Rolling wave planning: work packages vs planning packages
Rolling wave planning details near-term work and holds less-defined far-term work in planning packages. As the future becomes clearer, planning packages are broken into detailed work packages, and this continues until all work is planned in detail.
Near-term detail, far-term packages
GAO's Schedule Assessment Guide says near-term effort is planned in more detail than long-term effort. Detailed activities are typically 4 to 8 weeks long and cover well-defined work, usually within 6 months to a year. Program management decides how long the detail period is.
Less-defined effort further out is held as planning packages, planned at a higher level. One package can stand for several months of work, a trade's work, or even a future contract or phase.
GAO's best practice is to plan the rolling wave to a design review, test or other major milestone rather than an arbitrary period such as 6 months. Too much detail too early can harm the schedule, because it needs constant revision.
Rules for planning packages
Each planning package must still trace to WBS elements and be logically linked in the schedule, so the critical path can be monitored. Packages on or near the critical path, or carrying significant risk, should be broken into smaller activities.
When the schedule is fully resource loaded, budgets for labor, travel, equipment and material are assigned to both work packages and planning packages, so the total cost to complete is known at the outset.
GAO's cost guide adds that work packages are detailed tasks, typically 4 to 6 weeks, defined by who authorizes the task and how the work will be measured and tracked.
How long a detailed activity should be
Near-term detail activities should generally be no longer than the program's reporting period. With monthly reporting that is about 22 working days or less. Long durations should be broken into shorter activities where logical breaks exist.
Durations should still be balanced. Very short ones, a day or less, may mean the schedule is too detailed. Activities should be decomposed only far enough to show hand-offs between activities.
Where the exam catches people
Believing far-term planning packages need no links or WBS traceability: they must trace to the WBS and be logically linked.
Believing more detail always means a better schedule: detailing ill-defined work too early forces constant revision.
Believing the rolling wave should follow a fixed calendar period: GAO prefers planning to a major milestone.
Believing planning packages carry no budget: budgets go to both work and planning packages.
Believing a five-month detail activity is fine under monthly reporting: it should be broken at its logical break points.