Overview: Many project managers employ an earned value system to monitor their projects. In Project Management: The Managerial Process, Larson and Gray (2017) define the earned value of a project as “the percent complete times its original budget. Stated differently, EV is the percent of the original budget that has been earned by actual work completed” Earned value analysis determines if you are getting value for the work completed and the money spent during a specific time frame.
Prompt: Analyze the case study Ariba Implementation at Med-X: Managing Earned Value (this case study can be located in your custom Textbook/Case Study bundle). Using earned value analysis, you will determine why the company’s e-procurement implementation project is not going according to plan. Once a cause has been discovered, you will make a recommendation to fix the problem.
Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed:
Cost: Give an estimate of the cost of the project.
Time: Give an estimate regarding how long the project will take.
Cause: Based on your analysis, give an explanation as to why the company’s project is not going according to plan. What is wrong with the project? Support your explanation with evidence from your analysis.
Recommendations: What action(s) do you recommend to address the cause of the problem? Support your recommendations with evidence from your analysis.
Application: How do you foresee using earned value metrics on your own projects currently or in the future? Guidelines for Submission: Your case study analysis must be submitted as a 1- to 2-page Microsoft Word document with double-spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, one-inch margins, and sources cited in APA format.
Critical Elements Exemplary Proficient Needs Improvement Not Evident Value
Cost Provides a logical estimate of cost (100%)
Provides an estimate of cost but estimate does not align with case study details (75%)
Does not provide an estimate of cost (0%)
Time Provides a logical estimate of how much time the project will take (100%)
Provides an estimate of time but estimate does not align with case study details (75%)
Does not provide an estimate of time (0%)
Cause Meets “Proficient” and explanation of cause uses rich detail and exhibits keen insight (100%)
Identifies cause of project problems supported by analysis (90%)
Identifies cause of project problems but analysis contains gaps or lacks detail (70%)
Does not identify cause of project problems (0%)
Recommendations Meets “Proficient” and recommendations exhibit keen insight and are well- supported (100%)
Makes logical and relevant recommendations to address problem supported by analysis (90%)
Makes recommendations to address problem but recommendations do not align with analysis (70%)
Does not make recommendations to address problem (0%)
Application Meets “Proficient” and application to personal career is detailed and well-supported with examples (100%)
Applies earned value metrics to personal career (90%)
Applies earned value metrics to personal career but application is illogical and/or lacks detail (70%)
Does not apply earned value metrics to personal career (0%)
Articulation of Response
Submission is free of errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, and organization and is presented in a professional and easy-to- read format (100%)
Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization (90%)
Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas (70%)
Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas (0%)