The approach

First validate the baseline and actual costs. Then choose the forecast assumption that fits the remaining work, rather than the number that best fits the budget.

  1. Collect planned value, earned value and actual cost at the same status date.
  2. Investigate the cause of the variance: a repeating pattern, a one-off event or an invalid baseline.
  3. Compare a continuing-efficiency forecast with a bottom-up estimate and explain the funding decision.

Worked example

With a €900,000 work budget, €450,000 planned value, €360,000 earned value and €400,000 actual cost, CPI is 0.9. Continuing this efficiency forecasts €1,000,000. Completing the remaining work at its original budget forecasts €940,000.

Try the inputs

Test the earned-value forecast

Inputs stay in your browser. Shared scenario links include your inputs. Use a consistent currency and price basis.

Add historical observations for curves (optional)

The lecture provides a month-five snapshot, not a monthly history. Enter observed cumulative values to draw curves. The last row must match the PV, EV and AC inputs above.

This optional teaching history adds invented intermediate observations to the lecture’s month-five example. It is not a history reported in the lecture.

Limits & next steps

The indicators are only as reliable as completion and cost recognition. Schedule variance in budget units is not a delay measured in days.

Source & further reading

This explanation and worked example are independently written. The linked publication provides context for the technique; it is not a licence to reuse its material.

APM: earned-value guidance

Learn and apply

Explore performance: guides, calculations and sources