1.
Presenter EVMS Process Leader:Presenter EVMS Process Leader:
Svjetlana Lana RadovicSvjetlana Lana Radovic
April 27, 2009
Variance Analysis Training

2.
2
Module 1 Contract Work Breakdown Structure
Module 2 Contract / Project Budgets
Module 3 Scheduling & Scope/Schedule/Cost Integration
Module 4 Control Account Plan / RAM
Module 5 EV Application
Module 6 Work Authorization
Module 7 Schedule Status
Module 8 Subcontract Management
Module 9 ACWP & Estimated Actuals
Module 10 Performance Data Analysis
Module 11 Estimate to Complete (ETC)
Module 12 Variance Analysis Reporting
Module 13 Material Management
Module 14 Baseline Change Management
Module 15 CAM Interview Methods
Welcome to Variance Analysis Training
2

3.
3
Training Objectives
 Upon completion of this training, participants will:
 Know what an Variance Analysis is and how it fits into the EVMS
process
 Know the importance of an accurate Variance Analysis Report
 Know how to develop an Variance Analysis Report
3

4.
4
VAR Course Outline
 Training Objectives
 Variance Analysis Purpose
 Data Flow & Functions
 Roles and Responsibilities
 Government & Company Policies and Requirements
 Contract Performance Reports CPR
 Variance Analysis Report CPR Format 5
 Repositories, Data Analysis & Reports
 Variance Analysis Considerations
 Root-Cause Analysis
 Impact Analysis (Technical, Cost, and Schedule)
 Corrective Action Plan
4

5.
5
VAR Course Outline
 Variance Analysis Examples
 Thresholds,
 Schedule vs. Cost,
 Current Month
 Cumulative .
 At Completion
 Reporting Levels vs. Drivers
 Applications Demo:
 wInsight VAR Capabilities for CAMs
 Application of EVMS
 VAR in PM Meetings
 VAR Corrective Action Register and Metrics
 VAR CAM Scorecard and Metrics

6.
6
Index of Terms
EVMS:
 PMB – Performance Measurement Baseline
 BCWP – Budgeted Cost for Work Performed
Earned Value or the Budgeted Value of Work Accomplished
 ACWP – Actual Cost of Work Performed or Actual Costs
 BCWS – Budgeted Cost for Work Scheduled or Planned Budget
 BAC – Budgeted Cost at Completion
 EAC – Estimated Cost at Completion/LRE – Latest Revised Estimate
 VAC – Variance at Completion
 CV / SV – Cost/Schedule Variance
 CPI / /SPI – Cost/Schedule Performance Index or Cost/Schedule Efficiency
 TCPIEAC – To complete Performance Index
Other:
 CPR – Contract Performance Report
 DID – Data Item Description
 SDRD – Supplier Data Requirements Description
 RW – Rolling wave
 PP – Planning Package
 BCR – Baseline Change Request
 CP – Critical Path
 ME – Month-End; MM – Mid-Month
 CM – Current month
 CUME – Cumulative
 BOM – Bill of Material
 PR – Purchase Requisition
 PO – Purchase Order
 AI – Artificial Intelligence

7.
7
DoD EVM policy
 Whether to apply EVM to a contract therefore Variance Analysis
Report Format 5?
 What is the contract type
 Cost, incentive, or
 Firm-fixed price?
 What is the dollar value of the contract ($20 million or above)?
 If cost or incentive type and is valued at $20 million or
greater, under the revised policy the contract would require
the implementation of EVM.
 Exempt is non-schedule based work - FFP contracts
 Either A way to avoid EVM requirements but high risk
 Or EVM Optionally requested by PMs or required by
customer

8.
8
EVMIG
 ≥ $50M REQUIRED Includes: Contracts for highly classified, foreign, and in-
house programs.
 Must use ANSI/EIA-748 compliant and validated management system
(think of PAV)
 CPR (all formats) is required
 Integrated Master Schedule is required
 Schedule Risk Assessment (SRA) is required
 ≥ $20M but < $50M REQUIRED Includes: Contracts for highly classified,
foreign, and in-house programs.
 Must use ANSI/EIA-748 compliant management system. No validation.
 CPR Formats 1 and 5 are required.
 Integrated Master Schedule is required.
Not required for: Firm-fixed price contracts. (Requires business case analysis and MDA approval.) Not recommended for:
Contracts less than 12 months in duration. OPTIONAL May not be appropriate for: Non-schedule based contract efforts,
e.g., level of effort.
Variance analysis
cPr Format 5
Variance analysis
cPr Format 5

9.
9
Government Requirements - DID
 DATA ITEM DESCRIPTION
 TITLE: CONTRACT PERFORMANCE REPORT (CPR)
 NUMBER: DI-MGMT-81466A
CPR in general = competitive edge

10.
10
MANAGEMENT CONTROL SYSTEM
DESCRIPTION
 Sections covering Variance analysis in MCSD:
 7.2. Variance Analysis
 7.2.1. Variance Analysis Report
 7.2.2. Variance Thresholds
 7.2.3. Schedule Variance (SV)
 7.2.4. Cost Variance (CV)
 7.2.5. IMS Schedule Variance
 7.2.6. Variance at Completion (VAC)
 7.2.7. Performance Indices
 7.2.7.1. Schedule Performance Index (SPI)
 7.2.7.2. Cost Performance Index (CPI)
 7.2.7.3. To Complete Performance Index (TCPI)
≥ $50M REQUIRED Includes: Contracts for highly classified, foreign, and in-house programs.
Must use ANSI/EIA-748 compliant and validated management system
(think of PAV)

11.
11
VAR Goal & Purpose
 Contain cost growth
 Minimize cost and schedule impacts to the program
 Monthly narrative supporting formal customer reporting
 Audit trail of problem analysis, impact and corrective action
 Required when thresholds are breached
 Primary communication vehicle and consolidated formal interpretation of
program status
 Decision making trigger for the program managers
 Reported at the control account level at which the work is being performed
 Detects variances that otherwise could go unnoticed
 Induces preventive/corrective actions

12.
12
 Variance Analysis Report Summarizes Root-Cause,
evaluates impacts and provides corrective actions
strategy
 Insight in the future success of the program
 Correlation and impact on other
teams/accounts
 Variance can be indirectly caused by
problems on other accounts
 Critical path analysis should include
implications on other accounts and program
 Analyzed at least monthly by the CAM with
support from business operations and
program planning
Variance Explanations

13.
13
VARs Data Flow & Functions
Responsibility of the CAM
If an EAC impact is included, it is
also reviewed and approved by the
Program Manager
Based on month-end data and
provided to the CAMs by Finance
for completion and return
Reviewed and approved by
Program & Business Management
Consolidated per SDRD – CPR
(Contract Performance Report)
Format 5
Signed and Approved
Submitted to Customers
(Internal/External)

14.
14
Responsibility
 CONTROL ACCOUNT + MANAGER Assigned = CAM
 Responsible For ALL assigned Control Accounts and
corresponding subtasks (lower level CAs, WPs, PPs)
 Reference to Responsibility Assignment Matrix (RAM)
 Intersection of OBS and a Control Account
 Program Manager Assigns The Control Account Manager
(CAM)
 One CAM per Control Account
 Multiple Control Accounts per CAM
 Responsibility entails the work within the
 Scope
 Schedule
 Budget

15.
15
Customer
End
Gov
VARs Data Flow & Functions - Overview
VARs
Data
VARs
Data
Program Planning
Control
and Finance
Start
CPR
Format 5
CPR
Format 5 SDRD
CPR
SDRD
CPR
EAC
Approved?
EAC
Approved?
NoNo
YesYes
ApprovalApproval
Inputs
Reviews
Inputs
Reviews
Program &
Business
Management
YesYes
NoNo
ExchangeExchange
ExchangeExchange
CAM
EAC
Impacted?
EAC
Impacted?
Completed
VARs
Completed
VARs
ExchangeExchange

16.
16
Project X EVMS Chart EXAMPLE
Distributed Budget = 689
AUW = 506
CBB = 741
BAC = 732
EAC = 826
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Sep-06
Nov-06
Jan-07
Mar-07
May-07
Jul-07
Sep-07
Nov-07
Jan-08
Mar-08
May-08
Jul-08
Sep-08
Nov-08
Jan-09
Mar-09
May-09
Jul-09
Sep-09
Nov-09
Jan-10
Mar-10
May-10
Jul-10
Sep-10
Nov-10
Jan-11
Mar-11
May-11
Jul-11
Sep-11
Nov-11
Jan-12
Mar-12
May-12
Jul-12
Sep-12
Nov-12
Jan-13
Mar-13
May-13
Jul-13
Sep-13
Nov-13
Jan-14
Mar-14
May-14
Jul-14
Sep-14
$inMillions
Completion Date
BCWS
ACWP
Time Now
Schedule Variance
BCWP
Cost Variance
MR = 8.9 ; UB = 43.4
ETC
Variance at
Complete
FuturePast

17.
17
SOW WBS
OBSRAM
Control
Accounts
WP
PP
IMS
Resources
Resources
Resources
Resources
CPR
Format 5
CPR
Format 1,2,3,4
CAP
PMB
ChargeNumbers
WADs
Actuals
Cost & Schedule Integration
Start
End

18.
18
Steps in Variance Analysis
CPR
Format 5
CPR
Format 1,2,3,4
CAP
ETC IMS Updates
BCWS
BCWP
VAC
BAC
EAC
PMT
% Complete
LOE 100-0 50-50
QBDs
Labor
Non-Labor
BOMsPOsPRs
Labor
Non-Labor
Rates
Actuals
Accruals
Commitments
Estimated
Actuals
BCRs AUW
UB
MR
CV
SV
ACWP
Start/Finish
Dates/ETC
Excel Input
Sheets
StartEnd

19.
19
ACWP Cost– Rate Analysis
 ACWP Affects:
 CV Cost Variance
 VAC Variance At Completion
 EAC Estimate At Completion (EAC =ACWP+ETC)
 EAC Affects VAC (VAC-BAC=EAC)
 Therefore ACWP affects VAC
Start
End

20.
20
Baseline
Changes Scope,
Schedule,
Budget
BCWS & BAC Analysis
 BCWS Affects:
 SV Schedule Variance
 BAC – Changes  VAC
 BAC Affects:
 VAC Variance At Completion
 BCWS - changes
IMS Updates
Excel Input
Sheets
Start
End

21.
21
BCWP Performance Analysis
 Affects:
 SV Schedule Variance
 CV Cost Variance
Excel Input
Sheets
Start
End

22.
22
 ETC Affects:
 VAC
 EAC (ACWP+ETC)
 EAC Affects VAC
 Therefore ETC affects VAC
ETC Estimate to Complete Analysis
Excel Input
Sheets
StartEnd

23.
23
Review WBS Levels and Elements
Customer Reporting Level CA Control Account
 Internal Reporting& Lower level CAs Control Accounts
 WPs Work packages
 Charge Numbers
Budget elements (EOC – Element of Cost)
 Internal Labor (BR1, BR3, etc. – not ETC )
 Regular material
 Travel
 Subcontractors (labor and non-labor)
 Consulting (labor and non-labor)
 ODC (Other Direct Costs – Education,
Publications, Meals per FAR and Contract)

24.
24
VARs Frequency - Sample
SDRD B-001 533M
SDRD B-003 CPR Fmt1 SDRD B-003 CPR
Preliminary Final ME:
8-Jan-09 15-Jan-09 Dec
5-Feb-09 12-Feb-09 *533Q Jan
5-Mar-09 12-Mar-09 Feb
6-Apr-09 13-Apr-09 Mar
6-May-08 13-May-08 *533Q Apr
4-Jun-08 11-Jun-08 May
 VARs submittal to the customer i.e. CPR (Contract
Performance Report) Format 5 occurs Typically once a
month during final CPR (Contract Performance Report)
submittal.
 Preliminary VAR Format 5 CPR (Contract Performance
Report) is optional with Remaining Preliminary CPR
(Contract Performance Report) Formats (Formats 1-4)
which are normally delivered 2 weeks before final CRPs

25.
25
Thresholds
 Per DID Section 2.2.6.4 …“Significant variances as specified in the
contract shall be fully explained in Format 5. If the contract does not
specify variance analysis thresholds, the contractor shall provide
appropriate variance analyses. (See Section 2.6.3.) “
 Depend on program complexity, size and type
 Highlight areas requiring management attention
 More strict in high risk areas
 Fluctuate over time

26.
26
Thresholds & Implications
 Customer & Internal Level WBS accounts that trip the customer
defined thresholds require explanations
 Internal CAs variances (and corresponding WPs variances) typically
roll up into a higher-level customer defined reporting level CAs
requiring explanation
unless offset by opposite variances – to watch out for!!!
 Internal Orbital CA level thresholds < Customer CA reporting
thresholds
 IMPORTANT: Look at the lower level Control Accounts, Work
packages, Elements of Costs variances
 At a higher level no variance can be a results of offsetting but
significant variations at lower levels – e.g. favorable variance is
offset by unfavorable even though both require corrective action
 Looking at the higher level WBS is not enough

27.
27
Thresholds Example
LM Variance
Tresholds: ± 10% and $100K ± 10% and $200K ± $5M
Problem Cause 3
CM Cumulative At Completion
1
CV * * *
2
SV * *
Impact 3
CM Cumulative At Completion
1
CV * * *
2
SV * *
Corective Action 3
CM Cumulative At Completion
1
CV * * *
2
SV * *
1
Cost Variance
2
Schedule Variance
3
Current Month

28.
28
To Watch out For
 EVMS normally excludes FFP; however, if CPR required by contract:
 FFP billed price (with fees) will be reported as ACWP
 BCWS will equal BCWP – non-schedule based work
 PMT technique
 Mixed PMTs within a single CA should be proportionate
 Disproportionate LOE and Discrete Mix can result in incredible
VAR report due to offsetting nature of LOE if greater than
Discrete – masks the problems
 100 % LOE accounts by nature have no schedule variance
automatically – what if actuals are zero? If work has not started?

29.
29
Reports & Data Repositories
For Variance Analysis

30.
30
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
Location: Scenario:
eCAM Notebook Best Case
Server Folder Most Likely
e-mail Worst Case
Location: Scenario:
eCAM Notebook Best Case
eCAM Notebook Most Likely
Server Folder Worst Case
NOWFUTURE

31.
31
Best Case - eCAM Notebook

32.
32
Best Case - eCAM Notebook
 Host Root Location:
 vamaindataApgOrionA_Program Management16_Control_Account_Mg
 Also available via OrbNet

33.
33
Reports & Data Repositories
EVMS VALIDATION
Applying Artificial Intelligence

34.
34
 eCAM notebook is being continuously improved and until final;
diverting to server locations via Explorer is possible
 Goal in the future is to utilize eCAM notebook 100%
 Below is the example of how VAR files are structured on the server
right now while eCAM notebook is being finalized:
Most Likely Case – Server via Explorer
Reports currently utilized to result
in final Variance Analysis Reports
Officially CPR Format 5

35.
35
CAP – CONTROL ACCOUNT PLAN
Program: Description: Approval:
CEVFEB09 February 2009 Working File Program Manager
Run Date: Status Date: Functional Manager
3/6/2009 10:06 2/22/2009 Cost Account Manager
Orbital Rpt Lv[21] WP MAY_07 JUN_07 JUL_07 AUG_07 SEP_07 OCT_07 NOV_07
1.6.4.1.05 Cost/Schedule Mgmt and Reporting
16410501-LAB-IMP-W01 BCWS 1,838 2,182 1,723 1,838 2,182 1,838 1,608
16410502-CNSLTNG-CSM-W01 BCWS 29,307 35,168 27,841 29,307 35,168 29,307 26,376
16410502-LAB-IMS-W01 BCWS 14,701 2,182 0 0 0 0 0
16410502-LAB-IMS-W02 BCWS 0 17,687 15,735 0 0 0 0
16410502-LAB-IMS-W03 BCWS 0 0 0 27,302 32,762 27,302 24,571
16410502-SUB-CSM-W01 BCWS 9,325 11,190 8,859 9,325 11,190 9,325 8,392
16410502-SUB-IMS-W01 BCWS 12,788 24,043 19,034 0 0 0 0
16410502-SUB-IMS-W02 BCWS 8,881 15,531 16,357 0 0 0 0
16410502-SUB-IMS-W03 BCWS 0 0 0 51,235 61,482 51,235 46,112
16410502-TVL-CSM-W01 BCWS 0 1,388 1,388 1,388 1,388 1,388 1,388
16410503-LAB-CPR-W01 BCWS 7,168 12,361 2,050 0 0 0 0
16410503-LAB-CPR-W02 BCWS 0 0 0 21,106 25,327 21,106 18,996
16410504-LAB-CSM-W01 BCWS 21,505 37,187 29,452 30,938 37,187 30,938 27,830
CAP – CONTROL ACCOUNT PLAN
The Control Account Plan (CAP) report
MONTHLY SPREAD
Provides TIME-PHASED Details for
BCWS BCWP ACWP ETC
Also used to support IBRs and joint surveillance
reviews (JSRs).
The Control Account Plan (CAP) report
MONTHLY SPREAD
Provides TIME-PHASED Details for
BCWS BCWP ACWP ETC
Also used to support IBRs and joint surveillance
reviews (JSRs).

36.
36
CLASSIFICATION (When Filled In)
CONTRACT PERFORMANCE REPORT FORM APPROVED
OMB No. 0704-0188
1. CONTRACTOR 2. CONTRACT 3. PROGRAM 4. REPORT PERIOD
a. NAME a. NAME a. NAME a. FROM (YYYYMMDD)
b. LOCATION (Address and ZIP Code) b. NUMBER b. PHASE
XXXXX b. TO (YYYYMMDD)
c. TYPE d. SHARE RATIO c. EVMS ACCEPTANCE
CPAF NO X YES (YYYYMMDD)
5. CONTRACT DATA
a. QUANTITY b. NEGOTIATED d. TARGET PROFIT/ e. TARGET f. ESTIMATED g. CONTRACT i. DATE OF OTB/OTS
COSTAUTHORIZED UNPRICED WORK FEE PRICE PRICE CEILING (YYYYMMDD)
1
6. ESTIMATED COST AT COMPLETION 7. AUTHORIZED CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE
MANAGEMENT ESTIMATE CONTRACT BUDGET VARIANCE a. NAME (Last, First, Middle Initial)
AT COMPLETION BASE
(1) (2) (3)
a. BEST CASE 666,137 c. SIGNATURE d. DATE SIGNED
b. WORST CASE 740,153 (YYYYMMDD)
c. MOST LIKELY 703,145 740,153 37,008
8. PERFORMANCE DATA
LM Rpt Lvl[21] CURRENT PERIOD CUMULATIVE TO DATE AT COMPLETION
ACTUAL ACTUAL
BUDGETED COST COST VARIANCE BUDGETED COST COST VARIANCE
WORK WORK WORK WORK WORK WORK BUDGETED ESTIMATED VARIANCE
ITEM SCHEDULED PERFORMED PERFORMED SCHEDULE COST SCHEDULED PERFORMED PERFORMED SCHEDULE COST
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (14) (15) (16)
1.1.8 Special Research 0 0 0 0 0 390 390 409 0 -18 390 409 -18
1.3.2 System Configuration 30 30 42 0 -12 2,967 2,954 2,695 -13 259 4,708 4,600 108
1.7.1.1 Management -4,059 -4,059 1,937 0 -5,996 24,387 24,387 28,205 0 -3,818 77,172 81,196 -4,024
1.7.1.2 Systems Engineering 567 536 454 -31 82 15,947 15,648 13,480 -299 2,168 28,561 29,728 -1,167
1.7.1.3.02 Data -226 -217 171 9 -389 4,319 4,279 5,585 -40 -1,306 8,340 9,625 -1,285
1.7.1.3.08 Electrical Power Subsystem 0 0 0 0 0 139 139 78 0 60 139 78 60
1.7.1.3.07 Mechanisms 10 10 0 0 9 3,563 3,563 5,290 0 -1,727 3,569 5,325 -1,756
1.7.1.3.07 Thermal Control 60 60 13 0 47 1,373 1,372 1,124 -1 248 1,692 1,469 224
1.7.1.3.09 Constructions 120 265 1,212 145 -947 27,984 27,720 28,930 -264 -1,210 39,926 42,239 -2,314
1.7.1.3.10 Rotation 21,016 20,806 8,588 -210 12,218 197,923 189,430 277,342 -8,493 -87,912 523,084 649,833 -126,749
1.7.1.3.13 Pyrotechnics -1 -47 23 -46 -70 2,023 1,888 2,176 -135 -288 3,678 6,072 -2,394
1.7.1.3.18 Navigation 241 199 133 -42 67 7,137 7,028 5,921 -109 1,107 10,891 9,792 1,099
1.7.1.3.17 Instrumentation -67 -78 28 -11 -106 756 745 886 -11 -141 1,024 1,212 -188
1.7.1.8 Test, Verification and Certification 102 102 286 1 -183 4,463 4,456 4,139 -8 317 10,008 9,736 272
1.7.1.7.01 Hardware 129 56 204 -72 -148 5,564 5,491 9,525 -73 -4,034 6,883 11,159 -4,275
1.7.1.7.02 Design and Production -810 -844 179 -34 -1,023 1,614 1,602 2,942 -12 -1,340 2,874 4,315 -1,441
b. Cost of Money 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c. Gen. and Admin. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
d. Undist. Budget 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45,516 29,769 15,747
e. Sub Total 17,111 16,820 13,269 -291 3,551 300,549 291,092 388,727 -9,458 -97,635 768,456 896,556 -128,100
f. Management Resrv. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,704 0 0
g. Total 17,111 16,820 13,269 -291 3,551 300,549 291,092 388,727 -9,458 -97,635 777,160 0 0
9. Reconciliation to CBB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a. Variance Adjustment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
b. Total Contract Variance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -9,007 -92,986 740,153 853,863 -113,710
FORMAT 1 - WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE
Orbital Proprietary
c. ESTIMATED COST OF
CPR Format 1 –Starting Point
CURRENT PERIOD CUMULATIVE TO DATE AT COMPLETION
CV
SV
CV
SV
ACWP
BCWP
ACWP
BCWP
VAC
EAC
BAC
BCWS
BCWS
-
- =
- =
=
- =
- =

37.
37
CPR Format 1– BE/EOC/Resource
Review internal performance
reports to quantify variances
by cost element
Review internal performance
reports to quantify variances
by cost element
VAC
CURRENT PERIOD CUMULATIVE TO DATE AT COMPLETION
CV
SV
CV
SV

38.
38
CPR Format 1– Orb CA, WP & EOC
Identify WPs
Not only CAs
creating variances
isolate significant
labor rate variances
Identify WPs
Not only CAs
creating variances
isolate significant
labor rate variances
VAC
CURRENT PERIOD CUMULATIVE TO DATE AT COMPLETION
CV
SV
CV
SV

39.
39
COST PERFORMANCE REPORT Form Approved
FORMAT 1 - WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE OMB No. 0704-0188
CONTRACTOR CONTRACT PROGRAM REPORT PERIOD
NAME NAME NAME FROM (YYMMDD)
Orbital Sciences Corporation February 2009 Working File 90126
LOCATION NUMBER
21839 Atlantic Blvd. Dulles, VA 20166 RH6-291357 TO (YYMMDD)
TYPE SHARE RATIOPHASE (X one) 90222
CPAF RDT&E PRODUCTION
Contract Data
QUANITY NEGOTIATED COST EST. COST AUTHOR- TARGET PROFIT/ TARGET PRICEESTIMATED CONTRACT ESTIMATED CONTRACT
IZED UNPRICED WORK FEE PRICE CEILING CEILING
1 234,455 370,713 47,726 7.89 282,181 438,770 262,516 398,407
ESTIMATED COST AT COMPLETION AUTHORIZED CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE
MANAGEMENT ESTIMATE CONTRACT BUDGET VARIANCE NAME (Last, First, Middle Initial) TITLE
AT COMPLETION BASE
(1) (2) (3)
BEST CASE 0 605167.425 -605,167 SIGNATURE DATE SIGNED
WORST CASE 0 (YYMMDD)
MOST LIKELY
PERFORMANCE DATA
LM Rpt Lvl[21] CURRENT PERIOD CUMULATIVE TO DATE AT COMPLETION
CAM ACTUAL ACTUAL
CWBS[20] BUDGETED COST COST VARIANCE BUDGETED COST COST VARIANCE LATEST
WORK WORK WORK WORK WORK WORK REVISED
ITEM SCHEDULEDPERFORMEDPERFORMED SCHEDULE COST SCHEDULEDPERFORMEDPERFORMED SCHEDULE COST BUDGETED ESTIMATE VARIANCE
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
1.1.8 Special Studies
HILDEBRAND John 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.1.8.01 Orion ALAS-11 Evaluation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CAMTotals: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LM Rpt Lvl[21]Totals: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RADOVIC Lana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.6.4.1.05 Cost/Schedule Mgmt and Reporting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.6.4.1.05A Cost/Schedule Mgmt and Reporting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.6.4.1.06 Financial Management 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.6.4.1.06A Financial Management - R2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CPR Format 1– Orb Reporting CA
Orb Reporting CA level
Identify IPTs and performing
organization and other CAs
(e.g. givers/receivers)
contributing to cost variance
Identify IPTs and performing
organization and other CAs
(e.g. givers/receivers)
contributing to cost variance
VAC
CURRENT PERIOD CUMULATIVE TO DATE AT COMPLETION
CV
SV
CV
SV

40.
40
CONTRACT PERFORMANCE REPORT FORM APPROVED
OMB No. 0704-0188
1. CONTRACTOR 2. CONTRACT 3. PROGRAM 4. REPORT PERIOD
a. NAME a. NAME a. NAME a. FROM (YYYYMMDD)
Orbital Sciences Corporation February 2009 Working File
b. LOCATION (Address and ZIP Code) b. NUMBER b. PHASE 2009 / 01 / 27
21839 Atlantic Blvd. Dulles, VA 20166 RH6-291357 b. TO (YYYYMMDD)
c. TYPE d. SHARE RATIO c. EVMS ACCEPTANCE
CPAF NO X YES (YYYYMMDD) 2009 / 02 / 22
5. CONTRACT DATA
a. QUANTITY b. NEGOTIATED d. TARGET PROFIT/ e. TARGET f. ESTIMATED g. CONTRACT i. DATE OF OTB/OTS
COSTAUTHORIZED UNPRICED WORK FEE PRICE PRICE CEILING (YYYYMMDD)
6. ESTIMATED COST AT COMPLETION 7. AUTHORIZED CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE
MANAGEMENT ESTIMATE CONTRACT BUDGET VARIANCE a. NAME (Last, First, Middle Initial)
AT COMPLETION BASE
(1) (2) (3)
a. BEST CASE 0 c. SIGNATURE d. DATE SIGNED
b. WORST CASE 0 (YYYYMMDD)
c. MOST LIKELY 438,770 605,167 166,397
8. PERFORMANCE DATA
LM Rpt Lvl[21] CURRENT PERIOD CUMULATIVE TO DATE AT COMPLETION
ACTUAL ACTUAL
BUDGETED COST COST VARIANCE BUDGETED COST COST VARIANCE
WORK WORK WORK WORK WORK WORK BUDGETED ESTIMATED VARIANCE
ITEM SCHEDULEDPERFORMEDPERFORMED SCHEDULE COST SCHEDULEDPERFORMEDPERFORMED SCHEDULE COST
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (14) (15) (16)
1.1.8 Special Studies 372 372 3 -17 372 3 -17
1.3.2 System Safety 1.xx 1.xx 3 -2 x76.3 x74.7 xx7.3466 -1x.41 x7.4x3 318 31x.6 4
1.6.4.1 LAS Management and Administration x37.1 x3x3.1 3.x664 16 146.x41 x71.6344 x71.6344 x17.7x71 x73.73 34.76x3 36xx.344 -1x6.x7x
1.6.4.2 LAS Systems Engineering and Integration 72 76.xx1x 374 5 2 14,648 143x.6x61 1x46.64 -x.7 16.6x1 xx33.7x3 x1x1x.3x x1.11
1.6.4.3.02 Command and Data Handling (C&DH) 12 12 x3. 7x.164 -61.3x 43x.66 4x1.74x4 2 -47 -74.x33 6.x637 742 -6.3x1
1.6.4.3.05 Electrical Power Subsystem .xx -.xx 13x.4 13x.4 74 8 13x.4 74 8
1.6.4.3.06 Mechanisms 6 6 1 0 334.x 334.x 37.63x -163 33.x7 1x7.43 -17x.1x4
1.6.4.3.07 Passive Thermal Control 3 4.3x x4.x3 2 16.4x 1x.4x74 1x4.63 1 -1 11 1,476 1,314 16x.1
1.6.4.3.09 Structures 1 x73.x67 4x.1 117 -18 x637.47 x6147.34 x63.477 -3.6xx -x.6xxx x7.x x7.1x4 -1,314
FORMAT 1 - WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE
c. ESTIMATED COST OF
CPR Format 1– Customer Report. CA
Customer Reporting CA level
VAC
CURRENT PERIOD CUMULATIVE TO DATE AT COMPLETION
Roll-up your findings into a higher
CAs level variance explanations
Up to Customer CA reporting level
Roll-up your findings into a higher
CAs level variance explanations
Up to Customer CA reporting level
CV
SV
CV
SV

41.
41
CLASSIFICATION (When Filled In)
CONTRACT PERFORMANCE REPORT FORM APPROVED
OMB No. 0704-0188
1. CONTRACTOR 2. CONTRACT 3. PROGRAM 4. REPORT PERIOD
a. NAME a. NAME a. NAME a. FROM (YYYYMMDD)
b. LOCATION (Address and ZIP Code) b. NUMBER b. PHASE
XXXXX b. TO (YYYYMMDD)
c. TYPE d. SHARE RATIO c. EVMS ACCEPTANCE
CPAF NO X YES (YYYYMMDD)
5. CONTRACT DATA
a. QUANTITY b. NEGOTIATED d. TARGET PROFIT/ e. TARGET f. ESTIMATED g. CONTRACT i. DATE OF OTB/OTS
COSTAUTHORIZED UNPRICED WORK FEE PRICE PRICE CEILING (YYYYMMDD)
1
6. ESTIMATED COST AT COMPLETION 7. AUTHORIZED CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE
MANAGEMENT ESTIMATE CONTRACT BUDGET VARIANCE a. NAME (Last, First, Middle Initial)
AT COMPLETION BASE
(1) (2) (3)
a. BEST CASE 666,137 c. SIGNATURE d. DATE SIGNED
b. WORST CASE 740,153 (YYYYMMDD)
c. MOST LIKELY 703,145 740,153 37,008
8. PERFORMANCE DATA
LM Rpt Lvl[21] CURRENT PERIOD CUMULATIVE TO DATE AT COMPLETION
ACTUAL ACTUAL
BUDGETED COST COST VARIANCE BUDGETED COST COST VARIANCE
WORK WORK WORK WORK WORK WORK BUDGETED ESTIMATED VARIANCE
ITEM SCHEDULED PERFORMED PERFORMED SCHEDULE COST SCHEDULED PERFORMED PERFORMED SCHEDULE COST
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (14) (15) (16)
1.1.8 Special Research 0 0 0 0 0 390 390 409 0 -18 390 409 -18
1.3.2 System Configuration 30 30 42 0 -12 2,967 2,954 2,695 -13 259 4,708 4,600 108
1.7.1.1 Management -4,059 -4,059 1,937 0 -5,996 24,387 24,387 28,205 0 -3,818 77,172 81,196 -4,024
1.7.1.2 Systems Engineering 567 536 454 -31 82 15,947 15,648 13,480 -299 2,168 28,561 29,728 -1,167
1.7.1.3.02 Data -226 -217 171 9 -389 4,319 4,279 5,585 -40 -1,306 8,340 9,625 -1,285
1.7.1.3.08 Electrical Power Subsystem 0 0 0 0 0 139 139 78 0 60 139 78 60
1.7.1.3.07 Mechanisms 10 10 0 0 9 3,563 3,563 5,290 0 -1,727 3,569 5,325 -1,756
1.7.1.3.07 Thermal Control 60 60 13 0 47 1,373 1,372 1,124 -1 248 1,692 1,469 224
1.7.1.3.09 Constructions 120 265 1,212 145 -947 27,984 27,720 28,930 -264 -1,210 39,926 42,239 -2,314
1.7.1.3.10 Rotation 21,016 20,806 8,588 -210 12,218 197,923 189,430 277,342 -8,493 -87,912 523,084 649,833 -126,749
1.7.1.3.13 Pyrotechnics -1 -47 23 -46 -70 2,023 1,888 2,176 -135 -288 3,678 6,072 -2,394
1.7.1.3.18 Navigation 241 199 133 -42 67 7,137 7,028 5,921 -109 1,107 10,891 9,792 1,099
1.7.1.3.17 Instrumentation -67 -78 28 -11 -106 756 745 886 -11 -141 1,024 1,212 -188
1.7.1.8 Test, Verification and Certification 102 102 286 1 -183 4,463 4,456 4,139 -8 317 10,008 9,736 272
1.7.1.7.01 Hardware 129 56 204 -72 -148 5,564 5,491 9,525 -73 -4,034 6,883 11,159 -4,275
1.7.1.7.02 Design and Production -810 -844 179 -34 -1,023 1,614 1,602 2,942 -12 -1,340 2,874 4,315 -1,441
b. Cost of Money 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c. Gen. and Admin. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
d. Undist. Budget 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45,516 29,769 15,747
e. Sub Total 17,111 16,820 13,269 -291 3,551 300,549 291,092 388,727 -9,458 -97,635 768,456 896,556 -128,100
f. Management Resrv. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,704 0 0
g. Total 17,111 16,820 13,269 -291 3,551 300,549 291,092 388,727 -9,458 -97,635 777,160 0 0
9. Reconciliation to CBB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a. Variance Adjustment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
b. Total Contract Variance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -9,007 -92,986 740,153 853,863 -113,710
FORMAT 1 - WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE
Orbital Proprietary
c. ESTIMATED COST OF
EVMS Validation Artificial Intelligence
CAM CA Status Interpretation
Timson Sam 2.2.5.02 Project X -22 Evaluation
This task is 100% complete; however, actuals appeared in the current month (Subs? Material? Legging invoices?
Anticipating addl. Budget - Submitting BCR? Rate or other adjustments?).
Marson Mickey 2.3.2.2K System Safety - CO#22 Cumulative scheduled work is zero, actuals are greater than zero - ahead of schedule?
Marson Mickey 2.4.42 Project X Test Stop Work
This task is 100% complete; however, actuals appeared in the current month (Subs? Material? Legging invoices?
Anticipating addl. Budget - Submitting BCR? Rate or other adjustments?).
Blom Jim 2.6.4.2.05.02 Emulator Sub
Actuals accumulate but no scheduled work in the current month therefore no performance taken in the current
month (ahead of schedule?)
Blom Jim 2.6.4.2.05.02 Emulator Sub3 Cumulative scheduled work is zero, actuals are greater than zero - ahead of schedule?
Blom Jim 2.6.4.2.05.05 Emulator VTR
Actuals accumulate but no scheduled work in the current month therefore no performance taken in the current
month (ahead of schedule?)
Timson Sam 2.6.4.2.02 Project Management Negative Performance in Current Month
Timson Sam 2.6.4.2.02C Project Management - CLA-5a CO#22
This task is 100% complete; however, actuals appeared in the current month (Subs? Material? Legging invoices?
Anticipating addl. Budget - Submitting BCR? Rate or other adjustments?).
Richey Dan 2.6.4.2.02A Configuration Managment - R2
Actuals accumulate but no scheduled work in the current month and no performance taken in the current month
(ahead of schedule?) No BCWS but there is a budget.
Taylor Kim 2.4.03 Project X Restructure Proposal
This task is 100% complete but the EAC does not equal Actuals;however, actuals appeared in the current month .
(Subs? Material? Legging invoices? Anticipating addl. Budget - Submitting BCR? Rate or other adjustments?).
Rich Pam 2.4.07 Ext Adapter Proposal
Actuals accumulate but no scheduled work in the current month therefore no performance taken in the current
month (ahead of schedule?)
Timson Sam 2.4.22 Project X Change Order 5
This task is 100% complete but the EAC does not equal Actuals. Subs? Material? Legging invoices? Anticipating
addl. Budget - Submitting BCR?
Timson Sam 2.4.29 Project X R2 Prelim SBU ImpactNo performance taken due to no budget; however, actuals accumulate - candidate for BCR or transfers of actuals
Timson Sam 2.4.45 Project X Change Order #22
This task has no actuals in the current month; however, performance was taken. Material? Missing accruals? fixing
prior month performance? LOE? Performance taken after obtaining budget at PRB, whereas actuals accumulated in
the past w/o BAC?
Timson Sam 2.4.49 Project X Evaluation of Rev 003 of SOW, SDRD, DL
This task is 100% complete; however, actuals appeared in the current month (Subs? Material? Legging invoices?
Anticipating addl. Budget - Submitting BCR? Rate or other adjustments?).
Blom Jim 2.6.4.2.02K Software Engineering - CO#22Cumulative scheduled work is zero, actuals are greater than zero - ahead of schedule?
CAM CA Status Interpretation
Timson Sam 2.2.5.02 Project X -22 Evaluation
This task is 100% complete; however, actuals appeared in the current month (Subs? Material? Legging invoices?
Anticipating addl. Budget - Submitting BCR? Rate or other adjustments?).
Marson Mickey 2.3.2.2K System Safety - CO#22 Cumulative scheduled work is zero, actuals are greater than zero - ahead of schedule?
Marson Mickey 2.4.42 Project X Test Stop Work
This task is 100% complete; however, actuals appeared in the current month (Subs? Material? Legging invoices?
Anticipating addl. Budget - Submitting BCR? Rate or other adjustments?).
Blom Jim 2.6.4.2.05.02 Emulator Sub
Actuals accumulate but no scheduled work in the current month therefore no performance taken in the current
month (ahead of schedule?)
Blom Jim 2.6.4.2.05.02 Emulator Sub3 Cumulative scheduled work is zero, actuals are greater than zero - ahead of schedule?
Blom Jim 2.6.4.2.05.05 Emulator VTR
Actuals accumulate but no scheduled work in the current month therefore no performance taken in the current
month (ahead of schedule?)
Timson Sam 2.6.4.2.02 Project Management Negative Performance in Current Month
Timson Sam 2.6.4.2.02C Project Management - CLA-5a CO#22
This task is 100% complete; however, actuals appeared in the current month (Subs? Material? Legging invoices?
Anticipating addl. Budget - Submitting BCR? Rate or other adjustments?).
Richey Dan 2.6.4.2.02A Configuration Managment - R2
Actuals accumulate but no scheduled work in the current month and no performance taken in the current month
(ahead of schedule?) No BCWS but there is a budget.
Taylor Kim 2.4.03 Project X Restructure Proposal
This task is 100% complete but the EAC does not equal Actuals;however, actuals appeared in the current month .
(Subs? Material? Legging invoices? Anticipating addl. Budget - Submitting BCR? Rate or other adjustments?).
Rich Pam 2.4.07 Ext Adapter Proposal
Actuals accumulate but no scheduled work in the current month therefore no performance taken in the current
month (ahead of schedule?)
Timson Sam 2.4.22 Project X Change Order 5
This task is 100% complete but the EAC does not equal Actuals. Subs? Material? Legging invoices? Anticipating
addl. Budget - Submitting BCR?
Timson Sam 2.4.29 Project X R2 Prelim SBU ImpactNo performance taken due to no budget; however, actuals accumulate - candidate for BCR or transfers of actuals
Timson Sam 2.4.45 Project X Change Order #22
This task has no actuals in the current month; however, performance was taken. Material? Missing accruals? fixing
prior month performance? LOE? Performance taken after obtaining budget at PRB, whereas actuals accumulated in
the past w/o BAC?
Timson Sam 2.4.49 Project X Evaluation of Rev 003 of SOW, SDRD, DL
This task is 100% complete; however, actuals appeared in the current month (Subs? Material? Legging invoices?
Anticipating addl. Budget - Submitting BCR? Rate or other adjustments?).
Blom Jim 2.6.4.2.02K Software Engineering - CO#22Cumulative scheduled work is zero, actuals are greater than zero - ahead of schedule?
Background
Artificial Intelligence
Output Analysis
Provided to CAMs for
further investigation

42.
42
EVMS Validation Criteria
Sample Criteria:
 Actuals accumulate but no scheduled work in the current month
therefore no performance taken in the current month (ahead of
schedule?)
 Cumulative scheduled work is zero, actuals are greater than zero -
ahead of schedule?
 Current month scheduled is zero, performance is not 0, actuals are
greater than zero. Fixing prior month performance in this month or
behind schedule?
 Current month scheduled is zero, actuals are zero while performance
is not 0. Fixing prior month performance in this month?
 Missing Performance
 Negative Performance in Current Month and/or Cumulative
 No performance taken due to no budget; however, actuals
accumulate or accumulated in the prior months - candidate for BCR
or transfers of actuals
Background
Artificial Intelligence
Output Analysis
Provided to CAMs for
further investigation

43.
43
EVMS Validation Criteria
 No performance taken due to no budget; however, actuals were
accumulated - was candidate for BCR - however, actual were transferred
resulting in negative CM and CUME ACWP - verify and address the
transfer in corrective action.
 A task has no actuals both in the current month and cumulatively;
however, performance was taken. Material? Missing accruals? LOE and
really behind of schedule?
 A task has no actuals in the current month; however, performance was
taken. Material? Missing accruals? fixing prior month performance? LOE?
Performance taken after obtaining budget at PRB, whereas actuals
accumulated in the past w/o BAC?
 A task has no cumulative (and CM) actuals; however, performance was
taken. LOE? Material? Missing accruals? Charging occurs at the
incorrect account? Transfer if necessary. Performance taken after
obtaining budget at PRB, whereas actuals accumulated in the past w/o
BAC?
Background
Artificial Intelligence
Output Analysis
Provided to CAMs for
further investigation

44.
44
EVMS Validation Criteria
 A task is 100% complete and ahead of schedule; however, actuals
appeared in the current month ( Subs? Material? Legging invoices? Rate
or other adjustments? Overstated performance?).
 A task is 100% complete but the EAC does not equal Actuals. Subs?
Material? Legging invoices? Anticipating addl. Budget - Submitting BCR
for projected additional in-scope change?
 A task is 100% complete, EAC does not equal Actuals; and actuals
appeared in the current month. (Subs? Material? Legging invoices?
Anticipating addl. Budget - Submitting BCR for projected additional in-
scope change?
 A task is 100% complete; however, actuals appeared in the current month
(Subs? Material? Legging invoices? Anticipating addl. Budget -
Submitting BCR? Rate or other adjustments?).
Background
Artificial Intelligence
Output Analysis
Provided to CAMs for
further investigation

45.
45
RESULT = CPR Format 5RESULT = CPR Format 5
Customer Reporting CA levelCustomer Reporting CA level
VAC
CVSV
CURRENT PERIOD
CUMULATIVE TO DATE
AT COMPLETION
Obital Reporting CA levelObital Reporting CA level
Variance Report
Consolidated from Internal
Reporting level Variance
Reports for Each CAM and CAs
Orb CAOrb CA  Customer CACustomer CA
Variance Report
Consolidated from Internal
Reporting level Variance
Reports for Each CAM and CAs
Orb CAOrb CA  Customer CACustomer CA

46.
46
Additional
Data Repositories
For Variance Analysis

47.
47
Transition
CAM
CAM
FutureNow

48.
48
Management Review
 EVMS Application - wInsight
 In Conjunction with VAR Format 5 CPR deadlines, VARs are summarized, and
briefed to the management in CAM meetings
 EVMS Charts are presented and items requiring management attention are
addressed
 wInsight is utilized to produce the graphic EVMS charts

49.
49
Management Review - Clarification for
Interpretation
w
e
4,387
4,387
4,346
BAC 7,234
EAC 7,583
4,346
Cum CPI 6,921
CPI*SPI 6,921
3 MO AV 8,155
Cum CPI1.010
3 MO CPI0.000
TCPI-EAC0.879
Should Read:
2007
MAY
2008
JAN
2009
DEC
2010
DEC
TimeNow
Complete
4,387
4,387
4,346
BAC 7,234
EAC 7,583
4,346
Cum CPI 6,921
CPI*SPI 6,921
3 MO AV 8,155
Cum CPI1.010
3 MO CPI0.000
TCPI-EAC0.879
EAC
EAC
EAC
0
BCWS 4,387
BCWP 4,387
ACWP 4,346
BAC 7,234
EAC 7,583
ETC 4,346
Cum CPI
CPI*SPI
3 MO AV
Cum C
3 MO
TCPI-
To compare to our CAM generated estimate,
system generated estimates at completion
EACs are provided and are based on:
1. Cum CPI – Cumulative Cost Performance
Index
2. Cum CPI – Cumulative Cost Performance
Index and Cum SPI – Cumulative Schedule
Performance Index
3. 3 MO AV – 3 months average
This is CAM generated estimate at completion
EAC based on CAM inputs
Compareto
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
2007
MAY
2008
JAN
2009
DEC
2010
DEC
Orbital Sciences Corporation RH6-291357 CPAF PROD
Element: (Aggregate) Name: CAM/IPT=AmorosiCum Element Performance
TimeNow
Complete
DollarsinThousands
BCWS 4,387
BCWP 4,387
ACWP 4,346
BAC 7,234
EAC 7,583
ETC 4,346
Cum CPI 6,921
CPI*SPI 6,921
3 MO AV 8,155
Cum CPI1.010
3 MO CPI0.000
TCPI-EAC0.879

50.
50
Management Review
Supplemental EVMS / VAR Analysis
 The thresholds represent the changes/deltas since
the previous reporting period
 The thresholds deltas are set for CV, SV and VAC
 The thresholds are not VARs/Format 5 thresholds
 The thresholds represent the changes/deltas since
the previous reporting period
 The thresholds deltas are set for CV, SV and VAC
 The thresholds are not VARs/Format 5 thresholds
 EVMS Application - wInsight
 In Conjunction with VAR Format 5 CPR deadlines, VARs are summarized, and briefed
to the management in CAM meetings
 wInsight is utilized to produce additional information analysis @ CA level to include
comparison with previous month as well as EVMS variances for the management
review purposes

51.
51
http://vawinsight1/wsweb/login.asp

52.
52
wInsight Dashboard Artificial Intelligence

53.
53
wInsight Dashboard AI VAR Analysis

54.
54
wInsight Dashboard AI VAR Analysis

55.
55
wInsight Dashboard AI VAR Analysis

56.
56
wInsight EVMS 6 Period Summary
Project X
Task 164
Task 1891
Task 1321K

57.
Presenter EVMS Process Leader:Presenter EVMS Process Leader:
Svjetlana Lana RadovicSvjetlana Lana Radovic
Apply Your Knowledge
Variance AnalysisVariance Analysis

58.
58
Time Dimension
• Incremental/Current month (Increments of time-phased data – for
each current month)
• Cumulative (inception to date data)
Incremental and cumulative deal with performance to date
can provide meaningful indications when latest performance
differs from earlier performance.
Involves cost and schedule variances (schedule and cost
performance/efficiency indexes):
CV = BCWP – ACWP CPI = BCWP/ACWP
SV = BCWP – BCWS SPI = BCWP/BCWS

59.
59
Interpretation & Deducing
If CPI = BCWP/ACWP & CV= BCWP-ACWP 
If BCWP>ACWP  CPI>1  CV>0
Favorable Cost variance – Informal term “cost underrun”
If CPI = BCWP/ACWP & CV= BCWP-ACWP 
If BCWP<ACWP  CPI<1  CV<0
Unfavorable Cost Variance –  Informal term “cost overrun”
If SPI = BCWP/BCWS & SV= BCWP-BCWS 
If BCWP>BCWS  SPI>1  SV>0
Favorable Schedule Variance –  Informal term “ahead of schedule”
If SPI<1 & SPI = BCWP/BCWS  BCWP<BCWS
If BCWP<BCWS  SP<1  SV<0
Unfavorable Schedule Variance –  Informal term “behind schedule”

60.
60
Key Elements of Analysis
Problem Cause AnalysisProblem Cause Analysis
 Identify the root-cause of the problem
 Give reasons for the variance
 Address last month, cum and/or at completion
 Address cost variances and schedule variances
separately
 For cost variances, determine if cause is rate or
volume
 Address important drivers with as much quantification
as possible ~95% $ of all drivers
Impact AnalysisImpact Analysis
 Identify the impact on the immediate task and/or other tasks
 Identify the impact on the total program/contract
 For schedule variances, indicate weeks of impact and
effect on others
 Address EAC implications and Risks
Corrective Action PlanCorrective Action Plan
 Identify specific corrective action
 Implement corrective action plan
 Identify specifically who is going to do what by when
 Is the variance recoverable?

61.
ProblemProblem
CauseCause
AnalysisAnalysis
ImpactImpact
AnalysisAnalysis
CorrectiveCorrective
Action PlanAction Plan
CVCV
VACVAC
SVSV
CVCV
VACVAC
SVSV
CVCV
VACVAC
SVSV
ScheduleSchedule
Critical PathCritical Path
TechnicalTechnical
ImpactImpact
Cost ImpactCost Impact
HorizontalHorizontal
On Control AccountOn Control Account
VerticalVertical
On Other CAsOn Other CAs
On ProgramOn Program
Approximately Quantify:Approximately Quantify:
$$ value for Each Drivervalue for Each Driver
Days/MonthsDays/Months DurationDuration
DatesDates
Risks / OpportunitiesRisks / Opportunities
EAC Change/LREEAC Change/LRE
VAC?VAC?
Root-Cause #1Root-Cause #1
Root-Cause #2Root-Cause #2
Root-Cause #nRoot-Cause #n
Root-Cause #1Root-Cause #1
Root-Cause #2Root-Cause #2
Root-Cause #nRoot-Cause #n
……of $Xof $X
……of $Xof $X
……of $Xof $X
……of $Xof $X
……of $Xof $X
……of $Xof $X
UnfavorableUnfavorable
FavorableFavorable
UnfavorableUnfavorable
FavorableFavorable
ExternalExternal
InternalInternal
ContractContract
CustomerCustomer
Who?Who?
What?What?
When?When?
Approx.Approx. DateDate
How much?How much?
CorrectiveCorrective
Action?Action?
Recovery?Recovery?
YesYes
NoNo
WhyWhy??
NOWNOW PASTPAST
ResultsResults of earlierof earlier
corrective actionscorrective actions
(Previous(Previous
Corrective actionCorrective action
follow-upfollow-up))
CurrentMonthCurrentMonthCumulativeCumulativeCurrentMonthCurrentMonthCumulativeCumulativeCurrentMonthCurrentMonthCumulativeCumulative
VARs Flow Chart

62.
Presenter EVMS Process Leader:Presenter EVMS Process Leader:
Svjetlana Lana RadovicSvjetlana Lana Radovic
Root-Cause Analysis
Variance AnalysisVariance Analysis

63.
63
Root-Cause Analysis
 A good Root-Cause analysis:
 Starts with Root-Cause analysis of What happened and Why?
 Uses phrase “Favorable/Unfavorable cost/schedule variance” – not
ahead/behind schedule or overrun/underrun
 Is clear and concise - identifies reasons for the variance
 Defines each underlying root cause/driver of the problem separately
 Highlights Significant Problems (Not all problems)
 Accounts for the majority of the variance reasons (at least 95%)
 Focuses on Quantitative Analysis (Not Qualitative)
 Emphasis should be on what is significant and should refer to
quantitative data
 Apportions total variance to each problem/cause
 Addresses CV and SV separately
 Specifically, SV explanation:
 States which tasks were performed ahead or behind schedule and why
 States whether or not any of the tasks are on the critical path
IDENTIFICATION = HALFWAY TOWARDS A SOLUTIONIDENTIFICATION = HALFWAY TOWARDS A SOLUTION

64.
64
Questions to ask for Cause/Problem Analysis
 Detail questions to ask for Cause/Problem Analysis
 Schedule
 Questions:
 What tasks are not being started, completed or slipping?
 Is an “upstream” or predecessor task the root cause?
 Why is internal plan not being met?
 What is the cause of the tasks not being met?
 Is the cause internal or external?
 Cost
 Questions:
 What tasks have the cost variance?
 What is causing the tasks to cost more or less than plan?
 Is the cost variance driven by volume (more hours required to complete
work)?
 Is the cost variance driven by direct labor rates (skill mix or adequate
proficiency)?
 Why is internal plan not being met?
 Is the cost variance driven by indirect rates (burden performance)?
 Is the cost variance driven predominately technical?
 Is the cost variance driven by non labor (travel, ODC, material,
subcontractors, etc)
Root-Cause Analysis

65.
65
 The task is less complex and will be completed earlier than planned.
 Early effort has been confined to tasks which are less complex than
those that follow.
 The task has been overstaffed early in order to recognize the
establishment of a higher priority.
 Deliveries of hardware have been accomplished in advance of need
date.
 Earned value may be incorrect and require an adjustment in the next
reporting period.
 The plan is poorly time-phased and the current status is not reflective
of what is really happening.
Behind
BCWS BCWP
Ahead
Root-Cause Analysis
Favorable Schedule Variance
SV = BCWP - BCWS CPI = BCWP / BCWS BCWP > BCWSSV > 0 SPI >1

66.
66
Unfavorable Schedule Variance
 The task is more complex than originally planned.
 Early effort has been more complex than the effort that follows.
 Delays in staffing have slowed progress.
 Hardware deliveries are late.
 Redesign of rework activities has delayed progress.
 Data from another organization (drawings or technical analysis) - late
 Additional requirements have been established or changed.
 Higher priority has been established on other work.
 The plan is poorly time-phased.
 Earned value may be incorrect and require an adjustment in the next
reporting period.
BCWP
AheadBehind
BCWS
Root-Cause Analysis
SV = BCWP - BCWS SPI = BCWP / BCWS BCWP < BCWSSV < 0 SPI <1

67.
67
 If Unable to start on time
possible reasons could include:
 Predecessor task not
completed
 Lack of firm specifications
 Key resource not available
(people, equipment,
material)
 Funding unavailable
 Change to the original plan
(customer/program driven)
 If Taking longer then expected
possible reasons could include:
 Learning Curve
 Errors
 Retesting
 More analysis needed
 Redesign
 Changes
 Parts delayed/rejected
 Resources diverted
 Equipment problems
(Orbital, Subs)
 More documentation
required (drawings)
Unfavorable Schedule Variance
Root-Cause Analysis
SV = BCWP - BCWS SPI = BCWP / BCWS BCWP < BCWSSV < 0 SPI <1

68.
68
SV - Reference to DID
 “Explanations of schedule variances and the impact on the contract
shall be performed in parallel with the schedule analysis called out by
the IMS DID.“ IMS DID, DI-MGMT-81650, to be used in conjunction
with DID DI-MGMT-81466A. (See 2.2.6.4 and 2.2.6.5)
 2.4.1.10.2 “Over Target Schedule Agreement. The Government and
the contractor shall agree on the new performance measurement
schedule prior to reporting it in the CPR. The contractor shall provide
pertinent information in Format 5 on any schedule milestones that
are inconsistent with contractual milestones, beginning the month the
schedule is implemented and each month thereafter.”
Root-Cause Analysis

69.
69
 Delayed billing (Subs, Contractors, IWAs)
 Efficiencies
 More technicians vs. engineers
 Rate changes (should be discussed separately)
 The complexity of the task is less than originally estimated.
 The less complex tasks have been completed early.
 The task is primarily LOE and has not been fully staffed.
 Earned value may be incorrect and require an adjustment in the
next reporting period.
 Material or services have been used but not paid yet.
 Material or services were less expensive than planned.
 The plan is poorly time-phased.
CV = BCWP - ACWP CPI = BCWP / ACWP BCWP > ACWP
Root-Cause Analysis
Favorable Cost Variance
CV > 0 CPI >1

70.
70
 The task is more complex than originally planned.
 The more complex tasks have been completed early.
 Program priorities have resulted in application of resources in an
inefficient manner – more overtime – additional staffing – job
shop.
 Delays in receipt of data have resulted in implementation of
work-a-rounds to make schedule – more overtime – additional
staffing – job shop.
 Changes, redesign, additional requirements, or unplanned in-
scope effort.
 The plan is poorly time-phased.
 Earned value may be incorrect and require an adjustment in the
next reporting period.
 Rate and/or use variance
Root-Cause Analysis
Unfavorable Cost Variance
CV = BCWP - ACWP CPI = BCWP / ACWP BCWP < ACWPCV < 0 CPI <1

71.
71
 Underestimated
 More expensive:
Parts/Material,
Equipment,
Subcontractors,
Suppliers
 Labor in Transition
 Knowledge Transfer
 Turnover
 More engineers vs.
technicians
 Incentives for suppliers
 Rework
 Risk mitigation
 Rate changes (should be
discussed separately)
Root-Cause Analysis
Unfavorable Cost Variance
CV = BCWP - ACWP CPI = BCWP / ACWP BCWP < ACWPCV < 0 CPI <1

72.
72
Variance at Completion
 At Completion VAC = BAC – EAC ( totals – data projected at
the end of the project) deal with:
Estimate of the final cost overrun/underrun :
 Changes in EAC might be a prelude to BCR and
baseline change in some cases
 Changing EAC MIGHT require BAC updates when, for
instance, MR is approved based on the previously
presented EAC and BCR process completion
BAC reflects baseline distributed budget at the time of the
report (affects VAC whenever a BCR is implemented, new
RW is planned out, PP are developed, budget is
distributed, etc.)
 Changing BAC should always implicate EAC
evaluation if not previously done
 Insuring that EAC is updated is important if updating
EAC did not precede BAC updates

73.
73
Causing cost and/or schedule
variance:
 ESD
 Size/weight/power
 Noise/vibration
 Test failures
 Inspection issues
 Defective parts
 Alignment/Interface
 Software
 Systems
 Changes
 Supplier support
 Integration
 Scope creep
Technical problems
Root-Cause Analysis

74.
74
Rate and Volume/Usage/Price Analysis
 For Labor, separately identify:
 amounts attributable to rate changes
 amounts applicable to hours worked;
 For Material, separately identify:
 amounts attributable to material price changes
 amounts applicable to material usage;
 For Overhead rate changes, separately identify:
 amounts attributable to overhead rate changes
 amounts applicable to overhead base changes or changes in the
overhead allocation basis.
Root-Cause Analysis

75.
75
Rate Impact Example Write-Up
LM AX
1.6.4.3.10 Propulsion ($865.321)
1.6.4.3.09 Structures ($60.133)
1.6.4.3.06 Mechanisms ($9.240)
1.6.4.6.01 Flight Hardware AIP ($8.548)
1.6.4.3.13 Pyrotechnics ($6.781)
1.6.4.1 LAS Management and Administration ($4.860)
1.3.2 System Safety ($1.292)
1.6.4.3.07 Passive Thermal Control ($0.945)
1.1.8 Special Studies ($0.117)
1.6.4.3.05 Electrical Power Subsystem $0.051
1.6.4.3.16 Wiring $0.936
1.6.4.6.02 Flight Test Article Design and Production $2.054
1.6.4.3.02 Command and Data Handling (C&DH) $5.519
1.6.4.5 LAS Test, Verification and Certification $6.623
1.6.4.3.15 Guidance, Navigation and Control (GN&C) $7.266
1.6.4.2 LAS Systems Engineering and Integration $15.834
Grand Total ($918.954)
 For the accounts that have negative amounts (favorable) in the table below , accounts with predominant non-labor, the write-
up should be: The rate adjustments for CY 200X, reflected in the current month, are favorably affecting _________Type CA
Name_______ Cost Variance by $___Type Amount____.
 For the accounts that have positive amounts (unfavorable) in the table below, accounts with predominant labor, the write-up
should be: The rate adjustments for CY 200X, reflected in the current month, are unfavorably affecting _________Type CA
Name_______ Cost Variance by $___Type Amount____.

76.
Presenter EVMS Process Leader:Presenter EVMS Process Leader:
Svjetlana Lana RadovicSvjetlana Lana Radovic
Impact Analysis
Variance AnalysisVariance Analysis

77.
77
 Describes specific Cost, Schedule and Technical Impacts to the Program
AND to other Functional areas or other tasks in the WBS for each of the
variance drivers and root causes
 Schedule Impact on Interfaces
 Horizontal – Vertical
 Critical Path
 Identify key IMS line items impacted and dependencies.
 Identify changes to float
 Includes approximate dollar value of the cost/schedule/technical impact and
include duration changes and date impacts
 Assesses the impact to the EAC/LRE based on these variances and quantifies
risks and opportunities
 If there is no task impact or program impact, explains why not
Impact Analysis
Impact Analysis

78.
78
RISKSRISKSRISKSRISKS
Covers AUWCovers AUW
If MR isIf MR is
Credited uponCredited upon
CFRCFR
Covers AUWCovers AUW
If MR isIf MR is
Credited uponCredited upon
CFRCFR
IN-SCOPEIN-SCOPE
CHANGESCHANGES
COsCOs
IN-SCOPEIN-SCOPE
CHANGESCHANGES
COsCOs
FUTURE,FUTURE,
UNANTICIPATED,UNANTICIPATED,
IN-SCOPE WORKIN-SCOPE WORK
FUTURE,FUTURE,
UNANTICIPATED,UNANTICIPATED,
IN-SCOPE WORKIN-SCOPE WORK
MRMRMRMR
PROGRAMPROGRAM
MANAGERSMANAGERS
DECISIONDECISION
NOT TO USENOT TO USE
MRMR
PROGRAMPROGRAM
MANAGERSMANAGERS
DECISIONDECISION
NOT TO USENOT TO USE
MRMR
OVERRUNSOVERRUNSOVERRUNSOVERRUNS
Out-of-scopeOut-of-scope
WorkWork
Out-of-scopeOut-of-scope
WorkWork
NOTNOT
MRMR
NOTNOT
MRMR
Address BCR and MR Changes
Impact Analysis

79.
79
MR Reference to DID
 Per DID Section 2.2.4.6 Management Reserve. “…shall not
be used to offset cumulative cost variances…Amounts of MR
applied to CWBS elements during the reporting period shall
be…explained in Format 5.”
 Per DID Section 2.4.2.3 Performance Measurement Baseline
(End of Period). …”effects of all significant changes, including
the authorized changes, allocations of MR made during the
period, and changes to time phasing due to internal
replanning or formal reprogramming. The reasons for these
changes shall be explained in Format 5.”
Impact Analysis

80.
80
Technical Impact
Describe specific impacts to the program and your
accounts
 Technical Impacts
 Does level of maturity impact completing your
tasks or other subtasks?
 Is the variance resulting in a change in solution
or approach?
 Are there adequate resource available to mitigate
technical impact?
 Who “downstream” or what successor tasks are
impacted by your schedule variance?
Impact Analysis

81.
81
Refer back to root-cause for cost
and/or schedule variance
analysis :
 ESD
 Size/weight/power
 Noise/vibration
 Test failures
 Inspection issues
 Defective parts
 Alignment/Interface
 Software
 Systems
 Changes
 Supplier support
 Integration
 Scope creep
Base on Root-Cause Analysis
Technical Impact

82.
82
Schedule Impact
Describe specific impacts to the
program and your accounts
 How many days, weeks,
months is the slip?
 Is there adequate slack to
absorb the schedule impact?
 Are you slipping any major
milestones?
 Is the critical path impacted?
 Are Risks tracked in IMS?
 Quantification of cost impact
(i.e., EAC change) should be
submitted for review, action,
or approval.
Impact Analysis

83.
83
Cost Impacts
Describe specific impacts to the program and your accounts
Cost Impacts
 What is the cumulative cost variance?
 Do you expect the cost trend to continue?
 Address the Estimate at Complete and revisions
needed.
 Will the schedule variance affect the future cost?
 Risks / Opportunities
 Quantification of cost impact (i.e., EAC change)
should be submitted for review, action, or
approval.
Impact Analysis

84.
84
 Finish late
 Start next task late
 Redesign required
 More testing required
 Additional costs
 Customer notification
 Safety issue
 Overtime required
Additional equipment / people
 Specialist / Consultant
 Out of specification
(power/weight/size)
Supplier penalties
 New supplier to be qualified
 Government approvals needed
 Will need quicker turnaround from
purchasing, suppliers
 More risk
Impact Examples
Impact Analysis

85.
Presenter EVMS Process Leader:Presenter EVMS Process Leader:
Svjetlana Lana RadovicSvjetlana Lana Radovic
Corrective Action Plan
Variance AnalysisVariance Analysis

86.
86
Corrective action plan answers:
 Who?
 What?
 When?
 How much?
Describes specific actions to alleviate or minimize the impact
Includes the individual, resources, or organization responsible for the
required action
Includes schedules for the corrective action: completion dates, and
recovery dates – if no recovery answers why?
Includes Corrective action follow-up -results of earlier corrective actions
Identifies mitigation plans for any areas of Risks or Opportunities
Describes workaround plans incorporated into IMS
Corrective Action Plan
Corrective Action Plan

87.
87
WHAT WILL HAPPEN?
Overtime (schedule)
 Fewer people (cost)
 Reduced resources
 Alternate people (senior, specialized)
 Lease equipment (bigger, better, faster)
 Analysis/Testing
 Special Software
 Employ Consultants
 Tiger team
 Loosen specifications (customer approval?)
 Eliminate tasks – Descope
 Re-prioritize tasks
 Cheaper material – use of existing material
 Redesign
 Buy vs. Build (Off-shelf vs. In-house)
 Parallel vs. Prototype/Waterfall
Corrective Action Plan

88.
88
Dos & Don’ts
Do Not Use:
 Over Run
 Under Run
 Behind Schedule
 Ahead of Schedule
 Out of Scope
 Hope
Use :
 Unfavorable
 Favorable
 Unfavorable
 Favorable
 Unplanned In-Scope
 Anticipated
And…do not “do not’s”And…do not “do not’s” And…do not “do not’s”And…do not “do not’s” 
Corrective Action Plan

89.
Presenter EVMS Process Leader:Presenter EVMS Process Leader:
Svjetlana Lana RadovicSvjetlana Lana Radovic
Demonstration
VAR Corrective Action
Register & Metrics
Management ReviewManagement Review

90.
90
VAR Corrective Action Register
 The purpose of the section is to explain the enhancements to the
VAR Corrective Action Register.
 VB code automates filtering of any ongoing, open or closed
items – and any other – open for suggestion
 User will not have to manually go through the list of action items
 All selections are automated via single button click
 Some of the fields contain drop-down menus to maintain
consistency
 Information integrity Validation is implemented
 Management Review Metrics page is auto populated

91.
91
0
5
10
15
20
25
2008-01
2008-02
2008-03
2008-04
2008-05
2008-06
2008-07
2008-08
2008-09
2008-10
2008-11
2008-12
2009-01
2009-02
2009-03
2009-04
Taylor
Gick
McFarland
Larson
Kozero
Zwicker
Davis
Engblom
Mullen
Pettis
Hildebrand
0
5
10
15
20
25
2008-01
2008-02
2008-03
2008-04
2008-05
2008-06
2008-07
2008-08
2008-09
2008-10
2008-11
2008-12
2009-01
2009-02
2009-03
2009-04
Taylor
Gick
McFarland
Larson
Kozero
Zwicker
Davis
Engblom
Mullen
Pettis
Hildebrand
Executive Review Metrics - Sample
Subsystem CAM
2008-01
2008-02
2008-03
2008-04
2008-05
2008-06
2008-07
2008-08
2008-09
2008-10
2008-11
2008-12
2009-01
2009-02
2009-03
2009-04
Total
PM, Cost and Schedule Management` Hildebrand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Avionics and Power Pettis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Systems Engineering Mullen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Software Engblom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Production and Operations Davis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pyro Zwicker 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Structures, TPS, Mechanisms Kozero 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S&MA Larson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G&NC McFarland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Jettison Motor,Abort Motor Gick 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 2 0 0 0 23
Attitude Control Motor Taylor 1 0 0 0 2 13 15 20 17 8 9 11 16 0 0 0 112
Total 1 0 0 0 2 16 18 23 20 11 13 13 18 0 0 0 135
Open Items - Over 60 Days Past Due
Subsystem CAM
2008-01
2008-02
2008-03
2008-04
2008-05
2008-06
2008-07
2008-08
2008-09
2008-10
2008-11
2008-12
2009-01
2009-02
2009-03
2009-04
Total
PM, Cost and Schedule Management` Hildebrand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Avionics and Power Pettis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Systems Engineering Mullen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Software Engblom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Production and Operations Davis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pyro Zwicker 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Structures, TPS, Mechanisms Kozero 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S&MA Larson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G&NC McFarland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Jettison Motor,Abort Motor Gick 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 2 0 0 0 23
Attitude Control Motor Taylor 1 0 0 0 2 13 15 20 17 8 9 11 16 0 0 0 112
Total 1 0 0 0 2 16 18 23 20 11 13 13 18 0 0 0 135
Open Items - Over 60 Days Past Due

92.
92
Executive Review Metrics - Sample
Subsystem CAM
2008-01
2008-02
2008-03
2008-04
2008-05
2008-06
2008-07
2008-08
2008-09
2008-10
2008-11
2008-12
2009-01
2009-02
2009-03
2009-04
Total
PM, Cost and Schedule Management` Hildebrand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Avionics and Power Pettis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Systems Engineering Mullen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Software Engblom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Production and Operations Davis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pyro Zwicker 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Structures, TPS, Mechanisms Kozero 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S&MA Larson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G&NC McFarland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Jettison Motor,Abort Motor Gick 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Attitude Control Motor Taylor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Open Items - Over 30 and under 60 Days Past Due
Subsystem CAM
2008-01
2008-02
2008-03
2008-04
2008-05
2008-06
2008-07
2008-08
2008-09
2008-10
2008-11
2008-12
2009-01
2009-02
2009-03
2009-04
Total
PM, Cost and Schedule Management` Hildebrand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Avionics and Power Pettis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Systems Engineering Mullen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Software Engblom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Production and Operations Davis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pyro Zwicker 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Structures, TPS, Mechanisms Kozero 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S&MA Larson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G&NC McFarland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Jettison Motor,Abort Motor Gick 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Attitude Control Motor Taylor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Open Items - Over 30 and under 60 Days Past Due
Subsystem CAM
2008-01
2008-02
2008-03
2008-04
2008-05
2008-06
2008-07
2008-08
2008-09
2008-10
2008-11
2008-12
2009-01
2009-02
2009-03
2009-04
Total
PM, Cost and Schedule Management` Hildebrand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Avionics and Power Pettis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Systems Engineering Mullen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Software Engblom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Production and Operations Davis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pyro Zwicker 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Structures, TPS, Mechanisms Kozero 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S&MA Larson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G&NC McFarland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Jettison Motor,Abort Motor Gick 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4
Attitude Control Motor Taylor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4
Open Items - Under 30 Days Past Due
Subsystem CAM
2008-01
2008-02
2008-03
2008-04
2008-05
2008-06
2008-07
2008-08
2008-09
2008-10
2008-11
2008-12
2009-01
2009-02
2009-03
2009-04
Total
PM, Cost and Schedule Management` Hildebrand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Avionics and Power Pettis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Systems Engineering Mullen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Software Engblom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Production and Operations Davis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pyro Zwicker 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Structures, TPS, Mechanisms Kozero 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S&MA Larson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G&NC McFarland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Jettison Motor,Abort Motor Gick 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4
Attitude Control Motor Taylor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4
Open Items - Under 30 Days Past Due
Subsystem CAM
2008-01
2008-02
2008-03
2008-04
2008-05
2008-06
2008-07
2008-08
2008-09
2008-10
2008-11
2008-12
2009-01
2009-02
2009-03
2009-04
Total
PM, Cost and Schedule Management`
Hildebrand
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Avionics and Power Pettis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Systems Engineering Mullen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Software Engblom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Production and Operations Davis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pyro Zwicker 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Structures, TPS, Mechanisms Kozero 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S&MA Larson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G&NC McFarland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Jettison Motor,Abort Motor Gick 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Attitude Control Motor Taylor 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
Total 4 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
OBE Items
Subsystem CAM
2008-01
2008-02
2008-03
2008-04
2008-05
2008-06
2008-07
2008-08
2008-09
2008-10
2008-11
2008-12
2009-01
2009-02
2009-03
2009-04
Total
PM, Cost and Schedule Management`
Hildebrand
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Avionics and Power Pettis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Systems Engineering Mullen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Software Engblom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Production and Operations Davis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pyro Zwicker 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Structures, TPS, Mechanisms Kozero 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S&MA Larson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G&NC McFarland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Jettison Motor,Abort Motor Gick 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Attitude Control Motor Taylor 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
Total 4 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
OBE Items

93.
93
Additional Fields
 Added fields are:
 Date Recorded,
 Reporting Period (CPR (Contract Performance Report)),
 Date for the end of the reporting period,
 Cur/Cum/At Comp variance type,
 SV/CV variance type,
 Variance $ Value (to be incorporated from the CPR (Contract
Performance Report) format 1 and included along with
corresponding Current or CUME, Cost or Schedule variance
lines),
 Assigned To – other than CAM who will be doing the actual work
(mitigating, corrective action implementation),
 Level of Importance – at PM discretion to determine from high,
medium to low,
 Aging low less than 30 days, medium between 30 and 60 days,
and greater than 60 days

94.
94
VAR CAM Metrics
 The VAR CAM Metrics sheet has been developed to automatically
calculate and provide metrics for each CAM, by each period, and
totals for:
 Items older than 60 days
 Items older than to 30 days and less than or equal to 60 days old
 Items less than or equal to 30 days old

95.
95
Automation Menu

96.
96
CAM List Per Latest PD
 Drop-down menu for CAM
field is cleaned up to include
list of all CAMs per latest PD
from which the user can
choose
 Only 1 CAM is allowed in the
CAM column
 Assigned to Column can
include all others involved in
closing the corrective action

97.
97
Auto-Selections
 To maintain consistency and avoid multiple versions of the same
meaning, the fields shown below are developed to provide drop-
down lists with build in acceptable values
 No need to type unless you prefer so

98.
98
Validation
 If you still do type the value that does not match the ones from the
drop-down list the value will not be accepted
 The error message will indicate that you either need to select correct
value or type it correctly

99.
99
Tip: Executing
In order for the code to execute
correctly make sure that the filter in
ON. You can toggle filter on and off
by clicking the Filter On/Off button
In order for the code to execute
correctly make sure that the filter in
ON. You can toggle filter on and off
by clicking the Filter On/Off button
The indication that the filter in on
are down-arrows in each title-
block; likewise, when the filter is
OFF no arrows will be shown
The indication that the filter in on
are down-arrows in each title-
block; likewise, when the filter is
OFF no arrows will be shown

100.
100
Legend and Criteria
Aging calculation is based on the number of days between time now
and due date for all non-closed items
Closed items will not have aging calculated but should have date
closed populated

101.
101
Visual
Clicking Open Items will automatically list all items
that require attention and have OPEN status.
Clicking Open Items will automatically list all items
that require attention and have OPEN status.
Note: If any part of the status verbiage contains word
“OPEN” that item will be output as a part of the results
In other words the user does not have to be exact in order to
get correct output
However, formatting will apply only to “OPEN” items
Note: If any part of the status verbiage contains word
“OPEN” that item will be output as a part of the results
In other words the user does not have to be exact in order to
get correct output
However, formatting will apply only to “OPEN” items
Automatically
formatted red if over 60 days OR OPEN
Automatically
formatted red if over 60 days OR OPEN
Clicking CLOSED Items will automatically list all
items that have been resolved and have Closed
status.
Clicking CLOSED Items will automatically list all
items that have been resolved and have Closed
status.
Note: If any part of the status verbiage contains word
“CLOSED” that item will be output as a part of the results
In other words, the user does not have to be exact in order
to get correct output
However, conditional formatting will apply only to
“CLOSED” items
Note: If any part of the status verbiage contains word
“CLOSED” that item will be output as a part of the results
In other words, the user does not have to be exact in order
to get correct output
However, conditional formatting will apply only to
“CLOSED” items
Automatically
formatted green if Closed or less than 30 days
Automatically
formatted green if Closed or less than 30 days
Clicking IN PROCESS Items will automatically list all
items that have been resolved and have Ongoing
status.
Clicking IN PROCESS Items will automatically list all
items that have been resolved and have Ongoing
status.
Note: If any part of the status verbiage contains word
“ON-GOING” that item will be output as a part of the
results
In other words, the user does not have to be exact in
order to get correct output
Note: If any part of the status verbiage contains word
“ON-GOING” that item will be output as a part of the
results
In other words, the user does not have to be exact in
order to get correct output
Automatically
formatted yellow if ongoing or OBE
OR between 30 and 60 days
Automatically
formatted yellow if ongoing or OBE
OR between 30 and 60 days

102.
Presenter EVMS Process Leader:Presenter EVMS Process Leader:
Svjetlana Lana RadovicSvjetlana Lana Radovic
APG VARs Scorecard & Metrics
Management ReviewManagement Review

103.
103
ORION VARs Scorecard - Sample
VARs Scorecard used to evaluate each CAMs variance report
Note: The quality of the explanations often significantly influence award fee if part of evaluation criteria
Data provided on time
 Time for review with PM
 Time to make revisions
Assumptions:
 For the questions where "IF APPLICABLE" Only is indicated, if CAM has indicated that the question is "not applicable"
CAM earned the score;
 CAM earned no score if no comments were made (e.g. no impact on critical path would earn 1 point while no comment
at all will earn 0 points)
 CAMs with no explanations required earn 100%

104.
104
ORION Variance Report Scorecard
BOCAM Ken
BRAINARD Mike
ENGBLOM Thor
LARSON Chris
RICHARDSON Donna
ACM -
Contro
Problem Analysis - What happened and Why ?
1.6.4.2 LAS Systems
Engineering and
Integration
1.6.4.3.10.02
Jettison
Motor(Propulsion)
1.6.4.3.1
(Prop
Have all of the variances with broken thresholds been addressed? (CV, SV, Current, Cume, At
Completion)
-IF not APPLICABLE, has the CAM indicated it?
0
.5
1 or NA
0
.5
1 or NA 1 o
Is there a clear and concise explanation of the reasons (each root cause/driver defined
separately) for the variance accounting for the majority of the variance (at least 95%)?(Is
there apportioned approx. $ variance amount for each problem/cause)
0
.5
1 or NA
0
.5
1 or NA 1 o
Did the CAM indicate and discuss specifics of what created/caused the variance? IF
APPLICABLE:
External Influences i.e. Design, verification, or requirements changes
Contract / Customer Issues
Internal Influences i.e. Organizational Issues, Staffing, Labor Rate Variances
0
.5
1 or NA
0
.5
1 or NA 1 o
Does the CAM state which tasks caused the favorable or unfavorable Cost and Schedule
variance and why, and whether the tasks causing Schedule variance are on critical path
-IF not APPLICABLE, has the CAM indicated it?
0
.5
1 or NA
0
.5
1 or NA 1 o
VAR Scorecard – Root-Cause

105.
105
ORION Variance Report Scorecard
BOCAM Ken
BRAINARD Mike
ENGBLOM Thor
LARSON Chris
RICHARDSON Donna
ACM - Attitud
Control Moto
Task/Project Impact - How will this problem affect my Control
Accounts and any others ?
1.6.4.2 LAS Systems
Engineering and
Integration
1.6.4.3.10.02
Jettison Motor
1.6.4.3.10.03 A
Does the CAM describe specific Cost Impacts for each of the variance drivers and root causes -
i.e. continuing cost trend, impact on ETC/LRE
-IF not APPLICABLE, has the CAM indicated it?
0
.5
1 or NA
0
.5
1 or NA
0
.5
1 or NA
Does the CAM describe specific Schedule Impacts for each of the variance drivers and root
causes - i.e. how many days, weeks, months is the slip in the schedule, is there adequate
schedule reserve to absorb the impact, what is the impact to major milestones or successor
tasks, is there critical path impact
-IF not APPLICABLE, has the CAM indicated it?
0
.5
1 or NA
0
.5
1 or NA
0
.5
1 or NA
Does the CAM describe specific Technical Impacts for each of the variance drivers and root
causes - i.e. level of maturity, change in solution/approach, adequate resources available
-IF not APPLICABLE, has the CAM indicated it?
0
.5
1 or NA
0
.5
1 or NA
0
.5
1 or NA
Does the CAM describe specific Impacts to to the Program AND/OR other Functional areas
or other tasks in the WBS - IF not APPLICABLE, has the CAM indicated it?
0
.5
1 or NA
0
.5
1 or NA
0
.5
1 or NA
Did the CAM quantify the impact - included approximate dollar value of the cost/technical
impact and and include duration changes and dates of the schedule impacts?
0
.5
1 or NA
0
.5
1 or NA
0
.5
1 or NA
If there is no impact, did the CAM explain WHY?
0
.5
1 or NA
0
.5
1 or NA
0
.5
1 or NA
VAR Scorecard – Impact

106.
106
ORION Variance Report Scorecard
BOCAM Ken
BRAINARD Mike
ENGBLOM Thor
LARSON Chris
RICHARDSON Donna
ACM - Attitud
Control Moto
Corrective Action Plan - What do I plan to do about the problem ?
1.6.4.2 LAS Systems
Engineering and
Integration
1.6.4.3.10.02
Jettison Motor
1.6.4.3.10.03 A
Has the CAM discussed specific practical or warranted actions or set of actions being taken
(or to be taken) to alleviate or minimize the impact of each root cause/driver?
0
.5
1 or NA
0
.5
1 or NA
0
.5
1 or NA
Does the corrective action include completion dates, individuals responsible, resources
necessary, and get well dates?
0
.5
1 or NA
0
.5
1 or NA
0
.5
1 or NA
Is each corrective action defined separately for each root cause?
0
.5
1 or NA
0
.5
1 or NA
0
.5
1 or NA
If there is a significant variance, did the CAM identify any areas of Risks or Opportunities?
-IF not APPLICABLE, has the CAM indicated it?
0
.5
1 or NA
0
.5
1 or NA
0
.5
1 or NA
If there is no hope for recovery or no action being taken, is that stated and is there an
explanation why?
-IF APPLICABLE
0
.5
1 or NA
0
.5
1 or NA
0
.5
1 or NA
If ongoing variance had the CAM discussed corrective action follow-up-Included results of
earlier corrective actions?
-IF APPLICABLE
0
.5
1 or NA
0
.5
1 or NA
0
.5
1 or NA
VAR Scorecard – Corrective Action

107.
107
VARs –Most Missed Items
 Impact:
 LRE/ETC Impact
 Impact on other accounts/Program
 Quantified Impact in $
 Corrective Action:
 Completion dates, get well dates, responsible people
 Risks & Opportunities
 Follow-up on previous month’s corrective action
promise (credit what has been already done)
 General: If not applicable, mention it

108.
108
Format Consistency
For multiple SV / CV / VAC Drivers be consistent in numbering for CM
CV/SV & CUME CV/SV where applicable.
 Explanation:
1) For Driver 1
2) For Driver 2
3) For Driver 3
 Impact:
1) For Driver 1
2) For Driver 2
3) For Driver 3
 Corrective action:
1) For Driver 1
2) For Driver 2
3) For Driver 3

109.
109
VAR Scorecard Results - Sample
Management Review
By CAs & CAMs
 Problem Analysis
 Max Score = 4
(4 areas graded)
 Impact analysis
 Max Score = 6
(6 areas graded)
 Corrective action
 Max Score = 6
(6 areas graded)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1.3.2SystemSafety
1.6.4.1LASManagementandAdministration
1.6.4.2LASSystemsEngineeringandIntegration
1.6.4.3.02CommandandDataHandling(C&DH)
1.6.4.3.05ElectricalPowerSubsystem
1.6.4.3.06Mechanisms
1.6.4.3.07PassiveThermalControl
1.6.4.3.09Structures
1.6.4.3.10.01AbortMotor
(Propulsion)
1.6.4.3.10.02JettisonMotor(Propulsion)
1.6.4.3.10.03ACM(Propulsion)
1.6.4.3.13Pyrotechnics
1.6.4.3.15Guidance,NavigationandControl(GN&C)
1.6.4.3.16Wiring
1.6.4.5LASTest,VerificationandCertification
1.6.4.6.01FlightHardwareAIP-MGSE
1.6.4.6.01FlightHardwareAIP-EGSE
1.6.4.6.02FlightTestArticleDesignandProduction
Problem Analysis - What happened and Why ?
Task/Project Impact - How will this problem affect my Control Accounts and any others ?
Corrective Action Plan - What do I plan to do about the problem ?
Sample
Results by CA for
CPR Format 5

110.
110
64.5
7270.5
108
70
108
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Scores Total
Problem Analysis - What happened and Why ?
Task/Project Impact - How will this problem affect my Control Accounts and any others ?
Corrective Action Plan - What do I plan to do about the problem ?
VAR Scorecard Results - Sample
Management Review
Total Program
 Problem Analysis
 70 out of 108
points
 Impact analysis
 70.5 out of 108
 Corrective action
 64.5 out of 72
Results for Program X
CPR Format 5

111.
111
ORION and APG EVMS Organization Chart –
November 08 – June 09
Executive VP and General Manager
Advanced Programs Group
Sr. Director
Finance
Senior VP and Deputy
General Manager
Senior VP and Deputy
General Manager
Prgm Planning / Control
and Business Systems
Lana Radovic
Representing Finance
EVMS Team
Lead Consultant
Lead Consultant
(H&A)
Vice President
Business Operations
Financial Planning
& Analysis
Contracts & Cost Estimating Government Compliance
Represents EVMS Validation
Team Members (17)

112.
113
Thank you for participation!