|
|
| OriginalText |
| 2366 While working on this building experience, the shop owner identifies process improvement |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| replace “this” with a description of what is being discussed so “the shop owner” is understandable. As it stands to read 6. means having to backtrack for context with no indication of where to go to |
|
| Your Justification |
| The indefinte article makes it impossible for readers to ‘dip-in’ and gain understanding because context is required. Practice standards are not typically instructional works they are inherently sources of “Standard Practice” and practice standard so should be written to make the sections as stand alone as possible |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Accepted With Modification |
| Our justification: Several comments were received on lines 2365 through 2368. We have modified the sentences to best represent the intent of all comments. We believe that the following rewrite addresses your comment: 2366 -2368 While building the custom cycle the team conducted several retrospectives to determine if there were any lessons learned for process improvements as well as root causes of estimation variances. |
|
| OriginalText |
79
1.2 Project Estimating Definitions
|
|
| Your Recommendation |
| Expand the section to make clear that an estimate is neither a single number nor a static thing. Lots of what follows boarders on the realisation but it doesn’t seem to actually be in the document yet. Define estimate as “A collection of relevant factors and the rules/ algorithms/ calculations for their combination that when examined determines predictions of quantities of interest. A stable estimate contains all of the factors and calculations that determine a result as of today. Reexamination over time will generate results that reflect changes in the world-around us. For example the fluctuations in the price of commodities and labour. For accounting and budgeting purposes we often choose to express the results of an estimate as a range from smallest to largest (plausible) value. Very few estimates return a single invariant number. Eg the estimate of the length of a day in seconds to several decimal places is constantly changing as is the cost of computer equipment or the amount of work any staff member will accomplish in an hour” |
|
| Your Justification |
| As given the definitions perpetuate the misconception that an estimate is a number. The number(s) is (are) the result of using an estimate at a point in time with the values of factors as they apply at that point in time. The number(s) is (are) then invalid when factors change. Its the creation of invalid estimates that gets us into trouble, leads to mismatched expectations and eventual in dispute resolution. A thoughtful correct start point “An estimate is not a number its a basis of assessment whose use generates quantities linked to context” will go a long way to improving project delivery satisfaction |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Deferred |
| Our justification: Recommendation deferred as out of scope for current update committee’s project charter. The recommendation will be forwarded to next update committee for their consideration. |
|
| OriginalText |
| 119 There are many notable examples of final costs or schedules that were significantly |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| Add honesty and integrity. Reduce the roll-call of examples, and sharpen their focus to be where it should be (as noted below) |
|
| Your Justification |
| As written this perpetuates many myths about what an estimate is. You are illustrating at the start of professional guidance how statistics are manipulated for sensationalism – you should be explaining where the practitioner was unequal to the task, and possible also setting out the path to remedy that is the body of the book. One or two EXPLAINED illustrations would make the point. Instead we have a long list of quotations stating variation in a single dependant variable without mention that its a derived term from an equation with multiple terms that you’ve not mentioned. Your starting off being misleading and behaving like a sensationalist newspaper and that cannoy be right for a “Practice Standard” |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Rejected |
| Our justification: Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on the exposure draft for the Practice Standard for Project Estimating-Second Edition. The core committee rejected your recommendation because it will not lead to substantive improvement in content. |
|
| OriginalText |
| 1543 |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| Rethink the diagram! The more I study this diagram the more flaws I find. First Redraw – possibly with a T shaped axis and negative amounts below the time axis? (or explain what message your trying to create by placing a data point outside the plot area of the axis). As drawn with data points outside the axis range its an incompetent graphic Second What does time and dollars mean with respect to ‘sandbagging’ are we saving money by adding hidden, personally controlled time contingency? The slower the cheaper? That would be a first in my experience where cost has a linear positive correlation to time resource is allocated. As drawn we have cost is inverse to time except at the start – so what sand-bagging dynamic operated over that range Third What does “Best” “Worst” “Reality” mean over time? I can’t suggest what you could be plotting that makes sense of the “reality” label. If your plotting “People’s assessment of the cost when made on a specific day” then there would be a whole new “reality” line for the actual on the days. The diagram is currently the result of confused thinking and when examined with care leaves the reader unable to create a rational message |
|
| Your Justification |
| If I have data to plot the axis that do not accommodate those data values are in error. Why would you create a guide to best practices that is deliberately incompetent? If there is a point in the graphic’s flouting of correct use it needs to be explained – else like this it creates a barrier to understanding. The values, labels and axis don’t illustrate the accompanying text or the diagrams title |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Accepted With Modification |
| Our justification: Several comments were received from Figure 4-8. We have decided to modify it and believe that the new figure addresses your comment: Figure 4-8 will be updated to move the reality point above the timeline to the right and not connected to the line. |
|
| OriginalText |
| 419 |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| Expand the influencing factors to be inclusive of a more thoughtful set of sources of variability = Learning curve = Fatigue / focus/ efficiency = potential for automation = and intermittent and non-recurring factors such as set-up and tear-down Also what is complexity if not risk? Truly complexity (as opposed to complicated) is the unknowable in advance emergence of relevant factors and risk is identification of factors whose occurrence and or impact is unknowable in advance – So inclusion of bot leaves you with overlapping ambiguity here |
|
| Your Justification |
| Diagram is misleading and not complete Is ‘effort’ exclusive to people? ie does a machine supply effort? If effort is from people and there is repetition then learning curve, fatigue/ boredom et.al. will be factors |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Deferred |
| Our justification: Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on the exposure draft for the Practice Standard for Project Estimating-Second Edition. The core committee deferred your recommendation as out of scope for current update committee’s project charter. The recommendation will be forwarded to next update committee for their consideration. |
|
| OriginalText |
1612
4.5.7 Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence in Estimating
1613 With increases in the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML),
1614 estimation practitioners will be able to leverage advanced analytics techniques and tools
1615 and gain valuable insights into project estimating. Still an evolving area, over time the
1616 concepts of Big Data and internet of things (IoT) will enable project practitioners to
1617 perform estimating tasks more efficiently. |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| Explore what the the London Data Analytics Group (et.al?) are already doing (Martin Paver) and put some meaningful content into this wholly inadequate few lines |
|
| Your Justification |
| All you have here is guddle of 4 un thought through items – in what way is IoT linked to AI – This text makes then about as linked as Fish are to bicycles! Now if you meant “IoT has potential to instrument project activity leading to Dig-Data and ML will accelerate the development of AI analysis algorithms that result in enhanced estimating” your a long way from saying that. Also replace efficient with effective – efficiency is IMPOSSIBLE before achieving effective and most estimating is incompetent. Competent is the step in the journey where effective starts – only after that can we strive to be efficient |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Deferred |
| Our justification: The recommendation is deferred as out of scope for the current update committee’s project charter. The recommendation will be forwarded to the next update committee for their consideration. |
|
| OriginalText |
81 • Estimate. An assessment of the likely amount or outcome of a variable, such as
82 project costs, resources, effort, or durations. |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| Reword “o Estimate. An assessment that results from applying the current Basis of Estimate to current data sources. The result is a value or range of values that suggest the likely amount of a variable…..” |
|
| Your Justification |
| Establish from the outset the concept that the estimate is the calculation not the result. The result has potential for volatility that i one-for-one ties to the stability of the context. The estimate’s basis or calculation’s or determination’s stability should grow with understanding |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Rejected |
| Our justification: Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on the exposure draft for the Practice Standard for Project Estimating-Second Edition. The core committee rejected your recommendation because it will not lead to substantive improvement in content. |
|
| OriginalText |
| 89 |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| ADD the definitions that express precision so we have the concept of a range or possible the labels for “working” (its superior to ‘definitive’ which never is definitive), “Budgetary”, “RoM” and “SWAG” |
|
| Your Justification |
| Explanation needs definitions of all the concepts if its to be clear and build to be complete as we go |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Rejected |
| Our justification: Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on the exposure draft for the Practice Standard for Project Estimating-Second Edition. The core committee rejected your recommendation because it will not lead to substantive improvement in content. |
|
| OriginalText |
95
1.3 Scope of Project Estimating
96 Project estimating is vital to successful program and project execution and the perception
97 of success. Project estimating activities are a relatively small part of the overall
98 program or project plan and are first performed early in the program or project life cycle
99 and repeated as the program or project progresses. The level of confidence is influenced
100 by information available on, for example: market dynamics, stakeholders, regulations,
101 organizational capabilities, risk exposure, and level of complexity. A program or project
102 uses estimates along with the expected benefits to build the business case. Unrealistic
103 estimates may compromise the ability of programs and projects to deliver expected value.
104 In addition to effort and resource estimation-based duration and cost estimations, project
105 estimation is used in, but not limited to:
106 • Contingency reserve definition;
107 • Management reserve definition;
108 • Organizational budgeting and allocation;
109 • Vendor bid and analysis;
110 • Make or buy analysis;
111 • Risk probability, impact, urgency, and detectability analysis;
112 • Complexity scenario analysis;
113 • Organizational change management demands;
114 • Capacity and capability demand estimation;
115 • Benefit definition;
116 • Success criteria definitions; and
117 • Stakeholder management planning. |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| There is of course a balance between list length and value but I do believe this list omits important illustrative exemplars So Add the following and slime the duplication from what is give at the moment ADD o Health-Safety-Security-Environmental factors – PMI has always been too IT and not enough physical engineering – Time to make a very small change to move towards more baance o Reputation – We all make decisions based on an assessment of sentiment triggered o Sacrifice and Real-options – Estimates support Decisions and decisions balance factors and these factors are often on ‘the other side of the scales’ o Schedule/ Time factors o Quality targets and quality achieved Consolidate/merge – Reserve and contingency and Risk factors, Bid and Make-Buy, |
|
| Your Justification |
| Scope is not fully illustrated with the list given |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Deferred |
| Our justification: Recommendation deferred as out of scope for current update committee’s project charter. The recommendation will be forwarded to next update committee for their consideration. |
|
| OriginalText |
79
1.2 Project Estimating Definitions
|
|
| Your Recommendation |
| ADD Precision versus accuracy here Its described explicitly at line 506 and line 613 but most of what is between 79 and 506/613 doesn’t correctly reflect the conceptual differentiation. Illustrate/ define the concept of Ranges and the vocabulary that MUST BE MADE CLEAR as a result How about ” o Accuracy is the correlation between the estimate and the final result achieved o Precision is the range of variability that results from applying the estimate o Tolerance is the expression of limits to the range (precision) within which a result is determined to be acceptable versus unacceptable. o Weighted Average (or budgetary allowance): a single-point value selected as representative of an indeterminate range. A response to the dichotomy created by estimates that generate a range of Best to Worst. Many accounting functions create a dichotomy by insisting on a single value. Many scheduling processes suffer a similar challenge from ranges versus single values. Techniques such as PERT create an ‘expected value’ that represent the shape of the distribution bounded by the underlying range” ADD an illustration of an archery target with three sets of arrows – #1 scattered arrows across the target – Accurate with low precision, #2 tightly grouped off the target or at target’s edge amd #3 Tightly grouped near target centre |
|
| Your Justification |
| Treatment in PMI publications of the concept of Precision as resulting from ranges has been shockingly BAD for ever. The 5th PMBoK had only one correct statement (in the quality chapter on page 228) and every use of accuracy was actually a misquote where precision should have been used AND THE 6th continues the poor guidance but has lost the good statement from the quality chapter 🙁 and example of the misuse of accuracy in pmbok-g-6th is 7.2.2.5 The 6th Ed uses “range” 50 times with almost all being reference to the concept of precision without precision ever being correctly defined Credibility demands you fix this! see 6th Ed 6.4.1.2, and 7.1.3.1, and 7.2.1.1. and 7.2.1.2 for recognition of importance but failure to define or in 7131 even use the terms correctly (7131 is a travesty) Range of Accuracy (really ‘degree of inaccuracy’) is different from Range as in precision as in “falls-within-allowance” |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Accepted With Modification |
| Our justification: Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on the exposure draft for the Practice Standard for Project Estimating-Second Edition. The core committee recognizes that precision and accuracy are differentiated in the domains of science, statistics, information systems, etc., with some variation in their definitions. In colloquial use, the terms are used interchangeably. The document has been modified to use the term accuracy excusively. |
|
| OriginalText |
150 and more information is known, the estimates are continually refined and, subsequently,
151 become more accurate. This is consistent with the concept of progressive elaboration as
152 described in the PMBOK® Guide and the Agile Practice Guide. |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| An illustration of the failure to separate accuracy and precision. try “…and more information becomes known, the estimates are continually refined. As a result the accuracy of the estimates improves (inclusion of all quantities) and the precision may also improve (range of prediction narrows to be more definitive)…” |
|
| Your Justification |
| The practice standard’s value is severely diminished with an ambiguous (wrong) use of key concepts |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Accepted With Modification |
| Our justification: Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on the exposure draft for the Practice Standard for Project Estimating-Second Edition. The core committee recognizes that precision and accuracy are differentiated in the domains of science, statistics, information systems, etc., with some variation in their definitions. In colloquial use, the terms are used interchangeably. The document has been modified to use the term accuracy excusively. |
|
| OriginalText |
| 158 enough data to refine the initial estimates and establish more accurate forecasts. This |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| Amend as suggested at line 151 If i write this EVERY time you get accuraccy and precision tangled up I’ll have to make the comment at least 24 times 450, 503, 510, 847, 867-awful!!!!, 941, etc |
|
| Your Justification |
| PLEASE get the foundations right If you have to continue as your are please at least define your terms at the start so when the rest of use the guide we can tell clients your definitions are backwards. Its so difficult UNDOING your mistakes – people believe your use because its in a book – it would be better from that perspective if the book didn’t exist! |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Accepted With Modification |
| Our justification: Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on the exposure draft for the Practice Standard for Project Estimating-Second Edition. The core committee recognizes that precision and accuracy are differentiated in the domains of science, statistics, information systems, etc., with some variation in their definitions. In colloquial use, the terms are used interchangeably. The document has been modified to use the term accuracy excusively. |
|
| OriginalText |
175 • Section 3.5.4 on Integration and Complexity. Perceived complexity impacts the
176 level of estimation confidence. |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| extend 176 to add “…confidence leading to wider ranges or lower precision being required if the estimated values are to accommodate all eventualities” |
|
| Your Justification |
| tie the concepts together so the explanations are reinforcing. Complexity leads to emergence so estimates include elements of determination that are ‘fuzzy’ leading to assessed values that have wider ranges if they are to be reliable (accurate in use) |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Rejected |
| Our justification: Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on the exposure draft for the Practice Standard for Project Estimating-Second Edition. The core committee rejected your recommendation because of no substantive improvement in content. |
|
| OriginalText |
| 2049 |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| Use DMAIC or PDSA instead Explain the motivations. How about “The improvement process is a cycle where P = define the process, D = Exercise the process, C | S = Link cause and effect, A = Remove unwanted results by amending the process definition.” |
|
| Your Justification |
| GREAT 🙂 to see the misleading PDCA re-presented in a practical C-A-P-D attempt at mould breaking improvement. Deming replaced Check with Study as he believed it better reflected what we need to do. DMAIC is (slightly) better that PDSA as a basis to educate the reader |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Rejected |
| Our justification: Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on the exposure draft for the Practice Standard for Project Estimating-Second Edition. The core committee rejected your recommendation because the recommendation’s level of detail inappropriate for this standard. |
|
| OriginalText |
| 1976 • Earned value management (EVM). Earned value management is a very important part of |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| Add explanation that EV and ES calculate systematic empirical estimating bias correction factors called SPI-$, SPI-time and CPI-$ which when integrated into an estimate (remember estimates are formulea to derive ranges of values) adjust the range predicted by the errors observed in performance to this point in time |
|
| Your Justification |
| Amendment will result in a richer more integrated explanation of how to achieve benefits from projects that match expectations to an unfolding reality |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Rejected |
| Our justification: Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on the exposure draft for the Practice Standard for Project Estimating-Second Edition. The core committee rejected your recommendation because it’s level of detail inappropriate for this standard. |
|
| OriginalText |
| 1718 |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| number all the diagrams elements (not just the 123 in the middle) in the sequence the reader should consider them. Divide the left and right halves of Create / Manage with greater clarity |
|
| Your Justification |
| This is a complicated enough diagram to need a ‘guiding hand’ to exploring it PARTICULARY and PDCA appears in it in multiple places and the detactched “Relevant Improvement…” box is floating without linkage while having words that are overlapping “Improve Estimating..” without guidance on how to apply at work whats in the picture |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Rejected |
| Our justification: Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on the exposure draft for the Practice Standard for Project Estimating-Second Edition. The core committee rejected your recommendation because it will not lead to substantive improvement in content. |
|
| OriginalText |
| 461 |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| Convert to rows that list activity and columns for RACI and describe the nature of the A or R or Input or output |
|
| Your Justification |
| The text is an incomplete set of descriptions of what would be more strucured as a RACI |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Deferred |
| Our justification: Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on the exposure draft for the Practice Standard for Project Estimating-Second Edition. The core committee deferred your recommendation as out of scope for current update committee’s project charter. The recommendation will be forwarded to next update committee for their consideration. |
|
| OriginalText |
447 The project manager is responsible for providing estimates that are as accurate as
448 feasible and maintaining the integrity of those estimates throughout the life of the
449 project. Whenever possible, estimating should be done by the person doing the work to |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| Adjust to reflect that the PM is accountable for securing estimates. to be responsible they need to be a subject matter expert and are arguably then performing a role other than the PM role |
|
| Your Justification |
| Incorrect as stated |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Accepted With Modification |
| Our justification: We agree with your basic recommendation. We have modified the sentence and believe that the following rewrite addresses your comment: The project manager is accountable for providing estimates that are as accurate as feasible and maintaining the integrity of those estimates throughout the life of the project. |
|
| OriginalText |
| 449 project. Whenever possible, estimating should be done by the person doing the work to |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| Reword to be correct. How about “To create an estimate requires subject matter expertise and estimating skills. The only people who can create an estimate of quantities such as effort, materials and resources are those with understanding of the acceptance criteria required and how the work to meet acceptance criteria will be carried out. To estimate durations it is necessary to know effort and have experience of the work-rate deliverable by the resources to be deployed. There are complex psychological factors at work when a person competent in a role is presented with an estimate they did not create so there are arguments to suggest the person doing the work should be involved in estimating or create the estimate. In some industries estimator is a recognised specialism with significant professional training and apprenticeship requirements, for Example Quantity Surveyor in the building trade. |
|
| Your Justification |
| This is a STUPID assertion that gets credence and repetition because PMI repeat it. Its the cause of many project problems and as such PMI MUST present guidance the reduces NOT be responsible for publishing misguided advice that PERPETUATES the problems |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Accepted With Modification |
| Our justification: Several comments were received on lines 449 through 450. We have modified the sentences to best represent the intent of all comments. We believe that the following rewrite addresses your comment: 449 projects and programs. In order to improve accuracy, estimating should, whenever possible, be done by the person doing the work. There is the risk, however, that the person who will do the work will “sandbag” or pad the estimate for personal reasons. |
|
| OriginalText |
| 444 |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| Redraw to remove the misconceptions and fill the gaps This diagram is woefully incomplete Bottom up is NOT quantitative as any technique can be applied bottom-up Bottom-up is one of a class of start-points thus top-down needs to be included (its at line 613) Analogous is NOT top-down and as such a diagram that omits top down and middle-out is incomplete and thus misleading If you include Planning poker then T-Shirt sizing MUST also be included and If ‘Expert Judgment’ and inteviews are included then Fibonacci as a guide should also be included |
|
| Your Justification |
| As drawn it devalues the document as a whole |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Rejected |
| Our justification: Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on the exposure draft for the Practice Standard for Project Estimating-Second Edition. The core committee rejected your recommendation because the recommendation’s level of detail inappropriate for this standard. |
|
| OriginalText |
| 433 |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| Add a non-waterfall diagram or expand this one to have an alternate independent variable start-point that is NOT scope and thus aligned to adaptive or agile approaches. The element of estimation in an adaptive environment is the scope (number of story points for example) that can be delivered per control cycle (eg sprint) Also be inclusive of flow-based approaches |
|
| Your Justification |
| A document that only applies to waterfall does Project management in general and PMI in particular a dis-service and plays towards PMI’s diminishment |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Accepted With Modification |
| Our justification: Several comments were received on lines 431 through 433. We have modified the sentences to best represent the intent of all comments. We believe that the following rewrite addresses your comment: 431 Figure 2-2 illustrates possible sequence and interdependence among the estimate elements 432 (effort, schedule, resource, and cost) and their respective key inputs. In adaptive lifecycles, effort may be an entry point. |
|
| OriginalText |
427 estimates. For example, if an activity requires nine labor units to complete, such an
428 activity may be performed by one resource over nine calendar days or by three skilled
429 employees over three calendar days. Cost is then calculated accordingly based on the |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| Reword to be sensible and meaningful How about “If an activity requires one person for 9 labour days duration then four persons of equal competency might accomplish the task in three elapsed days. A simple linear relationship rarely applies due to affects of first creating but after that increasing the coordination need when extra resources are applied (See Im sure Gerald Wienberg is attributed to ratio that tripling resource double productivity but I can’t find the reference) |
|
| Your Justification |
| As written its currently misleading |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Accepted With Modification |
| Our justification: Several comments were received on lines 427 through 429. We have modified the sentences to best represent the intent of all comments. We believe that the following rewrite addresses your comment: 427 estimates. For example, if an activity requires eight labor units to complete, such an 428 activity may be performed by one resource over eight calendar days or by two 429 resources of similar performance over four calendar days. This relationship may be not linear. |
|
| OriginalText |
| 421 The human capital efforts required to complete project activities are expressed in the |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| delete capital |
|
| Your Justification |
| adding capital introduces a whole new set of otherwise un explored concepts. Arguably capital isn’t consumed (it may be mutated) but labour is perishable and is consumed – while expertise isn’t – Here we are definately needing labour effort so not the capital but the ‘revenue’ element of involvement |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Accepted With Modification |
| Our justification: We agree with your basic recommendation. We have modified the sentence and believe that the following rewrite addresses your comment: 421 The economic value of a worker’s experience and skills, human capital, is not always equal. The human capital efforts required to complete project activities are expressed in the form of … |
|
| OriginalText |
| 428 activity may be performed by one resource over nine calendar days or by three skilled |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| remove skilled here or add skilled at line 427 and scan the whole document for similar attempts to distort the ‘balanced’ portrayal of content |
|
| Your Justification |
| It was one person and now its “3 skilled” – Seems the playing field isn’t level |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Accepted With Modification |
| Our justification: Several comments were received on lines 427 through 429. We have modified the sentences to best represent the intent of all comments. We believe that the following rewrite addresses your comment: 427 estimates. For example, if an activity requires eight labor units to complete, such an 428 activity may be performed by one resource over eight calendar days or by two 429 resources of similar performance over four calendar days. This relationship may be not linear. |
|
| OriginalText |
| 424 manufacturing line hours, equipment, and the materials required to complete the project |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| break “materials” out as a seperat heading in section at lines 405 to 413 |
|
| Your Justification |
| 405 to 413 et.seq lists categories and 424 introduces a new one not listed above |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Rejected |
| Our justification: Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on the exposure draft for the Practice Standard for Project Estimating-Second Edition. The core committee rejected your recommendation because it will not lead to substantive improvement in content. |
|
| OriginalText |
| 402 The concepts of project estimating described in this section cover: |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| Reword how about “The concepts in this section start with noting the results of estimating are expressed on scales. Often ordinal numeric scales. = Duration – The clock or calendar time that passes. Durations relevant to projects are typically measured in hours, calendar (or possible working), weeks, months and years but may range from nano-seconds to millennia or possible shorter or longer |
|
| Your Justification |
| As written its currently an avoidably weak, arguably wrong/ misleading explaination |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Rejected |
| Our justification: Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on the exposure draft for the Practice Standard for Project Estimating-Second Edition. The core committee rejected your recommendation because it will not lead to substantive improvement in content. |
|
| OriginalText |
| 163 because it is an iterative process that occurs throughout the project life cycle. Figure |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| delete because |
|
| Your Justification |
| there is not a cause effect relationship applying here |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Accepted With Modification |
| Our justification: Thank you for your thoughtful input to the Practice Standard for Project Estimating-Second Edition. We appreciate your efforts, and they have been considered in the final work product. |
|
| OriginalText |
172
1.5.1 The PMBOK® Guide
|
|
| Your Recommendation |
| Review this whole sub-section for consistency of presentation and content. The ‘best'(?) way is probably to replace with a table with columns for = Inputs and source = Transformation or Process or Relevance etc = Result or output and use or destination = The quantities or scales of expression that are relevant = How this standard is influenced by the relevant part of the pmbok-g = how the use of the pmbok-g section is influened by this standard = How this standard’s use informs/ Extends/ Replaces/ Suppliments the relevant part of the pmbok-g |
|
| Your Justification |
| The aim is to consistently express the relationships between pmbok-g areas and this standard but the writing is inconsistent on style and content – Structuring will help both author and readers |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Editorial |
| Our justification: Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on the exposure draft for the Practice Standard for Project Estimating-Second Edition. The core committee has reviewed your recommendation and determined that the recommendation is editorial. This recommendation will be forwarded to the editorial department for review and consideration. |
|
| OriginalText |
118
1.4 Project Estimating and the Project Management Practice
|
|
| Your Recommendation |
| Insert before this line a subsection “The Purpose of Estimating” Include “The purpose of estimating is to provide information for decision making in the following two ways o Coordination of otherwise discrete activities o Rationing – The selection between alternatives when resource or other constraints apply” |
|
| Your Justification |
| begin with the end in mind – How can you publish a ‘practice standard’ without having described the purpose of the topic discussed! You’ve NOT explored the purpose |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Rejected |
| Our justification: Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on the exposure draft for the Practice Standard for Project Estimating-Second Edition. The core committee rejected your recommendation because it will not lead to substantive improvement in content. |
|
| OriginalText |
118
1.4 Project Estimating and the Project Management Practice
|
|
| Your Recommendation |
| Add Sub-section to discuss = The cost of estimating = The consequences (costs) of poor estimating = The “#NoEstimate’s” community’s arguments |
|
| Your Justification |
| Claim to be a #Practice standard” is not tenable without discussion of the foundations of the art/ discipline |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Rejected |
| Our justification: Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on the exposure draft for the Practice Standard for Project Estimating-Second Edition. The core committee rejected your recommendation because it will not lead to substantive improvement in content. |
|
| OriginalText |
| 208 • Section 8 on Project Quality Management. Quality is embedded across the estimating |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| differentiate and discuss = Quality of estimates = Estimation of quality factors |
|
| Your Justification |
| both required. Two are different |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Rejected |
| Our justification: Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on the exposure draft for the Practice Standard for Project Estimating-Second Edition. The core committee rejected your recommendation because of no substantive improvement in content. |
|
| OriginalText |
211 • Section 9 on Project Resource Management. Estimated activity durations may change
212 as a result of the competency level of the project team members and availability of, or
213 competition for, scarce project resources. Cost estimates should also include possible
214 human resource rewards and recognition bonuses. |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| Make the sub-section 1.5.1 as a whole consistent. This comment highlights illustration because the tool doesn’t allow selection of non-adjacent lines 188 gives us “is a process in…that” but 211 does not 211 is commentary that 188 et.seq. lacks – and these inconsistencies are repeated from 172 to 355 |
|
| Your Justification |
| To be a body of knowledge that can be accessed and followed / implemented as well as is possible consistancy of presentation is one factor of imprtance |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Editorial |
| Our justification: Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on the exposure draft for the Practice Standard for Project Estimating-Second Edition. The core committee has reviewed your recommendation and determined that the recommendation is editorial. This recommendation will be forwarded to the editorial department for review and consideration. |
|
| OriginalText |
| 311 • Portfolio resources. Understanding the available resources committed to the |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| replace understand with “know the resources available to be allocated “ |
|
| Your Justification |
| more specific – conveys the actual intent with greater precision |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Rejected |
| Our justification: Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on the exposure draft for the Practice Standard for Project Estimating-Second Edition. The core committee rejected your recommendation because of no substantive improvement in content. |
|
| OriginalText |
| 329 and change should be embraced and navigated within an environment of nonlinear |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| expand or direct to expansion the “non-linear” – non-linear is a reference to a class of situations that are inestimable or have inestimable components yet |
|
| Your Justification |
| you’ve used a term that may not be familiar to the reader without explanation where one is reasonably to be expected |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Accepted With Modification |
| Our justification: We agree with your basic recommendation. We have modified this to: “complex” |
|
| OriginalText |
| 283 required to plan and deliver a program include people, office space laboratories, data |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| add comma after office space |
|
| Your Justification |
| its missing (presuming what your trying to say |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Editorial |
| Our justification: Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on the exposure draft for the Practice Standard for Project Estimating-Second Edition. The core committee has reviewed your recommendation and determined that the recommendation is editorial. This recommendation will be forwarded to the editorial department for review and consideration. |
|
| OriginalText |
| 300 professionals engaged in portfolio management need to be especially aware of the relevance |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| remove especially (or justify ‘over what’) |
|
| Your Justification |
| lacing the text with emotive words and implicit biases damages not enhances the messages |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Accepted |
| Our justification: |
|
| OriginalText |
| 333 Resource gap analyses, expert judgment, effort and resource estimation-based duration, |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| add note that “expert judgement” in this context equals estimating skills |
|
| Your Justification |
| improves messaging |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Rejected |
| Our justification: Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on the exposure draft for the Practice Standard for Project Estimating-Second Edition. The core committee rejected your recommendation because of no substantive improvement in content. |
|
| OriginalText |
| 346 practices. The merge of these practices leverages the speed of gross/rough order of |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| Add a subsection to explain labels for ranges. Gross is NEVER explained in this text. “Rough” is used both on its own and as Rough-order-of-magnitude but never defined and differentiated from other lables – the nearest might be line 507 but something that expands 519 or subsection 2.6 is required |
|
| Your Justification |
| Concept used but not discussed weakens the value of the document |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Accepted With Modification |
| Our justification: Thank you for your thoughtful input to the Practice Standard for Project Estimating-Second Edition. We appreciate your efforts, and they have been considered in the final work product. |
|
| OriginalText |
| 470 techniques to be used for estimating, identifying the estimating team, preparing |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| change team to participants |
|
| Your Justification |
| participants is a more realistic term – most projects, most of the time do not have an estimating team but all projects all the time have people who participate in estimating |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Accepted With Modification |
| Our justification: We agree with your basic recommendation. We have modified the sentence and believe that the following rewrite addresses your comment: 470 identifying the estimating participants, preparing… |
|
| OriginalText |
| 468 • Prepare to Estimate. This stage of the life cycle is the creation of the |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| add “assess competencies in estimating concepts and techniques and train where weaknesses are identified” Add “assign roles, for example estimate’s creator versus estimate’s reviewer or challenger” |
|
| Your Justification |
| its missing |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Deferred |
| Our justification: Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on the exposure draft for the Practice Standard for Project Estimating-Second Edition. The core committee deferred your recommendation as out of scope for current update committee’s project charter. The recommendation will be forwarded to next update committee for their consideration. |
|
| OriginalText |
| 473 • Create Estimates. In this stage estimating activity resources, activity durations, |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| generalise/ broaden – Estimates are NOT just created before an initial baseline is created |
|
| Your Justification |
| narrow form of words at present |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Accepted With Modification |
| Our justification: Several comments were received on line 473 We have modified the sentences to best represent the intent of all comments. We believe that the following rewrite addresses your comment: Line 475-476 – delete the sentence “We establish the initial project baseline at this stage” |
|
| OriginalText |
356
1.6 Summary
|
|
| Your Recommendation |
| Align the summary to the preceding section! The ‘summary’ introduces new content line 366/ 375 |
|
| Your Justification |
| summary should consolidate not introduce nor omit |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Accepted With Modification |
| Our justification: Thank you for your thoughtful input to the Practice Standard for Project Estimating-Second Edition. We appreciate your efforts, and they have been considered in the final work product. |
|
| OriginalText |
| 413 • Effort. The number of labor units required to complete a schedule activity or work |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| make the point at the start (it is made at line 423) that effort includes all sources so inclusive of human and machine-effort (and animal?) |
|
| Your Justification |
| enhance messages if the idea that effort isn’t only human is made earlier |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Rejected |
| Our justification: Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on the exposure draft for the Practice Standard for Project Estimating-Second Edition. The core committee rejected your recommendation because it will not lead to substantive improvement in content. |
|
| OriginalText |
| 477 • Manage Estimates. When the original estimate has been completed and validated with |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| change original to current |
|
| Your Justification |
| managing the original makes it he current that is managed at all time – current is more inclusive |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Editorial |
| Our justification: Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on the exposure draft for the Practice Standard for Project Estimating-Second Edition. The core committee has reviewed your recommendation and determined that the recommendation is editorial. This recommendation will be forwarded to the editorial department for review and consideration. |
|
| OriginalText |
| 482 calibrating the models based on actual values and maintaining checklists of components to |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| mention Earned Value’s xPI and agile’s velocity as calibration adjustments |
|
| Your Justification |
| illustrates the point being made |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Rejected |
| Our justification: Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on the exposure draft for the Practice Standard for Project Estimating-Second Edition. The core committee rejected your recommendation because it will not lead to substantive improvement in content |
|
| OriginalText |
| 484 Estimating processes are improved using information obtained during the estimation life |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| Embrace the idea an estimate is the “basis of estimate” and replace estimating process to read “An estimate is improved by improving its component parts during the estimates life… |
|
| Your Justification |
| The standard will be better for it |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Rejected |
| Our justification: Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on the exposure draft for the Practice Standard for Project Estimating-Second Edition. The core committee rejected your recommendation because insufficient justification was provided with the recommendation. |
|
| OriginalText |
504 a larger confidence range. As the project planning evolves, the WBS is created. As more
505 information about the business case, requirements, and the desired deliverables becomes
506 available, the estimate can be fine-tuned to higher levels of precision and confidence.
507 For example, a project in the initiation phase could have a rough order of magnitude (ROM)
508 estimate in the range of ±50%. Later in the project, as more information is known,
509 estimates could narrow to a range of -10%/+15%. In some organizations, there are
510 guidelines for these refinements and the degree of accuracy that is expected. Contingency |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| 504 says “range”, 506 recognises this is the concept of precision then 510 goes back to the endemic mistake of accuracy change the use of accuracy to precision in all the places its misued, which is almost all the places its used, |
|
| Your Justification |
| currently the use of accuracy and precision and confidence and range is a confused muddle when clarity is easy to achieve |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Editorial |
| Our justification: Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on the exposure draft for the Practice Standard for Project Estimating-Second Edition. The core committee has reviewed your recommendation and determined that the recommendation is editorial. This recommendation will be forwarded to the editorial department for review and consideration |
|
| OriginalText |
| 508 estimate in the range of ±50%. Later in the project, as more information is known, |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| expand the illustration to be “in a range that might be +/-0.5% 5% 50% or 500% or 5000% as is ‘reasonable in the context |
|
| Your Justification |
| 50% is anchoring to a single order or magnitude and that is misleading |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Accepted With Modification |
| Our justification: Several comments were received on lines 507 through 508 We have modified the sentences to best represent the intent of all comments. We believe that the following rewrite addresses your comment: 507 For example, a project in the start up phase may have a rough order of magnitude (ROM) estimate in the range of -25% to + 75%. Later in the project, as more information is known, work product |
|
| OriginalText |
| 504 a larger confidence range. As the project planning evolves, the WBS is created. As more |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| expand refences to “WBS to be “WBS or product backlog” |
|
| Your Justification |
| Be inclusive of all approaches in all references It makes the document more accessible to a wider audience |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Accepted With Modification |
| Our justification: We agree with your basic recommendation. We have modified the sentence and believe that the following rewrite addresses your comment: Line 504: …planning evolves, the scope is refined, a WBS is created and/or a product backlog |
|
| OriginalText |
| 535 The differences between the original and the adjusted estimates are called variances and |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| find an alternate word to variances How about “Reestimates” ! – since that is actually descriptive |
|
| Your Justification |
| We are already completely clear that variances has the meaning you use less than 10 lines ahead – as referred to at line 543. Overloading it with a new, definition reduces clear communications |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Rejected |
| Our justification: Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on the exposure draft for the Practice Standard for Project Estimating-Second Edition. The core committee rejected your recommendation because it will not lead to substantive improvement in content. |
|
| OriginalText |
| 551 impact on the schedule, resources, or cost. |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| change or to “and/or” |
|
| Your Justification |
| it is not just an choice of alternatives |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Editorial |
| Our justification: Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on the exposure draft for the Practice Standard for Project Estimating-Second Edition. The core committee has reviewed your recommendation and determined that the recommendation is editorial. This recommendation will be forwarded to the editorial department for review and consideration. |
|
| OriginalText |
| 554 change control board. These changes may add to the cost and schedule beyond the original |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| change “add” to “change” |
|
| Your Justification |
| change control does not just add – often its used to substitute or to reduce |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Accepted With Modification |
| Our justification: We agree with your basic recommendation. We have modified the sentence and believe that the following rewrite addresses your comment: 554 change control board. These requests may change the cost and schedule beyond |
|
| OriginalText |
| 567 estimator experience, and not having enough time to estimate. |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| time to estimate is a key success factor and deserves much stronger emphasis prior to this weak reference 600 lines in! |
|
| Your Justification |
| key aspect of improving estimating introduced without appropriate emphasis |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Rejected |
| Our justification: Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on the exposure draft for the Practice Standard for Project Estimating-Second Edition. The core committee rejected your recommendation because of insufficient recommendation – cannot determine what is being recommended |
|
| OriginalText |
| 568 • Padding. A pad is extra time or cost added to an estimate because the estimator |
|
| Your Recommendation |
| add discussion of Hidden padding in the Eli Goldratt and ToC sense and the use of ToC ideas to remove 50% of duration to address hidden padding and the use of buffers to place 25% under control |
|
| Your Justification |
| Important concept, probem and response not mentioned weakens the document |
|
| Our vote on your recommendation: Accepted With Modification |
| Our justification: We agree with your basic recommendation. We have modified the sentence and believe that the following rewrite addresses your comment: Line 571: …and reserves apply and/or the use of buffers considered |
|
