Student Name:

Professor name:

Course Name:

Date:

The Earned Value Analysis (EVA) spreadsheet provides a detailed account of a project's financial
performance across various work breakdown structure (WBS) elements, including Design
Process, Gather Tools, Perform Risk Analysis, and Design Dashboard. EVA, a project
management tool, integrates scope, time, and cost data to offer a comprehensive view of project
performance and health.

Upon examining the spreadsheet, we note the pivotal metrics: Planned Value (PV), Earned Value
(EV), and Actual Cost (AC), alongside calculated variances and performance indices. These
metrics are foundational to EVA's methodology, facilitating a multi-dimensional analysis of
project status.

Planned Value (PV) represents the budgeted cost of work scheduled. It acts as a baseline against
which actual performance is measured. In the context of the spreadsheet, PV varies across tasks,
reflecting the planned expenditures for each phase of the project.

Earned Value (EV), on the other hand, represents the value of work actually performed,
expressed in terms of the budget authorized for that work. It provides a quantifiable measure of
project performance and progress. For instance, a lower EV compared to PV, as observed in the
Design Process and Gather Tools phases, indicates underperformance, signaling delays or
inefficiencies.

Actual Cost (AC) reflects the actual expenses incurred for the work completed. Variances
between AC and EV are critical for assessing cost performance. For example, the Design Process
phase shows an AC significantly higher than EV, suggesting cost overruns.

The Schedule Variance (SV = EV - PV) and Cost Variance (CV = EV - AC) provide
immediate insights into project status. A negative SV, evident in all but the Risk Analysis phase,
indicates schedule delays. Similarly, a negative CV across most phases points to cost overruns,
highlighting areas requiring management attention.
Performance indices, namely the Schedule Performance Index (SPI = EV/PV) and Cost
Performance Index (CPI = EV/AC), offer ratios for evaluating efficiency. SPI values below 1,
as seen in the Design Process and Gather Tools phases, denote schedule slippages. Conversely,
CPI values less than 1 indicate cost inefficiency, as observed in the same phases. The exception
is the Perform Risk Analysis phase, which showcases a balanced performance with both indices
around 1, indicating on-schedule and on-budget execution.

In conclusion, the EVA spreadsheet elucidates variances and performance indices that are critical
for project management decision-making. The analysis reveals areas of concern, particularly in
schedule and cost management, underscoring the need for corrective actions to steer the project
back on course. This real-time insight into project health is invaluable for proactive management,
enabling timely interventions to mitigate risks and ensure project success. Future studies might
explore integrating qualitative assessments with EVA metrics to enhance decision-making
further, addressing the tool's limitations and leveraging its strengths for comprehensive project
management.