Posted in A colleague – Paul Solomon – has kept us all informed about legislation working its way through Congress to improve the oversight of projects. The first round of improvements has been passed, but there is a flaw in the current language.
Paul has urged us all to write our senators to support an amendment to S. 920 to correct a seemingly subtle wording, but words that are critical to the success of this legislation.
Here are the contents of a letter Paul sent, and I'm asking we support this effort with similar letters or emails to our senators.
Senator [Name],
Yesterday, S. 920, ‘‘Information Technology (IT) Investment Oversight Enhancement
and Waste Prevention Act of 2009,’’ was placed on the calendar. I applaud its objective
to improve the transparency of the status of IT investments. The bill is intended to increase Congress’ knowledge of the actual cost, schedule, and performance of agency IT investments and to improve necessary oversight.However, S. 920 has a significant flaw because of its reliance on the accuracy of quarterly reports of cost, schedule, and performance that use earned value management data based on the ANSI/EIA–748–B standard, “Earned Value Management System”
(EVMS). Unfortunately, EVMS does not provide for measurement of performance. The
EVMS standard discusses only the measurement of the quantity of work performed and excludes measurement of quality or technical performance (Quality Gap). Furthermore, a similar Quality Gap in the FAR enables federal contractors to submit monthly earned value Contract Performance Reports that may contain inaccurate, misleading
information.The House has addressed this flaw in the recently passed H.R. 5013, “IMPROVE Acquisition Act.” As discussed in my letter to Sen. Levin dated April 28, H.R. 5013
includes a provision that requires DoD to consider “whether measures of quality and technical performance should be included in any EVMS.”Because H.R. 5013 is only applicable to defense acquisitions, please consider adding a provision to S. 920 that concludes that measures of quality and technical performance
should be included in any EVMS and that the FAR be should be revised accordingly.Thank in advance for your support on this seemly arcane but important topic to the business success of our Colorado aerospace and defense industry.
Additional information is available at my Paul's site, http://www.pb-ev.com . The site has links to
pertinent letters to Chairman Levin (SASC), Chairman Skelton (HASC), and Mr. Zients
http://pb-ev.com/DoDEVMImplementationReport.aspx . This letter is also posted there.
Please take the time to resend this text to your senators to correct this flaw and finally “connect the dots between Cost, Schedule, and Technical Performance Measures.
Talks being given Paul, another colleague, and me at EVM World 2010 in Naples FL speak directly to making the connections that significantly improve the probability of success for all programs, no matter the domain and context
Author: Herding Cats
Yes, it is wonderful to include measures of quality and performance, but how exactly do you do that with EVM? That’s like trying to measure temperature with a yardstick. You can’t conclude “whether measures of quality and technical performance should be included in any EVMS.” Alongside EVMS perhaps, but not included within an EVMS. Not without wholesale changes to the ANSI standards at least.
This is a wonderful suggestion, but you must think about how to execute it. Otherwise, you have Generals issuing commands that the troops can’t perform in the field.