Annotated Bibliography for Schedule and Cost Variance Analysis

Westinghouse Hanford Company. The United States. Hanford Site (Wash., United States, & Schultz, E. A. (1995). Site management system executive summary report -- March 1995. Washington, D.C: United States. Dept. of Energy

Purpose of the Article

This is an article written by the Energy Department of the United States in Washington D.C. It was drafted in the year 1995 and its content distributed by Technical and Office of Scientific Information. Thus, it is deemed to be a national government publication. The study was conducted by the government so as to address the continued unfavorable variance schedule under favorable cost variance. Thus, its purpose was to look for the best method to address how performance data of a favorable cost variance projects can be conducted and to find a favorable schedule variance and be implemented.

Design and Methodology Approach the Article Embraces

This article addresses a variety of individual programs. Since cost variance and schedule variance analysis involves many single individual programs, the favorable method adopted by this article is that of the aggressive mode of sampling. The aggressive style of sampling used is due to operational and equipment issues, the use of Multi-Function Waste Tank Facility (MWTF), and placement of contracts melter behind schedule. The aggressive sampling schedule is deemed to be the best method for the rotary and pushing the activity of mode of sampling.

Article Findings

The performance data does reflect a continued favorable variance and unfavorable schedule variance. It was discovered that March fiscal year up to the most recent, the schedule variance is still unfavorable. It stands at $105.5M. It was also found that EM-30 which is comprised of Office Waste Management deemed to be its biggest behind contributor to the schedule condition. Equally, the majority of schedule variance of EM-30 are related to the Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS).

In a breakdown of events as they occurred; a total of negative of $63M was the TWRS schedule variance. The $63M was attributable to the delays witnessed in receiving vital decisions of 0 (KD-0). These delays were for the project of W-314. Under this project, the deployment of rotary behind schedule and the push mode sampling associated with trucks in their operational and equipment issues; the use of Multi-Function Waste Tank Facility (MWTF), and placement of contracts melter behind schedule form sections of the baselines.

Of the 37 enforceable milestone agreement scheduled under FYTD, 97% of them completed before the scheduled time was over. 3% of the remainder were delinquent. Thus, from the above findings done under FYTD prompted the Department of Energy to seek a redress under a dispute resolution about the delinquent milestone. Thus, 13% of the enforceable milestone agreement that was being scheduled to be conducted for FY are still a forecast to be behind schedule. Thus, the performance data in this study reflected an improved significant to a tune of $25.7M. This shows a 4% variance cost. The characteristic of variance cost is thus accredited to the progress that is linked towards the accomplishment of productivity goals that were committed to, and these goals are expected to continue to be in existence for the rest of the fiscal year.

Conclusion

The characteristic of variance cost is accredited to the progress that is linked to the accomplishment of productivity goals that are committed goals that are expected be in existence for the rest of the fiscal year. Therefore, the performance data does reflect a continued favorable variance and unfavorable schedule variance.

Reference

Westinghouse Hanford Company. United States. Hanford Site (Wash., United States, & Schultz, E. A. (1995). Site management system executive summary report -- March 1995. Washington, D.C: United States. Dept. of Energy