ISMN 5370 Exam Full - long

Activity list

Master record of each unit of work: ID, verb-noun description, predecessors/successors, resources, and assumptions/constraints; each activity is sized at roughly 8–80 hours of effort

Work package vs. activity

Lowest WBS level describing what is delivered vs. the decomposed unit describing how the work gets done

Finish-to-Start (FS)

B can't begin until A ends; the most common dependency (e.g., testing after coding)

Start-to-Start (SS)

B can't begin until A begins (e.g., documentation once drafting begins)

Finish-to-Finish (FF)

B can't end until A ends (e.g., quality review closes after inspections)

Start-to-Finish (SF)

B can't end until A begins; rare (e.g., night shift ends when day shift starts)

Mandatory dependency

Hard logic; cannot be changed

Discretionary dependency

Soft logic based on best practice; can be changed, and is the only kind that allows overlapping activities

External dependency

Relationship driven by something outside the team's control (e.g., permits); carries risk

Precedence Diagramming Method (PDM)

Network diagram format where activities are nodes; each node shows duration, ES, EF, LS, LF, and float

Analogous duration estimate

Based on similar past projects; fast and cheap but least accurate, so suited to early stages

Parametric duration estimate

Statistical rate applied to quantity (e.g., 100 m of cable = 2 days, so 500 m = 10 days)

Three-point (PERT) estimate

Expected time = (O + 4M + P) ÷ 6; standard deviation = (P − O) ÷ 6

Duration estimate: expert judgment

Use experienced people to validate other estimates or when the work is new

Forward pass

Left-to-right calculation (EF = ES + duration) that yields the earliest project finish

Backward pass

Right-to-left calculation (LS = LF − duration) that yields the latest dates that don't delay the project

Total float

LS − ES (or LF − EF); slack shared along an entire path

Free float

ES of the successor − EF of the activity; slack belonging to one activity alone

Critical path

Longest path through the network; zero slack, so any delay pushes the end date

Crashing

Compressing the schedule by adding resources or overtime; always raises cost; main risk is diminishing returns; do the cheapest cost-per-day first

Fast-tracking

Compressing the schedule by overlapping activities planned in sequence; no direct cost increase; main risk is rework

Which activities get schedule compression?

Critical-path activities only

Milestone

Zero-duration event marking a point in the project (e.g., "Go-Live")

Gantt chart

Most common schedule format; bars plotted on a timeline

Schedule baseline

Approved schedule; altered only via formal change control; basis for SV and SPI

Cost estimate: analogous

Uses similar past projects; used at initiation; accuracy −25% to +75%

Cost estimate: parametric

Uses a statistical rate such as $/sq ft; used in planning; accuracy −10% to +25%

Cost estimate: bottom-up

Estimate each work package, then roll up; detailed planning; accuracy −5% to +10%

Contingency reserve

Covers known unknowns (identified risks); controlled by the PM; included in the cost baseline

Management reserve

Covers unknown unknowns; controlled by senior management/sponsor; excluded from cost baseline but included in total project budget

Cost aggregation sequence

Work package estimates → control accounts → project estimate → + contingency = cost baseline → + management reserve = total project budget

Funding-limit reconciliation

Rescheduling work so planned spending fits within the tranches in which funds are released

PV (BCWS)

Budget for work scheduled to be done by now ("what should be done?")

EV (BCWP)

Budget for work actually completed ("what was done?")

AC (ACWP)

Actual cost of the work completed

Reading EVM variances and indices

Variances (CV, SV) negative = bad; indices (CPI, SPI) below 1.0 = bad; SV is in dollars, not days

Quality vs. grade

Meeting requirements (low is always a problem) vs. a category of features (low can be fine; a budget hotel can be high on the first)

Prevention costs

Training, quality planning, design reviews; usually the best return

Appraisal costs

Testing, inspections, audits; finds defects but doesn't stop them from occurring

Internal failure costs

Rework and scrap found before delivery

External failure costs

Warranty claims and returns after delivery; the most expensive cost-of-quality category

Plan Quality

Sets standards and metrics; outputs are the management plan for meeting requirements and the measures used to judge it

Manage Quality

Process-focused and proactive; audits how work is done

Control Quality

Product-focused and reactive; inspects deliverables; output feeds Validate Scope

Fishbone (Ishikawa) diagram

Root-cause tool organized by Man, Machine, Method, Material, Measurement, Mother Nature

Quality checklist

Standardizes required steps using lessons learned

Control chart

Plots process data against limits set at ±3σ from the mean

Rule of seven

7+ consecutive points on one side of the mean signal an assignable cause to investigate

Control limits vs. specification limits

Process behavior vs. customer requirements

Pareto chart

Descending bars plus a cumulative % line; shows the vital few causes (80/20)

PDCA

Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle (Deming); the improvement method

Kaizen

"Change for the better"; small daily gains by everyone; the improvement mindset

Verification

Building the product right: internal check against specs

Validation

Building the right product: done with the customer (e.g., UAT)

Acceptance criteria

Measurable conditions agreed on during planning, before work begins

Risk vs. uncertainty

Specific event with estimable probability and impact (plan for it) vs. vague lack of knowledge with no probability (handle with buffers and adaptability)

Opportunity

Positive uncertain event; logged in the same register as threats

Risk management loop

Identify → Analyze → Plan Responses → Monitor → back to Identify; revisit at every milestone

Risk brainstorming

Most common identification technique; quantity first, judge later, with a facilitator

Risk checklist

Built from past projects; fast but misses new risks; a starting point only

Assumptions analysis

Asking "what if this assumption is wrong?"; unstable assumptions become risks

Best-practice order for identifying risks

Start with checklists, expand with brainstorming, pressure-test with assumptions analysis

Probability-impact matrix

Qualitative tool scoring each risk by likelihood and severity; scales defined up front; high-high needs action now, low-low can be accepted and monitored

Risk register

Living log of each item's description, probability, impact, response, one named owner, and status

Avoid (threat)

Change the plan so the risk can't occur

Transfer (threat)

Shift the impact to a third party (insurance, contracts)

Mitigate (threat)

Reduce probability and/or impact; the most common response

Accept (threat)

Take no proactive action; document and monitor

Exploit (opportunity)

Make sure the opportunity happens

Share (opportunity)

Partner with a third party better able to capture it

Enhance (opportunity)

Increase the opportunity's probability and/or impact

Accept (opportunity)

Don't pursue it, but still document it

Choosing a risk response

Compare response cost to expected loss; consider risk appetite; re-score what's left afterward

Residual risk

Exposure remaining after a response is applied

EMV

Probability × impact, summed across risks; one way to size contingency (others: 5–15% of budget, or expert judgment + historical data)

RAID log

Risks, Assumptions, Issues, Dependencies; each entry needs owner, due date, status; reviewed at kickoff, weekly, at milestones; archived at close

Risk vs. issue

Future and uncertain (plan for it) vs. present and certain (resolve it); a risk that occurs with no plan becomes the latter

Communications matrix

Answers who needs what information, when, in what format, from whom, and by which method

Interactive communication

Two-way, real time (meetings, calls); best for complex issues and decisions

Push communication

Sent to specific recipients (email, memos, reports); best for status updates

Pull communication

Recipients retrieve it when needed (portals, wikis, shared drives); best for large audiences

Communication channels formula

n(n − 1) ÷ 2; 10 people = 45, 20 people = 190

Status report

Where the project stands right now

Progress report

What was completed this period

Forecast report

Where the project is heading (EAC, ETC)

Variance report

Deviation from baseline plus root cause

Dashboard

Displays KPIs with red/yellow/green status

Information radiator

Large visible display (Kanban board, burndown chart); common in Agile

Make (vs. buy)

Choose when work is core, sensitive/proprietary, or you have idle capacity

Buy (vs. make)

Choose when you need special expertise, lack capacity, need speed, or the work is one-time

Procurement process

Plan (needs, SOW, selection criteria) → Conduct (solicit, evaluate, award) → Control (performance, changes, payments) → Close (acceptance, final payment, lessons learned)

Statement of Work (SOW)

Defines scope, location, period of performance, and acceptance criteria; vagueness here is the root cause of most disputes

Source selection criteria

Price, technical capability, past performance, management approach; set before bidding

RFI

Learn about the market; no commitment

RFP

For complex needs; asks vendors for both a technical and a cost proposal

RFQ

For a well-defined item; price is the main factor

IFB

Government sealed bidding; lowest responsive, responsible bidder wins

Fixed-price contract

Seller bears cost risk; best for well-defined scope; highest buyer cost certainty. Variants: FFP, FPIF (target + ceiling), FP-EPA (inflation adjustment)

Cost-reimbursable contract

Buyer bears cost risk; best for uncertain scope; lowest buyer cost certainty. Variants: CPFF (fixed fee), CPIF (fee tied to cost vs. target), CPAF (subjective award fee)

Time & materials contract

Hourly rate plus materials; cost risk mostly on buyer; limited certainty; best for low-to-medium scope clarity; capped by a not-to-exceed (NTE) limit