Insights into Current Industry EVMS Issues

By / / , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , ,
Insights into Current Industry EVMS Issues

Quick Summary

  • The August 2026 NDIA IPMD forum emphasized using Earned Value Management Systems (EVMS) as an early-warning system that helps management identify risks, make timely decisions, and protect project outcomes.
  • Forum discussions included integrating subcontractor schedules into the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS), improving Schedule Risk Assessments (SRAs), maintaining credible Estimates at Completion (EACs) and forecast completion dates, and proactively managing Level of Effort (LOE).
  • The NDIA IPMD Clearinghouse Committee provides a forum for industry and government EVMS practitioners to discuss challenges and develop mutually acceptable solutions. H&A actively participates in these forums and provides related guidance through our blogs and articles.

H&A earned value consultants routinely attend and present at the NDIA Integrated Program Management Division (IPMD) forums that are held twice a year as well as serve on the IPMD Board of Directors. The IPMD forum presentations, discussions between industry and government customer representatives, and Clearinghouse Committee topics provide an opportunity to discuss current challenges and options for resolving them. If you are not familiar with the IPMD Clearinghouse Committee, a time slot on the agenda is reserved for this committee’s working session. Industry Earned Value Management System (EVMS) practitioners raise and discuss issues along with the government EVMS counterparts to develop mutually acceptable resolutions and/or recommendations. Issues raised during the Clearinghouse Committee sessions have often been the basis for launching many other IPMD committees such as the Planning and Scheduling Committee and Prime/Sub Committee.

In addition to EVMS related challenges that surface on recent H&A engagements, the H&A blogs and articles are often written to address common issues or general themes from these IPMD forums. The August 2026 forum was no different. What follows is a short list of discussion and presentation topics from the August 2026 forum with links to H&A blogs or articles that address these current issues and presentations.

  • The value of an EVMS. This was a general theme from three presenters that aligns with recent H&A EVMS Education Center articles including one titled “Ten Project Failure Risks: Using an EVMS to Improve Project Outcomes.” The purpose and value of an EVMS is often lost when the focus is on producing contractual reports or managing to a set of compliance metrics instead of using the data as an early alert system for emerging risks and issues. An EVMS provides management a disciplined way to understand the current status of a project and where it may be headed. Management must provide the response to the EVMS alert signals, make decisions, and take action while there is still time to protect project outcomes.
  • Approach for integrating subcontractor schedule data into a prime’s Integrated Master Schedule (IMS). There are often differing opinions from the contractor’s or the government customer’s point of view about how the IMS should be structured to include this data. The main goal is to determine a logical approach that does not overcomplicate the structure and content of the IMS that makes it difficult to maintain or compromises the overall purpose of an IMS. The H&A blog “Integrating Subcontractor Data into an Integrated Master Schedule” discusses this common challenge and risks when scheduling requirements are not clearly defined. It also discusses three approaches for incorporating subcontractor schedule data with pros and cons for each approach.
  • Schedule Risk Assessments (SRAs). The continuing discussions on SRAs often center around the quality of the SRA data and that it is being treated like a check the box exercise. The solution isn’t to require contractors to perform monthly SRAs. That fails to address the root cause: meaningless duration estimates. In some instances global factors are applied to existing duration estimates as a short-cut. Producing a useful SRA starts with a high-quality IMS along with a disciplined risk management process and focused analysis of selected tasks that have a high probability of impacting a major event or project completion date. The H&A blog “Maximizing the Value of Schedule Risk Assessments (SRAs)” provides suggestions on how to implement a straight-forward process that helps to produce a more realistic IMS.
  • Estimates at Completion (EACs). This is another continuing discussion between industry and their government customers about practices that help to ensure a contractor’s forecast completion date (FCD) and EAC are realistic. The H&A blog “Maintaining a Credible Estimate at Completion (EAC)” emphasizes the importance of realistic EACs and why it matters to all stakeholders. The blog discusses practices that can help to ensure EACs are actively maintained along with suggestions for practical process improvements including leveraging evolving tools and analytics.
  • Proactive management of Level of Effort (LOE). The LOE topic often comes up in the Clearinghouse working sessions. When the percentage of LOE work packages and their total budget value for a given project is low, some consider LOE to be a non-factor in the overall picture of project performance. However, that is not always the case. Selecting the LOE earned value method must be a conscious decision (not a planning short-cut) and actively managed to ensure the timing and duration as well as any relationship to discrete work packages remain valid. The H&A blog “Level of Effort (LOE) Best Practice Tips” discusses common LOE issues and provides suggestions on how to ensure LOE is properly planned and managed.

Interested in Learning More?

The NDIA IPMD Clearinghouse Committee is a useful resource for industry to discuss EVMS related issues and identify options to resolve them. H&A is a direct conduit to the Clearinghouse Committee co-leads that work with the government counterparts to document recommended solutions. If you need help resolving an issue with your EVMS, we can help. Call us today.

Insights into Current Industry EVMS Issues Read Post »

Ten Project Failure Risks Your EVMS Should Be Catching

By /

Companion to: Ten Project Failure Risks: Using an EVMS to Improve Project Outcomes, by Paul Bolinger

Quick Summary

  • Most projects don’t fail from one big event. They fail because a set of common, well-documented risks are left to grow once a project is authorized and underway.
  • An EVMS can’t fix these risks by itself, but it surfaces the warning signs early enough for management to act, if the data is read honestly and the relationships between cost, schedule, and risk are examined together.
  • Paul Bolinger’s full article walks through all ten, from poor communication and scope creep to inexperienced management, with the EVMS perspective and warning signs for each.

A follow-up to “Why Projects Fail,” which looked at what goes wrong before a project is even authorized, this new EVMS Education Center article from Paul Bolinger picks up where that one left off. It looks at ten risks that show up once a project is defined, funded, and running, and how an EVMS can surface each one before it becomes a major variance.

The article is direct about what an EVMS can and can’t do. It provides the structure to define work, measure accomplishment, and forecast outcomes, and it gives management a disciplined way to see where a project has been and where it’s heading. It cannot correct unstable requirements, weak estimates, or poor decisions on its own. That’s still on management.

The ten risks, from communication breakdowns and scope creep to hidden dependencies and team turnover, rarely occur in isolation. Paul traces how they reinforce each other: poor communication conceals scope growth, scope growth invalidates the cost estimate, weak estimates produce unrealistic schedules, and the conditions accumulate until the project runs out of time, budget, and flexibility to recover. The full article closes with five management questions worth asking on every project, regardless of how the metrics look this month.

Read the full article, including all ten risks and the five management questions, on the EVMS Education Center.

Ten Project Failure Risks Your EVMS Should Be Catching Read Post »

Why Do Well-Managed Projects Still Fail?

By /

Companion to: Why Projects Fail: Planning Fallacy, Optimism Bias, Complexity, and Weak Cost Estimating, by Paul Bolinger

Quick Summary

  • Most project failure takes root before a project ever starts, in optimistic estimates that don’t hold up against real-world execution.
  • The planning fallacy, hidden complexity, and weak estimating methods are the biggest drivers, and an EVMS can surface the drift but can’t fix a baseline that was never realistic.
  • Paul Bolinger’s full article lays out the remedies: distributional thinking, documented assumptions, the outside view, independent review, and reduced complexity where possible.

A project can have a formal schedule, an approved budget, and a fully compliant Earned Value Management System (EVMS) and still finish late, over budget, or short of the value it promised. In a new article for the H&A EVMS Education Center, Paul Bolinger looks at why that happens so often, and why it usually has nothing to do with whether the project team knows how to plan.

The short answer is the planning fallacy: the well-documented human tendency to anchor estimates on a best-case version of the work, even when past experience says otherwise. Paul traces how that bias compounds with hidden complexity between tasks, point estimates that hide real uncertainty, and in the largest, most visible projects, outright strategic misrepresentation to get an effort approved in the first place.

He’s also direct about where EVMS fits and where it doesn’t. A properly implemented EVMS is one of the most effective tools available for surfacing cost and schedule variances once a project is underway. What it can’t do is retroactively fix an unrealistic baseline. That has to happen earlier, with better estimating discipline and a willingness to use historical data instead of hope.

Read the full article, including Paul’s five remedies and a look at the “iron law of megaprojects,” on the EVMS Education Center.

Why Do Well-Managed Projects Still Fail? Read Post »

Maximizing the Value of Schedule Risk Assessments (SRAs)

By / / , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , ,

Quick Summary

  • SRAs are only as valuable as the intent and quality behind them. Treating them as a check-the-box compliance requirement produces meaningless results that get filed away and never used.
  • Real-world examples show how cost pressure and last-minute guidance changes at kickoff can derail an SRA, leaving project teams with outputs no one trusts or acts on.
  • Focusing three-point estimates on tasks that drive critical and near-critical paths delivers real insight without the prohibitive cost of analyzing every task in a large IMS.
  • Documented assumptions for selected tasks produce derived duration factors that are far more accurate than gut-feel percentages, and the difference shows up directly in the SRA results.

A previous blog, Schedule Risk Assessment Fundamentals, highlighted that when properly used, schedule risk assessments (SRAs) are a powerful management tool that can contribute to project success. It does, however, require a high-quality integrated master schedule (IMS) that is integrated with a disciplined risk management process. When conducted with the intention to gain a realistic view of schedule outcomes and risk drivers, it provides management with additional insight and an early warning indicator of potential threats to meeting schedule objectives.

The Challenge with Conducting SRAs

Schedule risk assessments are frequently a topic of discussion in project management circles and sometimes for the wrong reason. A well-run SRA can provide the confidence levels for achieving different schedule end dates as well as valuable insight into the IMS. However, the SRA is particularly susceptible to the “garbage in – garbage out” (GIGO) principle.

H&A consultants have recently observed discussions that indicate SRAs are not being properly performed or used to help manage projects. Some of these observations reinforce the GIGO principle.

One H&A senior consultant sat in on a meeting with the government program manager for a large project where the consultant, having worked on the just-completed SRA, asked the government program manager what they would do with the results. The amazingly honest answer was, “Sadly, it will just be filed. It is seen as a check-the-box thing we have to do.”

Using the results of the SRA to stuff the drawer might not be as wild a response as it seems. Too many times, we see the SRA being done in a perfunctory manner using inputs that will not yield useful management information and insight. One way people are cutting corners on the SRA is by applying global factors to the existing duration estimates and running the simulation with those durations. Applying a formula across the board is not the same as analysis. Yes, the SRA can be done so poorly it is meaningless. This is especially true if the applied factors are not realistic.

An Example of What to Avoid

One of our consultants observed that in one case the best of intentions were thwarted in the SRA by cost pressures and lack of management commitment. The manager of the SRA provided a form to each CAM for them to provide the best case, worst case, and most likely case duration estimates and provide written explanations for all three cases. The instructions were for the CAMs to use the form for every incomplete task and future task.

There were about 10,000 such tasks distributed among 70 or so CAMs. On average, that would be 140+ tasks for each CAM. Doing three-point estimates for 140 tasks would be a large expense and consume a lot of valuable time, without even mentioning the cost.

The government program manager, who pays the bills, was present at the kickoff meeting for the SRA and intervened immediately when he heard the directions being provided. He stated that he would not pay for all that effort; it would be too costly. Unfortunately, there was no probing to find out what would be reasonable to this manager in terms of details for the SRA.

Instructions for this SRA were revised on-the-fly and the SRA was done. It was done poorly; in some parts due to the disruption at the kickoff meeting and the poor guidance. The intervention of the government program manager had left the impression that the SRA “was not worth it.” That impression was wrong.

The idea of documenting the three-point estimates is a good one, but too time-consuming to be applied to every task. There are valid options that can still benefit from this detailed look at the durations, yet avoid the significant expense of analyzing all the tasks.

A Better Approach

One approach is to do a detailed analysis of the three-point estimates for specific selected tasks that reduces the number of tasks that require detailed manual estimation. The focus should be on the tasks that provide insight into the part of the IMS most likely to cause the end date or a major event date to change. Examples include those tasks that are:

  1. On one or more of the top number of critical paths.
  2. On the path to the next major event (these tasks can be found using the driving path approach).
  3. Known to be or assumed to be prone to duration risk.
  4. Known to require scarce resources that may have limited availability.
  5. Believed to be drivers of duration risk for other reasons.

A simple example will help to understand why documenting the three-point estimates for some tasks is basic to achieving a useful SRA. If you, acting as a CAM, were asked to estimate the time required to drive 10 miles from your home to work by car in a hypothetical town, you would want to understand the scope of the effort. A drive of 10 miles through the countryside, or on a freeway, or on city streets can be very different.

stylized road map of confusing roads

Some help with the assumptions could improve your estimate. If you were told that the first 5 miles of the drive was in town, where the speed limit is 25 mph with the potential for red lights along the way, and the last 5 miles is on the freeway, where the speed limit is 60 mph, this would help you produce a better estimate.

In fact, you will get a better estimate by understanding the scope, the assumptions, the risks, and so on. When doing the three-point estimate, you would employ a process that includes these steps that consider:

  1. The nature of the task. What exactly is to be done in the task?
  2. Past experience. Have we done this or similar work before?
  3. Capabilities. For example, can you drive, does your car work well, can you go up to 60 mph in your car, do you have gas, and are you equipped for potential weather?
  4. Assumptions. How many traffic lights are there along the way? How long would you wait at a red light? What time of year is it? What day of the week? What time of day?
  5. The risks. Are there possible road issues, such as construction? How about traffic issues? Accidents?

Now, suppose you were required to document your estimated durations. Using the assumption details from above, you might end up with this:

CaseDurationAssumptions
Best17 minutesA dry day, early in the morning before traffic, you have all green lights, and you obey the speed limit.
Most Likely23 minutesThe road is fine, first 5 miles is at 25 mph. Only 2 red lights with a wait time of 2 minutes each, and 7 minutes for freeway travel at 45 mph.
Worst Case32 minutesThe road is slippery and you can only travel at 20 mph. You must stop at 3 red lights and sit for 2 minutes each. You have one unexpected stop for 4 minutes because of other drivers. Also, the freeway speed is only 45 mph.

You now have a set of durations you can use in the SRA. You also have the details needed for explaining the duration estimate. Additionally, there is enough information to be able to change the estimates if presented with new facts or revised assumptions. For example, perhaps the project’s period of performance moves to the right and the work will now be performed in the winter. You can adjust your estimates for winter weather impacts.

You also have enough information to be able to derive factors to be used in formulae to generate three-point estimates for other tasks. Be careful to make sure you only use the information to generate a factor on similar work. In this case, the factors would be -26% and +39%. Those are derived factors. For comparison, a common “gut feel” reaction to the question of what factors should be used is usually more like minus 5% and plus 10%. Using derived factors versus a “gut feel” will yield significant differences in the SRA and the value of the results.

Recommendations to Increase the Value of an SRA

Begin with the intention to treat the SRA as the important and valuable tool it is. Choose to change the approach from a “check-the-box” or compliance mentality into a straightforward process that helps to produce a more realistic and executable IMS. No one likes schedule or resulting cost surprises as discussed in another blog, Maintaining a Credible Estimate at Completion (EAC), that also addresses why a credible forecast completion date is equally important. Here are a few suggestions to improve your approach to conducting SRAs:

  1. Provide clear, specific directions to project personnel on what is expected. Highlight why the SRA is an important step.
  2. Verify a quality IMS has been established.
  3. Validate the risk information.
  4. Do focused analysis of discrete tasks on a given number of critical and near-critical paths and document the rationale for the best/worst/most-likely case durations.
  5. Do focused analysis on driving path tasks if not on the critical paths.
  6. Do focused analysis on known risks.
  7. Use realistic factors derived from reality when applying factors to the larger body of IMS tasks.

Taking Action

Producing a quality IMS takes skilled master schedulers that understand the management and predictive value of a well-constructed schedule. The next step up to improve the realism of the IMS is to conduct an SRA when it makes sense. Examples include conducting an SRA as part of the process to establish the baseline schedule, when there is major change, or before a major event such as a Critical Design Review (CDR).

It is not an easy task to distill the steps to conduct a value-added SRA into a well-defined and useful process. H&A master schedulers and risk subject matter experts often work with clients to establish a pragmatic SRA process. They also train and mentor project teams on how to use the SRA outputs to produce realistic schedules with a higher probability of success. Call us today to get started.

Maximizing the Value of Schedule Risk Assessments (SRAs) Read Post »

Revitalizing Earned Value Management Systems (EVMS)

By / / , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
Revitalizing Earned Value Management Systems (EVMS)

Quick Summary

  • Regulatory changes and updated standards are creating an opportunity to revitalize EVM Systems. The FAR overhaul, revised agency thresholds, and the EIA-748-E streamlined requirements while reinforcing the continued need for an effective EVMS.
  • Organizations have an opportunity to refocus on value-driven EVM practices. Rather than treating EVMS as a check-the-box requirement, this is an opportunity to renovate bloated processes and remove non-value-added activities to establish a flexible “living” system that supports proactive project management and credible forecasting.
  • BI and AI tools can transform EVM data into a real-time decision-making advantage. When supported by reliable, integrated data, these tools can rapidly organize information, improve visibility, identify risks early, and help project teams respond faster to changing priorities as well as technical, schedule, and cost challenges.

With the recent changes in the government regulatory requirements, the publication of the EIA-748-E Standard for EVMS, and evolving Business Intelligence (BI) and AI tools, the components for revitalizing Earned Value Management Systems (EVMS) are falling into place. This is an opportunity to refocus on the original purpose of an EVMS and effective use of real-time EVM data to quickly address problems before they become critical.

As highlighted in a previous blog, “Earned Value Management (EVM): How Much is Enough?”, being merely “compliant” with the EIA-748 Guidelines should not be the goal. That strategy fails to take advantage of the benefits of an EVMS; it is also short-sighted. Too often an EVMS is perceived as a contractual check-the-box exercise or focused on detailed score keeping.

The goal should be about being efficiently expert at EVM; a commitment to become “best-in-class” as expert practitioners of EVM. Following this strategy, an organization’s EVMS is actively maintained and used to ensure it provides relevant, useful information needed to manage projects for success. EVM is a powerful project management methodology that integrates scope, schedule, and cost management to provide a clear picture of project performance, the forecast completion date, and estimate at completion. BI and AI tools are enhancing the ability to rapidly organize and analyze real-time EVM data for proactive management and clear transparent communication with the customer. This also aligns with the need for speed in delivering capabilities to the customer when trade offs between requirements, schedule, and cost must be made.

Trimming Contractual and Guideline Requirements

The regulatory environment has been evolving; government entities are either simplifying or changing the requirements for an EVMS. As a reminder, the Capital Programming Guide Supplement to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11 Planning, Budgeting, and Acquisition of Capital Assets establishes the government major acquisition requirements for an EVMS. This Guide states contractors must use an EVMS that meets the EIA-748 guideline requirements to monitor contract performance. All agency EVMS regulations point to the A-11.

A summary of recent changes follows.

Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Overhaul that began in May 2025 focused on removing most non-statutory rules and rewriting requirements in plain language. Subpart 34.2 – Earned Value Management System was trimmed to the basic EVMS and Integrated Baseline Review (IBR) requirements. The Pre-Award IBR and Notice of EVMS Post-Award IBR clauses were removed; it now just states an IBR is required. Subpart 52.234-4 – Contract Clause for EVMS text was streamlined. Key takeaways: Reaffirmed the value of an EVMS and IBRs. What is unchanged: An EVMS is required for major acquisitions for development contracts, requirements flow down to subcontractors, and IBRs are required.

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Class Deviations (2026-O0011 February 2026), in response to the FAR Overhaul. Subpart 234.2 Earned Value Management System, 234.201 Policy raised the contract value threshold from ≥ $20M to ≥ $50M for EVMS reporting and incorporated the 2015 Class Deviation Memo increasing the contract value threshold for compliance reviews to ≥ $100M. There are also new related Class Deviation Clauses: 252.234-7001 is now 252.234-7998 Notice of EVMS; 252.234-7002 is now 252.234-7999 EVMS.

NASA FAR Supplement 1834.201 Policy Class Deviation (June 2025) as well as their solicitation clause (1852.234-1) and contract clause (1852.234-2) align with the DoD contract value threshold changes and revised clauses.

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Although NNSA is part of the DOE, as of September 2025 they are the Cognizant Federal Agency (CFA) for NNSA projects. They purposely simplified their compliance and surveillance process to be able to rapidly respond to threats. Contractors self-assess their EVMS. NNSA uses an EIA-748 Guideline checklist, reviews data artifacts, and conducts interviews for evidence of compliance. Certification reviews are required when the Total Project Cost is > $300M and are subject to surveillance reviews.

EIA-748-E Standard for EVMS approved and published in February 2026. This long overdue update reduced the number of guidelines to 27 and reflects current business system capabilities. The previous set of 32 guidelines were revised or merged, two were added, and four were deleted to improve clarity.

With the publication of the EIA-748-E, industry guides as well as government agency compliance and surveillance review materials have been or are in the process of being updated. The NDIA IPMD Intent Guide for EIA-748-E will be available on the NDIA IPMD web site once it completes the membership review and approval process. The DoD Earned Value Management System Interpretation Guide (EVMSIG) is also being updated to reflect the EIA-748-E. Once the EVMSIG is published the DCMA EVMS Group will be updating their Business Practices, appendices, and EVMS Compliance Metrics (DECM). DCMA has already trimmed their DECMs to a set of 60 standard, 10 conditional, and 72 low priority tests.

Impact of BI and AI Enabled Tools and Apps

BI and AI tools speed up the process to pull data from different sources for defined use cases and to organize it for analysis. The time lag to view current data can be eliminated with the right business system interfaces and tools. These tools can quickly produce a variety of dashboards or data views with the ability to drill down into the data as well as to sort and filter as needed for root cause analysis. AI agents designed for specific use cases can also speed up the process to organize and present data for real-time decision making. These dashboards and views can be tailored for specific users such as project managers, control account managers (CAMs), functional managers, schedulers, finance, material or subcontract management, and others.

Taking advantage of BI and AI does require a defined enterprise strategy to successfully leverage these powerful tools. Data is the backbone of any AI model – data is needed to “teach” AI how to spot patterns and make predictions. This includes the vast volume of an organization’s transaction records, analytics, and proprietary information across multiple systems.

The problem? Organizations often lack a consistent, verified version of data (the single source of truth) – there is uncertainty about what data should be used to analyze and “feed” their AI models. Internal proprietary data must not be exposed to the outside world. The single source of truth must exist in a governed and curated environment; it must be organized and integrated with a defined data model to be able to analyze real-time streams of data while avoiding multiple versions of the truth.

The challenge is that many organizations are still doing their enterprise planning, including estimating, budgeting and many other functions, in spreadsheets. It is not accessible to others or captured in a common database. Employees end up debating discrepancies between spreadsheets rather than analyzing the data in question.

Once the system that contains the official single source of truth has been determined and how data is organized and integrated, there are a variety of commercial off the shelf (COTS) tools available for the next step. Employees (the power users) familiar with BI and AI tools can quickly turn ideas into apps in a matter of hours or days that help them and their team to get things done. They can quickly build business environment specific dashboards, analyze real-time data pulled from various data sets, and produce outputs designed for different users or use cases.

Putting All the Pieces Together

What are the three primary takeaways?

The requirement to provide a fact-based assessment of project progress and forecast isn’t going away. The FAR overhaul didn’t do away with EVMS or the related fundamental requirements. It does, however, require organizations to be efficiently expert at EVM. A “living” EVMS (i.e., actively maintained and used) that can be scaled/tailored to management needs for each project is essential.

Changes to the requirements provides an opportunity to update “bloated” processes and procedures or that haven’t been updated to reflect new tools. Since the EVMS will need to be reviewed anyway to verify it supports the revised guidelines as well as updated agency requirements, there may be non-value added content or steps that can be eliminated.

BI and AI tools are useful for organizing real-time data into actionable information. Organizations taking advantage of these tools can rapidly respond to realized or emerging risks and changing scope or priorities in response to evolving threats. This creates a competitive advantage.

Returning to a Focus on Proactive Management

This is an opportunity to return to the original objective of an EVMS: timely and relevant information for proactive decision making to ensure project success and a happy customer. The effectiveness of an EVMS should be measured by the technical, schedule, and cost performance metrics. Product acceptance and in-process controls are examples of technical performance metrics. Schedule status and forecast, cumulative to date cost performance index (CPI), estimate at completion (EAC), and the to complete performance index (TCPI) are examples of schedule and cost performance metrics.

Too often the perceived approach to a “compliant” EVMS is to drive the data to an excessive level of detail along with restrictive rules and guidance that result in a system that is cumbersome and painful to use. It reinforces the perception that EVMS is too costly – something the customer doesn’t want to pay for because they don’t see the value.

The alternative? An organization that is efficiently expert at EVM where the customer has directly experienced the value of using real-time performance data to successfully manage their program. Non-value activities have been eliminated. An actively maintained and used EVMS is also resilient; project teams can quickly respond to evolving priorities and threats. Taking advantage of the power and agility of BI and AI tools/apps can help project teams to focus on what matters with real-time data and analytics.

Taking Advantage of the Opportunity to Revitalize EVM

Changing the view that EVMS is burdensome, costly, and of no value will take time. It depends upon organizations choosing to become efficiently expert at EVM.

Recent changes in requirements and the guidelines will require organizations to review the state of their EVM Systems. It creates an opportunity to eliminate non-value added activities. At the same time, powerful BI/AI tools enable real-time data analysis so project teams can be more proactive as well as renovate EVMS functions. The effectiveness of the EVMS is apparent because it provides real-time visibility into project performance with a credible forecast completion date and estimate at completion.

There is no need for excessive oversight by government customers that drives up the cost of managing projects when the customer has confidence the organization’s EVMS provides the visibility they need – and that earned value based project management is a valuable tool.

Next Steps

Consider having an independent third party complete a thorough assessment of your EVMS process areas and documentation to identify where content can be trimmed and clarified or where non-value added steps can be removed – particularly if you are starting to integrate BI and/or AI tools into your EVMS and other business systems. Call us today to get started.

Revitalizing Earned Value Management Systems (EVMS) Read Post »

Scroll to Top