EV-Lite—Earned Value Control for Fast Paced Projects
Craig D. Peterson, PMP, Managing Consultant, EDS
Michael E. Oliver, PMP, Consultant Architect, EDS
Introduction
History demonstrates the value of implementing earned value man-
agement systems (EVMS) on large complex projects. Earned value
provides a solid means to substantiate project performance against
progress payments. It gives management a means to financially
audit the project as well as track progress. The benefits of EVMS are
well worth the associated overhead necessary to administer it.
The birth of the digital economy however has added a new
genre of projects. These projects are characterized as fast-paced,
short-duration (3–12 months), small teams (6–8 people), with
poorly defined requirements at the outset that continue to evolve
over the life of the project.
While these projects could benefit from the planning rigor typ-
ical of projects preparing to use earned value reporting, it is rarely
employed. Why? A combination of factors ranging from the ex-
penditure ratio between the design and construction phases of IT
development methods to the business urgency of these projects
work against its adoption. Approaches that increase project over-
head will find little acceptance. What if most of the benefits of
EVMS could be gained through “relaxing” some of the traditional
requirements? What if other controls and/or metrics could be in-
troduced to compensate for these “relaxed” requirements? What
if it was employed as a management control tool versus a finan-
cial accounting system? EV-lite and SVO improves tracking and
control to this family of projects that historically experience poor
performance. They fill the void between projects too small to jus-
tify earned value and large government projects that mandate its
use. They provide the control needed for short-duration, fast-
paced projects with evolving requirements and limited resources.
Our goal in the sections that follow is to first describe the five
different EVMS approaches that we perceive to make up the full
EVMS continuum. They cover most projects, including those
fast-paced, short duration projects from the digital economy.
Since one rarely gets “something for nothing,” we will also dis-
cuss the tradeoffs that are made when one adopts these ap-
proaches. More than an academic exercise, we have successfully
used these approaches on a number of “live” projects.
The History of Earned Value
Earned Value Origins
The earliest versions of these techniques can be traced to formal
contractor requirements that the US Air Force put into place in
Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium
November 1–10, 2001 • Nashville,Tenn., USA
1964. The rest of the US Department of Defense quickly recog-
nized the value it provided. In 1967, they established the
Cost/Schedule Control Systems Criteria (C/SCSC), created to
standardize contractor cost and schedule performance reporting
requirements on major acquisition contracts. C/SCSC provided
a uniform reporting structure based around 32 (originally 35)
management system requirements, i.e., criteria around the area
of cost, schedule and planning, and tracking. This accommodated
the needs of several key stakeholders. The project plan support-
ing the management reporting captures all the contract require-
ments (scope). Those responsible for contract performance
received clear signals regarding the achievement of various de-
liverable objectives (schedule). Those responsible for tracking
financial performance have this information tied to these same
deliverables (cost). Overall, the system addresses the three key
characteristics important to all project managers: scope, sched-
ule and cost. Over time, these techniques were adopted by other
US Government organizations, which had these same needs
when administering large acquisition programs.
Traditional C/SCSC techniques have their “quirks.” particularly
in its use of “dollars” to express all metrics that have “units” as-
sociated with them. Even schedule variance, the metric used to
describe how much planned effort was not yet completed, is ex-
pressed in the unit of “currency.” While mainstream project par-
ticipants might have issues with this, those closely affiliated with
earned value data are the most comfortable with this type of in-
formation. Currency-based metrics have served as the founda-
tion for all management decision-making systems since the birth
of the industrial age.
The Industrial Revolution—A Parallel Problem
Pointing Toward the Solution
Before the industrial revolution in the United States, American
Manufacturing Methods were characterized as the “workshop
system.” It was both difficult and rare for the owner to compute
the typical financial metrics that we take for granted today: Cost
of Goods Sold, Profit, etc. They had “managerial accounting” sys-
tems, that is to say, systems that facilitated management decision-
making. This system worked fine until the mechanization of
factories. The industrial revolution demanded far more funding
than what was available. This gave birth to the capital markets,
which in turn required standardized financial reporting for in-
vestors. Keeping two sets of “books” was difficult and time con-
suming. Academia solved the problem by devising systems and
metrics that utilized an organization’s financial data. Now, with
only a single (financial) accounting system being needed, the
managerial systems were abandoned.
How does all of this relate to earned value? EV was born by
those “living” in the contracting/financial accounting “world.”As
middle managers, they were well schooled in modern financial ac-
counting practices. They were comfortable making decisions and
expressing metrics with financial data. With this understanding,
one can reasonably understand how they could have developed
earned value from a project’s financial data, and been comfort-
able describing “time” (schedule variance) using currency.
Managerial accounting systems, however, are coming back into
vogue as a by-product of the “information revolution.”Computers
have eliminated the manpower intensive nature of both handling
and interpreting data. Managers are relearning the use of alterna-
tive information sources to make decisions. They are also learn-
ing that data does not always have to be “audit-able” to be useful.
It is from this new perspective that earned value is being reexam-
ined, resulting in exposure of some exciting possibilities.
The Earned Value Continuum
Origin of the EV Continuum
Considering the project control value of EVMS, there must be
simpler means to derive its benefits, particularly after examin-
ing the demands for financial audit-ability found in traditional
earned value, which creates significant overhead and adminis-
trative burdens. This is particularly true for fast paced, small
sized, short duration projects where these systems may not al-
ready be in place. In addition to cost accounting systems required
for traditional project accountability, there are other project
control system integration needs in areas such as fiscal ac-
counting, time tracking and project planning/scheduling. They
are needed to ensure costs (direct expenses and labor content)
are correctly allocated to each individual work package/cost ac-
count. This is particularly true for software development proj-
ects, where a large cost component is the labor of knowledge
workers.
There are, however, other characteristics typical of software de-
velopment projects. These include:
• Project Speed—Projects typically take place in an overly com-
pressed time frame from the start. Culturally, detailed planning
is not valued.
• Ambiguous Requirements—What the customer considers to
be “the” description of the business requirements is never com-
plete. Much is taken for granted/understood or assumed/ex-
pected without being captured in the requirements document.
Additionally, as the customer comes to understand the sec-
ondary/tertiary impacts of the new software on their existing sys-
tems, they discover additional changes that must be
incorporated. Mid-project change is the norm.
• Limited Integrated Overhead/Support Infrastructure—As
mentioned above, many IT project teams do not have systems in-
Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium
November 1–10, 2001 • Nashville,Tenn., USA
tegrating time, cost, and project planning. This makes any
process requiring such an integrated system difficult to execute
with manual systems. In all fairness to these groups, the choice
to not employ integrated tool suites is usually a deliberate one.
Many of these tools provide their integration functions at the ex-
pense of ease of use and flexibility that do not accommodate the
fluid nature of IT projects. The authors have both consulted for
a number of organizations who are contemplating abandonment
of some of the stalwart integrated tool suites in favor of solutions
built from components from different vendors to create a more
fluid, integrated solution.
• High Labor Content/Small Staff Size—The major “expense”
experienced on software development projects are the labor
hours generated by a small project team. This team, while highly
trained in software development, typically does not have exten-
sive project management training/skills, or the time to admin-
ister non-integrated project management systems.
• Ratio of Design Phase expenditures to Construction Phase ex-
penditures—In the construction industry, the design phase of a
project may range someplace in the vicinity of 10% of the over-
all project cost. During the design phase of construction projects,
specifications on paper detail the project in its entirety. Project
plans are developed from these detailed specifications. By con-
trast, the ratio of the costs expended in software design in con-
trast to the costs expended in the construction phase of an IT
project is much higher than 10% depending upon the develop-
ment platform. Although that figure is improving with ad-
vancements in development platforms and design tools, in many
IT development environments a good portion of the overall
project’s costs may be accrued before sufficient design detail ex-
ists to support detailed project planning.
Something was needed to provide the benefits of earned value,
while accommodating the environmental aspects of the typical
fast-paced IT project. We propose defining degrees of earned
value implementation across different predetermined levels.
Items typically found in a “full” earned value implementation
would be deliberately relaxed to reduce administrative burden
while at the same time, provide greater project control infor-
mation than what is currently available to IT project managers.
Knowing the propensity the IT community has for adopting the
easiest of all “silver bullets” options offered, clearly defined guide-
lines are necessary to ensure implementation of the appropriate
level of earned value rigor based on project complexity and risk.
The Five Part Continuum Model
What resulted was a five-part model defining different earned
value implementation levels, with project risk being the princi-
pal selection criterion. These levels are:
Level 1. US DoD-compliant Implementation—Well known to
major defense contractors, this approach requires adherence to
specifically prescribed processes and procedures established
through a long history of use. Specific guidelines define elements
like record keeping and report formatting. This approach is rec-
ommended for projects with the highest level of risk stemming
primarily from dynamic complexity as defined by magnitude of
scope, number of projects and interproject dependencies, etc.,
particularly when a number of disparate entities will collabo-
rate on the delivery. In such contexts, common standards for
EVMS methods and reporting are critical for cross-program
data aggregation.
Level 2. ANSI-compliant EVMS Implementation—The primary
difference between this approach and the US DoD-compliant im-
plementation is that a DoD implementation “prescribes” both the
EVMS process and formats, whereas the ANSI-compliant one
merely “describes” them. Under ANSI-compliant EVMS, users are
simply told they have to meet the requirement. They are not told
how it is to be done. This approach is also intended for high risk
projects as defined by magnitude of scope, high dynamic com-
plexity of the project environment, etc.
Level 3. EV-Lite—This is one of two sub-earned value imple-
mentations. In this approach, the only deviation from an ANSI-
compliant implementation is that costs are collected at the
project vs. control account level. All other earned value processes
and implementation considerations remain. As a result, sched-
ule variance can be calculated at the control account level, but
cost variance can only be computed at the project level. This ap-
proach is intended for projects with an intermediate level of
risk. While cost variance cannot be performed at the lower con-
trol account level, approximations can be taken at the comple-
tion of work packages to validate the estimating models
employed. Key here is the understanding and acceptance that the
actual costs incurred on this work package is just one of many
possible outcomes that could have taken place. Absolute preci-
sion in the ultimate cost value (“to the penny”) does not impart
any additional knowledge where a range of possible answers
could have resulted. The approximation is “good enough.”
Level 4. SVO (Schedule Variance Only)—This is the second sub-
earned value implementation. In this implementation, only
schedule variance is tracked within the project. Costs are
tracked/controlled using traditional cost accounting software.
This approach was intended for projects with intermediate level
risks that meet specific restrictions and consideration. Projects
not meeting these restricts require escalation to one of the more
rigorous processes defined above. The first restriction is that
the project must be predominately composed of high labor con-
tent. The second is that this labor content is constant through-
out the project’s life (i.e., 10 people assigned from start to finish).
The third is that overtime is either highly controlled (via another
processes) or does not influence the client’s bill (i.e., they are not
billed for this time). Finally, the bid rates used within the proj-
ect proposal and planning documents has minimal variance to
the rates of those employed to complete the project’s effort/tasks.
Under these conditions, labor costs become essentially “fixed”
versus the traditional “variable” view held by most managerial ac-
countants. Here, the project management proverb “cost follows
schedule” will hold true (i.e., over schedule will be over budget
and visa versa). Under this approach, schedule variance is the
only direct metric being collected through which to evaluate
Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium
November 1–10, 2001 • Nashville,Tenn., USA
project performance; however, this measurement can be per-
formed at the control account/work package level. Cost variances
are approximated and are managed external to the project envi-
ronment, utilizing existing accounting mechanisms and average
“burn rates.” Again, these burn rates may prove “good enough”
to validate the estimating models that were employed during
project planning.
Level 5. No EVMS—This is here to “anchor” the other end of
the continuum. Representing the “opposite” of the rigid re-
quirements of the US DoD-compliant implementation, this cat-
egory encompasses all projects where earned value is not being
employed. There are, however, some improvements that can be
made even here. We call this “No EVMS—Binary, and it is dis-
cussed in greater detail in a later section.
Pros, Cons, and Other Recommendations
The obvious advantages of the EV-Lite and SVO approaches are
the dramatic reductions in effort associated with cost tracking
and assignment. The ANSI areas effected are 2.3, 2.5, 2.8-2.12,
2.17-2.18, 2.21.1, and 2.22-2.24. In each of these, changes in the
ways in which costs are collected and tracked within the project
make them no longer “audit-able” to control accounts. These val-
ues are derived differently, making them more suitable as “man-
agement accounting system” or management control indicators
(i.e., something close but not perfect) instead of absolute values.
If the restrictions defined above are followed, these techniques
will still send the appropriate signals in time for action by the
project’s leadership.
Additionally, all of these techniques benefit from the use of rig-
orous basic project management. Often neglected, rigorous proj-
ect planning (i.e., WBS, OBS, and work package estimating) still
pays. Controlling/eliminating the five (negative) behaviors
Goldratt describes in his application of the theory of constraints
to project management under the auspices of the “critical chain”
concept pays additional dividends. Typically not practiced on
most projects, these ideas include:
• Have a single managed reserve vs. many multiple pockets of re-
serves distributed to the project’s tasks.
• Apply 100% effort from the start on each task and work to-
wards durations and not planned due dates.
• If the opportunity presents itself, capture positive schedule
variances to counter negative ones.
• Ensure constrained resources are managed so that there is no
lost time.
• Avoid the inefficiencies that come with multitasking resources,
particularly with constraints.
Application Examples
The examples provided in this section illustrate the application
of the EV Continuum implementation from Level 3 down
through Level 1. They are all taken from the same project to pro-
vide some means of contrasting the earned value results from
each of these EV implementation levels. This respective project,
conducted from September 1999 through November 2000, is
representative of many projects in the digital economy. The
project spanned 14 months, with a maximum team size of eight
developers, an overall baseline effort budget of 4,264 effort hours
and a total dollar cost of approximately $850,000. The schedule
was developed and maintained with Microsoft Project 98®. The
project team tracked their time against respective task assign-
ments using Innate Management System’s Timesheets product.
Cost and schedule performance was evaluated on an effort-basis
using the EV-Lite approach proposed in this paper enabled
through an EDS proprietary tool for Microsoft Project called
EVAnalyzer.
Granted, the earned value methods exercised on this project
would not satisfy either the Full/DOD or ANSI EV implemen-
tation levels. They neither adhere to DOD prescriptions for re-
porting and auditing, nor would they satisfy all 32 ANSI earned
value criteria. However, with at least the Level 3/EV-Lite ap-
proach, the BCWS, BCWP, and ACWP developed at each re-
porting were no different at the project level than they would
have been with the full rigor of either Full/DOD or ANSI-com-
pliant approaches. Furthermore, this was accomplished with
minimal overhead. In fact, the actual evaluation of EV perfor-
mance with EVAnalyzer is done with one click of a button. If the
overall intent for developing EV information is project control,
does the rigor of Full/DOD or ANSI matter, particularly when
the resulting control information, available for management
decision-making, is the same?
EV-Lite
Approach: With EV-Lite, typical CPM schedule management
rigor governs the creation and maintenance of the project sched-
ule. Task value for EV-Lite purposes can be established either by
resource loading the task and allowing the CPM schedule man-
agement tool to calculate cost build-up or by simply entering an
estimated value for each task (without the overhead of resource
loading). These values provide the basis for a time-phased cu-
mulative cost baseline. EV-Lite task values can be stated in either
currency or effort.
Cumulative BCWS for any reporting date is determined
through any recognized EVMS technique. Cumulative BCWP is
similarly accrued. ACWP is determined either from actual per-
formance information (actual start, finish, and effort expended)
recorded by project resources against their assigned tasks OR
taken cumulatively from an external effort or cost-tracking tool
that captures expenditures at a project level minimum.
Application Contexts: EV-Lite is ideal for projects that don’t re-
quire the overhead rigor of ANSI/DOD-compliant EVMS crite-
ria and the intent for applying EVMS is not financial
management at the cost account level, but rather project control
decision support at the project level. EV-Lite is also ideal when
costs (whether stated in effort hours or currency) are recorded
in a tracking tool at the project level only external to the project
environment. In the authors’ experience, many organizations
Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium
November 1–10, 2001 • Nashville,Tenn., USA
that contract on a time-and-materials basis for project delivery
usually have existing (and sometimes proprietary) tools through
which actual effort and other project expenditures are tracked
and billed. Many of these systems only capture this data at the
project level and rarely provide schedule management integra-
tion. The EVAnalyzer tool accommodates these usage contexts
with an option that prompts the project manager to provide a
total project cumulative ACWP value from an external source.
Results: Using EV-Lite, on May 25, 2000, the cumulative BCWS
was 2,890 hours, the BCWP was 2,724 hours, and the ACWP was
approximated at 2,303 hours. At the project level, this was an ac-
curate statement of both cost and schedule performance.
Limitations/Cautions: If the cumulative project-level ACWP is
being supplied from an external system, it’s very important that
only those costs modeled in the project’s cost baseline be brought
over for EV-Lite evaluation. Some projects that have used EV-Lite
have occasionally overstated cumulative ACWP when some ac-
tual cost component that was never modeled in their cumulative
baseline is brought over for analysis. The converse has also oc-
curred on occasion. However, the magnitude of the cost variance
for that reporting period is usually significant enough to warrant
an investigation that reveals the root cause of the variance. By
contrast, this rarely happens on projects that use EV-Lite in con-
junction with tracking tools that integrate with their CPM sched-
ule management tools as was the case on the project used for
illustration purposes.
Maintenance of baseline integrity is also important. On typ-
ical digital economy projects, a number of changes may be in-
troduced to the project environment as either the result of
refining requirements or project plan evolution seen in the con-
version of planning packages. To simplify maintenance of base-
line integrity, EDS has proprietary tools for Microsoft Project.
SVO
Approach: With the SVO approach, typical CPM schedule man-
agement rigor governs the creation and maintenance of the
project schedule. Task value for SVO purposes can be estab-
lished either by resource loading the task and allowing the CPM
schedule management tool to calculate cost build-up or by sim-
ply entering an estimated value for each task (without the over-
head of resource loading). These values provide the basis for a
time-phased cumulative cost baseline. SVO task values can be
stated in either currency or effort.
Cumulative BCWS for any reporting date is determined through
any recognized EVMS technique. Cumulative BCWP is similarly
accrued. Since the only performance information posted to the
project schedule is the actual start and finish dates of respective
tasks, actual costs are approximated in either one of two ways:
• Extrapolating actual costs based on baselined FTE staff, or;
• Tracking the number of people who worked on the project be-
tween the current reporting period and the previous reporting
period and applying a standard “burn rate” to approximate how
many effort hours were most likely expended by those people
during that time.
 Application Contexts: SVO might be appropriate when ex-
penditures are being managed external to the project and the in-
tent of applying SVO is to understand the implications of
schedule performance. Because of proprietary tools that simplify
implementation of EV-lite, the authors have seen little use of
SVO within their organization.
Results: Applying the “staff head count/burn rate” technique
to approximate actual costs, on May 25, 2000, the cumulative
BCWS was 2,890 hours, the BCWP was 2,724 hours, and the
ACWP was approximated at 3,964 hours.
Limitations/Cautions: A number of cautions should be ob-
served about the resulting information. While the schedule per-
formance information has a decent degree of accuracy
(depending upon the extent to which integrity of the schedule
baseline has been maintained), as the name for this approach im-
plies, the emphasis is SVO (Schedule Variance Only). The ap-
proximated actual cost information is open to considerable
latitude in accuracy. In the case of this particular project, the costs
derived from an assumed burn rate of 40 hours per person per
project week (also used in the development of the schedule
model as the basis for resource availability). Even allowing for
someone to state, “I only worked half of my time on the project
this week,” the approximated costs were overstated by 1,660
hours (the project was actually running a positive cost variance
of 420 effort hours on May 25, 2000).
The approximation of actual costs based on a staff count and
an assumed “burn rate” may over or understate actual costs as il-
lustrated in this example. This range of error may mask a mount-
ing exercise of uncompensated overtime. Shifting to
approximation of actual costs derived from baseline FTE staff
does little to alleviate the margin of error because the only dif-
ference between ACWP approximated from baselined FTE staff
and the BCWS will result from the accrual method for cumula-
tive BCWS.
No EVMS—Binary
Approach: The binary approach is a limited means of conveying
some indication of schedule accomplishment at a total project
level. In the binary approach, every task has a value of one (1).
The lowest level tasks in the project schedule must be no greater
than two weeks in duration. While the schedule does not require
assignment of resources or a logic network, it must represent a
“reasonable” approach for expediting the project. [Note: Relaxing
the requirement of a task dependency network is based on the
assumption that tasks are being positioned in time for execution
by constraint dates like Start No Earlier Than or Must Start
On.] A schedule baseline is established for all start and finish
dates.
Schedule accomplishments are recorded by indicating that
each task is either complete or incomplete, hence the designation
“binary.” Schedule performance is evaluated by comparing the
number of tasks that should be complete by the status reporting
date (Planned Percent Completebin) as established by the base-
line start and finish dates to the number of tasks that are actu-
Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium
November 1–10, 2001 • Nashville,Tenn., USA
ally complete (Actual Percent Completebin). For example, if
some project’s baseline finish dates indicate that at the end of
Week 12, 24 of the projects 68 detail tasks should be complete,
the PPCbin = (24/68) * 100 or 35%. At the end of Week 12, only
22 of those 68 tasks were actually complete. The APCbin =
(22/68) * 100 or 32%. The delivery variance (DVbin) = APCbin—
PPCbin or –3%. By plotting the DVbin at each reporting interval,
some sense of the schedule performance trend may be estab-
lished.
Application Contexts: The “No EVMS—Binary” approach is
suitable for project and program environments where little to no
CPM schedule management skills exist and insufficient time or
resources are available to either develop or acquire those skills.
This approach was successfully used on a number of Year 2000
renovation programs.
Results: On the status reporting date of May 25, 2000, the
sample project exhibited a PPCbin of 68%, an APCbin of 55%,
and a DVbin of –13%.
Limitations/Cautions: While the negative delivery variance is
sufficient to indicate the project has fallen behind schedule, the
data points are not useful beyond this indication. However,
when this technique was used to evaluate Year 2000 project and
program performance, each project schedule in a program was
required to decompose detailed project work into tasks not ex-
ceeding two weeks in duration. With a weekly reporting cycle, the
greatest degree to which any one project could slip without
being noticed was one week. The task duration granularity com-
bined with the weekly reporting cycle resulted in project team be-
haviors that were cognizant not to let their schedule slip—the
program managers could see and quickly drill-down to find
that slippage. While the binary approach data has significant lim-
itations, providing Year 2000 program sponsors with overall
program delivery variance trends was sufficient to assuage their
fears that adequate progress was being made and the projects in
the Year 2000 renovation portfolio were on track with their
schedule performance.
Conclusion
The Results
While only one example is reviewed above, we have successfully
employed these techniques on a number of different projects.
The results are always the same: significant and valuable project
control information is obtainable from non-audit-able earned
value implementations. While the stringent audit requirements
built into the US DoD and ANSI-compliant approaches are very
appropriate for large, complex, multiyear projects (and pro-
grams), their administrative overhead keeps these techniques
from being employed on projects whose risk levels warrant more
detailed control systems. The Level 3–5 implementations we de-
scribe above provide sufficient control and the managerial in-
formation needed to make fast-paced IT projects successful.
 Finally, one should note that even with giving up control ac- Fleming, Quentin W., and Koppleman, Joel M. 1995, Sept. Monitoring
count financial auditing, these “new levels” continue to satisfy the Performance Against Baseline. PM Network, p. 9–14.
major tenant of the EVMS ANSI-Standard: Fleming, Quentin W., and Koppleman, Joel M. 1996, Jan. Forecasting
“The essence of earned value management is that at some the Final Cost and Schedule Results. PM Network, p. 13–18.
Fleming, Quentin W., and Koppleman, Joel M. 1996, May. The Earned
level of detail appropriate for the degree of technical, schedule,
Value Body of Knowledge. PM Network, p. 11–15.
and cost risk or uncertainty associated with the program, a tar-
Fleming, Quentin W., and Koppleman, Joel M. 1996, Summer. The
get value (e.g., budget) is established for each scheduled element Essence & Evolution of Earned Value. Estimator Summer, p. 17–23.
of work” [emphasis added]. Goldratt, Eliyahu M. 1984. Critical Chain. Great Barrington, MA:
They also accomplish, and do not obviate, the basic concepts North River Press.
of an EVMS, again as noted from the ANSI-Standard: Goldratt, Eliyahu M. 1984. The Goal: A Process of Ongoing
• Plan all work scope for the program to completion. Improvement. Croton-on-Hudson, NY: North River Press.
• Integrate program work scope, schedule, and cost objectives Goldratt, Eliyahu M. 1990. The Haystack Syndrome. Croton-on-
into a baseline plan against which accomplishments may be Hudson, NY: North River Press.
measured. Goldratt, Eliyahu M. 1990. Theory of Constraints. Croton-on-Hudson,
• Objectively assess accomplishments at the work performance NY: North River Press.
Hounshell, David A. 1984. From the American System to Mass
level.
Production, 1800-1932. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press
• Analyze significant variances from the plan and forecast impacts.
Kerzner, Harold. 1998. Project Management—A Systems Approach to
• Provide data to higher levels for management decision-mak- Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling. Berea, OH: Baldwin-Wallace
ing and implementation of management actions. College.
Correctly and appropriately applied, EV-Lite and SVO provide Noreen, Eric, Smith, Debra, and Mackey, James T. 1995. The Theory
much needed options in the wide gulf between DoD and ANSI- of Constraints and Its Implications for Management Accounting. Great
Barrington, MA: North River Press.
compliant and no earned value measurement information.
Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition
Reform), 1997. Earned Value Management (EVM), October 1997.
References
Abba, Wayne F. 1997. Earned Value Management—Reconciling
Government and Commercial Practices PM: Special Issue January–, p.
58–63.
Christensen, David S. 1998, Fall. The Costs and Benefits of the Earned
Value Management Process. Acquisition Review Quarterly, p. 373–386.
Corbett, Thomas. 1998. Throughput Accounting. Great Barrington,
MA: North River Press.
Cost/Schedule Status Report (C/SSR) Joint Guide, May 1996.
Defense Contract Audit Agency. 1996. Earned Value Implementation
Guide (DCAA Pamphlet 7641.47), Ft. Belvoir, VA.
Department of Defense Handbook. 1998. Work Breakdown Structure,
MIL-HDBK-881.
Electronic Industries Alliance. 1998. EIA Standard—Earned Value
Management System (ANSI/EIA-748-1998), Englewood, CO.
Fleming, Quentin W. 1988. Cost/Schedule Control Systems Criteria: The
Management Guide to C/SCSC. Chicago, IL: Probus Publishing Co.
Fleming, Quentin W. 1997, Nov. Does Earned Value Work? Project
Management Monthly, p. 10–16.
Fleming, Quentin W., and Koppleman, Joel M. 1994, Jan. The “Earned
Value” Concept: Back to Basics. PM Network, p. 27–29.
Fleming, Quentin W., and Koppleman, Joel M. 1994, May. The
“Earned Value” Concept: Taking Step One—Scope the Project. PM
Network, p. 22–24.
Fleming, Quentin W., and Koppleman, Joel M. 1994, Sept. The
“Earned Value” Concept: Taking Step Two—Plan and Schedule the
Project. PM Network, p. 35–37.
Fleming, Quentin W., and Koppleman, Joel M. 1995, Jan. Taking
Step Three with Earned Value: Estimate and Budget Resources. PM
Network, p. 39–41.
Fleming, Quentin W., and Koppleman, Joel M. 1995, May. Taking Step
Four with Earned Value: Estimate the Project Baseline. PM Network, p.
26–29.

Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium

November 1–10, 2001 • Nashville,Tenn., USA

Previous Menu