Project Earned Value

    WBS# WBS Work Package PV ($) EV ($) AC ($) Cost Variance  ($) Cost Variance (%) Schedule Variance  ($) ScheduleVariance (%)1.0 WP 1 $25,000 $20,000 $18,500 +$1,500 +7.5 -$5,000 -20.02.0 WP 2 5,000 5,000 4,800 +200 +4.0 -0 03.0 WP 3 8,000 2,000 3,200 -1,200 -60.0 -6,000 -75.04.0 WP 4 2,000 1,000 1,500 -500 -50.0 -1,000 -50.0 Total Project $40,000 $28,000 $28,000 $0 0.0% -$12,000 -30.0%           Cumulative  Costs    Budget at completion   Planned Value Actual Cost Earned Value   J F M A M J J A(Month End) Possible Conclusions:  The project is substantially behind schedule, but total costs appear to be under control.  However, caution should be taken because the cost patterns for work packages 3 and 4 might not follow the same cost patterns that have occurred to date for work package 1 (which is very favorable). The potential for some fast-tracking or crashing should be examined.  Given that the workload (according to budget) for the rest of the summer is relatively light (the slope of cumulative costs is relatively flat), it should be possible to finish this project close to the originally scheduled completion date. Estimates at completion (do not confuse planned value with budget at completion):1) EAC = $28,000 + ($50,000-$28,000) = original budget (costs are under control)2) Most pessimistic which assumes that the poor schedule performance is masking performance EAC = $28,000 + [($50,000-$28,000) / (1.0 X 0.7)] = $59,429 or $9,429 over budget Assume You are in charge of this project number.  A month has passed and you now have the following information for the month ending June 30.    What performance conclusions can be made (hint: Which Work Package (WP) over budget? Behind schedule?)if so, please provide information. June (Monthly) Performance Data WBS Work Package June Budget Cost June Actual Cost June Earned Value1.0 WP 1 $200 $100 $4002.0 WP 2 1,500 1,800 1,5003.0 WP 3 1,800 2,100 1,9004.0 WP 4 500 100 800 Total $4,000 $4,100 $4,600   Project Number 1 Performance Report (Project-to-Date) As of June 30WBS# WBS Work Package PV ($) EV ($) AC ($) Cost Variance.  ($) Cost Variance (%) Schedule Variance  ($) ScheduleVariance (%)1.0 WP 1 $25,200 $20,100 $18,900 +1,200 +5.97 -$5,100 -20.242.0 WP 2 6,500 6,800 6,300 +500 +7.35 +300 +4.623.0 WP 3 9,800 4,100 5,100 -1,000 -24.39 -5,700 -58.164.0 WP 4 2,500 1,100 2,300 -1,200 -109.09 -1,400 -56 Total Project $44,000 $32,100 $32,600 -$500 -1.56% -$11,900 -27.05% Schedule Performance Index (SPI) = $32,100/ $44,000 = 0.73Cost Performance Index (CPI) = $32,100/ $32,600 = 0.98     Performance Report (Project-to-Date) As of June 30 Cumulative  Costs $44,000 (PV)      Budget Actual Cost $32,600 (AC)             $32,100 (EV) Earned Value J F M A M J J A (Month End)                 Project 2:Project 2, for planning and control purposes, uses earned value estimates based upon a 50-50 formula. This was negotiated to simplify the control process and reduce paperwork. This means that 50% of the earned value of a task is taken as soon as the task starts. The remaining 50% cannot be taken until the task is completely finished. The project started on June 1 and WP 1 was finished in June. WP 2 seems to be more than half done.  WP 3 has just started.  Nothing has been done with WP 4.  Complete the following earned value report.  The total project budget is $53,000. Of this, $26,000 is for WP 1, $12,000 for WP 2, $10,000 for WP 3, and $5,000 for WP 4. Performance Report (Project-to-Date)As of June 30 WBS Element PV ($) EV ($) AC ($) Cost Var.  ($) Cost Var. (%) Schedule Var.  ($) ScheduleVar. (%)1.0 WP 1 $26,000 $26,000 $25,500 +$500 +1.92 0 02.0 WP 2 $9,000 6,000 5,400 +600 +10 -3,000 -33.333.0 WP 3 $4,800 5,000 4,100 +900 +18 +200 +4.174.0 WP 4 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total $39,800 $37,000 $35,000 $2,000 +5.41% -$2,800 -7.04% With only four items, the distortions become more evident and limit the conclusion that can be drawn. If the customer has had bad experiences in the past with earned value formulas, what formula might they try to negotiate?