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