The IBR Finding: Undefined Work and Missing Earned Value Rules
An integrated baseline review (IBR) is conducted three months after award on a $12M, 30-month program. Reviewers find: (1) one control account with $1.8M budget has no documented earned value technique - the CAM says 'we just track it by feel'; (2) a $600K work package is described only as 'program management support' with no discrete deliverables; (3) the schedule shows several activities with no budget and several budgeted activities with no schedule logic; (4) the CAMs cannot explain how their performance data flows to the monthly report. The program manager argues the IBR is a 'paper exercise' and wants to close it with a memo stating the baseline is 'adequate'.
1. Identify the specific IBR findings and classify their severity.
Read the worked answer
Findings map to classic IBR risk categories:
- No EV technique on a $1.8M control account - critical. Without a defined technique, earned value is not measurable or auditable; 15% of BAC is unmeasured. This alone makes the baseline not adequate.
- 'Program management support' with no discrete deliverables - high. Likely should be level of effort (if truly support) or re-scoped into discrete work; as written it is unmeasurable and invites over/under-statement.
- Schedule–budget misalignment (activities without budget; budget without logic) - high. The PMB must be time-phased and logically linked; missing logic breaks the PV curve and the IMS/EV linkage.
- CAMs cannot trace data to the report - high. Indicates the EVM system is not understood or not being used; data integrity risk.
Severity summary: the baseline is not adequate; a memo asserting adequacy would be inaccurate and would undermine the IBR's purpose.
2. What corrective action plan should the IBR produce, and what is the right disposition of the PM's 'close it with a memo' request?
Read the worked answer
Reject the memo. An IBR's output is a findings list with corrective actions, owners, and due dates - not a pass/fail certificate. Asserting adequacy against these findings would be a misrepresentation.
Corrective action plan:
- Assign a documented EV technique to the $1.8M CA (weighted milestones or units) within 30 days; interim, use a conservative earned-value basis and disclose it.
- Re-scope or convert the $600K package to level of effort with a defined performance basis.
- Reconcile the schedule and budget: add logic to budgeted activities, remove or budget unbudgeted activities, and re-time-phase the PV.
- Conduct CAM training and require each CAM to trace a data item from work package to monthly report.
- Re-verify at a follow-up review (e.g., 60–90 days).
Governance: the IBR chair documents the findings and the PM's dissent; the customer/oversight is informed. The baseline remains conditionally accepted pending closure of critical findings.