Waterman susan.j.waterman@nasa.gov 321.867.6688
Others Richie Law richard.c.law@nasa.gov 757-864-2184
Others Roy Savage roy.e.savage@nasa.gov 757-864-4886
6

7. EVM Capability Life Cycle
Formulation Implementation Operations & Maintenance
• Planning • CxP pilot (EVA) • Consultation/ technical support
• Requirements • SMD pilot (ICESat2) • Mentoring
• Design & development • Integration and test • Data archival
• CxP/NEDI/Others Lessons • Initial operations • IBR support
Learned • Capability modifications • Training
• Ops Concept/Capability and enhancements
Storyboard • Handbook and procedure
• Capability Description (Gap updates
Analysis) • Agency-wide
• Procedure development communications
• Training Requirements
• MOU
• Steering Committee
• Business Rules/PPBE
Integration
7

8. Current State within NASA
NASA utilizes EVM data on contracts but lacks the
capability to: (1) readily apply EVM on in-house
development effort; and (2) integrate in-house and
contracted EVM data for total project performance
assessment.
– CxP is in the process of building EVM capability but consistent
Agency processes do not exist
– Centers are also in process of building capability but none are
ANSI compliant except JPL
– Consistent roles and responsibilities between programs, projects
and Centers do not exist to streamline EVM
– NASA lacks an approach to coordinate necessary business
system, policy, and process changes
8

9. Current State - ANSI EIA-748 Compliance status
• All ANSI/EIA-748 Guidelines Can Be Met - Some
Require Workarounds or Changes to NASA
policies/procedures
– 21 of 32 guidelines can be met with no changes required to
current NASA policies/procedures
– 11 guidelines currently not met due to gaps with the Agency
business systems and processes
– Labor intensive workarounds identified for all but 3 of the
guidelines not currently met

10. Fixing the gaps require…
• OCE, CFO and CIO solve gaps associated with Agency
business systems
• In parallel, MDs and Centers establish consistent processes
and procedures
• Charter a steering committee for oversight and strategic Agency
decision making (Members: All Mission Directorates and
Centers given the opportunity for membership)
– Decisional Direction – Approve a change or waive the requirement
• Run two pilots (SMD/ESMD) proofing out capability for
integrated in-house and contractor EVM that identifies business
system solutions and creates efficiencies through streamlined
processes and training
– Provide template for all projects to follow
– Validate needed business system changes
– Develop workarounds for interim solution
– Identify optimal solution (what’s good enough?)
10

11. Current EVM Capability Project Status
• Completed Formulation Activities
– Drafted EVM Capability processes, system description, and project plan
– Peer Review conducted the week of April 12th, 2010
• Responded with Action plan to closeout Request for Actions
• No major issues
• Any disagreements will come before the Steering Committee for Resolution
• Entered implementation phase
– 1st Pilot kicked-off at JSC week of April 5th, 2010 and initial gap analysis
complete
– EVA pilot cancelled in June 2010 because of changes/uncertainty within the
CxP and the project office
• Documented Results/ Lessons Learned/Issues Papers (end of July)
– Two Issue Papers Submitted for Consideration
• Inconsistency between Plan and Performance
• Business Rules and Actual Cost
– 2nd Pilot has started with review of data and setup support
• Started in Sept. at GSFC
• Pilot delayed in Nov. for re-planning until early Jan. 2011
11

12. Issue Paper: Business Rules and Actual Costs
Effects: NASA business rules and cost distribution methodologies impact NASA’s effective use of
the Earned Value approach to project management. The following are three effects.
1. Artificial Variances
2. Distorts EVM data
3. Significantly impairs predictive ability of EVM
Possible Solutions: The goal is for projects to obtain reliable and timely actual cost data from
NASA’s accounting system for all elements of cost and provide meaningful cost and schedule
data for management insight and control. There are several solutions, described below.
Alternatives/Recommendation:
1. Maintain Current State
2. Modify System/Processes: Continue the Contractor Performance and Cost Tracking
(C-Initiative) or similar initiative with emphasis to resolve these issues.
3. Implement Work-Around:
Workaround Alternative 3.a.: Use cost/schedule integration commercial-off-the-shelf
(COTS) tools to capture lower level costs using estimated actuals outside of SAP.
Workaround Alternative 3.b: Use Total Calculated Cost from SAP.
4. Interim Workarounds and Modify System/Processes: This is an integrated alternative that
leverages Workaround alternatives 3.a. and 3.b. in the near term, while Alternative 2, Modifying
system/Processes, is evaluated for implementation in the longer term.
12

13. Issue Paper: Inconsistency Plan and Performance
Effects: NASA inconsistency between plan and performance impacts NASA’s effective use of the Earned Value approach to project
Management. The following are two effects.
1. Artificial variances are created which dilute the value of EVM metrics in providing meaningful performance data for the
responsible manager, monthly project reviews, and external senior management reviews of project performance.
2. The predictive value of EVM performance metrics that enables developing creditable Estimates at Complete (EAC) for work remaining is compromised.
Possible Solutions: The goal is to realize and record cost in the period the work is planned and performed. There are several
solutions described below.
Alternatives/Recommendations:
1. Maintain Current State
2. Modify System/Processes: Develop a consistent methodology for accumulating and distributing non-direct costs to cover support organizations’ indirect budgets. These
costs would be allocated to projects that use these services utilizing indirect cost
pools similar to industry practices today.
3. Implement Workarounds:
Workaround Alternative 3.a Refine the planning/work authorization process that documents the agreement between the project and performing support organizations for
the technical scope of work, along with the associated schedule and budget, to require time-phasing all elements of costs to be consistent with the planned timing of
allocating these costs.
Workaround Alternative 3.b: Develop a process using estimate actuals where indirect costs are incurred in the same manner and in the same time period in which they
are planned in the EVM PMB.
Workaround Alternative 3.c: Plan indirect costs in a separate work package (WP) within the control account. This would require a method to distinguish the costs so they
can be associated with the correct WPs.
Workaround Alternative 3.d: Plan indirect costs in a separate, higher-level control account at the project level that could be managed and reported separately.
Workaround Alternative 3.e: Increase Center CM&O budgets to meet the needs of the support organizations’ indirects or ODCs.
4. Interim Workarounds and Modify System/Processes: This is an integrated alternative that leverages Workaround Alternatives 3.a. and 3.d. in the near term while
Alternative 2, Modifying System/Processes, is evaluated for implementation. The approach would be to refine the planning/work authorization process that documents
the scope, schedule, and budget (all elements of cost) between organizations (Workaround 3.a); in conjunction with requiring the establishment of a separate, higher-
level control account at the project level for indirect costs to be planned in the same manner in which costs are expected to be recognized and services rendered
(Workaround 3.d). In the far term, develop a consistent methodology for accumulating and distributing non-direct costs to cover support organizations’ indirect budgets
(Alternative 2).

14. Recommendations/Approval on Issues
• Issue Paper #1 - Planning
− Continue to access the impact of EVA pilot during ICESat-2 pilot
− Test the two recommended alternatives
− Document ICESat 2 results and either make a process/business
change or address in training
• Issue Paper #2 - Business rules and actual costs
− Maintain recommendations made by project team
−Test workarounds during ICESat 2 pilot and document results
– OCFO develops a detail plan for the Initiative C to help address
the issues
• Delivery date to coincide with end of pilot or before
• EVM Capability will support by providing EVM
requirements
• Agency makes a decision on long-term solution based on pilot
results and OCFO plan.
• Next Steps…
• Resume the ICESat2 pilot and update Steering Committee early
spring 2011.
14

15. Possible Future Issue - Implement EVM early/Transition
Lesson Learned: Implement EVM as early as possible in Project Life
– Setting up EVM in the planning phase is easier than trying to retrofit once the
project is nearing maturity
• Issue: EVM from Phase B to Phase C. Currently the Agency’s requirement is to
report EVM 60 days after entering into phase C. The actuals have not caught up
with the EVM data when the first month of EVM is required
• Causes: The same project number is used for each phase of a project. Actuals
are slow to catch up from one phase to another
• Effect: The EVM data will be distorted until the actuals for the EV and cost for all
phases except C are subtracted from the totals.
• Possible Solutions:
– Change the project code after each phase to distinguish costs/work for each
phase
– Make the 1st month’s reporting due 90 days after entering into phase C for
actuals to catch up
– Develop a recommended approach and document in EVM Capability
– Develop training to illustrate the problem and solution
15

16. Phase B to C Transition Comparison
Why the timing is relevant
EVM PROJECT PHASE COMPARISON
EARNED VALUE COMPONENTS Total with Phase B PHASE C/D Only
BUDGET $ 1,137,606.00 $ 475,000.00
EARNED VALUE $ 1,088,606.00 $ 426,000.00
ACTUALS $ 845,406.00 $ 384,000.00
COST VARIANCE $ 292,200.00 $ 91,000.00
COST PERFORMANCE INDEX 1.29 1.11
SCHEDULE VARIANCE $ (49,000.00) $ (49,000.00)
SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE INDEX 0.96 0.90
16

17. Gaps Impacting NASA’s Ability to be Compliant with
ANSI/EIA-748
* All priorities within a group are of equal importance
Gap # Priority* Gap Description Guideline(s) Status
Impacted
1 1 * All priorities within a group are of equal
NASA business practice requires that obligations and costs occur at the same level of the 16, 17 Workaround/
WBS in SAP, sometimes resulting in costs being posted where obligations are available and
importance Change
not necessarily where the work is performed (off charging). Required
2 1 Costing old money first (off charging) 16 Workaround/
Change
Required
3 1 Algorithm being used to distribute 533 cost (off charging) 16 Workaround/
Change
Required
4 1 Inability to collect support contractor hours and elements of cost at the appropriate WBS 16 Workaround/
element where the work is performed. Change
Required
5 2 Leave (annual, sick, or comp) is charged to the project when taken not earned (off charging) 16 Change
Required
6 2 Projects sometimes need to break down the WBS below level 7 to obtain a manageable 17, 22 Change
piece of work Required
/Workaround
7 3 The Project Manager will not be able to control the configuration of the WBS until he/she is 1 Change
given approval authority of WBS elements being added to SAP. Required
8 3 NASA does not have a Work Authorization system for work across the Agency. 9 Change
Required
9 4 Indirect cost policies continue to change and are not handled like normal, full cost are in an 4, 19, 24 Workaround/
EVM System. Change
Required
10 4 Projects are not able to get timely and reliable grant, Internal Partner, and Reimbursable cost 6, 7, 16, 27 Workaround/
data from the system. Change
Required
11 4 NASA does not have a Material Management System or policies across the Agency to 3,9,21 Workaround/
support the EVM guidelines for material. Change
Required
17
Issue papers addressed solutions for the circled gaps.

18. Path Forward
• Continue ICESat2 Pilot and document lessons learned, update
documentation as needed
• Develop transition strategy for long-term implementation
• Continue to provide Steering Committee with information to make decisions
for Agency
• Enter into O&M upon successful Operational Readiness Review (ORR)
• Project Close (EVM Capability Team will not do the implementation)
18

19. Backup
19

20. Issue Paper: Business Rules and Actual Costs
Issue: NASA’s business rules and the accounting system’s recording of actual cost present challenges for generating meaningful
data for EVM performance measurement and analysis. Useful EVM performance measurement and analysis is dependent upon
comparing actual costs, value of accomplished work, and budget values. During the Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Pilot, there were
numerous examples of unreliable EVM performance measurement indicators and analysis based on data created by following NASA
business rules that influence the manner in which contractor budgets are developed and actual costs reported. Additionally, the
manner in which SAP records obligations and actual costs further destabilized the EVM performance measurement and analysis
process on the EVA Project.
Causes: During the EVA EVM pilot there were two causes that contributed to the misalignment of actual costs with budgeted work.
The first is the methods used to establish and allocate contractor costs. The second cause is the manner in which NASA records
obligations and actual costs in SAP.
1. Contractor Costs The manners in which contract reporting requirements are established and costs recorded contribute to a
misalignment of plans and actual costs.
Establishment Finalized contracts do not consistently contain Data Requirements Documents (DRD) with detailed
requirements for individual Work Year Equivalents (WYE), hours, tasks, cost, etc. to support project-level EVM
reporting.
Allocated Cost The algorithm that is sometimes used to distribute contractor costs does not necessarily reflect the
manner in which work is being performed on the project. This algorithm is often used in cases where multiple
organizations fund a task agreement. While there are several methods for distributing actual cost, the primary cost
distribution business rule is to cost the oldest money first, irrespective of where the work was performed. Costing old
money first means that actual costs are recorded against the fund with the earliest expiration date.
2. Recording of Obligations and Actual Costs in SAP The methods used by NASA to record obligations and actual costs in
SAP contribute to a misalignment of plans and actual costs.
SAP business rules do not allow cost to exceed obligations for a WBS, and the SAP Cost category contains only
those actual costs that do not exceed the obligation amount for that WBS element. This can cause significant
understatement of a WBS element.
SAP business rules require that obligations occur at the same level of the WBS where costs are collected. SAP
currently allows actual costs to be collected at a maximum of seven levels. The EVA Project costs are often collected
at the lowest WBS level which from a total contract perspective, some WBS codes may have excess obligations while
others have obligations insufficient to accommodate the actual costs incurred. Hence, costs not getting recorded to the
proper WBS element. This is further complicated by the laborious process required to move obligations to where they
are required. When additional funds are obligated a spike in the cost for the month can occur.
20

21. Issue Paper: Inconsistency Plan and Performance
Issue: In evaluating the EVA Project’s planning and performance data, there are instances where Center support organizations’
budget plans were not time phased consistent with how certain elements of cost were realized. The problem is primarily with
other support costs (e.g., material; equipment, ODCs) that are attributable to that organization’s support to project offices. The
result is artificial cost variances caused by budget planning methodology that isn’t synchronized with how performance and actual
costs are incurred.
Causes: The systemic cause can be isolated to the practice of Center support organizations including in their monthly, time phased
plan a factor that represents other support costs that are attributable to the support organization’s support.
1. While their direct support (labor) is performed and actual costs recorded monthly consistent with the plan, these other costs
are allocated direct on a non-recurring basis.
2. Hence, the budget for these costs is spread over each month, while the actual costs are recorded in lump sums only a few
months during the year.
3. The pervasive view of the support organizations’ is these (indirect) costs will all equal at the end of the year so there is no
emphasis on improving the monthly time phasing.
Effects: NASA inconsistency between plan and performance impacts NASA’s effective use of the Earned Value approach to project
Management. The following are two effects.
1. Artificial variances are created which dilute the value of EVM metrics in providing meaningful performance data for the
responsible manager, monthly project reviews, and external senior management reviews of project performance.
2. The predictive value of EVM performance metrics that enables developing creditable Estimates at Complete (EAC) for work
remaining is compromised.
Possible Solutions: The goal is to realize and record cost in the period the work is planned and performed. There are several
solutions described below.
21

22. ANSI EIA 748 Guidelines (Level 1 Requirements)
1. Define the authorized work elements for the program. A work breakdown structure (WBS),
tailored for effective internal management control, is commonly used in this process.
2. Identify the program organizational structure including the major subcontractors responsible
for accomplishing the authorized work, and define the organizational elements in which work
will be planned and controlled.
3. Provide for the integration of the company’s planning, scheduling, budgeting, work
authorization and cost accumulation processes with each other, and as appropriate, the
program work breakdown structure and the program organizational structure.
4. Identify the company organization or function responsible for controlling overhead (indirect
costs).
5. Provide for integration of the program work breakdown structure and the program
organizational structure in a manner that permits cost and schedule performance
measurement by elements of either or both structures as needed.
6. Schedule the authorized work in a manner which describes the sequence of work and
identifies significant task interdependencies required to meet the requirements of the program.
7. Identify physical products, milestones, technical performance goals, or other indicators that will
be used to measure progress.
22

23. ANSI EIA 748 Guidelines (Level 1 requirements)
8. Establish and maintain a time-phased budget baseline, at the Cost Account level, against
which program performance can be measured. Budget for far-term efforts may be held in
higher level accounts until an appropriate time for allocation to the CA level. Initial budgets
established for performance measurement will be based on either internal management goals
or the external customer negotiated target cost, including estimate for authorized but
undefinitized work. On Government contracts, if an over target baseline is used for
performance measurement reporting purposes, prior notification must be provided to the
customer.
9. Establish budgets for authorized work with identification of significant cost elements (labor,
material, etc.) as needed for internal management and for control of subcontractors.
10. To the extent it is practical to identify the authorized work in discrete work packages,
establish budgets for this work in terms of dollars, hours, or other measurable units. Where
the entire control account is not subdivided into work packages, identify the far term effort in
larger planning packages for budget and scheduling purposes.
11. Provide that the sum of all work package budgets plus planning package budgets within a
control account equals the control account budget.
12. Identify and control level of effort activity by time-phased budgets established for this
purpose. Only that effort which is immeasurable or for which measurement is impractical
may be classified as level of effort.
23

24. ANSI EIA 748 Guidelines (Level 1 requirements)
13. Establish overhead budgets for each significant organizational component of the company for
expenses which will become indirect costs. Reflect in the program budgets, at the
appropriate level, the amounts in overhead pools that are planned to be allocated to the
program as indirect costs.
14. Identify management reserves and undistributed budget.
15. Provide that the program target cost goal is reconciled with the sum of all internal program
budgets and management reserves.
16. Record direct costs in a manner consistent with the budgets in a formal system controlled by
the general books of account.
17. When a work breakdown structure is used, summarize direct costs from control accounts into
the work breakdown structure without allocation of a single control account to two or more
work breakdown structure elements.
18. Summarize direct costs from the control accounts into the contractor’s organizational
elements without allocation of a single control account to two or more organizational
elements.
19. Record all indirect costs which will be allocated to the contract.
20. Identify unit costs, equivalent units costs, or lot costs when needed.
24

25. ANSI EIA 748 Guidelines (Level 1 requirements)
21. For EVMS, the material accounting system will provide for:
1) Accurate cost accumulation and assignment of costs to control accounts in a manner consistent with the
budgets using recognized, acceptable, costing techniques.
2) Cost performance measurement at the point in time most suitable for the category of material involved,
but no earlier than the time of progress payments or actual receipt of material.
3) Full accountability of all material purchased for the program including the residual inventory.
22. At least on a monthly basis, generate the following information at the control account and other
levels as necessary for management control using actual cost data from, or reconcilable with,
the accounting system:
1) Comparison of the amount of planned budget and the amount of budget earned for work accomplished.
This comparison provides the schedule variance.
2) Comparison of the amount of the budget earned the actual (applied where appropriate) direct costs for
the same work. This comparison provides the cost variance.
23. Identify, at least monthly, the significant differences between both planned and actual schedule
performance and planned and actual cost performance, and provide the reasons for the
variances in the detail needed by program management.
24. Identify budgeted and applied (or actual) indirect costs at the level and frequency needed by
management for effective control, along with the reasons for any significant variances.
25

26. ANSI EIA 748 Guidelines (Level 1 requirements)
25. Summarize the data elements and associated variances through the program organization
and/or work breakdown structure to support management needs and any customer reporting
specified in the contract.
26. Implement managerial actions taken as the result of earned value information.
27. Develop revised estimates of cost at completion based on performance to date, commitment
values for material, and estimates of future conditions. Compare this information with the
performance measurement baseline to identify variances at completion important to company
management any applicable customer reporting requirements including statements of funding
requirements.
28. Incorporate authorized changes in a timely manner, recording the effects of such changes in
budgets and schedules. In the directed effort prior to negotiation of a change, base such
revisions on the amount estimated and budgeted to the program organizations.
29. Reconcile current budgets to prior budgets in terms of changes to the authorized work and
internal replanning in the detail needed by management for effective control.
30. Control retroactive changes to records pertaining to work performed that would change
previously reported amounts for actual costs, earned value, or budgets. Adjustments should
be made only for correction of errors, routine accounting adjustments, effects of customer or
management directed changes, or to improve the baseline integrity and accuracy of
performance measurement data.
31. Prevent revisions to the program budget except for authorized changes.
32. Document changes to the performance measurement baseline.
26

27. Storyboard – Pre KDP B
(latest revision August 2010)
0.0 Pre KDP B
No No
MDAA / HQ
0.01
Acquisition 0.03 0.06
Strategy Planning Approve Program Plan &
Process Program FAD 0.05 PCA approval
0.02 Develop Draft 0.08
Prepare Program Plan (PM) Project FAD
Program FAD & PCA (MDAA) Approval
Yes
Program Mgr /
Yes Yes
Program Mgt
0.04
Yes
Office
Acquisition
Strategy Meeting
(Work Distribution/
Make/Buy) 0.07
Prepare
Project FAD
0.10
Project Office
Approval for
Manager /
Preliminary Project
Project
No Plan, WBS, Budget, 1.01
No Yes
Schedules, etc. for Organization
0.09 all phases as
Preliminary applicable
Project Plan,
WBS, Budget,
Schedules, etc.
for all phases as
Element Mgr /
Subproject /
applicable
Team
Institutional/
Functional
No
27

28. Storyboard – Organization
1.0 Organization
MDAA / HQ
1.01
KDP B
No
Program Mgr /
Program Mgt
Office
3.04
Prepare & Issue
Preliminary
Planning
Guidance / WAD /
Dollarized RAM
Project Office
Manager /
1.02
Project
Finalize Project Plan
for Phase C (EVM
Approach)
2.01
Extend and Refine
1.03
Master Schedule
Approve
(Draft)
Project Plan
Element Mgr /
Subproject /
1.04
1.05 1.07
Team
Yes Extend & 1.06
Prepare WBS Extend &
Refine Project Extend &
Dictionary Refine
WBS Refine Responsibility
Organizational Assignment 8.01
Breakdown Matrix (RAM) & Estimate Material
Structure (OBS) Identify Control Needs and Cost
Accounts
P-CAM
Institutional/
Functional
28

29. Storyboard – Scheduling
2.0 Scheduling
Developing IMS IMS Status & Update 7-1.11
Input CAPs/update
IMS, WBS, RAM,
WAD, etc. Update
10.08 budget logs (PBB,
Project Manager / Project Office
Integrate Supplier AUW, Contingency/
Cost/ Schedule MR, UB)
Data into Cost &
Schedule Tools and
7-2.08
Reports
Input CAPs/update
IMS, WBS, RAM,
WAD, etc. Update
1.07 budget logs (PBB,
Extend & Refine 8.21 AUW, Contingency/
2.04
Responsibility Received Material MR, UB)
Integrate
Assignment detailed Item / Claim BCWP
Matrix (RAM) & schedules 3.11
Identify Control Establish the
Accounts PMB
2.13
2.08 Input
2.02 2.05 Generate a workaround
2.01
Extend and Health Check form to gather IMS plans. 2.14
Extend and
Refine 2.03 status updates or Publish and 2.15
Refine Master 2.10 2.11
Intermediate- Extend and Verify vertical electronic file to Health Distribute Export data
Schedule 2.07 Input P-CAM Calculate a new
Level Refine logic- traceability collect P-CAM’s Check and final to cost tool
(Draft) Baseline and updates into the critical path and
Element Mgr
Schedule linked 3.07 schedule updates Analysis schedules
Subproject/
Publish detailed schedule new forecast
detailed CAP Reconcile Verify and EVM status
IMS and or cost tool dates
schedule or schedule with significant Iterate
source of CAP budget data project as needed.
(top,
schedule until fully milestones intermediate,
(draft), and integrated and detail
if applicable Determine 2.06 level)
assign EV critical path Review and
measurement 6-1.02
Approve 6-1.01
techniques Schedule Monthly
IMS Schedule
Risk Performance
Analysis
P-CAM
Assessment 2.09 Analysis
Provide status 2.12
including AS/AF, Review results of
forecasted dates, status.
Milestones, & EV
Develop
3.05
workaround plans
P-CAMs
as needed to
Develop CAPs
correct
Institutional/
(Budget only)
Functional
9.14 forecasted
Integrate schedule slips
Contractor Cost/
Schedule Data into
Cost & Schedule
Tools and Reports
Agency EVM Capability Project / Jerald Kerby, PM / (256) 544-3243 08/02/2010
29

30. Storyboard – Work/Budget Authorization
3.0 Work/Budget Authorization
MDAA / HQ
3.15
KDP C
2.05
3.01
Health Check
Update/Issue
WAD or
Verify vertical
Equivalent (e.g.,
Program Mgr /
traceability
Program Mgt
PAD)
Verify significant
Office
1.07 project milestones
Extend & Refine
Responsibility Determine 3.13
Assignment Matrix critical path Perform IBR
(RAM) & Identify
(Verify SOW, WBS
Control Accounts Schedule Risk Dictionary, PMB,
Assessment IMS, Risk, etc.)
Project Manager /
Project Office
3.11
3.10 Determine
Yes
Approved Reserves
Rqmnts
3.03
3.02
Prepare & Issue
Establish Project
Preliminary Planning
Budget Log
Guidance / WAD /
Dollarized RAM
3.12
Element Mgr /
3.07
Subproject /
Establish the
Reconcile PMB
Team
schedule with
budget data
until fully
2.03 3.06 integrated
Extend and Refine 3.04 Extend and 3.09
5.03 3.08 Finalize &
logic-linked Develop Tech, Cost, Refine
Time-phase Negotiate Issue CA
detailed CAP & Schedule Risk Charge 2.07
indirect budget CAPs WAD
schedule or source Assessment Numbers Baseline and
of CAP schedule (If needed) Publish
P-CAM
(draft), and 3.14
IMS
if applicable assign Incorporate
EV measurement Changes if
(top, intermediate,
techniques Required
and detail level)
3.05
P-CAMs Develop
CAPs
Institutional/
(Budget only)
Functional
2.04
Integrate
detailed
schedules
Agency EVM Capability Project / Jerald Kerby, PM / (256) 544-3243 08/02/2010
30

31. Storyboard – Accounting
4.0 Accounting
Program Mgr /
Program Mgt
Office
Yes
Project Manager / Project Office
6-1.02
4.07 4.08
Monthly
Incorporate verified Verify Load into
Performance
ACWP into Cost tool Cost Tool
4.03 Analysis
4.04
Download data from
Verify/Distribute
Core Financial
ACWP data to P-
System into
CAMs
spreadsheets
4.09
Reconcile to
general book of
accounts
Element Mgr /
Subproject /
4.05
Team
Verify labor charges
and other charges as
applicable
8.13 4.06
Enter acceptance Correct errors as
into SAP (Actuals applicable
Recorded)
P-CAM
Institutional/
Functional
4.01
Record Cost in 4.02
Core Financial Month end closing No
System
Agency EVM Capability Project / Jerald Kerby, PM / (256) 544-3243 08/02/2010
31

32. Storyboard – Indirect Management
5.0 Indirect Management
MDAA / HQ
Program Mgr /
Program Mgt
3.05
Office
P-CAMs Develop
CAPs
(Budget only)
Project Office
Manager /
Project
Element Mgr /
Subproject /
5.05 5.08
6-2.02
Team
5.02 5.03 Analyze and Establish EAC with
Develop ETC Plan
Establish budgets Time-phase evaluate variances ETC rates for
for the Control
for indirect cost indirect budget caused by indirect indirect cost at CA/
Account and BoE
costs WP level
P-CAM
Institutional/
Functional
5.01 5.06
5.04 5.07
IM Center CFO Analyze and
Collect and record Develop EAC &
provide indirect evaluate base and
indirect cost ETC rates
Guidance rate variances
32

33. Storyboard – Managerial Analysis
6-1.0 Managerial Analysis
MDAA / HQ
9.14 10.08
Integrate Integrate Intra-
6-1.12
Contractor Agency (other
Review
Cost/Schedule Centers) Cost/
Performance Data
Data into Cost & Schedule Data into
Assess Impact on
Program Mgr /
Program Mgt
Schedule Tools Cost & Schedule
Reserves (UFE)
and Reports Tools and Reports
Office
2.14
Publish and
Project Office
Distribute
6-1.11
Manager /
final 6-1.05 Prepare and Issue
Project
schedules 6-1.04 6-1.08
Identify accounts Monthly 6-1.10
6-1.03 Analyze Data Review Metrics,
that exceed Performance Review and
Run preliminary Metrics and Variance Analysis,
established Reports Approve Changes
CPR and Trends Corrective Actions
thresholds and incorporate
Variance
Analysis Report revised ETC, if
forms necessary
Element Mgr /
Subproject /
No
6-2.01
Team
6-1.01 6-1.02 Issue
Schedule Monthly Comprehensive
Analysis Performance project EAC 6-1.09
Analysis planning 6-1.06 6-1.07 Review and
guidelines Analysis and Routine ETC /
Yes Submit revised
response to VARs EAC Revision WAD, If Required
Required?
P-CAM
Optional
7-2.01
Identify Internal
Institutional/
4.08 Change
Functional
Verify Load into
Cost tool
33

34. Storyboard – Comprehensive EAC
6-2.0 Comprehensive Estimate-at-Completion (EAC)
MDAA / HQ
Program Mgr /
Program Mgt
Office
6-1.04 6-2.12
Analyze Data Performance
Metrics and Reports
Trends
6-2.05
Yes
Project Office
Approve EAC?
Manager /
Project
6-2.09 6-2.10 6-2.11
Update Project Contingency/MR Update Reported
6-2.01 Lien List Analysis EAC
Issue (If Necessary)
6-2.03 6-2.04 Yes
Comprehensive
Analyze EACs and Review Project
project EAC
BoEs ETC / EAC
planning
No
Element Mgr /
guidelines
Subproject /
Team
6-2.06
6-2.02 Document
Develop ETC Plan Disagreement (re-
for the Control negotiate/iterate
Account and BoE as needed)
P-CAM
6-2.08
6-2.07 Revised EAC:
Update EAC on Approved WAD
WAD
5.08
Establish EAC with
ETC rates for
Institutional/
Functional
indirect cost at CA/
WP level
34

35. Storyboard – Change Mgmt (External)
7-1.0 Change Management (External Changes)
MDAA / HQ
7-1.06
No
7-1.01 Approved?
Identify External
Program Mgr /
Program Mgt
Changes
Office
Yes
7-1.04 7-1.05
Revise Program/ Revise Program/
Project Office
Yes Project Plan
Project
Manager /
Plan?
Project
7-1.07
Publish Guidance 7-1.11 7-1.12
No for Authorized Input CAPs/update Issue approved
7-1.10 WADs/CAPS/
Change IMS, WBS, RAM,
Review & IMS/WBS/Publish
Yes WAD, etc. Update
Element Mgr /
7-1.03 Approve CAPs
Subproject /
7-1.02 budget logs (PBB, Project Budget
Prepare Assess change, & EACs? Logs
AUW, Contingency/
Team
Change develop MR, UB)
Request technical, cost &
Documentation schedule
impacts 7-1.09
Review CAPs
& EACs
7-1.08
Develop new and/ 7-1.13
P-CAM
or revise existing Receive approved
Control Account WAD, CAPs &
Plans (CAPs) & EAC
EAC
Institutional/
Functional
No
35