BCWS Calculation

[bauer172uw]

Our organization noticed a property of how BCWS is calculated. The issue
arrises when you have a summary task, baseline, and then remove subtasks
post-baseline. Now looking to a time down the road (now) with the status
date set to the current date (also beyond the baseline finish of all
subtasks), the BCWS for the summary task still accounts for the cost of the
tasks that were removed.

So, in my sample project I created this very instance. I made 5 subtasks,
each costing $100. I baselined. Then I removed one of the subtasks. After
updating the Physical % Complete AND the % Work Complete fields my summary
tasks EV is as follows:

BCWS: $500
BCWP: $400
ACWP: $400

It should be noted that the summary task's '% Work Complete'=100% while
'Physical % Complete'=80%. We have set both fields to have 100% for each
subtask. Why is it that these are not equal then?

So BCWP and ACWP seem correct. When looking at BCWS I wonder why is BCWS
not $400. This $500 indicates that somehow the BCWS for the summary task is
coupled to the task that was removed. OK, I could buy that, but how? I
thought it may be coupled via 'Baseline Cost' or 'Baseline Work' but changing
these fields did not alter the BCWP. So how is BCWS attached to this removed
task.

My concern is that, after our baseline, every time we remove a task we will
need to rebaseline it's summay task (recursively all the way up the project).
Does anyone have a solution or best practices method for this?

Note: I truely believe that the status date, EV calculation method, baseline
used for calc., and autocalculate are set correctly and are not the problem.

Thank You for any help.
Mike

 

[JackD]

The best practice is to not remove tasks after the baseline is set. And if
you remove a task set a new baseline for summaries.

 

[Gérard Ducouret]

Hi,
Try the following :
Select the Summary implied by the deleted task, then:
Tools / Tracking / Save Baseline... / From subtasks into selected summary
task(s)

Gérard Ducouret

 

[bauer172uw]

How is BCWS related to the baseline fields? I mean, if I change say,
baseline cost, should BCWS change as well? So far I have not found this
mathematical relationship though I know that it must exist. I would like the
BCWS for the summary tasks to equal to the sum of the BCWS for the subtasks
and want to create a macro to make the appropriate adjustments for me on my
baseline so that the summary BCWS comes out correct.

One of the troubling things regarding this issue is that, if you remove
tasks after a baseline, your '% Work Complete' field can go to 100% but your
'Physical % Complete' cannot reach 100%. So for my example I can only hit a
maximum of 80% Physical % Complete even though all subtasks are completed.

Thank You both for your responses.
Mike

 

[Gérard Ducouret]

Hi,

The 'Physical % Complete' is not calculated by Project : it's entered by the
operator to alter the calculation of BCWP.
Have a look at the Project help abour this field.

Gérard Ducouret

 

[JackD]

How is BCWS related to the baseline fields?

BCWS = Budgeted cost of wor scheduled.
The "budget" in project is the baseline. So there is a direct relationship.

 

[bauer172uw]

I do realize this. As I mentioned in my original posting, we calculate our
Physical % Complete' by copying over the '% Work Complete' task fields. So
for this particular example I have all subtasks set with 100% '% Work
Complete' and 100% 'Physical % Complete'. At the summary task level project
evaluates this to 100% '% Work Complete' but only 80% 'Physical % Complete'.
Given this scenario it appears that the 'Physical % Complete' can never reach
100% if you have removed tasks post baseline.

Mike

 

[bauer172uw]

This is correct Jack. I do realize that the baseline is what determines the
"budget". What I do not realize is what particular values within the
baseline (cost, work, ...) determine the BCWS.

I am planning to write a macro that will determine if the BCWS reflects a
situation where tasks have been removed and then change these baseline fields
manually to compensate.

Thank You again for the posting.
Mike

 

[Steve House [Project MVP]]

AFAIK, % Physical Complete doesn't automatically roll up into the summary
task. I tried a simple example and even with all subtasks set to 100%
complete in all three metrics - duration, work, and physical - the %
Physical Complete of the summary task remains at zero even the other two
fields in the summary are 100%.

 

[bauer172uw]

Steve, were you entering the 100% in the 'Physical % Column' for the
subtasks? So far I have not had trouble with this rollup given simple
conditions. This inconsistency occurs when I have removed tasks. You might
try turning the autocalculation on.

I was able to get the 'Physical % Complete' to roll up correctly to the
summary tasks. What I did was to rebaseline my summary task to compensate
for the removed tasks. For some reason MS did not recalculate the BCWS after
this change. To force a recalulation I ran my macro (it simply copies the '%
Work Complete' field to the 'Physical % Complete' for each subtasks). This
forced project to recalculate the BCWS given the new baseline data. You may
recall that, after the task removal, the highest 'Physical % Complete' that I
could enter was 80%. This method did allow me to reach a value of 100%.

I hope this helps others.

Mike

 

[JackD]

The timescaled cost data is what determines the budget. The timescaled work
data is one element in determining the cost data. I think that fixed cost
data is the other contributor.

 

[Steve House [Project MVP]]

Project 2003 Proferssional, all service packs applied, autocalculation is
turned on. The setting for check box "updating task status upates resource
status" was left to its default setting of "on." A summary task with 5
subtasks was created linked in sequence FS. Resource Joe was assigned to
each subtask and a baseline saved. "% Physical Complete" column was added
to the tracking table. Each subtask was set to 100% complete using the
tracking tool bar, thus simultaneously setting both % Complete and % Work
Complete fields to 100% for all the subtasks. % Physical Complete remains
at zero since that is always a manual entry. Summary task rolls up %
Complete and % Work Complete so they show 100% in the summary line as well
as in the subtasks. Manually set the % Physical Complete fields to 100% for
the subtasks only. % Physical Complete for the summary remains at 0% until
manually updated. Behavior and calculations remain the same when the
experiment is repeated and a subtask is deleted, whether it is deleted
before or after saving the baseline makes no difference, neither is there a
difference whether the earned value method is set to % complete or %
physical complete. In no case does % Physical Complete roll up to the
summary line even though the other completion fields do.

Something in your macro is responsible for updating the field in the summary
task because Project's native rollups exclude % Physical Complete.
Somewhere in that process your macro is making an error and not correctly
picking up and summing the values of the subtasks. You need to debug the
macro some more I'm afraid. Thinking about it a bit, it may be that you are
calculating % physical complete by comparing Baseline Work with Actual Work.
If you had 5 tasks at first, the baseline work for the summary would be the
sum of the work for all 5 subtasks. If you then delete one task without
subsequently refreshing the baseline, the baseline remains as is but the the
maximum value of the summary actual work once all remaining tasks are
complete would be 4/5 of what it was previously, the baseline work, ie, 80%.
If this is somehow used to compute the % Physical Complete of the summary,
that would explain your issue. The % Work Complete for the summary shows
100% because that is handled by Project's internal calculation of summary %
Work Complete which doesn't look at baseline work at all. % Work Complete
is Work Performed / Work Scheduled and baseline doesn't enter into it. But
if your macro is saying % Physical Complete is Actual Work / Baseline Work,
whether directly or indirectly, it would never go over 80% for the summary
in this scenario unless a new baseline was saved for the summary after
deleting its subtask.

--
Steve House [MVP]
MS Project Trainer & Consultant
Visit http://www.mvps.org/project/faqs.htm for the FAQs

 

[toast88]

Bauer172uw - I have encountered a similar problem with MSP 2K. Are you
willing to share your macro with me so I don't need to recreate the wheel?

I am looking to have the BCWS recalculated for summary tasks by looking at
the BCWS's for the non summary tasks associated with the summary task.

Thanks!