Based on the above (and using CLV019, lesson 1, slide 15 of 21) my interpretation is that this Control Account has a cost efficiency (CPI) for completed work-to-date of 1.06 (pretty good), while the TCPIeac index (0.43) indicates that the remaining work will have to be achieved at 43% efficiency. In order for the above EAC to be realistic, our cost performance would have to degrade by 63% in the future (0.43 – 1.06). This is counterproductive so, am I interpreting the given information correctly?
I would check to make sure that the target value you are using to compute TCPI is correct.
It appears the target value that you are using is the EAC of 30,880. I am curious why the EAC is so high given that the BAC for this is 23,535 and performance has been so going so well with the favorable CPI.
Does the target value you used in the TCPI calculation (EAC) have profit or fee rolled into it?
I think the best bet is for you to contact the POC that provided the IPMR and ask some questions:
1. What is the basis of the EAC?
2. How do the PM three point estimates match up with what the CAM is telling you.
3. What does the IPMR format 5 say about the EAC being so much higher than the BAC?
4. Has there been a change in scope,a baseline change, etc?
5. Without looking at the entire IPMR, I am at a complete loss to solve this riddle.
6. Does the KTR expect the remaining work to encounter some inefficiencies? The ETC using CPI as the performance factor would indicate be the remaining work, 6244, would have an ACWP of 5877.
7. I'm sure there are more layers to this onion that need to be peeled back, but the key will be having a conversation with the EVM analyst at that company.