The article written by Paul Solomon focuses on the necessity to change Earned Value Management (EVM) Standard and practices used by the Department of Defense. The scholar believes that federal agencies need adopt the models used by commercial companies. The author identifies several limitations of current approach. Overall, the author’s argument is rather convincing because he provides specific examples that describe the limitation of the existing EVM practices. Moreover, he provides a compelling justification for the future reform of the EVM standards and regulations.
Paul Solomon points out that existing approach to EVM takes into account quantitative aspects of work, but overlooks quality. For instance, earned value is often measured on the basis of software modules that have been completed; however, little attention is being paid to the functionality of this software (Solomon, 2010, p. 19). Moreover, some contractors do not report that they increase the number of drawings without changing functional characteristics of hardware or software. To a great extent, these strategies create the illusion of progress because contractors do not show whether the project is close to completion. More likely, they report the activities that they have already undertaken. In other words, contractors often misrepresent the results of their work.
The failure to use technical performance measures can profoundly affect the Department of Defense because there will be a gap between EVM reported by contractors and the performance of their projects. Secondly, the author argues that existing practices do not take into consideration such a factor as risk. The author argues that risk mitigation plans have to be included in the schedules and estimations of contractors and project managers (Solomon, 2010, p. 20). These are the main problems that the author tries to address.
Paul Solomon believes that the majority of private companies have already rejected the practices used by the Department of Defense and other federal agencies (Solomon, 2010, p. 19). The author believes that the future reform should incorporate technical performance of projects and risk management procedures into EVM. Different approaches have already been adopted by private companies, and they yield better results (Solomon, 2010, p. 19). This importance of this reform becomes more evident if one takes into that the Department of Defense cooperates with hundreds of contractors, and their unreliable reporting will prevent this organization from attaining its goals.
On the whole, it is possible to agree with the arguments advanced by Paul Solomon. Many researchers and project managers insist that Earned Value Management should be based on the measurement of functionality, design, performance, rather than merely quantitative aspects such as the number of code lines that have been written (Solanki, 2009, p. 305). Similarly, the earned value of hardware projects should not be estimated according to the number of drawings; instead one should focus on actual performance of the technology. It is necessary to bridge the gap between qualitative and quantitative aspects of earned value management. Merely quantitative measurement of earned value is not longer acceptable for private companies since such form of measurement is not valid or reliable.
The issues addressed by Paul Solomon are extremely important for the Department of Defense since this governmental agency depends on effective cooperation with contractors. The reform suggested by the author can improve the work of many governmental agencies. Project managers should ensure that the measurement of earned value reflects real, rather than imagined progress.
Reference List
Solomon, P. (2010). Earned Value Management Acquisition Reform. Defense AT&L, 39(6), 16-20.
Solanki, P. (2009). Earned Value Management: Integrated View of Cost and Schedule Performance. Delhi: Global India Publications.