Comments on: Introduction to Earned Value Management - EVM Statistics http://www.pmhut.com/introduction-to-earned-value-management-evm-statistics Sun, 12 Feb 2012 03:50:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: Glen B. Alleman http://www.pmhut.com/introduction-to-earned-value-management-evm-statistics/comment-page-1#comment-737 Glen B. Alleman Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:31:54 +0000 http://www.pmhut.com/introduction-to-earned-value-management-evm-statistics-2#comment-737 There are several issues with this article. 1. The values of Earned Value are not "statistics." They have no statistical attributes. They are point values (scalars). 2. The definition here for EV (BCWP) states "What the expected cost was for the work that was completed.” This should read “EV is the value for the work actually completed on the schedule activity during a given time period.” This value is usually calculated as EV = PV x Percent Complete. The parenthesis phrase (the planned value for the work?) is a duplicate of the PV from the previous bullet point. Even PMBOK has this slightly wrong when they say “EV is the budgeted amount for the work actually completed on the schedule activity or WBS component during a given time period.” The term “budgeted” and “actually performed” are conflicting. The EV is a calculated value. The Planned Value (PV)(BCWS) and the Actual Cost (AC)(ACWP) are defined values. 3. Next comes “PV is predicted for the entire duration of the project and ends with the BAC. Data for AC and EV are collected through project monitoring.” PV is not predicted it is calculated PV is defined in the baseline of the project. PV (BCWS) is set for each Work Package or Task by the planning process. There are not predictions here. It would be better if the authors of the article’s materials were to reference the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and there defense guidelines (NAVAIR’s EVMS handbook) to normalize the notation and vocabulary. The result of not doing this is further confusion for those not working in this area on a daily basis. Glen B. Alleman VP, Program Planning and Controls Space and Defense, Denver Colorado There are several issues with this article.
1. The values of Earned Value are not “statistics.” They have no statistical attributes. They are point values (scalars).

2. The definition here for EV (BCWP) states “What the expected cost was for the work that was completed.” This should read “EV is the value for the work actually completed on the schedule activity during a given time period.” This value is usually calculated as EV = PV x Percent Complete. The parenthesis phrase (the planned value for the work?) is a duplicate of the PV from the previous bullet point. Even PMBOK has this slightly wrong when they say “EV is the budgeted amount for the work actually completed on the schedule activity or WBS component during a given time period.” The term “budgeted” and “actually performed” are conflicting. The EV is a calculated value. The Planned Value (PV)(BCWS) and the Actual Cost (AC)(ACWP) are defined values.

3. Next comes “PV is predicted for the entire duration of the project and ends with the BAC. Data for AC and EV are collected through project monitoring.” PV is not predicted it is calculated PV is defined in the baseline of the project. PV (BCWS) is set for each Work Package or Task by the planning process. There are not predictions here.

It would be better if the authors of the article’s materials were to reference the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and there defense guidelines (NAVAIR’s EVMS handbook) to normalize the notation and vocabulary.
The result of not doing this is further confusion for those not working in this area on a daily basis.

Glen B. Alleman
VP, Program Planning and Controls
Space and Defense, Denver Colorado

]]>