Rodel,

I have a lot of explaining to do if my son can’t find Jerry playing with Tom as he’s busy laughing at PP. Gggggrrrr!

Or maybe I could convince him to watch Voltes 5 instead.

Best regards,

R. Catalan

Rodel,

The carabao/buffalo is taken care of because of his good performance in the field. But when she get older the owner/farmer will do some good management to sell her to the butcher. Some sort of betraying the good relationship between them.

This is what you call performance and management at the opposite sides.

Best regards,

R. Catalan

Rodel,

One country I know is that most mountain dwellers offered their live chicken for a can of sardines so they can serve sardines it to their guests.

Best regards,

R. Catalan

Vladimir,

What is the cost of a Spider license, how many man-hours? Does your Visa card accept man-hours? Is just a matter of perception, in any purchase contract you can perceive whatever you want, I guess. There are no wrong interpretations for a purchase contract is just a matter of perception, everything is about perception.

Perceptively,
Rafael

Rafael,
My Perception is different, I believed everyone has the right to name or called it the way they want a long as the message is understandable to others or as long as the communication is clear. I think it is the same reason why every country has their owned standards, every company has set there owned standard and even every person has their own standard. A very good example is language, why every country has different language and some country have different dialects on every region. Even English that we can call international language but every country still had different interpretation on one English single word, US English is different in English country and other country.

Another example is the English and metric system. What not all decide or agreed whether English system or metric system as a basis of measurement?

You can call it value, cost, man-hour or anything as long as it was communicated clear to the recipient.

Best Regards,
Rodel

Vladimir,

I used EV only once before, it was at a Pharmaceutical Job and we were required to use use man-hours. Most percent complete was determined by using physical volume of work applied to budget man-hours. This was a “Cost Plus” job and the Owner wanted to track our labor performance. They supplied the expensive equipment and we installed it.

Agree it is not for every job, is not difficult though, maybe tedious, and maybe not so much tedious, but not understood by everyone because is not used very frequently. Please note that for even the simplest Design Job can be of value, therefore a good scheduling software tool must provide EV for those in need of the tool. I am not sure if I will ever use it again, but no harm to have it and understand it. I would appreciate if a better terminology is used, so in case I have the need to use EV again then these terms will make sense to others in our team.

Best regards,
Rafael

Vladimir,

I do not see anything wrong with the use of B to mean Budget, on the contrary is meaningful. My problem is limited to the use the term Cost when you mean other unit of measurement.

Imagine when using BCWP for man-hour resources when it mean man-hour amount and not the cost of the budgeted man-hours, is kind of misleading.

To me using the term Cost many times when you do not mean cost is wrong, use of Cost to mean quantity of man-hours, cubic yards etc. is wrong. If the guy who created the terms could not figured it out long ago it does not means we cannot figure out better names. The initial of a term should not be an excuse to use misleading descriptors.

An acronym is just a shortcut, kind of a nickname that should follow meaning when used in lieu of full technical terms.

I believe initially Earned Value was conceived as to mean only cost and on the run it was realized the concept can be applied to other units. In my little mind there is no other explanation. There is no excuse for not to make the appropriate correction, even if decades late. If Government agencies are incapable of making the corrections I was expecting that at least the PMI and others would make them, instead of merely being record keepers of what others do and write no matter if wrong, just pass it on.

Best Regard,
Rafael

If working EV using a metric other than costs you can substitute the following acronyms in your computer using a permanent marker on your screen until the government agencies, the PMI and software developers figure it out.

Substitute Cost by Value then you will get a better language description, very simple.

BCWS = BVWS = BUDGETED VALUE OF WORK SCHEDULED
BCWP = BVWP = BUDGETED VALUE OF WORK PERFORMED
ACWP = AVWP = ACTUAL VALUE OF WORK PERFORMED
FCST = FORECAST OF REMAINING WORK
BAC = BUDGET AT COMPLETION
EAC = ESTIMATE AT COMPLETION
FTG = ESTIMATE (FORECAST) TO GO

Also on the title and the vertical axis label use the name of the value being used as the basis for EV instead of Cost.

I always wondered why the named it Earned Value and never used the term Value.

I have nothing against weigting if the weight has a name (cost, hours, cubic meters, anything that everybody understands the same way).
In Spider Project Earned Value can be applied to anything including user fields.
But I don’t call EV application Performance Management. It is one of many reports that may be created.
Best Regards,
Vladimir

Hi Vladimir,
There are so many terms use like, norms, rate, unit cost...etc...

I believed it was called weigth because of the way it was presented in a progress measurement but rate or norms in cost estimating.

Best Regards,
Rodel

Hi Vladimir,
Yes absolutely correct. In other terms it is called unit cost per activity. But because it is high level activity – weighting is used to breakdown to detail production step and measure against it and the summation = progress.

Best Regards,
Rodel

Hi,
I understood that what Rodel calls weighting we called unit costs. Unit cost is an estimated cost of volume (quantity) unit. Estimating work quantities and applying unit costs we will get "weightings".
It is still cost. In any case weight shall be easily interpreted as cost, or work hours, or something else that can be measured.
As Rafael wrote in earlier post it is not easy to apply this approach (normed unit costs) to design and other works that is hard to measure in physical units.
Best Regards,
Vladimir

Trevor,
Weighting is not just a cost or labor or work. It is a norm derived from duration, cost, equipment, labor etc…

Some use manhour to derive weighting which have the same process as I mention on my post # 13.

Example: 100m3 concrete (5m*10m*2m) or 50m2
Say Layout = (surveyor/hr *PF, instruments ..etc) = 10hr = $690/100m3 = $6.9/m3 or 0.1hr/m3
For Excavation = $12.10/cm3 (labor*FP, equipment, tools etc..) = 36hr/100m3 = 0.36hr/m3

Best Regards,
Rodel

Rodel,

I understand your table as correct as per traditional EV methodology. EV as used by the inventor, the US Government, is to compare actual performance with budgeted values. For some programs they track budgeted man-hours versus actual man-hours. Is intended for jobs where estimated quantities are uncertain. Therefore for a fixed cost job is of not much use if using costs.

After your budgeting the weighting becomes a mathematical computation based on a uniform value across the board for the common reference, a man-hour is a man-hour no matter if by Vladimir or Rashid, a dollar is a dollar no matter if a dollar on activity A or a dollar in activity B.

The weighting must be based on a common metrics such as man-hours or cost but not an unknown metrics, and this is key. Therefore you might be in need to use both, keeping them separate, man-hours and cost to measure progress and performance. It is not Rice and Beans.

Here we rarely use the concept, except for US Government jobs when needed. It should be of no surprise on most of our Government jobs is not needed nor required. It is still valid and some industries like the pharmaceutical industry they monitor progress performance of their jobs based on an initial man-hour estimate. Here equipment is supplied by the corporation and the installation is either by the local plant PM and their subcontractors. They also startup their jobs on a hurry, usually fast track and initially they do not have a precise initial estimate but are still in need to monitor progress and must assign budgets to this purpose.

To my eyes as a Contractor is kind of too much trouble for something that gives us so little, we care about the details and use not a common unit to track performance across all activities but we get into the details. I always called Earned Value as Budgeting, as not even 50% of true job costing where quantities and their particular unit of measure are relevant. For our estimates on percentage complete we just use the BOQ.

We know about unit costs such as $650.00/CY of concrete (sorry no Euros spoken here) but the EV jargon is kind of foreign to the neighborhood contractor, the one that builds everyday jobs such as schools, houses, office buildings; not the one who develops the next generation “Stealth Fighter”, the kind of jobs our government was in need to standardize the EV procedure.

I believe for design jobs the EV procedure is a good fit.

Best regards,
Rafael

So one person says that "weight" is about Cost and another says it is about Work. It’s ambiguous. No one knows what it means. The trouble with using Work is that it assumes that all Hours have the same value, but 1 Hour of one guy’s time is worth a lot more than another guy’s time. Well it may or may not be worth more and have more "value" but it definitely costs more. What’s wrong with using Cost, since the reason money was invented was to measure everything with the same ruler?

All,
I believed that both are talking to same direction. It’s just a misunderstanding of weighting and % complete. My understanding of weighting is to simplify the method of measurement which is usually used in absence of detail estimates. Weightings is derived from norms which was accumulated from past experience base on cost, duration and productivity of specific scope of work.

Ex: Reinforced concrete foundation. To estimate the reinforced concrete foundation estimator need to know:
1)     Ground condition
2)     Layout (m2)
3)     Volume of excavation (m3) (backfill maybe optional or separate)
4)     Kilograms of rebar (kg or tons)
5)     Area of Formworks (m2)-[if required)]
6)     Embedded items (if required)
7)     Volume of concrete
8)     Curing compound (if required)

To estimate Layout
=>Area of layout (surveyor, labor, surveyor’s instrument/ equipment (level, theodolite etc…) * productivity factor due to ground condition
To estimate excavation
=>Volume of excavation * (machine, operator, labor) * productivity factor due to ground condition
To estimate Reinforcement
=> size of rebar and total length (kg or tons), steelman, tools and equipment, tie wires
and etc… etc… (same on all production steps to complete the scope)

To simplify this:
Labor * productivity factor
Materials (including handling, storing/ laydown)
Major equipment (external rates plus insurance/ internal rental rates * deprecation and insurance)
Minor tool (internal rental rate, depreciation plus insurance)
Supervision (if indirect are included) - optional

Using all of this arrived on rates or norms per specific work.
Ex: 100m3 reinforced concrete foundation (5mx2mx10m) or 50m2
Say Layout = (surveyor/hr *PF, instruments ..etc) = 10hr = $690/100m3 = $6.9/m3 or 0.1hr/m3
Excavation = $12.10/cm3 (labor*FP, equipment, tools etc..)
Formworks = $56.00/m2 (labor*FP, materials (i.e one use), tools…etc…) *50m2/100m3 = $28/m3
Rebar = $2.8/kg (labor*PF, materials, tools…etc…) say 250kg/m3 = $700/m3(defends on specs)
Concreting (Concrete, 3000 psi, footings, pump) = $179/m3
Curing compound (labour*PF, materials) = $14/m2 * 50m2/ 100m3 = $7.00/m3
(Note: dollar, hours and productivity are just an example and should not taken as correct value)

Summary           Rate/m3      Amount      Weight
1)     Layout      $ 6.90       $ 690.00     0.7%
2)     Excavation  $ 12.10    $ 1,210.00       1.2%
3)     Rebar      $700.00       $70,000.00       67.8%
4)     Formworks  $ 28.00      $ 2,800.00       2.7%
5)     Concrete    $ 179.00       $ 17,900.00       17.3%
6)     Embedded Items  $ 100.00      $ 10,000.00      9.7%
7)     Curing Compound  $ 7.00       $ 700.00      0.7%
      Total =            $103,300.00      100.0%

Standard norm is normally used for estimating a high level purpose of a job if detail estimation is not present. It makes it easier for the planner/ estimation to progress/ estimate the scope using the standard norm.
This is usually used for a level 3 schedule which details are breakdown by productivity rate or weightings.

Vladimir,

% Completion is calculated on the basis of weights and the weights will be calculated on the basis of budgeted hours. Budgeted hrs cannot be shared around everywhere so these are replaced by weights.

                        
...........................................Budget     Unit      Weightage     Status     %
1. Layout.............................10      Hrs     2           100%     2
2. Rebar Installation    200      Hrs     43           60%     2
3. Formwork                150      Hrs     32           90%     29
4. Embedded parts etc   50      Hrs     11           50%     5
5. Concrete pour           60      Hrs     13           0%     0
...............................................470     Hrs     100           62     62%

How will you calculate? Thanks.

R

I’m with Vlaimir. Both "weightage" and "%" are unnecessary and, worse, serve only to obscure the true situation.

If the so-called "weightage" is just a proxy for Work (hours) or Cost ($), then it is not needed because you can just use Work or Cost instead, and then everyone will know what is being measured and how it is being measured. There are only 4 things to measure:

1) Duration
2) Work
3) Cost
4) some measure of the task (bricks laid, m3 of concrete poured, pigeons shot, holes dug, but better is "done" or "not done").

Each has an actual part, and a remaining part.
They are all that is needed to be known.
Each also has a total and a %, but since total = actual/total and total = actual + remaining, the % is not needed and is anyway less useful than knowing actual and remaining.

Vladimir,

I don’t agree to what you said but I will try to understand where you are comming from.

Example is in front of you. how will you determine the % complete for the foundation at day 4 when the layout is 100% complete, rebar fabrication is 100 %, Rebar Installation is 60%, formwork is 90%, embedded parts are 20%.

Steps
1. Layout
2. Rebar Installation
3. Formwork
4. Embedded parts etc
5. Concrete pour

I am a beleiver of a detailed weightage system that has some solid basis such as estimated hrs.

How would you want to measure the progress of ’Concrete foundation’ activtiy without measuring the completions of the interm steps?

2. What other perfomrance tools you suggest for the construction projects?

Your comments, your disagreement will be appreciated.

R

Hello,
Performance management is simply comparing the actual versus the earned. Now the trick is how to get earned. Yes to get the earned value you have to use a weighted system i.e.

Foundation Concrete
Steps
1. Layout
2. Rebar Installtion
3. Formwork
4. Embedded parts etc
5. Concrete pour
Each of these steps have to have some weight so to calculate the EV of this activity. Thanks and let me know if you want to discuss it more.

R

Hi Naveen,
you are right - there is a problem of measuring design, research, or engineering works. There is no universal solution. One of the option - the number of drawings of certain types. Today it may be obsolete. Different organizations use different measures but in any case they shall be quantitative.
Best Regards,
Vladimir