Earned value analysis in project management: Survey and research potential

Milind Padalkar, Saji Gopinath*

Quantitative Methods & Operations Management
Indian Institute of Kozhikode, Kerala, India
[email protected]

Abstract: Earned Value Analysis is a recommended technique for monitoring and controlling
project execution. Yet, despite four decades of institutional backing and sustained advocacy, its
adoption still remains limited. It draws loyal adherents as well as opponents, and an ongoing
debate about its practical utility. Empirical studies of its effectiveness or adaptation for different
situations are sparse; and the claims, objections do not appear to be reconciled. In this paper, we
survey academic and practitioner literature on Earned Value Management and its extensions, and
attempt to reconcile the debate by juxtaposing the claims and counterclaims against parallel
research streams in project management. We suggest an integrative schema to ground the
technique amidst the various bodies of research opinions in order to elicit future directions.

Keywords: Earned Value Management, Project management, Literature survey

Introduction
Despite many decades of practice and academic attention, project performance remains
problematic. Empirical evidence suggests that projects do not generally achieve the required
scope, are often late, and perform badly on quality of deliverables as well as on cost budgets.
According to a recent Standish Group survey report, 61% of the projects either failed or were
challenged to meet success criteria; and 74% faced schedule overruns (Standish 2013).

Earned Value Analysis (EVA) is a classical technique to monitor and control project
performance. It owes its genesis to US Department of Defense (DOD), which formalized
Cost/Schedule Control Systems Criteria (C/SCSC) in 1967, and mandated that defense
contractors must use it and report progress in specified formats. C/SCSC was updated to Earned
Value Management System (EVMS) in 1997 by Electronic Industry Association through
ANSI/EIA-748 standard. At this time, the acronyms used by C/SCSC such as BCWS, ACWP,
and BCWP, were simplified to PV (Planned Value), AC (Actual Cost), and EV (Earned Value)
respectively. As EVMS was more flexible, DOD and US Federal agencies adopted it replacing
C/SCSC (Fleming and Koppelman 2005). Subsequently, Project Management Institute adopted it
as a standard: i) Calling it Earned Value Management (EVM), the technique was included in its
Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK®) 2000 edition as one of the
standard methods of controlling performance, and ii) Included EVM in PMP – its flagship
certification program as part of the Project Integration Management knowledge area, and under
Monitoring and Controlling Process Group. These initiatives have led to high level of awareness

1
about EVM among the practicing project managers as confirmed by several studies (Kim et al.
2003; Besner and Hobbs 2006). Yet, despite these attempts, EVM remains underutilized by the
private industry (Kim et al. 2003; Besner and Hobbs 2006; Marshall et al. 2008; Kwak and
Anbari 2012; De Marco and Narbaev 2013; Singh et al. 2014).

EVM integrates three key project performance criteria: scope, time and cost (Anbari
2003). EVM is fundamentally deterministic (Kim and Reinschmidt 2009), i.e. it is grounded in
the assumption that the project scope, master schedules and cost budgets are completely
determined and fixed from start. Throughout its history, EVM has enjoyed strong advocacy from
its proponents – many of whom were involved with DOD programs. On the other hand, several
scholars and practitioners contest its practicality from an implementation point of view, and
question its structural rigidity. In response, proponents have attempted to address the objections
by suggesting extensions. In parallel, a separate line of empirical research has focused on key
success factors to explain project outcomes. Some of these factors are also the pre-requisites for
successful EVM adoption, and thus lend support to the objections. Finally, yet another stream of
research recognizes the innate indeterminacy of the project phenomena and studies them through
uncertainty or complexity lenses. The research under these lenses rejects determinism, negating
the basic plank of EVM. Thus, multiple research streams bear on the EVM debate.

Given these developments, it would be pertinent to ask what sort of future awaits EVM
outside the US DOD and Federal government-mandated projects. We note that most objections
to EVM question its applicability and cost/benefits, but not its usefulness. It would be instructive
to examine the evolution and the current state of this debate; and what implications it might have
on EVM as well as future research potential in this area. We review available literature on EVM
and offer a perspective on the different strands of debate along with contextual findings from
parallel research streams. We propose a schematic to integrate the views from different scholars
and attempt to derive future directions for research.

This paper is organized as follows. We provide a brief description of EVM concepts and
technique, followed by a summary of the cross-currents in the debate to propose an integrative
schema for situating the various viewpoints. Next, we discuss the implications and future
possibilities for EVM research before concluding with the limitations of our study.

Earned Value Management

EVM integrates project scope, time and cost through periodic measurements of actual cost and
work completion. It views project progress in terms of cost as a function of time against a firm
baseline set up at the start of the project. When the project is originally planned, it is divided into
Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and further sub-divided into work packages. These work
packages are assessed for cost estimates and scheduled in a time sequence. Taken together, WBS,
master schedule and cost budgets form the baseline, represented as a graph of planned costs over
time. This is the planned value (PV). It simply tells how the costs will flow over time as planned.
During the project execution, actual costs (AC) and the quantum of work completed are
periodically noted. The work completion is pro-rated to equivalent monetary value based on the
budgetary costs for the work packages completed (work-in-progress packages are assessed on %
completion). This is the earned value (EV). These three numbers, i.e. PV, AC and EV drive the
operation of EVM. In essence, (EV – AC) measures cost performance and (EV – PV) measures

2
schedule performance. By measuring at periodic intervals, EVM focuses on the flow rates of
actual cost and completion against the planned cost and completion. PV, EV and AC make it
possible to compute cost and time variances, as well as extrapolate how much cost and time
would be required for project completion (Figure 1). Simple calculations based on these three
numbers yield several ratios for project control. Of these, three ratios can be regarded as
important: Cost Performance Index (CPI), Schedule Performance Index (SPI), and Cost Estimate
at Completion (CEAC). By giving historical and forward information about the project, EVM
becomes a tool for monitoring and course corrections.

CPI = EV/AC
SPI = EV/PV
CEAC = AC + (BAC – EV)/CPI

Image source: www.pinterest.com

Figure 1: PV, AC and EV

Our purpose is not to give an exhaustive description of EVM, as several excellent papers
exist (Fleming and Koppelman 2000; 2005; 2009; Anbari 2003), but to examine its utility as a
control technique. Towards this, we now turn to review the debate that surrounds EVM.

Cross-currents in EVM literature

DOD contractors were clearly the early adopters of the technique. 1967-97 can be seen as the era
of C/SCSC, which listed 35 requirements – widely seen to be excessive and over-specified,
requiring a lot of paperwork (Abba 1997). Hence, C/SCSC was not enthusiastically received by
DOD contractors, and the private industry almost completely ignored it. EVM fared better as a
control technique for a number of reasons. First, it dropped some of the cumbersome aspects of
C/SCSC and made it more flexible. Second, several US Federal Government Agencies such as
NASA and Department of Energy adopted EVM, and began to push for its adoption by the
private industry. Third, Project Management Institute accepted it as a standard for project control
and included it in PMBOK® and PMP certifications. Fourth, a small body of advocates emerged
from the practitioners who had used it on DOD projects. From late 90’s, private firms began to
use EVM. However, it does not appear to enjoy widespread usage. A survey on project
management tools revealed that EVM was underutilized (Besner and Hobbs 2006). Surveys from
construction industry show poor adoption (Beatham et al. 2004; Chan and Chan 2004). When
used, an evidence of positive relationship with project performance is seen (Marshall et al. 2008).

Based on a review of available EVM literature, we note two facts: i) adoption levels of
EVM remain low (Kim et al. 2003; Besner and Hobbs 2006; Rozenes et al. 2006; Marshall et al.

3
2008; De Marco and Narbaev 2013; Singh et al. 2014), and ii) the literature is ‘largely anecdotal’
in nature, with very few empirical studies on post-adoption experience (Kim et al. 2003;
Marshall et al. 2008). Therefore, much of the available literature can be regarded as representing
views, claims and counterclaims of scholars and practitioners based on their studies and/or
experience. Thus, it is possible to group the various articles in two categories: Protagonist
literature and Objectionist literature. By ‘objectionist’ we mean challenging the orthodoxy with
objective arguments, anecdotal evidence or data. We observe that the objectionist literature
challenges the assumptions of determinism and measurability of EVM variables; however, we do
not find studies that evaluate or question EVM’s theoretical base. There is a third stream that
seeks to extend EVM to overcome the objections. Separately, project management literature has
a long-standing empirical stream informing on success/failure factors linked to project outcomes.
Some of these variables e.g. scope instability, control systems maturity, etc. overlap with the
objectionist claims. Thus the empirical research stream has a bearing on the debate between
protagonist and objectionist literatures. Finally, a recent trend is to view the project phenomena
through non-deterministic lenses of uncertainty and complexity (Svejvig and Andersen 2015).
Since EVM is anchored in a deterministic paradigm, this line of research would appear to
question the fundamental basis of EVM. Table 1 lists these five streams of research.

Table 1 – Research streams related to EVM

Category Description of research stream Research orientation
Protagonist Support and advocacy of EVM Deterministic and method-centric
Objectionist Challenges EVM on the basis of utility, Empirical or logical negation of
practicality, reliability assumptions
Extensionist Extensions to EVM to overcome objections Bridge between the two schools
Empiricist Searches explanatory factors for outcomes Empirical
Non-determinist Holds that phenomena are inherently non- Models phenomena to gain further
deterministic insights and to obtain tractability

We proceed with a review of research in the first four categories. As the non-determinist research
does not relate to our enquiry, we do not include it in our review and analysis. For our survey, we
focus on journal articles on the grounds that non-journal writings are normally not peer-reviewed,
often lack the requisite academic rigor, and are generally anchored to a methods-orientation that
is non-contestable. We note that though several conference papers on EVM exist, these are
generally not subjected to rigorous peer-level scrutiny. Hence we exclude conference papers
unless they happen to be well-cited and presented in top conferences such as POMS or DSI.

Review of protagonist literature on EVM

Clearly, US Government Agencies and Project Management Institute are the main protagonists.
By publishing the standards and mandating or recommending their adoption makes EVM the de
jure method of project control. EVM has spawned a number of loyal adherents that include
practitioners, consultants and academia. Protagonist writings on EVM tend to be articles in
journals, business media, monographs and topic-focused books. There are two broad themes in
protagonist journal writings: i) articles in the nature of explanation of EVM and elaboration of
key parameters, and ii) articles on EVM as a tool to control future adverse events.

4
 Under the first theme, Abba (1997; 2000) provides background on the historical events
leading to the EVM standard, and discusses A-12 program cancellation to underline its capability
to issue early alerts for a potential failure. Christensen (1998) reviews literature to report costs
and benefits of EVM. Anbari (2003) gives a comprehensive description of EVM illustrating the
use of its various parameters. He also provides extensions to EVM by describing more ratios and
their potential utility, while remaining firmly anchored in the deterministic paradigm. Raby
(2000) provides easy description of EVM for lay users. In an HBR article, Fleming and
Koppelman (2003) describe EVM and argue Cost Performance Index (CPI) as a key parameter
that predicts the final cost at completion with reliable accuracy much earlier in the project. Cioffi
(2006) contests the usefulness of acronyms used in EVM and claims that simplified, intuitive
acronyms can improve the adoption behavior among practitioners. Kuehn (2007) uses the
metaphor of flight path to give a detailed description of EVM and illustrates it with an example.
Fleming and Koppelman (2009) illustrate the importance of CPI and its ability to forecast via
another parameter called TCPI. A study by Marshall et al (2008) finds moderate evidence of
EVM as a predictor of project outcomes.

The second theme examines the forecasting ability of the technique, posting that early
stability of the indices imparts early alert capability. Christensen and Heise (1993) study 155
completed DOD projects to find stable CPI beyond 20 percent complete point. Lipke (2002)
shows that the reciprocals of CPI and SPI are log-normally distributed; and hence amenable to
statistical reliability techniques. Christensen and Templin (2002) analyze 240 DOD contracts to
show that stability of CPI from 20 percent complete point is a good predictor of cost estimate at
completion. Working on his master’s degree thesis, Mitchell (2007) studies 181 completed DOD
projects to show that cumulative CPI stabilized at or before 50 percent complete point.
Vandevoorde and Vanhoucke (2006) describe EVM to forecast project schedule performance.

Review of objectionist literature on EVM

The objectionist literature is small and mostly comes from defense projects or the construction
industry. Cooper (2003) points to the fact that complex projects often involve unanticipated
rework, making them unsuitable for EVM. Rozenes et al., (2006) question the hierarchical nature
of work breakdown structure (WBS), on which EVM is based, and claim that most common
success factors include clear goals and effective control mechanisms, which are generally weak
in practice. These deficiencies could explain the low adoption of EVM by the private industry.
Putz et al., (2006) describe a NASA case study pointing out problems in setting up baselines,
lack of baseline validation, and weaknesses in cost estimates. Lukas (2007) lists ten pitfalls for
EVM usage including incomplete requirements or their documentation, WBS-Schedule-Budget
integration issues, inapplicability/resistance to WBS, ineffective change processes, inadequate
costing systems etc. De Marco and Narbaev (2013) describe the stumbling blocks for EVM such
as level of detail in plans/schedules and measurement reliability – especially assessment of work
package completion. They observe that SPI tends to 1 as the project nears completion, and hence
it is not useful predictor beyond a 60 percent complete point. It appears that the authors are
unaware of the concept of Earned Schedule introduced by Lipke (2003). Singh et al. (2014)
criticize EVM as a reactive and lagging technique in context of renovation construction industry.
They claim that it does not reveal the causes of delays or budget overruns and hence does not
advise the future plan of action. EVM is also not suitable when changes to budgets, scope or
schedules occur. As such changes are endemic, agile methods have been developed to address

5
them through iterative processes and non-linear feedback loops. Adapting EVM for Agile
methods has been discussed in few conference proceedings (Cabri and Griffiths 2006; Sulaiman
et al. 2006). However, EVM’s applicability for Agile methods is yet to be rigorously established.
Contrasting the above against protagonist research, we observe that neither of the protagonist
themes attempts to engage the objections raised by researchers.

Review of extensionist literature on EVM

Literature to bridge the above cross-currents is very sparse, and offers concrete opportunity for
future work in this stream. Bauch and Chung (2001) suggest a modified technique using
Shewhart statistical control charts to dynamically monitor time-cost-scope parameters. Pajares
and Lopez-Paredes (2011) offer a revised method to integrate risk management with EVM. Kim
et al (2003) propose an implementation methodology for EVM based on a four-factor model of
EVM acceptance. Lipke et al. (2009) suggest statistical inference techniques to fix confidence
intervals for parameters. To overcome the anomalous behavior of SPI (tending to 1 towards
completion) cited in the objectionist literature, Lipke (2003; 2004; 2006) proposes the concept of
Earned Schedule (ES), involving mapping EV back to time by referencing the baseline. Using
simulation, ES is shown to be a better indicator of schedule at completion than traditional EVM
methods (Vanhoucke and Vandevoorde, 2007; Lipke, 2009). Kim and Reinschmidt (2009) use
Bayesian inference on beta-S curve and show that the method delivers narrower intervals
compared to earned schedule or the traditional method. It can be seen that the extensionist
approach is centered on using statistical techniques to study instability of the EVM indicators. It
does not address the underlying causes for instability.

Empiricist literature Objectionist literature Empiricist literature

Unclear scope, Rework Weak scheduling,

Requirement Weak metrics
Changes, Poor costing or
Infeasible WBS Control systems Changes to budgets
Scope or schedules

Scope Planning Budgeting

(Requirements) (WBS, Scheduling) (Estimation, Costing)

Control System
(Standards, Metrics, Assessment, Corrective actions, Change control)

Components required for EVM Methods to

Implement

EVM Index stability,

Advocacy New indices

Extensionist literature
Protagonist literature

Figure 2: Integrated view of multiple lines of research enquiry

Review of empiricist project management literature

Project management literature offers considerable quantum of empirical research on success or

failure factors to explain the project outcomes. Recall that creating a firm baseline is a
fundamental requirement for EVM. It stands to reason that any project variable that interacts
6
with the baseline components would influence EVM. The empirical research on project
management identifies several factors related to project failures such as fixed schedules with no
iterative processes, ineffective change management, weak requirements, high complexity,
erroneous estimation or metrics, insufficient planning, unclear or shifting goals, etc., showing
that actual project environment is anything but deterministic (Whittaker 1999; Cooke-Davis
2002; Kappelman et al. 2006; Nelson 2007; Chua 2009). These factors induce instability in scope,
requirements, and estimates and adversely affect the necessary conditions for EVM.

Taking an integral view of these four streams of research, we note that the protagonist
writings have continued to advocate the technique, taking little cognizance of the objections
raised from various quarters (Figure 2), despite such objections being grounded in empirical
reality. The extensionist research has remained peripheral to main concerns about lack of
robustness of scope, requirements, and estimates.

Discussion
A timeline view of the four research streams (Figure 3) indicates that they run
contemporaneously. Interestingly, the objections to EVM do not seem to be engaged by EVM
researchers, hence the debate on its applicability remains open and relevant.

EVM is powerful because it is a simple, yet an elegant technique, deriving from basic
costing principles. By requiring a baseline, it forces an integrated view of work completion and
cost flow over time. Without such a technique, the three parameters of scope, schedule and cost
are often monitored independently (Rozenes et al., 2006). We observe that it is well subscribed
on government projects, since compliance is a necessary pre-requisite of doing business with the
government. However, its adoption in that sector does not testify to execution efficiency. Recall
that many objections to EVM relate to excessive paperwork and difficulty of hard measurements.

Empiricist E7
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6
X9
Extensionist X3 X8
X1 X2 X4 X5 X6 X7 X10

Objectionist O6
O1 O2 O3 O4 O5
S1 S3 S4 S5
Protagonist A4 S2 A6
A1 A2 A3 A5 A7 A8 A9 A10
84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14
S: Stability-related, A: Advocacy-related, O: Objectionist, X: Extensionist, E: Empiricist Year 
E1 Hughes (1986) O4 De Marco & Narbaev (2013) A1 Abba (1997) X1 Bauch & Cheung (2001)
E2 Whittaker (1999) O5 Singh et al. (2014) A2 Christensen (1998) X2 Kim et al. (2003)
E3 Cooke-Davis (2002) O6 Putz et al. (2006) A3 Abba (2000) X3 Lipke(2003)
E4 Kappelman et al. (2006) S1 Christensen & Heise (1993) A4 Raby (2000) X4 Lipke (2004)
E5 Nelson (2007) S2 Lipke (2002) A5 Anbari (2003) X5 Lipke (2006)
E6 Cerpa & Verner (2009) S3 Christensen & Templin (2002) A6 Fleming & Koppelman (2003) X6 Vanhoucke & Vandevoorde (2007)
E7 Chua (2009) S4 Vandevoorde & Vanhoucke (2006) A7 Cioffi (2006) X7 Kim & Reinschmidt (2009)
O1 Cooper (2003) S5 Mitchell (2007) A8 Kuehn (2007) X8 Lipke et al., (2009)
O2 Rozenes et al. (2006) A9 Marshall et al. (2008) X9 Lipke (2009)
O3 Lukas (2007) A10 Fleming & Koppelman (2009) X10 Pajares & Lopez-Paredes (2011)

Figure 3: Timeline view of the different research streams

7
 Whether the extra cost of compliance is recovered from incremental efficiencies, pre-
emption of budgetary overruns or from the government clients is not clear. But, despite persistent
advocacy, there is no evidence of its widespread adoption within the private industry. Empirical
studies on EVM usage are very sparse, with one study (Marshall et al. 2008) showing only a
moderate relationship (R2 = 0.2247) between EVM adoption and project performance.

We believe that the simplicity of the technique is exactly what reduces its applicability.
Because it is grounded in costing principles, it can operate only if the baseline costs and the
project plan are fully detailed at project initiation. This implies that project goals, requirements,
scope, work breakdown structures, work package definitions, estimates, master schedules, and
cost budgets must be firm at the project set-up. There is considerable empirical evidence that
information about these elements either does not exist, or is incomplete at the project set-up.
Thus, the project baseline is approximate and includes unknown error. EVM literature provides
little guidance on project set-up strategies when one or more of these elements are insufficiently
informed. Even assuming that the baseline is accurate and detailed, changes in scope, schedule or
cost budgets can occur due to endogenous or exogenous events. Empiricist surveys report that
such changes are common and consistently rank high in the list of factors critical to project
performance. EVM literature does not inform on how the technique should be adapted when
changes happen. A typology of changes and how they can be flexibly accommodated within
EVM would be useful for the practitioners. Another commonly reported problem relates to
inadequacy of the measurement systems. Even with perfect project set-up, measurement errors
cannot be avoided. Established costing systems can measure AC with fair accuracy, but EV
measures remain fuzzy. To compute EV, one must measure completion of work packages. This
requires subjective judgment for in-progress work packages. To overcome the problem of errors
of judgment, 50/50 rule has been suggested. This however leads to EV being overstated or
understated by an average 25% of each work package baseline. When EV is aggregated over
work package differing in size, it is not possible to specify the error in total EV. Objectionist
literature points this out, and the extensionist stream appears to have engaged this issue by
looking at statistical inference methods (Lipke et al. 2009). But such research investigates
confidence intervals on CPI and not EV. This problem possibly merits attention from other
research streams such as work measurement.

EVM serves two main purposes. First, it tells the project manager where the project is, by
connecting work completion, costs incurred and time taken. Second, it supplies the arithmetic to
predict the cost and time parameters at completion. Arguably, anything that offers an ability to
predict future outcomes should be much valued, and it is no surprise that it is the dominant theme
in all protagonist writings. Moreover, the objectionist papers do not explicitly challenge EVM’s
prediction ability while questioning its practicability. It is puzzling that a technique offers a very
useful feature which is not contested, and yet gets ignored in practice. Since empirical evidence
about EVM remains very sparse, we offer a couple of conjectures to explain its low adoption.
First, we note that the arithmetic to calculate the predicted values of parameters follows the
method of linear extrapolation using CPI, which is simply the rate at which actual cost inflow
converts to productive cost outflow. For true predictive ability, CPI must achieve a constant
value, which explains the search for ‘stable CPI’ in protagonist literature. There is no reason to
believe that actual cost will convert to productive work at a constant rate. Indeed the graphs
illustrating EVM generally show different S-curves for AC and EV. If the two cost flows are
differently non-linear, EVM loses its ability to predict because CPI becomes a function of time.

8
Second, deriving the shapes of cost functions is not possible because it requires a precise
understanding of causal model of work and costs. Costing logic is rarely possessed of such an
understanding (Lebas 1995). By forcing linearity on patently non-linear phenomena, EVM does
much disservice to its claim of prediction accuracy.

Even so, EVM remains one of the few techniques that generate progress data from which
it is possible to learn the function shapes. Such data, coupled with prior knowledge could be used
to make statistically robust inferences about the cost functions. We note a few initial attempts
towards this end in the extensionist literature (Lipke et al. 2009; Pajares and Lopez-Paredes
2011), which use confidence interval-based methods. However, the computed confidence
intervals are likely to be too broad in the early stages to be of much practical use. Also, these
methods assume that underlying variables follow normal distributions; but there is no reason to
assume such normality (Lipke 2002). Other methods such as Bayesian inference or stochastic
models could deliver narrower, robust intervals, and have been attempted with encouraging
results (Kim and Reinschmidt 2009). With better grasp of function shapes, Monte Carlo methods
and/or systems dynamics could deliver further insights into the behavior of costs. Such methods
have already been used to deliver useful insights (Lipke 2009; Vanhoucke and Vandevoorde
2007), and could advance the extensionist enquiry to act as an effective bridge between the
protagonist and the objectionist schools and may aid the adoption of EVM.

To conclude, our paper surveys the cross-currents in EVM literature and finds the debate
to be disengaged, with no early signs of greater adoption by practitioners. We also find the
research on EVM to be sparse, both in terms of empirical findings and conceptual models. Our
paper contributes to the literature by integrating the dispersed research streams into a framework,
and by positing multiple lines of future research. We acknowledge the limitations of our work.
First, due to dispersed nature of research, our findings are limited by the papers we could find for
our review. Second, due to acute paucity of empirical studies, we are forced to offer conjectural
explanations. Such explanations may stand altered if more empirical data were available. Despite
these limitations, we hope that our contribution offers utility for future researchers.

Bibliography
Abba, W. (1997). Earned Value Management-Reconciling Government and Commercial Practices. Program
Manager, 26, 58-63.
Abba, W. (2000). How Earned Value Got to Primetime: A Short Look Back and A Glance Ahead. In Project
Management Institute Seminars and Symposium in Houston, TX.
Anbari, F.(2003).Earned value project management method & extensions. Project Management Journal, 34(4), 12-23.
Bauch, G., & Chung, C. (2001). A Statistical Project Control Tool for Engineering Managers . Project Management
Journal, 32(2), 37-45.
Beatham, S., Anumba, C., Thorpe, T., & Hedges, I. (2004). KPIs: a critical appraisal of their use in construction.
Benchmarking: An International Journal, 11(1), 93-117.
Besner, C., & Hobbs, B. (2006). The perceived value and potential contribution to project management practices to
project success. Project Management Journal, 37(3), 37-48.
Cabri, A., & Griffiths, M. (2006, July). Earned Value and Agile Reporting. AGILE, 6, 17-22.
Chan, A. P., & Chan, A. P. (2004). Key performance indicators for measuring construction success. Benchmarking:
an international journal, 11(2), 203-221.
Christensen, D. (1998). The costs and benefits of the earned value management process. Journal of Parametrics,
18(2), 1-16.
Christensen, D., & Heise, S. (1993). Cost performance index stability. National Contract Management Journal,
25(1), 7-15.

9
Christensen, D., & Templin, C. (2002). EAC evaluation methods: do they still work. Acquisition Review Quarterly,
9(1), 105-116.
Chua, A. (2009). Exhuming it projects from their graves: an analysis of eight failure cases and their risk factors.
Journal of Computer Information Systems, 49(3).
Cioffi, D. (2006). Designing project management: A scientific notation and an improved formalism for earned value
calculations. International Journal of Project Management, 24(2), 136-144.
Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The “real” success factors on projects. International Journal of Project Management,
20(3), 185-190.
Cooper, K. What’s your project’s real price tag. Harvard Business Review. 81(12), 122-122.
De Marco, A., & Narbaev, T. (2013). Earned value-based performance monitoring of facility construction projects.
Journal of Facilities Management, 11(1), 69-80.
Fleming, Q., & Koppelman, J. (2000; 2005). Earned value project management. Project Management Institute.
Fleming, Q. & Koppelman, J. (2003). What’s your project’s real price tag. Harvard Business Review, 81(9),20-21.
Fleming, Q., & Koppelman, J. (2009). The two most useful earned value metrics: The CPI and the TCPI. Cost
Engineering, 51(3), 16-18.
Kappelman, L., McKeeman, R., & Zhang, L. (2006). Early warning signs of IT project failure: The dominant dozen.
Information systems management, 23(4), 31-36.
Kim, B., & Reinschmidt, K. (2009). Probabilistic forecasting of project duration using Bayesian inference and the
beta distribution. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(3), 178-186.
Kim, E., Wells Jr, W., & Duffey, M. (2003). A model for effective implementation of Earned Value Management
methodology. International Journal of Project Management, 21(5), 375-382.
Kuehn, U. EVM. 05 Earned Value Analysis–Why am I forced to do it?. 2007 AACE International Transactions.
Kwak, Y., & Anbari, F. (2012). History, practices, and future of earned value management in government:
Perspectives from NASA. Project Management Journal, 43(1), 77-90.
Lebas, M. (1995). Performance measurement and performance management. International Journal of Production
Economics, 41(1), 23-35.
Lipke, W. (2002). A study of the normality of earned value management indicators. The Measurable News,4,1-6.
Lipke, W. (2003). Schedule is different. The Measurable News, 31(4), 31-34.
Lipke, W. (2004). Connecting earned value to the schedule. The Measurable News, 1, 6-16.
Lipke, W. (2006). Applying earned schedule to critical path analysis and more. The Measurable News, 26-30.
Lipke, W. (2009). Project duration forecasting… A comparison of earned value management methods to earned
schedule. The Measurable News, (2), 24-31.
Lipke, W.,Zwikael, O.,Henderson, K. & Anbari, F.(2009).Prediction of project outcome:Application of statistical
methods to earned value management. International Journal of Project Management, 27(4), 400-407.
Lukas, M. EVM. 01 Earned Value Analysis–Why it Doesn't Work. 2008 AACE International Transactions.
Marshall, R., Ruiz, P., & Bredillet, C. (2008). Earned value management insights using inferential statistics.
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 1(2), 288-294.
Mitchell, R. (2007).Historical Review of Cost Performance Index Stability.Naval Postgraduate School Monterey CA.
Nelson, R. (2007). IT project management: infamous failures, classic mistakes, and best practices. MIS Quarterly
Executive, 6(2). 67-78.
Pajares, J., & Lopez-Paredes, A. (2011). An extension of the EVM analysis for project monitoring: The Cost Control
Index and the Schedule Control Index. International Journal of Project Management, 29(5), 615-621.
Putz, P.,Maluf, D.Bell,D.,Gurram,M.,Hsu,J., Patel, H., & Swanson, K.(2007, March). Earned value management at
NASA: An integrated, lightweight solution. In Aerospace Conference, 2007 IEEE (pp. 1-8).
Raby, M. (2000). Project management via earned value. Work study, 49(1), 6-10.
Rozenes, S., Vitner, G., & Spraggett, S. (2006). Project control: literature review. Project Management Journal,
37(4), 5-14.
Singh, Y., Abdelhamid, T., Mrozowski, T., & El-Gafy, M. (2014). Investigation of Contemporary Performance
Measurement Systems for Renovation Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering, 2014.
Svejvig, P., & Andersen, P. (2015). Rethinking project management: A structured literature review with a critical
look at the brave new world. International Journal of Project Management, 33(2), 278-290.
Vandevoorde, S., & Vanhoucke, M. (2006). A comparison of different project duration forecasting methods using
earned value metrics. International Journal of Project Management, 24(4), 289-302.
Vanhoucke, M., & Vandevoorde, S. (2007). A simulation and evaluation of earned value metrics to forecast the
project duration. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58(10), 1361-1374.

10