Just pointing out that there are other ways to do it, too: by functional area, or subcontractor. Some studies have shown that performance factors are quite stable by type of work. So let's say that a sub has performed poorly on the project -- but 99% complete. By isolating the sub's poor performance, yet showing that that work is complete, we don't have to "staright-line" the underperformance across the future project work.
Fraternally in project management,
Steve the Bajan
Member for
16 years 7 months
Member for16 years7 months
Submitted by Gary Whitehead on Wed, 2012-06-06 12:21
Consider using both. Cumulative will give you a view of productivity over time while period will give you a view of trends. Period trending can be invaluable in helping you identify specific events or circumstances which have or are impacting productivity.
Member for
20 years 7 monthsJust pointing out that there
Just pointing out that there are other ways to do it, too: by functional area, or subcontractor. Some studies have shown that performance factors are quite stable by type of work. So let's say that a sub has performed poorly on the project -- but 99% complete. By isolating the sub's poor performance, yet showing that that work is complete, we don't have to "staright-line" the underperformance across the future project work.
Fraternally in project management,
Steve the Bajan
Member for
16 years 7 monthsI agree with Glen. I always
I agree with Glen.
I always report both, and annotate the graph to provide commentary on reasons for large over/under performance in any given month.
If for some reason you can only report one, I would choose the whole project rather than period performance.
Member for
14 yearsAlfredo Consider using both.
Alfredo
Consider using both. Cumulative will give you a view of productivity over time while period will give you a view of trends. Period trending can be invaluable in helping you identify specific events or circumstances which have or are impacting productivity.