%complete & %work complete and high management

[Imad M. Al-Sadek]

Hi All
I'm trying to collect information about many projects tracked by projects
managers in another dept., I'm wondering if I'm trying to get an image for
the high managers, what do u think I have to use %complete or %work
complete?
I know %complete cares about time, and %work complete cares about work, but
I'm still wondering which value will fit the needed inf to show high
management how works is going on.
thanks in advance

 

[Gérard Ducouret]

Hi Imad,

These two types of data are useful.

If your high management is mainly concern by a deadline, they'll focus on %
Complete.

If your high management is mainly concern by a budget, they'll focus on %
Work Complete.



To show how works is going on, you can also use standard progress indicators
such as BCWS, BCWP, ACWS. See the help for them.



Gérard Ducouret

 

[David]

I have found the physical % complete very useful for senior management.

 

[Steve House]

The problem with % physical complete is how to measure it. If I have 100
metres of roadway to pave and I've done 50, then it's relatively simple and
I'm around 50% physical complete. But for an engineer designing an engine,
what is 50% complete? Is it half the drawings are done? Is it the
crankcase is done with the cylinder head remaining? Is it the fuel and
lubrication systems are done with the electrical and cooling systems
remaining? IMHO, % physical complete is way too subjective to be useful for
managing the project in many, if not most, cases. % Complete, a duration
measure, OTOH is another matter. We need 10 days to do this task. We've
worked 3 with 7 remaining. We're 30% done. boom badada bing

 

[David]

Steve
you are absolutely correct in most of what you say in the note. All 3 measures can be somewhat misleading and misunderstood. However, I have seen many tasks in projects where Physical % Complete communicates more than the other metrics. (We have completed coding module 1 with 9 more to go; the 1st module in 2 weeks and will be used as a template for the other 9. The other 9 are expected to take 1 day; what do you want to communicate?) As you stated, a pro/con of this measure is that it is subjective and does not impact work or schedule.

 

[Steve House]

I'd still go with the plain % complete. The fundamental question that
progress metrics seeks to answer is "how much longer will it be before I can
take delivery of the product?" In your example, we are 90% done with the
work required to produce 10 modules when we have completed the first one yet
we are only 10% physical complete. What it really tells us is that out of
the 10 days budgeted to produce all 10, we have just 1 day to go before all
10 of them are in hand and our developers can move on to fresh challenges.
OTOH, if we're at the 10 days mark and it looks like it will be another 5
days before that first module is complete, that too is signfigant for making
management decisions. Since project planning in general is concerned
primarily with the length of time resoures have to be deployed and the cost
of using those resources, % complete answers the first and % work complete
answers the second, I would put % physical complete way down the list as a
managment tool except in rare instances. It looks good in press releases
but doesn't really mean much when trying to manage the schedule and budget.

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

Steve,
you are absolutely correct in most of what you say in the note. All 3

measures can be somewhat misleading and misunderstood. However, I have seen
many tasks in projects where Physical % Complete communicates more than the
other metrics. (We have completed coding module 1 with 9 more to go; the 1st
module in 2 weeks and will be used as a template for the other 9. The other
9 are expected to take 1 day; what do you want to communicate?) As you
stated, a pro/con of this measure is that it is subjective and does not
impact work or schedule.