Uncertainty, risk, and rework make it extremely challenging to meet goals and deliver anticipated value in complex projects, and conventional techniques for planning and tracking earned value do not account for these phenomena. This article presents a methodology for planning and tracking cost, schedule, and technical performance (or quality) in terms of a project’s key value attributes and threats to them. It distinguishes four types of value and two general types of risks. The “high jumper” analogy helps to consider how high the “bar” is set for a project (its set goals) and therefore how challenging and risky it will be. A project’s capabilities as a “jumper” (to clear the bar and meet its goals) determine the portion of its value at risk (VaR). By understanding the amounts of value, risk, and opportunity in a project, project managers can design it for appropriate levels of each. Project progress occurs through reductions in its VaR: Activities “add value” by chipping away at the project’s “anti-value”—the risks that threaten value. This perspective on project management incentivizes generating results that eliminate these threats, rather than assuming that value exists until proven otherwise.
BjorkmanE. A.SarkaniS.MazzuchiT. A. (2013). Test and evaluation resource allocation using uncertainty reduction. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 60(3), 541–551.
2.
BrowningT. R. (2003). On customer value and improvement in product development processes. Systems Engineering, 6(1), 49–61.
3.
BrowningT. R. (2014). A quantitative framework for managing project value, risk, and opportunity. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 61(4), 583–598.
4.
BrowningT. R.DeystJ. J.EppingerS. D.WhitneyD. E. (2002). Adding value in product development by creating information and reducing risk. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 49(4), 443–458.
5.
BrowningT. R.EppingerS. D. (2002). Modeling impacts of process architecture on cost and schedule risk in product development. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 49(4), 428–442.
6.
BrowningT. R.RamaseshR. V. (2015). Reducing unwelcome surprises in project management. MIT Sloan Management Review, 56(3), 53–62.
7.
Calleam. (2008). Case study—Denver international airport baggage handling system—An illustration of ineffectual decision making (Report). Retrieved fromhttps://www5.in.tum.de/∼huckle/DIABaggage.pdf
8.
CooperK. G. (1993). The rework cycle: Benchmarks for the project manager. Project Management Journal, 24(1), 17–21.
9.
DaviesA.BradyT. (2016). Explicating the dynamics of project capabilities. International Journal of Project Management, 34(2), 314–327.
10.
EggstaffJ. W.MazzuchiT. A.SarkaniS. (2014). The development of progress plans using a performance-based expert judgment model to assess technical performance and risk. Systems Engineering, 17(4), 375–391.
11.
FlanaganT.EckertC.ClarksonP. J. (2007). Externalizing tacit overview knowledge: A model-based approach to supporting design teams. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 21(3), 227–242.
12.
FlemingQ. W.KoppelmanJ. M. (2010). Earned value project management – Fourth edition. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
13.
FlyvbjergB. (2014). What you should know about megaprojects and why: An overview. Project Management Journal, 45(2), 6–19.
14.
HubbardD. W. (2009). The failure of risk management. New York, NY: Wiley.
15.
IansitiM. (1994). Microsoft corporation: Office business unit (Teaching case, 9-691-033). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
16.
IDA (Institute for Defense Analysis). (2010). WSARA 2009: Joint strike fighter root cause analysis (Report P-4612). Washington, DC: Institute for Defense Analysis.
17.
KannanH.MesmerB. L.BloebaumC. L. (2017). Increased system consistency through incorporation of coupling in value-based systems engineering. Systems Engineering, 20(1), 21–44.
18.
KreyeM. E.GohY. M.NewnesL. B.GoodwinP. (2012). Approaches to displaying information to assist decisions under uncertainty. Omega, 40(6), 682–692.
19.
LeeB. D.BinderW. R.ParedisC. J. J. (2014). A systematic method for specifying effective value models. Procedia Computer Science, 28, 228–236.
20.
LeeB. D.ParedisC. J. J. (2014, April14–16.). A conceptual framework for value-driven design and systems engineering. Proceedings of the 24th CIRP Design Conference, Milan, Italy.
21.
LévárdyV.BrowningT. R. (2009). An adaptive process model to support product development project management. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 56(4), 600–620.
22.
LoveP. E. D.IraniZ.EdwardsD. J. (2003). Learning to reduce rework in projects: Analysis of firm’s organizational learning and quality practices. Project Management Journal, 34(3), 13–25.
23.
McGrathR. G.MacMillanI. C. (1995). Discovery-driven planning. Harvard Business Review, 73(4), 44–54.
24.
PintoJ. K. (2013). Lies, damned lies, and project plans: Recurring human errors that can ruin the project planning process. Business Horizons, 56(5), 643–653.
25.
Project Management Institute (PMI). (2011). Practice standard for earned value management – Second edition. Newtown Square, PA: Author.
26.
Project Management Institute (PMI). (2017). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide) – Sixth edition. Newtown Square, PA: Author.
27.
SolomonP. J.YoungR. R. (2007). Performance-based earned value. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
28.
Standish. (2001). Extreme CHAOS (Report). The Standish Group International, Inc. Retrieved fromhttp://standishgroup.com/
29.
ThomkeS.FujimotoT. (2000). The effect of “front-loading” problem-solving on product development performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17(2), 128–142.
30.
VerwornB.HerstattC.NagahiraA. (2008). The fuzzy front end of Japanese new product development projects: Impact on success and differences between incremental and radical projects. R&D Management, 38(1), 1–19.
31.
WangJ.LinW.HuangY.-H. (2010). A performance-oriented risk management framework for innovative R&D projects. Technovation, 30(11–12), 601–611.
32.
WangJ.YangC.-Y. (2012). Flexibility planning for managing R&D projects under risk. International Journal of Production Economics, 135(2), 823–831.
33.
YangT. G.IshiiK.KarandikarH. (2005, September 24–28). Decision analysis approach for improving product development decision quality: An interactive simulation game showcase. Proceedings of the ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Long Beach, CA.
