More on project monitoring

I would like to reply to Mr. K. Herman Zevering's Project monitoring -- a sequel" (April 22, 1999) which challenged several points raised in my Project monitoring letters published on April 11, 1999, and April 18, 1999.

As space is insufficient to reply in detail to Mr. Zevering's letter, I will summarize the issues. The full text of the reply is on file with the Jakarta Post for anyone wishing to obtain a copy.

Mr. Zevering's statements indicate a somewhat incomplete understanding of the Cost/Schedule Control System Criteria (C/SCSC) in general, and of Earned Value Management (EVM) in particular. However, we can agree unequivocally that "the solution lies in more independent works inspection and in reforming the ingrained culture".

A cornerstone of effectively implementing EVM is to require frequent site visits by suitably qualified and experienced professionals to have quantities and quality confirmed as a required condition before releasing funds.

The PMP Certification Program (and others like it) are intended to represent a proactive method of facilitating cultural changes by introducing "best in class" practices and procedures in a structured manner. While many expatriates claim to be here to "transfer technology", there is no way to demonstrate concrete results or evaluate the effectiveness of their programs. Internationally recognized professional certifications are a way to measure and evaluate the success of Technology Transfer Programs. They are globally recognized, replicable, portable, and assure consistency of terminology, methods and procedures if implemented properly.

There are several other key points raised by Mr. Zevering that I feel should be clarified or amplified: First, CPM/PERT compared to Earned Value Management. CPM is a Scheduling Tool, PERT is a Cost or Time Risk Analysis Tool. Combined as a fully cost loaded schedule, they generate the "S" curves necessary to evaluate Earned Value Performance. Together, in total they form the basis of EVM.

EVM related to JIT, EOQ, Cost of Capital and Idle Plant calculation. The primary objective in using EVM is to answer the following questions:

* Is my project on schedule?

* Is my project within budget?

* What is the current "health" of my project, and is it getting better or getting worse?

EVM being "unique" and not demonstrating "what did I get for my project expenditures" is not just a recommended practice, but a contractual requirement used to release funds/payments for projects executed under the U.S. Federal Acquisition Regulations (FARS). It has also been endorsed and is being implemented by Britain, Sweden and the Australian governments. EVM has gained such global acceptance, because the evaluation happens before release of any payment, and not after.

As space in Letters is limited, I cannot reply as comprehensively as I would like, nor am I able to document or substantiate my assertions through this forum. If Mr. Zevering, his organization or any other interested agency or project would like to learn more about EVM, professional certifications or the Project Management Institute, the local Indonesia Chapter of PMI maintains an extensive speakers bureau of both Indonesian and expatriate experts who are willing to share their knowledge through a brief "no cost" presentation. Or you can learn more by contacting: Paul D. Giammalvo, PMI Director of Advocacy-Region 10, Director-APM Project Management Center for Excellence, Jakarta.

PAUL D. GIAMMALVO

Jakarta