It's true. I was on the PMI Practice Standard for EVM team and have contributed to the GAO Schedule Assessment Guide and MIL-STD-881, and agree that standards are influenced by the most commonly used approaches. That said, I've seen a lot of projects where people used the same word for different things, and it never made things better. It's even worse when you have to build a software system to implement the standard; computers need tightly defined structures to work well.
Original Message:
Sent: 03-24-2025 09:17 AM
From: Vladimir Liberzon
Subject: (QAR – SC REVIEW DRAFT) 33R-15: Developing the Project Work Breakdown Structure
In 1998 I participated in the first meetings of PMI team that was created for development of PMI WBS Standard.
This meeting was started with the discussion of the best approach to WBS development. I suggested to use multiple WBSs as we have already done for many years and explained corresponding advantages.
My proposal that was considered as very interesting was rejected because PMI Standards must contain only those methods and tools that are used in most of the projects most of the times (in the USA).
This is the way most standards were created.
------------------------------
Vladimir Liberzon
General Manager
v.liberzon@gmail.com
Original Message:
Sent: 03-23-2025 03:15 PM
From: Eric Christoph
Subject: (QAR – SC REVIEW DRAFT) 33R-15: Developing the Project Work Breakdown Structure
In the EIA-748 EVMS standard there is only one hierarchy designated as the Work Breakdown Structure. You can subdivide into the Program WBS and Contract WBS, but there is still only one structure that is the WBS. Pretty sure this is also true for ISO and every other project management standard I have looked at. The key characteristics are that it must be product oriented, must cover all of the work scope, and the charging levels must be able to be mapped to the cost system. I'm fine with suggesting that the structure of the WBS might be different, say ship building vs road construction, and that they don't all have to line up with the common elements in the MIL-STD if that's what you are getting at. Where I would have an issue would be in having two structures both called WBS on the same project.
------------------------------
Eric Christoph
Partner
Leesburg
eric@transformativems.com
Original Message:
Sent: 03-23-2025 12:11 PM
From: Vladimir Liberzon
Subject: (QAR – SC REVIEW DRAFT) 33R-15: Developing the Project Work Breakdown Structure
All of them are work breakdown structures.
One of them is called Main in Spider Project and unlike others this main WBS must contain all project activities.
What if we will call Main selected delivery oriented WBS?
It is not natural to invent new names for other WBSs - all of them are work (activity) breakdown structures.
There are many other structures like Resource Breakdown Structures, Risk Breakdown Structures, Cost Breakdown Structures, Material Breakdown Structures.
Their names show what is grouped and structured.
------------------------------
Vladimir Liberzon
General Manager
v.liberzon@gmail.com
Original Message:
Sent: 03-23-2025 11:36 AM
From: Eric Christoph
Subject: (QAR – SC REVIEW DRAFT) 33R-15: Developing the Project Work Breakdown Structure
Completely in agreement that a project should use as many hierarchical organizing structures as it needs to communicate with stakeholders. But I think we should agree that only one of them is called the Work Breakdown Structure, and that it should be product oriented in order not to completely break from other widely used guidance like EIA-748, MIL-STD-881, ISO 21508, the PASEG, GAO guides, etc.
------------------------------
Eric Christoph
Partner
Leesburg
eric@transformativems.com
Original Message:
Sent: 03-23-2025 10:37 AM
From: Vladimir Liberzon
Subject: (QAR – SC REVIEW DRAFT) 33R-15: Developing the Project Work Breakdown Structure
There are many types of WBS that can be used in parallel (product breakdown structure, process breakdown structure, contract breakdown structure, responsibility breakdown structure, etc.). It is usual to use multiple breakdown structures for Spider Project users. One mouse click switches project schedule view from one WBS to another permitting to analyze project schedule, cost and other parameters from different perspectives. It is useful and natural, used by most Spider Project users for more than 30 years. I would suggest to use as many WBS as needed in every project. At least one of project WBSs must be scope oriented, but other groupings of project activities can be also useful for project performance analysis and decision making.
One of WBS useful features is an opportunity to apply Earned Value Analysis and other ways of performance analysis and reporting not only to the whole project but also to any WBS item of any structure (for each contract, for each responsibility area, for each geographical area, for each process group, etc.).
------------------------------
Vladimir Liberzon
General Manager
v.liberzon@gmail.com
Original Message:
Sent: 02-20-2025 02:34 PM
From: Christian Heller
Subject: (QAR – SC REVIEW DRAFT) 33R-15: Developing the Project Work Breakdown Structure
(QAR – SC REVIEW DRAFT) 33R-15: Developing the Project Work Breakdown Structure
This is a quality assurance review (QAR) of an existing RP.
You may provide your comment by either:
· Posting a message in this thread directly
· Providing your comment in the "REVIEWER" columns of the Excel file and posting it in this thread
This draft is open for review and comment until April 6, 2025
------------------------------
Christian Heller
Director of Technical Guidance
AACE International
cheller@aacei.org
------------------------------