Ruankao Information System Supervisor (Intermediate): Project scope, scheduling and earned-value models

Domain 2 tests whether you can define a project precisely, separate it from operations, program, and portfolio, and read an organizational chart to determine how much authority a project manager actually holds. Items often present a short organizational scenario and ask which structure or PMO type it describes, or ask where a given input belongs: enterprise environmental factors or organizational process assets.

Project, program, portfolio

A project is a temporary endeavour undertaken to create a unique product, service, or result; it is progressively elaborated.
Operations are ongoing and repetitive; projects end.
A program (项目集) is a group of related projects managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits not available from managing them separately.
A portfolio (项目组合) is a collection of projects, programs, and operations that support a strategic objective. Components need not be interdependent; the emphasis is on prioritisation and resource allocation.
Project governance sets decision rights, stage gates, and escalation paths above the project manager.

Process groups and knowledge areas

The five process groups are initiating, planning, executing, monitoring and controlling, and closing. Monitoring and controlling spans the whole lifecycle.
These cross the ten knowledge areas to form the classic matrix; each process has inputs, tools and techniques, and outputs.
Do not confuse the project lifecycle (phases ending in a stage gate) with the product lifecycle (which outlives the project).

Organization type and PMO

Functional: the project manager coordinates and has little authority; the functional manager controls budget and staff.
Projectized structures commonly give the project manager greater authority, subject to actual governance and resource constraints.
Matrix runs weak, balanced, and strong. In a strong matrix the project manager is full-time, controls the budget, and has moderate-to-high authority, while the functional manager owns technical standards.
PMO types: supportive (templates, advice), controlling (compliance required), directive (directly manages projects).
Enterprise environmental factors (EEF) are conditions you generally cannot change: culture, infrastructure, market conditions, laws, existing systems. Organizational process assets (OPA) are things you reuse: processes, policies, templates, historical data, lessons-learned repositories.

Worked example

A project manager is assigned full-time from the engineering department, reports to a program manager, approves the schedule and budget, and draws staff from engineering, finance, and a vendor, while the engineering manager still sets coding standards. The project manager's full-time status and budget control make this a strong matrix, not a balanced one. If the project manager only coordinated and the functional manager approved all resource assignments, it would be a weak matrix.

Traps that cost marks

Treating portfolio components as necessarily related.
Assuming a directive PMO only advises; it manages the project.
Classifying templates and lessons-learned databases as EEF.
Assuming matrix structures remove the functional manager's technical authority.

Domain 4 tests the six scope processes and, above all, whether you can tell product scope from project scope and verification from quality control. Case questions frequently describe a customer demanding extra features mid-project, and the expected answer is the change control path rather than informal accommodation.

The process chain

Planning scope management, collecting requirements, defining scope, creating the WBS, validating scope, controlling scope.

Requirements tools: interviews, focus groups, facilitated workshops such as JAD, questionnaires, benchmarking, prototyping, brainstorming, nominal group technique, observation, document analysis, context diagrams.
Outputs are the requirements document plus the requirements traceability matrix, which links each requirement to a deliverable, a test case, and a business objective.

Scope statement and WBS

The project scope statement contains the product scope description, deliverables, acceptance criteria, and exclusions (项目除外责任). Exclusions prevent later disputes.
The WBS is a deliverable-oriented hierarchical decomposition, not a schedule and not a list of activities.
The 100% rule: the children of any node must fully define the parent, no more and no less.
A work package is a lowest-level WBS component under the chosen decomposition;8-to 80 hours is a planning heuristic, not a universal rule. A control account sits above work packages for cost and schedule roll-up; a planning package holds work not yet decomposed.
The WBS dictionary defines each element's scope, acceptance criteria, and responsible party.

Validation and control

Validate scope is formal acceptance of completed deliverables by the customer or sponsor; it follows quality control, which checks correctness.
Control scope manages changes to the scope baseline. Scope creep is uncontrolled expansion; gold plating is voluntary extra functionality nobody requested. Both are defects.

Worked example

A data-centre project is decomposed into: civil works, power supply and UPS, cooling and ventilation, network cabling, fire and security, and project management. If the contract also requires operator training and no training element appears anywhere in the WBS, the decomposition violates the 100% rule even though every listed branch looks complete.

Traps that cost marks

Confusing validate scope (customer acceptance) with control quality (conformance checking).
Treating the WBS as an activity list or a schedule.
Omitting exclusions from the scope statement.
Accepting a verbal change request; scope changes go through integrated change control and the CCB.

Domain 5 covers the six scheduling processes, with heavy emphasis on dependency logic, three-point estimation, critical path calculation, float, and schedule compression. Expect at least one network-diagram calculation and one question distinguishing resource levelling from resource smoothing.

Building the schedule

Sequence activities with the precedence diagramming method. Four logical relationships: finish-to-start, start-to-start, finish-to-finish, start-to-finish.
Dependencies are mandatory or discretionary, internal or external. Leads and lags adjust them.
Duration estimating tools: analogous, parametric, bottom-up, three-point, and reserve analysis.
PERT beta estimate = (O + 4 M + P) / 6; standard deviation = (P − O) / 6; triangular estimate = (O + M + P) / 3.

Critical path and float

In a basic unconstrained precedence network, a longest path determines minimum duration and normally has zero total float. Imposed constraints and calendars can change float interpretation, and multiple critical paths can exist.
Total float = LS − ES = LF − EF. Free float = earliest start of the successor − early finish of the activity.
Negative total float indicates conflict with an imposed date under the current plan; investigate logic, resources, scope and constraints before selecting compression or an authorized date change.
Resource levelling may extend the critical path; resource smoothing keeps the critical path and dates unchanged by using float only.
Compression: crashing adds resources or overtime and raises cost; fast tracking overlaps activities and raises risk and rework.

Control

Performance reviews, earned value schedule indicators, burn-down charts, variance analysis, what-if simulation such as Monte Carlo, and schedule baseline change control.

Worked example

Network: A(3) precedes B(4) and C(6); both precede D(5). Path A-B-D = 12 days; path A-C-D = 14 days. The critical path is A-C-D at 14 days. For B: early start 3, early finish 7, and its successor D cannot start until 9, so late finish 9 and total float 2 days. Crashing B would not shorten the project; only A, C, or D can.

Traps that cost marks

Crashing a non-critical activity and claiming the project finishes earlier.
Saying resource smoothing may change the critical path; it does not.
Confusing free float with total float.
Assuming fast tracking increases cost; it mainly increases risk.
Forgetting that the critical path can change after compression.

Domain 6 combines cost-estimating concepts with earned value management, which is the most reliably examined calculation on the paper. You must know which reserves sit inside the cost baseline, how to compute variances and indices, and which EAC formula to apply given a described pattern of deviation.

Estimating and budgeting

Estimating methods: analogous (fast, low accuracy), parametric, bottom-up (accurate, costly), three-point.
Cost types: variable and fixed, direct and indirect, sunk and opportunity cost.
Contingency reserve covers known-unknowns and sits inside the cost baseline. Management reserve covers unknown-unknowns, sits outside the baseline, and needs senior approval. Cost baseline = project budget − management reserve.
Sunk cost must be excluded from go/no-go decisions.

Earned value core

PV planned value, EV earned value, AC actual cost.
SV = EV − PV; CV = EV − AC.
SPI = EV / PV; CPI = EV / AC.
ETC = EAC − AC; VAC = BAC − EAC; TCPI = (BAC − EV) / (BAC − AC).
Forecasts: atypical variance EAC = AC + (BAC − EV); typical variance EAC = BAC / CPI; mixed EAC = AC + (BAC − EV) / (CPI × SPI).
Depreciation exercises require the specified accounting method, useful life and residual-value assumptions; no universal two-year switching rule or permission to depreciate below the applicable residual amount is implied.

Worked example

BAC = 100万元; at month 6, PV = 40, EV = 35, AC = 45. SV = −5万元, CV = −10万元, SPI = 0.875, CPI = 0.778. The project is behind schedule and over budget. Because the deviation looks systemic, use the typical formula: EAC = 100 / 0.778 = 128.6万元, and VAC = 100 − 128.6 = −28.6万元. If the stem states the overrun was a one-off event, use the atypical formula instead.

Traps that cost marks

Placing management reserve inside the cost baseline.
Using SPI = 1 to conclude the project is healthy while CPI < 1.
Choosing the EAC formula without reading whether the deviation is typical.
Letting sunk cost influence the decision.
Computing CV as EV − AC but reporting it as a percentage without the base.