Due Date: Sunday by 11:59pm Total Points: 100 Instructions: You are the project manager of a software development project. The team members will be working on five different components. Each of the components is budgeted to be $2,625, and all components are supposed to be completed in five weeks. Using the status in the following table, find the following values at the end of week four.

Project Planned End Date

Planned Budget

Actual Amount Spent by Week Four

Planned Completion by Week Four

Actual Completion by Week Four

Software Development Project

End of 5th week

$13, 125 for total project or $2,625 for each component

$9,000 Four out of five components

Three out of five components

Acronym Term Formula Answer Interpretation

PV

EV

AC

SV

CV

CPI

SPI

BAC

EAC

ETC

VAC

TCPI

PMG640 – Project Scheduling and Cost Planning

Unit 6 Assignment: EVM

Requirements:

 Use this MS Word file to complete your assignment and submit via Blackboard.

 Save your files using the following filename convention:

o EVM – FirstName_LastName

Be sure to read the criteria, by which your paper/project will be evaluated, before you write, and again after you write.

Evaluation Rubric for Unit 6: EVM Assignment

CRITERIA Deficient

Needs

Improvement Proficient

Exemplary

0 – 15 Points 16 – 19 Points 20 – 24 Points 25 Points

EMV Reserve justifications have no basis based on estimations but some justifications provided.

Justifications for

reserve fund are

based on clear

estimations using

EMV calculations and

or PERT. Some of the

estimations

incomplete and

justifications are

partially complete.

Justifications for

reserve fund are

based on clear

estimations using

EMV calculations

and or PERT.

Some of the

estimations are

complete and

matches the

justifications.

Justifications for reserve fund are based on clear estimations using EMV calculations and or PERT. The estimations are complete and matches the justifications.

Milestones All activities are Sequenced using the predecessors’ column without a closed network diagram. At least 1-2 of your tasks relationships must be different than Finish to Start.

All activities are Sequenced using the predecessors’ column without a closed network diagram. At least 3 of your tasks relationships must be different than Finish to Start.

All activities are Sequenced using the predecessors’ column with a closed network diagram. At least 3 of your tasks relationships must be different than Finish to Start.

All activities are Sequenced using the predecessors’ column with a closed network diagram. At least 4 of your tasks relationships must be different than Finish to Start.

Cost Baseline Cost baseline do not include at most of activity cost estimates and when added up and does not equals the cost baseline.

Cost baseline include at least 80 percent of activity cost estimates and when added up equals the cost baseline.

Cost baseline include all activity cost estimates and when added up equals the cost baseline.

Cost baseline include all activity cost estimates and when added up equals the cost baseline and contingencies.

Summary Budget Summary budget partially updated to include cost baselines estimates.

Summary budget 50 - 70 %l updated to include cost baselines estimates.

Summary budget 80 %l updated to include cost baselines estimates.

Summary budget fully updated to include cost baselines estimates.

ACF Mock Negotiation Strategy

State of Georgia

In light of Judge Magnuson’s decision regarding the withdrawals of Atlanta, Georgia has

come to the conclusion that an agreement made between the major stakeholders of the

basin is not only preferable, but a necessity. The State of Georgia currently has a

comprehensive water plan which will attempt to address the inefficient uses of

resources in the Atlanta Metro area, and Georgia as a whole. The State also

understands that much of the downstream withdrawals, especially in the Flint basin,

must be managed more efficiently. Part of any comprehensive plan in the ACF basin will

require new growth management and building standards, as well as changes to how

local planning offices deal with easement requests and compatibility with the State’s

Comprehensive Plan.

As part of a comprehensive effort to reduce demand in the ACF basin, Georgia has

proposed or implemented an entire suite of programs and tactics. Georgia is prepared

to begin combining efforts to find a scientifically sound audit of usage and future

demands in the basin. We will begin metering all permitted withdrawals, both public and

private uses. As part of the plan, two-10mgd grey water facilities will be licensed in

Atlanta, and will begin breaking ground within five years of an agreement. Georgia plans

to save approximately 20% of its 2009 demand within ten years of completion of the

water projects. The costs for infrastructure will be partly paid for by Renew America Act

funds, as well as tax revenue from increased brown-field developments.

Withdrawals from Atlanta are only part of the problem. Unrestricted withdrawals, from

the Flint River basin, mainly by agriculture, are a large slice of the water pie in Georgia.

We plan to work much closer with US Dept. of Interior and the Federal Farm Bureau, to

enact new irrigation techniques throughout the basin. The introduction of drought

tolerant strains of plants, as well as growth management policies in the urban areas of

the basin will allow us to significantly reduce demand on water withdrawals, while

simultaneously preserving the economic viability of one of our largest industries. While

we would like to implement a tiered payment system for water, the State feels that

pushing conservation in the Flint basin will garner more support throughout the region.

We do not feel that further burdening our agricultural sector will allow, politically, for us

to sustain this plan.

The state of Georgia recognizes that part of the problem in the Atlanta Metro area

comes from its sprawl and the “edge-cities” which have grown on its periphery. Atlanta’s

place at the crossroads of history is as much a burden as a blessing. There are many

blighted and forgotten buildings and neighborhoods within the region. The development

of what are known as “brown-field” sites will help to reduce sprawl towards cheaper, but

less urban, “green-field” or virgin sites. The State is now willing to push for changes to

the 1989 Georgia Planning Act. We are prepared to propose a tough and binding urban-

services boundary to help stem rampant growth at the area’s periphery. Density

requirements and lax zoning regulations will need to be addressed. Compliance with the

Comprehensive Plan, including changing review from every ten years, to every five

years will help keep a consistency with the goals of the State. The State plans to make

development of these run-down and expensive to rehabilitate areas a priority. Georgia

proposes a buy-in market for both Alabama and Florida, so that growth, and the

inevitable increases in withdrawals, can be managed with the best interests of all parties

in mind.

The bottom line is that Georgia will need some time to implement their comprehensive

strategy for efficient water-use. Georgia needs annual increases in withdrawals from the

ACF basin. A 4% increase for the time it takes to build both grey water facilities in the

Atlanta Metro area will keep the region economically stable, and will allow for the

savings in demand from conservation to show progress. Georgia believes that barring

an un-foreseen drought in the basin, that these minimal increases will yield negligible

damage to the lower basin, and will speed the transition towards full efficiency. As

smarter uses of the water in the basin, especially on the Flint River, become common-

place, the withdrawals from the system can be rolled-back to 1990 volumes, thus

increasing flows to ecologically sensitive regions, and continue the economic viability of

fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and Apalachicola Bay.