Steve said:
I'm reminded of the formal definition of the Fudge Factor in physics: When
theoretical predictions and experimental observations don't agree, you have
the choice of changing the theory to fit the universe or changing the
universe to fit the theory. In the latter case you apply Fudge's Constant
to your experimental results (not necessarily invalid - that's how Clyde
Tombaugh discovered the planet Pluto). It sounds like your client has
fomalized Fudging into his fundamental business processes. IMHO, the hours
and costs posted to your project plan should always reflect actual physical
reality - an hour worked in February is an hour worked in February -
period - whether its good or bad that it was done then. The only way you
could ever have negative hours and costs is if the resources were undoing
work previously done and giving you back the money they were paid.
Your situation is a perfect example to illustrate that Project is not an
accounting system and except in the simplest of cases trying to use it as
one is going to come back to haunt you at the worst possible time.
Accountants routinely apply adjustments and corrections, carry fowards and
carry backs, but the numbers entered into Project should be considered raw
data describing what happened, without interpretation. You'd no more carry
hours forward or back from one period to another than you would forge the
dates on sales invoices so the transaction appears to have occurred in a
period other than when it actually did. If you do, you lose all of
Project's value as a tool to actually manage the Project so as to achieve
its objectives on-time and within budget.
It seems Steve, that you haven't worked with, or understood, the world
of the beancounter. I've had more dealings with them than I care to
recall. Once I figured out that they have absolutely no understanding
of or interest in reality, it was easier to deal with them. They only
care about what is on paper. What "actually happened" is totally
unimportant. If it can't be or isn't represented as a "line item", it
simply isn't.
I remember when I worked at Mobil Oil, and a low level clerk who
handled our expense reports absconded with less than $2,000. They
instituted new procedures to prevent such an occurrence. A couple of us
sat down and worked up and estimate of how much it cost the company to
institute the new procedures. About $10,000/yr. So the beancounters
implemented procedures costing $10,000/ yr, every year for the
predictable future, to prevent a loss, which was most likely a one-time
occurrence, of $2,000! I didn't bother to do a Cost/Benefit ratio on
it. Since the $10,000 was not a line item, it didn't matter at all.
They believed that since there was already someone being paid to do the
job, it didn't matter. They can't comprehend that that person could be
doing useful work instead of all the extra procedures to prevent the
loss that probably wouldn't happen again. Accountants don't understand
probabilities at all.
I believe it's one of the reasons that so few companies are willing to
spend money to improve things like Customer Service or even quality.
Unless their accountants are willing to sit down and do some real world
accounting, or an exec is willing to clip their wings, the savings are
hard to demonstrate. They just don't show up as a line item.
The main driver in this world is balanced books. Has no connection with
reality. But negative hours help balance books. And in that world,
balanced books are far more important than knowing where the project
is.
