Engineering Management
Engineering Management tests whether you can plan, control and close an engineering project with defensible numbers, visible risk and controlled change. The context is Hong Kong project delivery, where client, consultant, contractor and supplier interfaces are contractual as well as technical.
Planning and control
Break scope into a work breakdown structure and assign owners with a responsibility matrix. Build the schedule with activity dependencies, then identify the critical path and total float; a delay off the critical path may not affect completion, but it can still consume contingency. Use earned value management: PV is planned value, EV is earned value, AC is actual cost; SV = EV − PV, CV = EV − AC, SPI = EV/PV and CPI = EV/AC. A forecast estimate at completion using BAC/CPI is valid only while the current cost performance is expected to continue.
Risk, quality and change
Maintain a risk register with cause, event, impact, owner, probability, impact and response. Distinguish risk mitigation from contingency and from management reserve. Quality assurance is process-focused; quality control is inspection and test. Use non-conformance reports and corrective/preventive action, not just rework. Change control must assess scope, schedule, cost, risk, safety and configuration impact before approval.
Procurement and stakeholders
Write specifications that are testable, evaluate tenders against published criteria, and manage supplier interfaces. Keep decision records and communicate bad news early. Health, safety and environmental duties are part of management, not an afterthought.
Worked example
A project has BAC = HK$2,000,000. At month 6, PV = HK$800,000, EV = HK$700,000 and AC = HK$750,000. SV = −HK$100,000 (behind schedule), CV = −HK$50,000 (over budget), SPI = 0.875 and CPI = 0.933. Forecast EAC = BAC/CPI ≈ HK$2,143,000, an overrun of about HK$143,000. The correct response is to investigate the cause and update the forecast, not to report SPI alone as healthy.
Traps
Confusing EV with AC; treating a high SPI as always good; ignoring the critical path; using contingency to hide poor estimating; and approving scope changes without revising the baseline.