Adaptive Case Management Earned Value Matrix Model


Adaptive Case Management (ACM) practitioners have a need to periodically assess progress toward Case Goals/Objectives at individual Cases.

In an environment where tasks are part of a workflow that has a start and an end, it is fairly easy to identify milestones. Not so, in an environment that accommodates ad hoc interventions.

I will describe here a figure of merit matrix approach where case managers can input progress information and immediately gain a reading on progress toward an overall Case Objective.

The starting position is a list of Objectives with a quantitative assessment of relative contribution in terms of an overall Case Objective. In the example below we see three Objectives O1, O2 and O3 with relative weights of 70/20/10.

Objective 1 has four deliverables D11, D12, D13, D14 with relative weights of 40/20/30/10.  Objective 2 has three deliverables D21, D22, D23 with relative weights of 20/30/50. Objective 3 has one deliverable D31.

The model calculates a contribution for each deliverable (sub-objective)

Contribution= Earned Value X Weight

The range of Earned Values per deliverable runs from 0 to 100.  A recording of 0 implies no value, a recording of 100 implies that a deliverable is ‘ready’.  No assumptions are made as to the unit of measure (time, cost, performance) but users of the model should be consistent in the selection of a unit of measure at a particular case.   For cross-case statistical calculations units should not be mixed ( i.e. a choice of percent complete will understate progress at the start and overstate progress at the end because of  “S” curve).

The sum of Deliverable Contributions for an Objective must equal 100.

Case Earned Value derives as follows:

Earned  Value = (O1 Contribution  X  O1 Weight)   + (O2 Contribution  X O2 Weight)+ . . .

Objective Weights appear at row 5 (user inputs)

Deliverable Earned Values appear in column B (user inputs)

Deliverable Weights appear in column C (user inputs)

Calculated Deliverable Contributions appear in columns D, E, F (excluding row 5)

Calculated  Objective Contributions appear in column G

Calculated Case Earned Value appears in cell I24.

The model accommodates any number of Objectives plus any number of Deliverables per Objective.

Calculated control totals are recommended for across Objectives (Cell H5) and across Deliverables at each Objective (C12, C18, C22). If the sum of Objective weights or Deliverable weights does not add up to 100 in each category, the model will fail.

Storage Considerations

Each Case should have its own spreadsheet attached to the Case as a ‘document’. Workflows can be set up to force “case reviews” every week/month, as appropriate.

Copies of the CASE MATRIX MANAGER are available from Civerex Systems Inc. by e-mailing civerex@civerex.com

Comments on the validity of the model would be appreciated. Clearly, this is a very simple model but it can be set up with a pre-blocked set of objectives and deliverables such that no customization is needed per case.

About kwkeirstead@civerex.com

Process control engineer and management consultant with a focus on bridging the gap between operations and strategy in healthcare, law enforcement, manufacturing and b2b organizations. (C) 2010-2014 Karl Walter Keirstead. All rights reserved. The opinions expressed here are those of the author, and are not connected with Jay-Kell Technologies Inc, Civerex Systems Inc or CvX Productions.
This entry was posted in Adaptive Case Management, Operational Planning, Project Planning, Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Adaptive Case Management Earned Value Matrix Model

  1. Robert Dean says:

    Hi. What is referenced by M01, M02, and M03 in columns D, E, and F? Is that the weight of those objectives within the case? What does the score of 26 mean in this context (i.e. what is it scored against?)? Or is that best explained by looking at the formula that calculates the value for that cell in the sheet? Thanks-

    Like

    • In my example we have three sub-objectives, the 1st is worth 70%, the second 20% and the 3rd 10% (adding up to 100%).

      In terms of progress, objective 2 is 80% complete, objective 3 is 100% complete, so the way to derive to 26/100 is to do (0x70 + .80×20 + 1.00×10)=26

      Once all three sub-objectives are “complete” then the math will do 1.00×70+1.00×20+1.00×10 = 100

      The choice of increments of Earned Value e.g. 0 -25- 50 -75 – 100 could be 0-10-20 …-100 where it becomes more difficult to justify any number recorded or it could be 0-100 where you stay at zero until the objective is complete and then abruptly, the status goes to 100.

      I like 0-25-50-75-100 where one interpretation is not started- started- 1/2 done – advanced – complete.

      Our model does not try to dictate what is being measured, we all know that most activity starts off slowly, then advances quickly until late in the game where it seems to take forever to reach a state of 100% complete. But, anyone using this model should standardize on what it is they are reporting on or it becomes difficult to consolidate current status or project status.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s