Due Date: Sunday by 11:59pm Total Points: 100 Instructions: You are the project manager of a software development project. The team members will be working on five different components. Each of the components is budgeted to be

Due Date Sunday By 1159pm Total Points 100 Instructions

Due Date: Sunday by 11:59pm Total Points: 100 Instructions: You are the project manager of a software development project. The team members will be working on five different components. Each of the components is budgeted to be $2,625, and all components are supposed to be completed in five weeks. Using the status in the following table, find the following values at the end of week four. Project Planned End Date Planned Budget Actual Amount Spent by Week Four Planned Completion by Week Four Actual Completion by Week Four Software Development Project End of 5th week $13, 125 for total project or $2,625 for each component $9,000 Four out of five components Three out of five components Acronym Term Formula Answer Interpretation PV EV AC SV CV CPI SPI BAC EAC ETC VAC TCPI PMG640 – Project Scheduling and Cost Planning Unit 6 Assignment: EVM Requirements: ï‚· Use this MS Word file to complete your assignment and submit via Blackboard. ï‚· Save your files using the following filename convention: o EVM – FirstName_LastName Be sure to read the criteria, by which your paper/project will be evaluated, before you write, and again after you write.

Evaluation Rubric for Unit 6: EVM Assignment CRITERIA Deficient Needs Improvement Proficient Exemplary 0 – 15 Points 16 – 19 Points 20 – 24 Points 25 Points EMV Reserve justifications have no basis based on estimations but some justifications provided. Justifications for reserve fund are based on clear estimations using EMV calculations and or PERT. Some of the estimations incomplete and justifications are partially complete. Justifications for reserve fund are based on clear estimations using EMV calculations and or PERT. Some of the estimations are complete and matches the justifications.

Justifications for reserve fund are based on clear estimations using EMV calculations and or PERT. The estimations are complete and matches the justifications. Milestones All activities are Sequenced using the predecessors’ column without a closed network diagram. At least 1-2 of your tasks relationships must be different than Finish to Start. All activities are Sequenced using the predecessors’ column without a closed network diagram.

At least 3 of your tasks relationships must be different than Finish to Start. All activities are Sequenced using the predecessors’ column with a closed network diagram. At least 3 of your tasks relationships must be different than Finish to Start. All activities are Sequenced using the predecessors’ column with a closed network diagram. At least 4 of your tasks relationships must be different than Finish to Start.

Cost Baseline Cost baseline do not include at most of activity cost estimates and when added up and does not equals the cost baseline. Cost baseline include at least 80 percent of activity cost estimates and when added up equals the cost baseline. Cost baseline include all activity cost estimates and when added up equals the cost baseline. Cost baseline include all activity cost estimates and when added up equals the cost baseline and contingencies. Summary Budget Summary budget partially updated to include cost baselines estimates.

Summary budget %l updated to include cost baselines estimates. Summary budget 80 %l updated to include cost baselines estimates. Summary budget fully updated to include cost baselines estimates. ACF Mock Negotiation Strategy State of Georgia In light of Judge Magnuson’s decision regarding the withdrawals of Atlanta, Georgia has come to the conclusion that an agreement made between the major stakeholders of the basin is not only preferable, but a necessity. The State of Georgia currently has a comprehensive water plan which will attempt to address the inefficient uses of resources in the Atlanta Metro area, and Georgia as a whole.

The State also understands that much of the downstream withdrawals, especially in the Flint basin, must be managed more efficiently. Part of any comprehensive plan in the ACF basin will require new growth management and building standards, as well as changes to how local planning offices deal with easement requests and compatibility with the State’s Comprehensive Plan. As part of a comprehensive effort to reduce demand in the ACF basin, Georgia has proposed or implemented an entire suite of programs and tactics. Georgia is prepared to begin combining efforts to find a scientifically sound audit of usage and future demands in the basin. We will begin metering all permitted withdrawals, both public and private uses.

As part of the plan, two-10mgd grey water facilities will be licensed in Atlanta, and will begin breaking ground within five years of an agreement. Georgia plans to save approximately 20% of its 2009 demand within ten years of completion of the water projects. The costs for infrastructure will be partly paid for by Renew America Act funds, as well as tax revenue from increased brown-field developments. Withdrawals from Atlanta are only part of the problem. Unrestricted withdrawals, from the Flint River basin, mainly by agriculture, are a large slice of the water pie in Georgia.

We plan to work much closer with US Dept. of Interior and the Federal Farm Bureau, to enact new irrigation techniques throughout the basin. The introduction of drought tolerant strains of plants, as well as growth management policies in the urban areas of the basin will allow us to significantly reduce demand on water withdrawals, while simultaneously preserving the economic viability of one of our largest industries. While we would like to implement a tiered payment system for water, the State feels that pushing conservation in the Flint basin will garner more support throughout the region. We do not feel that further burdening our agricultural sector will allow, politically, for us to sustain this plan.

The state of Georgia recognizes that part of the problem in the Atlanta Metro area comes from its sprawl and the “edge-cities†which have grown on its periphery. Atlanta’s place at the crossroads of history is as much a burden as a blessing. There are many blighted and forgotten buildings and neighborhoods within the region. The development of what are known as “brown-field†sites will help to reduce sprawl towards cheaper, but less urban, “green-field†or virgin sites. The State is now willing to push for changes to the 1989 Georgia Planning Act.

We are prepared to propose a tough and binding urban- services boundary to help stem rampant growth at the area’s periphery. Density requirements and lax zoning regulations will need to be addressed. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, including changing review from every ten years, to every five years will help keep a consistency with the goals of the State. The State plans to make development of these run-down and expensive to rehabilitate areas a priority. Georgia proposes a buy-in market for both Alabama and Florida, so that growth, and the inevitable increases in withdrawals, can be managed with the best interests of all parties in mind.

The bottom line is that Georgia will need some time to implement their comprehensive strategy for efficient water-use. Georgia needs annual increases in withdrawals from the ACF basin. A 4% increase for the time it takes to build both grey water facilities in the Atlanta Metro area will keep the region economically stable, and will allow for the savings in demand from conservation to show progress. Georgia believes that barring an un-foreseen drought in the basin, that these minimal increases will yield negligible damage to the lower basin, and will speed the transition towards full efficiency. As smarter uses of the water in the basin, especially on the Flint River, become common- place, the withdrawals from the system can be rolled-back to 1990 volumes, thus increasing flows to ecologically sensitive regions, and continue the economic viability of fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and Apalachicola Bay.

,625, and all components are supposed to be completed in five weeks. Using the status in the following table, find the following values at the end of week four. Project Planned End Date Planned Budget Actual Amount Spent by Week Four Planned Completion by Week Four Actual Completion by Week Four Software Development Project End of 5th week , 125 for total project or

Due Date Sunday By 1159pm Total Points 100 Instructions

Due Date: Sunday by 11:59pm Total Points: 100 Instructions: You are the project manager of a software development project. The team members will be working on five different components. Each of the components is budgeted to be $2,625, and all components are supposed to be completed in five weeks. Using the status in the following table, find the following values at the end of week four. Project Planned End Date Planned Budget Actual Amount Spent by Week Four Planned Completion by Week Four Actual Completion by Week Four Software Development Project End of 5th week $13, 125 for total project or $2,625 for each component $9,000 Four out of five components Three out of five components Acronym Term Formula Answer Interpretation PV EV AC SV CV CPI SPI BAC EAC ETC VAC TCPI PMG640 – Project Scheduling and Cost Planning Unit 6 Assignment: EVM Requirements: ï‚· Use this MS Word file to complete your assignment and submit via Blackboard. ï‚· Save your files using the following filename convention: o EVM – FirstName_LastName Be sure to read the criteria, by which your paper/project will be evaluated, before you write, and again after you write.

Evaluation Rubric for Unit 6: EVM Assignment CRITERIA Deficient Needs Improvement Proficient Exemplary 0 – 15 Points 16 – 19 Points 20 – 24 Points 25 Points EMV Reserve justifications have no basis based on estimations but some justifications provided. Justifications for reserve fund are based on clear estimations using EMV calculations and or PERT. Some of the estimations incomplete and justifications are partially complete. Justifications for reserve fund are based on clear estimations using EMV calculations and or PERT. Some of the estimations are complete and matches the justifications.

Justifications for reserve fund are based on clear estimations using EMV calculations and or PERT. The estimations are complete and matches the justifications. Milestones All activities are Sequenced using the predecessors’ column without a closed network diagram. At least 1-2 of your tasks relationships must be different than Finish to Start. All activities are Sequenced using the predecessors’ column without a closed network diagram.

At least 3 of your tasks relationships must be different than Finish to Start. All activities are Sequenced using the predecessors’ column with a closed network diagram. At least 3 of your tasks relationships must be different than Finish to Start. All activities are Sequenced using the predecessors’ column with a closed network diagram. At least 4 of your tasks relationships must be different than Finish to Start.

Cost Baseline Cost baseline do not include at most of activity cost estimates and when added up and does not equals the cost baseline. Cost baseline include at least 80 percent of activity cost estimates and when added up equals the cost baseline. Cost baseline include all activity cost estimates and when added up equals the cost baseline. Cost baseline include all activity cost estimates and when added up equals the cost baseline and contingencies. Summary Budget Summary budget partially updated to include cost baselines estimates.

Summary budget %l updated to include cost baselines estimates. Summary budget 80 %l updated to include cost baselines estimates. Summary budget fully updated to include cost baselines estimates. ACF Mock Negotiation Strategy State of Georgia In light of Judge Magnuson’s decision regarding the withdrawals of Atlanta, Georgia has come to the conclusion that an agreement made between the major stakeholders of the basin is not only preferable, but a necessity. The State of Georgia currently has a comprehensive water plan which will attempt to address the inefficient uses of resources in the Atlanta Metro area, and Georgia as a whole.

The State also understands that much of the downstream withdrawals, especially in the Flint basin, must be managed more efficiently. Part of any comprehensive plan in the ACF basin will require new growth management and building standards, as well as changes to how local planning offices deal with easement requests and compatibility with the State’s Comprehensive Plan. As part of a comprehensive effort to reduce demand in the ACF basin, Georgia has proposed or implemented an entire suite of programs and tactics. Georgia is prepared to begin combining efforts to find a scientifically sound audit of usage and future demands in the basin. We will begin metering all permitted withdrawals, both public and private uses.

As part of the plan, two-10mgd grey water facilities will be licensed in Atlanta, and will begin breaking ground within five years of an agreement. Georgia plans to save approximately 20% of its 2009 demand within ten years of completion of the water projects. The costs for infrastructure will be partly paid for by Renew America Act funds, as well as tax revenue from increased brown-field developments. Withdrawals from Atlanta are only part of the problem. Unrestricted withdrawals, from the Flint River basin, mainly by agriculture, are a large slice of the water pie in Georgia.

We plan to work much closer with US Dept. of Interior and the Federal Farm Bureau, to enact new irrigation techniques throughout the basin. The introduction of drought tolerant strains of plants, as well as growth management policies in the urban areas of the basin will allow us to significantly reduce demand on water withdrawals, while simultaneously preserving the economic viability of one of our largest industries. While we would like to implement a tiered payment system for water, the State feels that pushing conservation in the Flint basin will garner more support throughout the region. We do not feel that further burdening our agricultural sector will allow, politically, for us to sustain this plan.

The state of Georgia recognizes that part of the problem in the Atlanta Metro area comes from its sprawl and the “edge-cities†which have grown on its periphery. Atlanta’s place at the crossroads of history is as much a burden as a blessing. There are many blighted and forgotten buildings and neighborhoods within the region. The development of what are known as “brown-field†sites will help to reduce sprawl towards cheaper, but less urban, “green-field†or virgin sites. The State is now willing to push for changes to the 1989 Georgia Planning Act.

We are prepared to propose a tough and binding urban- services boundary to help stem rampant growth at the area’s periphery. Density requirements and lax zoning regulations will need to be addressed. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, including changing review from every ten years, to every five years will help keep a consistency with the goals of the State. The State plans to make development of these run-down and expensive to rehabilitate areas a priority. Georgia proposes a buy-in market for both Alabama and Florida, so that growth, and the inevitable increases in withdrawals, can be managed with the best interests of all parties in mind.

The bottom line is that Georgia will need some time to implement their comprehensive strategy for efficient water-use. Georgia needs annual increases in withdrawals from the ACF basin. A 4% increase for the time it takes to build both grey water facilities in the Atlanta Metro area will keep the region economically stable, and will allow for the savings in demand from conservation to show progress. Georgia believes that barring an un-foreseen drought in the basin, that these minimal increases will yield negligible damage to the lower basin, and will speed the transition towards full efficiency. As smarter uses of the water in the basin, especially on the Flint River, become common- place, the withdrawals from the system can be rolled-back to 1990 volumes, thus increasing flows to ecologically sensitive regions, and continue the economic viability of fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and Apalachicola Bay.

,625 for each component ,000 Four out of five components Three out of five components Acronym Term Formula Answer Interpretation PV EV AC SV CV CPI SPI BAC EAC ETC VAC TCPI PMG640 – Project Scheduling and Cost Planning Unit 6 Assignment: EVM Requirements: ï‚· Use this MS Word file to complete your assignment and submit via Blackboard. ï‚· Save your files using the following filename convention: o EVM – FirstName_LastName Be sure to read the criteria, by which your paper/project will be evaluated, before you write, and again after you write.

Evaluation Rubric for Unit 6: EVM Assignment CRITERIA Deficient Needs Improvement Proficient Exemplary 0 – 15 Points 16 – 19 Points 20 – 24 Points 25 Points EMV Reserve justifications have no basis based on estimations but some justifications provided. Justifications for reserve fund are based on clear estimations using EMV calculations and or PERT. Some of the estimations incomplete and justifications are partially complete. Justifications for reserve fund are based on clear estimations using EMV calculations and or PERT. Some of the estimations are complete and matches the justifications.

Justifications for reserve fund are based on clear estimations using EMV calculations and or PERT. The estimations are complete and matches the justifications. Milestones All activities are Sequenced using the predecessors’ column without a closed network diagram. At least 1-2 of your tasks relationships must be different than Finish to Start. All activities are Sequenced using the predecessors’ column without a closed network diagram.

At least 3 of your tasks relationships must be different than Finish to Start. All activities are Sequenced using the predecessors’ column with a closed network diagram. At least 3 of your tasks relationships must be different than Finish to Start. All activities are Sequenced using the predecessors’ column with a closed network diagram. At least 4 of your tasks relationships must be different than Finish to Start.

Cost Baseline Cost baseline do not include at most of activity cost estimates and when added up and does not equals the cost baseline. Cost baseline include at least 80 percent of activity cost estimates and when added up equals the cost baseline. Cost baseline include all activity cost estimates and when added up equals the cost baseline. Cost baseline include all activity cost estimates and when added up equals the cost baseline and contingencies. Summary Budget Summary budget partially updated to include cost baselines estimates.

Summary budget %l updated to include cost baselines estimates. Summary budget 80 %l updated to include cost baselines estimates. Summary budget fully updated to include cost baselines estimates. ACF Mock Negotiation Strategy State of Georgia In light of Judge Magnuson’s decision regarding the withdrawals of Atlanta, Georgia has come to the conclusion that an agreement made between the major stakeholders of the basin is not only preferable, but a necessity. The State of Georgia currently has a comprehensive water plan which will attempt to address the inefficient uses of resources in the Atlanta Metro area, and Georgia as a whole.

The State also understands that much of the downstream withdrawals, especially in the Flint basin, must be managed more efficiently. Part of any comprehensive plan in the ACF basin will require new growth management and building standards, as well as changes to how local planning offices deal with easement requests and compatibility with the State’s Comprehensive Plan. As part of a comprehensive effort to reduce demand in the ACF basin, Georgia has proposed or implemented an entire suite of programs and tactics. Georgia is prepared to begin combining efforts to find a scientifically sound audit of usage and future demands in the basin. We will begin metering all permitted withdrawals, both public and private uses.

As part of the plan, two-10mgd grey water facilities will be licensed in Atlanta, and will begin breaking ground within five years of an agreement. Georgia plans to save approximately 20% of its 2009 demand within ten years of completion of the water projects. The costs for infrastructure will be partly paid for by Renew America Act funds, as well as tax revenue from increased brown-field developments. Withdrawals from Atlanta are only part of the problem. Unrestricted withdrawals, from the Flint River basin, mainly by agriculture, are a large slice of the water pie in Georgia.

We plan to work much closer with US Dept. of Interior and the Federal Farm Bureau, to enact new irrigation techniques throughout the basin. The introduction of drought tolerant strains of plants, as well as growth management policies in the urban areas of the basin will allow us to significantly reduce demand on water withdrawals, while simultaneously preserving the economic viability of one of our largest industries. While we would like to implement a tiered payment system for water, the State feels that pushing conservation in the Flint basin will garner more support throughout the region. We do not feel that further burdening our agricultural sector will allow, politically, for us to sustain this plan.

The state of Georgia recognizes that part of the problem in the Atlanta Metro area comes from its sprawl and the “edge-cities†which have grown on its periphery. Atlanta’s place at the crossroads of history is as much a burden as a blessing. There are many blighted and forgotten buildings and neighborhoods within the region. The development of what are known as “brown-field†sites will help to reduce sprawl towards cheaper, but less urban, “green-field†or virgin sites. The State is now willing to push for changes to the 1989 Georgia Planning Act.

We are prepared to propose a tough and binding urban- services boundary to help stem rampant growth at the area’s periphery. Density requirements and lax zoning regulations will need to be addressed. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, including changing review from every ten years, to every five years will help keep a consistency with the goals of the State. The State plans to make development of these run-down and expensive to rehabilitate areas a priority. Georgia proposes a buy-in market for both Alabama and Florida, so that growth, and the inevitable increases in withdrawals, can be managed with the best interests of all parties in mind.

The bottom line is that Georgia will need some time to implement their comprehensive strategy for efficient water-use. Georgia needs annual increases in withdrawals from the ACF basin. A 4% increase for the time it takes to build both grey water facilities in the Atlanta Metro area will keep the region economically stable, and will allow for the savings in demand from conservation to show progress. Georgia believes that barring an un-foreseen drought in the basin, that these minimal increases will yield negligible damage to the lower basin, and will speed the transition towards full efficiency. As smarter uses of the water in the basin, especially on the Flint River, become common- place, the withdrawals from the system can be rolled-back to 1990 volumes, thus increasing flows to ecologically sensitive regions, and continue the economic viability of fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and Apalachicola Bay.

Paper for above instructions

Earned Value Management in Software Development Project
Introduction
Effective project management is critical to ensure the timely delivery of project components within the defined budget. This paper analyzes the status of a software development project using Earned Value Management (EVM) metrics, which integrates scope, schedule, and cost measurements. EVM enables project managers to assess performance actively and predict future performance. The aim is to calculate the Planned Value (PV), Earned Value (EV), Actual Cost (AC), Schedule Variance (SV), Cost Variance (CV), Cost Performance Index (CPI), Schedule Performance Index (SPI), Budget at Completion (BAC), Estimate at Completion (EAC), Estimate to Complete (ETC), Variance at Completion (VAC), and To-Complete Performance Index (TCPI).
Project Status Overview
The project comprises five components, each with a budget of

Due Date Sunday By 1159pm Total Points 100 Instructions

Due Date: Sunday by 11:59pm Total Points: 100 Instructions: You are the project manager of a software development project. The team members will be working on five different components. Each of the components is budgeted to be $2,625, and all components are supposed to be completed in five weeks. Using the status in the following table, find the following values at the end of week four. Project Planned End Date Planned Budget Actual Amount Spent by Week Four Planned Completion by Week Four Actual Completion by Week Four Software Development Project End of 5th week $13, 125 for total project or $2,625 for each component $9,000 Four out of five components Three out of five components Acronym Term Formula Answer Interpretation PV EV AC SV CV CPI SPI BAC EAC ETC VAC TCPI PMG640 – Project Scheduling and Cost Planning Unit 6 Assignment: EVM Requirements: ï‚· Use this MS Word file to complete your assignment and submit via Blackboard. ï‚· Save your files using the following filename convention: o EVM – FirstName_LastName Be sure to read the criteria, by which your paper/project will be evaluated, before you write, and again after you write.

Evaluation Rubric for Unit 6: EVM Assignment CRITERIA Deficient Needs Improvement Proficient Exemplary 0 – 15 Points 16 – 19 Points 20 – 24 Points 25 Points EMV Reserve justifications have no basis based on estimations but some justifications provided. Justifications for reserve fund are based on clear estimations using EMV calculations and or PERT. Some of the estimations incomplete and justifications are partially complete. Justifications for reserve fund are based on clear estimations using EMV calculations and or PERT. Some of the estimations are complete and matches the justifications.

Justifications for reserve fund are based on clear estimations using EMV calculations and or PERT. The estimations are complete and matches the justifications. Milestones All activities are Sequenced using the predecessors’ column without a closed network diagram. At least 1-2 of your tasks relationships must be different than Finish to Start. All activities are Sequenced using the predecessors’ column without a closed network diagram.

At least 3 of your tasks relationships must be different than Finish to Start. All activities are Sequenced using the predecessors’ column with a closed network diagram. At least 3 of your tasks relationships must be different than Finish to Start. All activities are Sequenced using the predecessors’ column with a closed network diagram. At least 4 of your tasks relationships must be different than Finish to Start.

Cost Baseline Cost baseline do not include at most of activity cost estimates and when added up and does not equals the cost baseline. Cost baseline include at least 80 percent of activity cost estimates and when added up equals the cost baseline. Cost baseline include all activity cost estimates and when added up equals the cost baseline. Cost baseline include all activity cost estimates and when added up equals the cost baseline and contingencies. Summary Budget Summary budget partially updated to include cost baselines estimates.

Summary budget %l updated to include cost baselines estimates. Summary budget 80 %l updated to include cost baselines estimates. Summary budget fully updated to include cost baselines estimates. ACF Mock Negotiation Strategy State of Georgia In light of Judge Magnuson’s decision regarding the withdrawals of Atlanta, Georgia has come to the conclusion that an agreement made between the major stakeholders of the basin is not only preferable, but a necessity. The State of Georgia currently has a comprehensive water plan which will attempt to address the inefficient uses of resources in the Atlanta Metro area, and Georgia as a whole.

The State also understands that much of the downstream withdrawals, especially in the Flint basin, must be managed more efficiently. Part of any comprehensive plan in the ACF basin will require new growth management and building standards, as well as changes to how local planning offices deal with easement requests and compatibility with the State’s Comprehensive Plan. As part of a comprehensive effort to reduce demand in the ACF basin, Georgia has proposed or implemented an entire suite of programs and tactics. Georgia is prepared to begin combining efforts to find a scientifically sound audit of usage and future demands in the basin. We will begin metering all permitted withdrawals, both public and private uses.

As part of the plan, two-10mgd grey water facilities will be licensed in Atlanta, and will begin breaking ground within five years of an agreement. Georgia plans to save approximately 20% of its 2009 demand within ten years of completion of the water projects. The costs for infrastructure will be partly paid for by Renew America Act funds, as well as tax revenue from increased brown-field developments. Withdrawals from Atlanta are only part of the problem. Unrestricted withdrawals, from the Flint River basin, mainly by agriculture, are a large slice of the water pie in Georgia.

We plan to work much closer with US Dept. of Interior and the Federal Farm Bureau, to enact new irrigation techniques throughout the basin. The introduction of drought tolerant strains of plants, as well as growth management policies in the urban areas of the basin will allow us to significantly reduce demand on water withdrawals, while simultaneously preserving the economic viability of one of our largest industries. While we would like to implement a tiered payment system for water, the State feels that pushing conservation in the Flint basin will garner more support throughout the region. We do not feel that further burdening our agricultural sector will allow, politically, for us to sustain this plan.

The state of Georgia recognizes that part of the problem in the Atlanta Metro area comes from its sprawl and the “edge-cities†which have grown on its periphery. Atlanta’s place at the crossroads of history is as much a burden as a blessing. There are many blighted and forgotten buildings and neighborhoods within the region. The development of what are known as “brown-field†sites will help to reduce sprawl towards cheaper, but less urban, “green-field†or virgin sites. The State is now willing to push for changes to the 1989 Georgia Planning Act.

We are prepared to propose a tough and binding urban- services boundary to help stem rampant growth at the area’s periphery. Density requirements and lax zoning regulations will need to be addressed. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, including changing review from every ten years, to every five years will help keep a consistency with the goals of the State. The State plans to make development of these run-down and expensive to rehabilitate areas a priority. Georgia proposes a buy-in market for both Alabama and Florida, so that growth, and the inevitable increases in withdrawals, can be managed with the best interests of all parties in mind.

The bottom line is that Georgia will need some time to implement their comprehensive strategy for efficient water-use. Georgia needs annual increases in withdrawals from the ACF basin. A 4% increase for the time it takes to build both grey water facilities in the Atlanta Metro area will keep the region economically stable, and will allow for the savings in demand from conservation to show progress. Georgia believes that barring an un-foreseen drought in the basin, that these minimal increases will yield negligible damage to the lower basin, and will speed the transition towards full efficiency. As smarter uses of the water in the basin, especially on the Flint River, become common- place, the withdrawals from the system can be rolled-back to 1990 volumes, thus increasing flows to ecologically sensitive regions, and continue the economic viability of fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and Apalachicola Bay.

,625. The timeline for the project is for all components to be completed in five weeks. As per the status at the end of week four:
- Total Budget (BAC) = 5 components x

Due Date Sunday By 1159pm Total Points 100 Instructions

Due Date: Sunday by 11:59pm Total Points: 100 Instructions: You are the project manager of a software development project. The team members will be working on five different components. Each of the components is budgeted to be $2,625, and all components are supposed to be completed in five weeks. Using the status in the following table, find the following values at the end of week four. Project Planned End Date Planned Budget Actual Amount Spent by Week Four Planned Completion by Week Four Actual Completion by Week Four Software Development Project End of 5th week $13, 125 for total project or $2,625 for each component $9,000 Four out of five components Three out of five components Acronym Term Formula Answer Interpretation PV EV AC SV CV CPI SPI BAC EAC ETC VAC TCPI PMG640 – Project Scheduling and Cost Planning Unit 6 Assignment: EVM Requirements: ï‚· Use this MS Word file to complete your assignment and submit via Blackboard. ï‚· Save your files using the following filename convention: o EVM – FirstName_LastName Be sure to read the criteria, by which your paper/project will be evaluated, before you write, and again after you write.

Evaluation Rubric for Unit 6: EVM Assignment CRITERIA Deficient Needs Improvement Proficient Exemplary 0 – 15 Points 16 – 19 Points 20 – 24 Points 25 Points EMV Reserve justifications have no basis based on estimations but some justifications provided. Justifications for reserve fund are based on clear estimations using EMV calculations and or PERT. Some of the estimations incomplete and justifications are partially complete. Justifications for reserve fund are based on clear estimations using EMV calculations and or PERT. Some of the estimations are complete and matches the justifications.

Justifications for reserve fund are based on clear estimations using EMV calculations and or PERT. The estimations are complete and matches the justifications. Milestones All activities are Sequenced using the predecessors’ column without a closed network diagram. At least 1-2 of your tasks relationships must be different than Finish to Start. All activities are Sequenced using the predecessors’ column without a closed network diagram.

At least 3 of your tasks relationships must be different than Finish to Start. All activities are Sequenced using the predecessors’ column with a closed network diagram. At least 3 of your tasks relationships must be different than Finish to Start. All activities are Sequenced using the predecessors’ column with a closed network diagram. At least 4 of your tasks relationships must be different than Finish to Start.

Cost Baseline Cost baseline do not include at most of activity cost estimates and when added up and does not equals the cost baseline. Cost baseline include at least 80 percent of activity cost estimates and when added up equals the cost baseline. Cost baseline include all activity cost estimates and when added up equals the cost baseline. Cost baseline include all activity cost estimates and when added up equals the cost baseline and contingencies. Summary Budget Summary budget partially updated to include cost baselines estimates.

Summary budget %l updated to include cost baselines estimates. Summary budget 80 %l updated to include cost baselines estimates. Summary budget fully updated to include cost baselines estimates. ACF Mock Negotiation Strategy State of Georgia In light of Judge Magnuson’s decision regarding the withdrawals of Atlanta, Georgia has come to the conclusion that an agreement made between the major stakeholders of the basin is not only preferable, but a necessity. The State of Georgia currently has a comprehensive water plan which will attempt to address the inefficient uses of resources in the Atlanta Metro area, and Georgia as a whole.

The State also understands that much of the downstream withdrawals, especially in the Flint basin, must be managed more efficiently. Part of any comprehensive plan in the ACF basin will require new growth management and building standards, as well as changes to how local planning offices deal with easement requests and compatibility with the State’s Comprehensive Plan. As part of a comprehensive effort to reduce demand in the ACF basin, Georgia has proposed or implemented an entire suite of programs and tactics. Georgia is prepared to begin combining efforts to find a scientifically sound audit of usage and future demands in the basin. We will begin metering all permitted withdrawals, both public and private uses.

As part of the plan, two-10mgd grey water facilities will be licensed in Atlanta, and will begin breaking ground within five years of an agreement. Georgia plans to save approximately 20% of its 2009 demand within ten years of completion of the water projects. The costs for infrastructure will be partly paid for by Renew America Act funds, as well as tax revenue from increased brown-field developments. Withdrawals from Atlanta are only part of the problem. Unrestricted withdrawals, from the Flint River basin, mainly by agriculture, are a large slice of the water pie in Georgia.

We plan to work much closer with US Dept. of Interior and the Federal Farm Bureau, to enact new irrigation techniques throughout the basin. The introduction of drought tolerant strains of plants, as well as growth management policies in the urban areas of the basin will allow us to significantly reduce demand on water withdrawals, while simultaneously preserving the economic viability of one of our largest industries. While we would like to implement a tiered payment system for water, the State feels that pushing conservation in the Flint basin will garner more support throughout the region. We do not feel that further burdening our agricultural sector will allow, politically, for us to sustain this plan.

The state of Georgia recognizes that part of the problem in the Atlanta Metro area comes from its sprawl and the “edge-cities†which have grown on its periphery. Atlanta’s place at the crossroads of history is as much a burden as a blessing. There are many blighted and forgotten buildings and neighborhoods within the region. The development of what are known as “brown-field†sites will help to reduce sprawl towards cheaper, but less urban, “green-field†or virgin sites. The State is now willing to push for changes to the 1989 Georgia Planning Act.

We are prepared to propose a tough and binding urban- services boundary to help stem rampant growth at the area’s periphery. Density requirements and lax zoning regulations will need to be addressed. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, including changing review from every ten years, to every five years will help keep a consistency with the goals of the State. The State plans to make development of these run-down and expensive to rehabilitate areas a priority. Georgia proposes a buy-in market for both Alabama and Florida, so that growth, and the inevitable increases in withdrawals, can be managed with the best interests of all parties in mind.

The bottom line is that Georgia will need some time to implement their comprehensive strategy for efficient water-use. Georgia needs annual increases in withdrawals from the ACF basin. A 4% increase for the time it takes to build both grey water facilities in the Atlanta Metro area will keep the region economically stable, and will allow for the savings in demand from conservation to show progress. Georgia believes that barring an un-foreseen drought in the basin, that these minimal increases will yield negligible damage to the lower basin, and will speed the transition towards full efficiency. As smarter uses of the water in the basin, especially on the Flint River, become common- place, the withdrawals from the system can be rolled-back to 1990 volumes, thus increasing flows to ecologically sensitive regions, and continue the economic viability of fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and Apalachicola Bay.

,625 = ,125
- Planned Completion by Week Four = 4 out of 5 components
- Actual Completion by Week Four = 3 out of 5 components
- Actual Amount Spent (AC) by Week Four = ,000
EVM Calculations
1. Planned Value (PV): This represents the value of work that was planned to be completed by a specific time. At the end of week four, with four components planned for completion:
\[
PV = \text{(Number of Components Planned Completed)} \times \text{(Budget per Component)} = 4 \times 2,625 = $10,500
\]
2. Earned Value (EV): This represents the value of work actually completed. At the end of week four, three components have been completed:
\[
EV = \text{(Number of Components Actually Completed)} \times \text{(Budget per Component)} = 3 \times 2,625 = $7,875
\]
3. Actual Cost (AC): This is the actual cost incurred for the work performed. According to the status, this is ,000.
4. Schedule Variance (SV): Indicates whether the project is ahead or behind schedule:
\[
SV = EV - PV = 7,875 - 10,500 = -$2,625
\]
5. Cost Variance (CV): Indicates whether the project is within its budget:
\[
CV = EV - AC = 7,875 - 9,000 = -$1,125
\]
6. Cost Performance Index (CPI): Measures cost efficiency and financial effectiveness:
\[
CPI = \frac{EV}{AC} = \frac{7,875}{9,000} \approx 0.875
\]
A CPI of less than 1 indicates cost overruns.
7. Schedule Performance Index (SPI): Measures schedule efficiency:
\[
SPI = \frac{EV}{PV} = \frac{7,875}{10,500} \approx 0.75
\]
An SPI of less than 1 suggests that the project is behind schedule.
8. Estimate at Completion (EAC): Predicts future performance based on current trends. To calculate EAC when the CPI is considered:
\[
EAC = \frac{BAC}{CPI} = \frac{13,125}{0.875} \approx 15,000
\]
9. Estimate to Complete (ETC): This tells how much more is needed to complete the project:
\[
ETC = EAC - AC = 15,000 - 9,000 = 6,000
\]
10. Variance at Completion (VAC): This shows the expected budget surplus or deficit at completion:
\[
VAC = BAC - EAC = 13,125 - 15,000 = -$1,875
\]
11. To-Complete Performance Index (TCPI): This measures the cost performance needed for the remaining work:
\[
TCPI = \frac{BAC - EV}{BAC - AC} = \frac{13,125 - 7,875}{13,125 - 9,000} = \frac{5,250}{4,125} \approx 1.27
\]
Interpretation of EVM Results
The EVM metrics reveal significant insights into the performance of the software development project. The SV of -

Due Date Sunday By 1159pm Total Points 100 Instructions

Due Date: Sunday by 11:59pm Total Points: 100 Instructions: You are the project manager of a software development project. The team members will be working on five different components. Each of the components is budgeted to be $2,625, and all components are supposed to be completed in five weeks. Using the status in the following table, find the following values at the end of week four. Project Planned End Date Planned Budget Actual Amount Spent by Week Four Planned Completion by Week Four Actual Completion by Week Four Software Development Project End of 5th week $13, 125 for total project or $2,625 for each component $9,000 Four out of five components Three out of five components Acronym Term Formula Answer Interpretation PV EV AC SV CV CPI SPI BAC EAC ETC VAC TCPI PMG640 – Project Scheduling and Cost Planning Unit 6 Assignment: EVM Requirements: ï‚· Use this MS Word file to complete your assignment and submit via Blackboard. ï‚· Save your files using the following filename convention: o EVM – FirstName_LastName Be sure to read the criteria, by which your paper/project will be evaluated, before you write, and again after you write.

Evaluation Rubric for Unit 6: EVM Assignment CRITERIA Deficient Needs Improvement Proficient Exemplary 0 – 15 Points 16 – 19 Points 20 – 24 Points 25 Points EMV Reserve justifications have no basis based on estimations but some justifications provided. Justifications for reserve fund are based on clear estimations using EMV calculations and or PERT. Some of the estimations incomplete and justifications are partially complete. Justifications for reserve fund are based on clear estimations using EMV calculations and or PERT. Some of the estimations are complete and matches the justifications.

Justifications for reserve fund are based on clear estimations using EMV calculations and or PERT. The estimations are complete and matches the justifications. Milestones All activities are Sequenced using the predecessors’ column without a closed network diagram. At least 1-2 of your tasks relationships must be different than Finish to Start. All activities are Sequenced using the predecessors’ column without a closed network diagram.

At least 3 of your tasks relationships must be different than Finish to Start. All activities are Sequenced using the predecessors’ column with a closed network diagram. At least 3 of your tasks relationships must be different than Finish to Start. All activities are Sequenced using the predecessors’ column with a closed network diagram. At least 4 of your tasks relationships must be different than Finish to Start.

Cost Baseline Cost baseline do not include at most of activity cost estimates and when added up and does not equals the cost baseline. Cost baseline include at least 80 percent of activity cost estimates and when added up equals the cost baseline. Cost baseline include all activity cost estimates and when added up equals the cost baseline. Cost baseline include all activity cost estimates and when added up equals the cost baseline and contingencies. Summary Budget Summary budget partially updated to include cost baselines estimates.

Summary budget %l updated to include cost baselines estimates. Summary budget 80 %l updated to include cost baselines estimates. Summary budget fully updated to include cost baselines estimates. ACF Mock Negotiation Strategy State of Georgia In light of Judge Magnuson’s decision regarding the withdrawals of Atlanta, Georgia has come to the conclusion that an agreement made between the major stakeholders of the basin is not only preferable, but a necessity. The State of Georgia currently has a comprehensive water plan which will attempt to address the inefficient uses of resources in the Atlanta Metro area, and Georgia as a whole.

The State also understands that much of the downstream withdrawals, especially in the Flint basin, must be managed more efficiently. Part of any comprehensive plan in the ACF basin will require new growth management and building standards, as well as changes to how local planning offices deal with easement requests and compatibility with the State’s Comprehensive Plan. As part of a comprehensive effort to reduce demand in the ACF basin, Georgia has proposed or implemented an entire suite of programs and tactics. Georgia is prepared to begin combining efforts to find a scientifically sound audit of usage and future demands in the basin. We will begin metering all permitted withdrawals, both public and private uses.

As part of the plan, two-10mgd grey water facilities will be licensed in Atlanta, and will begin breaking ground within five years of an agreement. Georgia plans to save approximately 20% of its 2009 demand within ten years of completion of the water projects. The costs for infrastructure will be partly paid for by Renew America Act funds, as well as tax revenue from increased brown-field developments. Withdrawals from Atlanta are only part of the problem. Unrestricted withdrawals, from the Flint River basin, mainly by agriculture, are a large slice of the water pie in Georgia.

We plan to work much closer with US Dept. of Interior and the Federal Farm Bureau, to enact new irrigation techniques throughout the basin. The introduction of drought tolerant strains of plants, as well as growth management policies in the urban areas of the basin will allow us to significantly reduce demand on water withdrawals, while simultaneously preserving the economic viability of one of our largest industries. While we would like to implement a tiered payment system for water, the State feels that pushing conservation in the Flint basin will garner more support throughout the region. We do not feel that further burdening our agricultural sector will allow, politically, for us to sustain this plan.

The state of Georgia recognizes that part of the problem in the Atlanta Metro area comes from its sprawl and the “edge-cities†which have grown on its periphery. Atlanta’s place at the crossroads of history is as much a burden as a blessing. There are many blighted and forgotten buildings and neighborhoods within the region. The development of what are known as “brown-field†sites will help to reduce sprawl towards cheaper, but less urban, “green-field†or virgin sites. The State is now willing to push for changes to the 1989 Georgia Planning Act.

We are prepared to propose a tough and binding urban- services boundary to help stem rampant growth at the area’s periphery. Density requirements and lax zoning regulations will need to be addressed. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, including changing review from every ten years, to every five years will help keep a consistency with the goals of the State. The State plans to make development of these run-down and expensive to rehabilitate areas a priority. Georgia proposes a buy-in market for both Alabama and Florida, so that growth, and the inevitable increases in withdrawals, can be managed with the best interests of all parties in mind.

The bottom line is that Georgia will need some time to implement their comprehensive strategy for efficient water-use. Georgia needs annual increases in withdrawals from the ACF basin. A 4% increase for the time it takes to build both grey water facilities in the Atlanta Metro area will keep the region economically stable, and will allow for the savings in demand from conservation to show progress. Georgia believes that barring an un-foreseen drought in the basin, that these minimal increases will yield negligible damage to the lower basin, and will speed the transition towards full efficiency. As smarter uses of the water in the basin, especially on the Flint River, become common- place, the withdrawals from the system can be rolled-back to 1990 volumes, thus increasing flows to ecologically sensitive regions, and continue the economic viability of fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and Apalachicola Bay.

,625 indicates that the project is behind schedule, as only three out of five components have been completed in week four instead of the planned four. Furthermore, with a CV of -,125, the project is also experiencing cost overruns, with actual costs exceeding the earned value.
The CPI of 0.875 shows that for every dollar spent, only

Due Date Sunday By 1159pm Total Points 100 Instructions

Due Date: Sunday by 11:59pm Total Points: 100 Instructions: You are the project manager of a software development project. The team members will be working on five different components. Each of the components is budgeted to be $2,625, and all components are supposed to be completed in five weeks. Using the status in the following table, find the following values at the end of week four. Project Planned End Date Planned Budget Actual Amount Spent by Week Four Planned Completion by Week Four Actual Completion by Week Four Software Development Project End of 5th week $13, 125 for total project or $2,625 for each component $9,000 Four out of five components Three out of five components Acronym Term Formula Answer Interpretation PV EV AC SV CV CPI SPI BAC EAC ETC VAC TCPI PMG640 – Project Scheduling and Cost Planning Unit 6 Assignment: EVM Requirements: ï‚· Use this MS Word file to complete your assignment and submit via Blackboard. ï‚· Save your files using the following filename convention: o EVM – FirstName_LastName Be sure to read the criteria, by which your paper/project will be evaluated, before you write, and again after you write.

Evaluation Rubric for Unit 6: EVM Assignment CRITERIA Deficient Needs Improvement Proficient Exemplary 0 – 15 Points 16 – 19 Points 20 – 24 Points 25 Points EMV Reserve justifications have no basis based on estimations but some justifications provided. Justifications for reserve fund are based on clear estimations using EMV calculations and or PERT. Some of the estimations incomplete and justifications are partially complete. Justifications for reserve fund are based on clear estimations using EMV calculations and or PERT. Some of the estimations are complete and matches the justifications.

Justifications for reserve fund are based on clear estimations using EMV calculations and or PERT. The estimations are complete and matches the justifications. Milestones All activities are Sequenced using the predecessors’ column without a closed network diagram. At least 1-2 of your tasks relationships must be different than Finish to Start. All activities are Sequenced using the predecessors’ column without a closed network diagram.

At least 3 of your tasks relationships must be different than Finish to Start. All activities are Sequenced using the predecessors’ column with a closed network diagram. At least 3 of your tasks relationships must be different than Finish to Start. All activities are Sequenced using the predecessors’ column with a closed network diagram. At least 4 of your tasks relationships must be different than Finish to Start.

Cost Baseline Cost baseline do not include at most of activity cost estimates and when added up and does not equals the cost baseline. Cost baseline include at least 80 percent of activity cost estimates and when added up equals the cost baseline. Cost baseline include all activity cost estimates and when added up equals the cost baseline. Cost baseline include all activity cost estimates and when added up equals the cost baseline and contingencies. Summary Budget Summary budget partially updated to include cost baselines estimates.

Summary budget %l updated to include cost baselines estimates. Summary budget 80 %l updated to include cost baselines estimates. Summary budget fully updated to include cost baselines estimates. ACF Mock Negotiation Strategy State of Georgia In light of Judge Magnuson’s decision regarding the withdrawals of Atlanta, Georgia has come to the conclusion that an agreement made between the major stakeholders of the basin is not only preferable, but a necessity. The State of Georgia currently has a comprehensive water plan which will attempt to address the inefficient uses of resources in the Atlanta Metro area, and Georgia as a whole.

The State also understands that much of the downstream withdrawals, especially in the Flint basin, must be managed more efficiently. Part of any comprehensive plan in the ACF basin will require new growth management and building standards, as well as changes to how local planning offices deal with easement requests and compatibility with the State’s Comprehensive Plan. As part of a comprehensive effort to reduce demand in the ACF basin, Georgia has proposed or implemented an entire suite of programs and tactics. Georgia is prepared to begin combining efforts to find a scientifically sound audit of usage and future demands in the basin. We will begin metering all permitted withdrawals, both public and private uses.

As part of the plan, two-10mgd grey water facilities will be licensed in Atlanta, and will begin breaking ground within five years of an agreement. Georgia plans to save approximately 20% of its 2009 demand within ten years of completion of the water projects. The costs for infrastructure will be partly paid for by Renew America Act funds, as well as tax revenue from increased brown-field developments. Withdrawals from Atlanta are only part of the problem. Unrestricted withdrawals, from the Flint River basin, mainly by agriculture, are a large slice of the water pie in Georgia.

We plan to work much closer with US Dept. of Interior and the Federal Farm Bureau, to enact new irrigation techniques throughout the basin. The introduction of drought tolerant strains of plants, as well as growth management policies in the urban areas of the basin will allow us to significantly reduce demand on water withdrawals, while simultaneously preserving the economic viability of one of our largest industries. While we would like to implement a tiered payment system for water, the State feels that pushing conservation in the Flint basin will garner more support throughout the region. We do not feel that further burdening our agricultural sector will allow, politically, for us to sustain this plan.

The state of Georgia recognizes that part of the problem in the Atlanta Metro area comes from its sprawl and the “edge-cities†which have grown on its periphery. Atlanta’s place at the crossroads of history is as much a burden as a blessing. There are many blighted and forgotten buildings and neighborhoods within the region. The development of what are known as “brown-field†sites will help to reduce sprawl towards cheaper, but less urban, “green-field†or virgin sites. The State is now willing to push for changes to the 1989 Georgia Planning Act.

We are prepared to propose a tough and binding urban- services boundary to help stem rampant growth at the area’s periphery. Density requirements and lax zoning regulations will need to be addressed. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, including changing review from every ten years, to every five years will help keep a consistency with the goals of the State. The State plans to make development of these run-down and expensive to rehabilitate areas a priority. Georgia proposes a buy-in market for both Alabama and Florida, so that growth, and the inevitable increases in withdrawals, can be managed with the best interests of all parties in mind.

The bottom line is that Georgia will need some time to implement their comprehensive strategy for efficient water-use. Georgia needs annual increases in withdrawals from the ACF basin. A 4% increase for the time it takes to build both grey water facilities in the Atlanta Metro area will keep the region economically stable, and will allow for the savings in demand from conservation to show progress. Georgia believes that barring an un-foreseen drought in the basin, that these minimal increases will yield negligible damage to the lower basin, and will speed the transition towards full efficiency. As smarter uses of the water in the basin, especially on the Flint River, become common- place, the withdrawals from the system can be rolled-back to 1990 volumes, thus increasing flows to ecologically sensitive regions, and continue the economic viability of fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and Apalachicola Bay.