Tools › Project Management › Schedule › Earned Value › Example
Lipke 2003 Table 2: earned schedule of a late-finish project at August
| Tool | Earned Value |
| Source | Lipke, W. (2003). "Schedule is Different." The Measurable News, March 2003. Table 2 and the worked August calculation. |
| Level | Professional |
Problem
A project with a budget at completion of 2,823 and a 12-month baseline (cumulative planned value 105, 200, 515, 845, 1,175, 1,475, 1,805, 2,135, 2,435, 2,665, 2,760, 2,823) finishes three months late; its cumulative earned value runs 95, 180, 470, 770, 1,065, 1,315, 1,610, 1,900, 2,150, 2,275, 2,425, 2,555, 2,695, 2,770, 2,823. At the August status (month 8) find the schedule variance and SPI in money, the earned schedule ES, SV(t) and SPI(t) in months, and the forecast duration; show what the money-based indices and the time-based indices do at the end of the project.
Inputs to Enter
- BAC 2,823; status period 8; cumulative table values (loaded by default; the AC column of the default table is illustrative)
- Period rows Jan … Mar-02 with PV and EV as above
Answers
- August: SV($) = 1,900 − 2,135 = −235, SPI($) = 0.890
- ES = 7 + (1,900 − 1,805)/(2,135 − 1,805) = 7.288 months; SV(t) = 7.288 − 8 = −0.712 months (Table 2; the text prints −0.722); SPI(t) = 7.288/8 = 0.911
- Planned duration 12 read from the baseline; IEAC(t) = PD/SPI(t) = 12/0.911 = 13.17 months
- End of the table (month 15): SV($) = 0 and SPI($) = 1.000 although the project is three months late, while ES = 12, SV(t) = −3.000 and SPI(t) = 0.800
- Three printed cells of Table 2 contradict the table's own neighbours (ES May 4.662 vs 4.667, ES Jun 5.547 vs 5.467, SV(t) Sep −0.850 vs −0.950); the tool gives the self-consistent values
Notes
The tool's default table is this example with status period 8; press Submit. CPI is computed from an illustrative AC column added by the tool (CPI(Aug) = 1,900/2,060).