IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i22p15259-d975580.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Systematic Review of Earned Value Management Methods for Monitoring and Control of Project Schedule Performance: An AHP Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Luis Mayo-Alvarez

    (Escuela de Posgrado, Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola, Lima 15024, Peru)

  • Aldo Alvarez-Risco

    (Carrera de Negocios Internacionales, Facultad de Ciencias Empresariales y Económicas, Universidad de Lima, Lima 15023, Peru)

  • Shyla Del-Aguila-Arcentales

    (Escuela de Posgrado, Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola, Lima 15024, Peru)

  • M. Chandra Sekar

    (College of Pharmacy, University of Findlay, Findlay, OH 45840, USA)

  • Jaime A. Yañez

    (Vicerrectorado de Investigación, Universidad Norbert Wiener, Lima 15046, Peru
    Gerencia Corporativa de Asuntos Científicos y Regulatorios, Teoma Global, Lima 15073, Peru)

Abstract

Successful project management depends on ensuring the project’s objectives. Within these objectives, technical success is associated with achieving the expectations of the project baseline. The baseline of the project is made up of the definition of the scope (WBS), time (schedule) and costs (S curve) of the project. Directly, the project is expected to be technically successful if it manages to deliver its full scope on schedule and without associated cost overruns. Baseline performance management is how project managers track and control the progress of deliverables, timelines and associated costs. In a traditional approach, for waterfall-type projects that use the critical path paradigm, the baseline performance management tool par excellence is earned value management (EVM). Earned value management, in practice, works well when project costs are monitored and controlled; however, applying this approach to measure the status of the schedule presents serious inconsistencies. Over the last several decades, different variations of the original earned value have been developed to overcome some of these inconsistencies when used to measure project schedule status. Within these variations, we have the critical path earned value; the work in progress earned value; the critical path earned value and the work in progress; the earned schedule; and the critical path earned schedule. Each of these proposals tries to address some weakness of the original earned value management applied to time monitoring and control, for example, considering critical tasks as a focus on monitoring the progress of the schedule, solving the problem of task recognition late finishers, reporting schedule variances in time units and measuring adherence to the project’s schedule (P factor). Due to the exposed situation, it is necessary to determine which alternative of the versions of the original earned value is the most appropriate for the management of the project schedule, considering that there are several evaluation criteria that must be considered. In the present research, a systematic review and comparison of EVM and its variations for measuring project baseline schedule performance are performed to determine the most suitable methods for monitoring and controlling the project baseline schedule. For this purpose, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is used, and five comparison criteria are considered: schedule variation focused on critical tasks, recognition and measurement of the delay of tasks that finish late, schedule variation in time units, measurement of schedule adherence (P factor) and software support and development. The result of the AHP performed for comparing the methods shows that the best method for monitoring and controlling the project baseline schedule is the critical path earned schedule because it behaves adequately in comparison with the other methods for the evaluated comparison categories.

Suggested Citation

  • Luis Mayo-Alvarez & Aldo Alvarez-Risco & Shyla Del-Aguila-Arcentales & M. Chandra Sekar & Jaime A. Yañez, 2022. "A Systematic Review of Earned Value Management Methods for Monitoring and Control of Project Schedule Performance: An AHP Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-25, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:22:p:15259-:d:975580
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/22/15259/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/22/15259/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas L. Saaty, 1986. "Axiomatic Foundation of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(7), pages 841-855, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Banai, Reza, 2010. "Evaluation of land use-transportation systems with the Analytic Network Process," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 3(1), pages 85-112.
    2. Guh, Yuh-Yuan, 1997. "Introduction to a new weighting method -- Hierarchy consistency analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 102(1), pages 215-226, October.
    3. Cui, Ye & E, Hanyu & Pedrycz, Witold & Fayek, Aminah Robinson, 2022. "A granular multicriteria group decision making for renewable energy planning problems," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 199(C), pages 1047-1059.
    4. Xiaoxia Li, 2022. "Research on the Development Level of Rural E-Commerce in China Based on Analytic Hierarchy and Systematic Clustering Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-18, July.
    5. Danijela Tuljak-Suban & Patricija Bajec, 2022. "A Hybrid DEA Approach for the Upgrade of an Existing Bike-Sharing System with Electric Bikes," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-23, October.
    6. Mónica de Castro-Pardo & Pascual Fernández Martínez & Amelia Pérez Zabaleta & João C. Azevedo, 2021. "Dealing with Water Conflicts: A Comprehensive Review of MCDM Approaches to Manage Freshwater Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-32, April.
    7. Bhatta, Arun & Bigsby, Hugh R. & Cullen, Ross, 2011. "Alternative to Comprehensive Ecosystem Services Markets: The Contribution of Forest-Related Programs in New Zealand," 2011 Conference, August 25-26, 2011, Nelson, New Zealand 115350, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    8. Hoene, Andreas & Jawale, Mandar & Neukirchen, Thomas & Bednorz, Nicole & Schulz, Holger & Hauser, Simon, 2019. "Bewertung von Technologielösungen für Automatisierung und Ergonomieunterstützung der Intralogistik," ild Schriftenreihe 64, FOM Hochschule für Oekonomie & Management, Institut für Logistik- & Dienstleistungsmanagement (ild).
    9. Sudhakar Yedla & Ram M. Shrestha, 2007. "Application of analytic hierarchy process to prioritize urban transport options: Comparative analysis of group aggregation methods," Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai Working Papers 2007-011, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India.
    10. Wenshuai Wu & Gang Kou, 2016. "A group consensus model for evaluating real estate investment alternatives," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 2(1), pages 1-10, December.
    11. Radojko Lukic, 2020. "Analysis Of The Efficiency Of Trade In Oil Derivatives In Serbia By Applying The Fuzzy Ahp-Topsis Method," Business Excellence and Management, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 10(3), pages 80-98, September.
    12. Ya-Qiang Xu & Le-Sheng Jin & Zhen-Song Chen & Ronald R. Yager & Jana Špirková & Martin Kalina & Surajit Borkotokey, 2022. "Weight Vector Generation in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making with Basic Uncertain Information," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-11, February.
    13. Elvan Ender Altay & Diba Şenay & Zeynep Eyüpoğlu, 2021. "Outdoor Indicators for the Healthy Development of Children," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 14(6), pages 2517-2545, December.
    14. Iva Ridjan Skov & Noémi Schneider & Gerald Schweiger & Josef-Peter Schöggl & Alfred Posch, 2021. "Power-to-X in Denmark: An Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-14, February.
    15. Baback Vaziri & Shaunak Dabadghao & Yuehwern Yih & Thomas L. Morin & Mark Lehto, 2020. "Crowd-Ranking: a Markov-based method for ranking alternatives," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 279-295, March.
    16. Berumen, Sergio A. & Pérez-Megino, Luis P., 2016. "Ranking Socioeconómico para el Desarrollo de las Regiones Carboníferas en Europa || Socioeconomic Ranking for the Development of coal-mining regions in Europe," Revista de Métodos Cuantitativos para la Economía y la Empresa = Journal of Quantitative Methods for Economics and Business Administration, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Quantitative Methods for Economics and Business Administration, vol. 21(1), pages 39-57, June.
    17. Hsin-Chieh Wu & Toly Chen & Chin-Hau Huang, 2020. "A Piecewise Linear FGM Approach for Efficient and Accurate FAHP Analysis: Smart Backpack Design as an Example," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-18, August.
    18. Jain, Bharat A. & Nag, Barin N., 1996. "A decision-support model for investment decisions in new ventures," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 90(3), pages 473-486, May.
    19. Wiebke Mohr & Anika Rädke & Adel Afi & Franka Mühlichen & Moritz Platen & Annelie Scharf & Bernhard Michalowsky & Wolfgang Hoffmann, 2022. "Development of a Quantitative Preference Instrument for Person-Centered Dementia Care—Stage 2: Insights from a Formative Qualitative Study to Design and Pretest a Dementia-Friendly Analytic Hierarchy ," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-21, July.
    20. Hartvigsen, David, 2005. "Representing the strengths and directions of pairwise comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 163(2), pages 357-369, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:22:p:15259-:d:975580. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.