John CarpenterProject Analyst| Zel Technologies LLCReading, Ma, United States
The lead article on today's Gantthead home page is entitled "Who's Afraid of EVA" (Earned Value Analysis). I have had a recent experience where a developer cleverly decoupled the financial system from the actual technical work, making problems harder to spot.
I tried to post these thoughts as a "review" to the article, but got an error message.
Earned Value Management, used in good faith, can be a useful resource management tool. But, used cynically, it can be as useless as a self-licking ice cream cone. The purpose of the Cost Performance Report (CPR) is to show that an appropriate level of funds is being expended to fund the scheduled work (as described in the Master Schedule), toward the tasks indicated in the Work Breakdown Structure. But if the progress indicator (the % Complete field) in the master schedule is de-coupled from the actual technical work of the project (by letting MS Project calculate elapsed time instead of hand-keying the status reports of the technical managers), then all the CPR is indicating is that the money is being spent right on time.
Requiring "actual" % Complete status, as well as specifying some early deliverables, will improve your chances of linking the money with the work. That "visibility" is essential, to manage a complex project and remain within cost and scope.
So, don't be "afraid" of EVA, but do make sure that your EVA/EVM methods are measuring what the vendor claims they are measuring!
Saving Changes...
