Monitoring & Controlling ensures that a project stays on track in terms of scope, budget, schedule, and quality. Without proper monitoring, teams may not identify potential risks or deviations until it’s too late, leading to costly overruns or delays.
A key aspect of this phase is earned value management (EVM), which measures project performance based on metrics like earned value (EV), planned value (PV), and actual cost (AC). These calculations allow project managers to assess schedule variance (SV) and cost variance (CV), helping them determine whether a project is ahead or behind schedule and over or under budget. For example, if a project’s EV is lower than its PV, it means the project is behind schedule. If EV is lower than AC, the project is over budget. Understanding these numbers enables teams to make informed decisions and course corrections.
In project management, data-driven monitoring is crucial for success but do you think there’s ever a risk of relying too much on metrics like EV, PV, and AC? How can teams balance quantitative performance tracking with qualitative insights such as team morale, stakeholder expectations, and unforeseen challenges?
This is an interesting question. While conventionally quantitative outcomes are important to consider, there are lots of other key considerations as well (such as team morale and stakeholder expectations, as you mentioned). In any project, there will have to be prioritization. I expect it would be nearly impossible to design a product that exceeds cost requirements, stakeholder expectations, and led to no conflicts amongst a team. I would assume that most companies prefer to balance all of these considerations.
With that being said, it may actually be useful to find a way to quantify qualitative aspects of the project. For instance, team members could fill out surveys to reflect their mood towards the project. Challenges could be ranked on a scale from "most detrimental" to "least detrimental". If you are able to quantitatively measure all of these things, you will be able to generate a model based on your priorities. For example, a big change project costs can impact the model more so than a big change in team member morale. This way, project managers can robustly monitor the status of their project and understand how well its meeting all of its goals.
Using the information about EV, PV, and AC, I think could pose a risk if it is not paired with any other form of analysis. EV, PV, and AC are surface level ways of telling you that the project is suffering, but it does not tell you why. If the project is solely relying on quantitative data, the project will continue to suffer. It can be a number of reasons, like micromanagement from upper level management or employee fatigue.
I think Kelsi's approach for surveys is the best solution for this problem. You are pairing quantitative data with another outlet of data that helps project management members figure out the source. If a majority of employees are complaining about a few of the same things, that helps eliminate many other potential sources that are hurting the project. I think there should be huge emphasis that employees will not be punished for leaving honest feedback on these surveys. They could possibly be made anonymous to help remedy any potential tension between members in a project.
Teams can balance quantitative and qualitative factors by encouraging multiple surveys throughout the project and incorporating risk management. Multiple surveys or other forms of feedback will help give the employees a chance to voice their troubles. It could boost their morale knowing that upper management is actually taking their comments into account. Employees could be overworked and fatigued which would explain a lower EV. Risk management can also be put into effect to monitor the risks and issues that may be detected through these surveys. That way, they can warn the project of upcoming risks that were calculated using the feedback from the surveys and come up with ways to remedy them.
Monitoring and controlling are important in running a project towards success, making sure it adheres to planned objectives related to scope, timeline, budget, and quality. While tools like earned value management (EVM) provide quantitative data on project health, focusing solely on numbers might miss important context. For example, a project might show favorable budget and schedule variances, indicating it is under budget and ahead of schedule. However, this could be due to rushed work that compromises quality or overlooks critical safety tests. Thus, it's essential not only to track these metrics but also to interpret them within the broader project context.
To balance the quantitative with qualitative insights, project managers should incorporate regular check-ins with team members and stakeholders. These discussions can uncover issues that numbers alone can't, such as team morale, understanding of project goals, or satisfaction with the project's direction. For example, a project manager might discover during these sessions that despite being ahead of schedule, the team feels overworked and morale is low, risking burnout and turnover. Addressing these issues early through strategic adjustments, such as reallocating resources or extending timelines, can maintain project health both quantitatively and qualitatively, ensuring sustainable success beyond mere numbers.
You raise an interesting point, others have mentioned already that EV, PV, and AC only show the symptoms of a project failing and do not explain why. Another shortcoming of earned value management is that it assumes that everyone shares the same definition of value. In real world projects, different stakeholders can have different priorities. For example, engineering may think more value is from completing technical milestones, where quality teams would see thorough documentation and testing as value. Even if the EV is high and the project seems to be on track, teams, or stakeholders may get overlooked, which may resolve in a product failing to meet stakeholder expectations. To mitigate this, taking time to understand what “value” is across departments and assigning agreed upon weights to have a better reflection of the true progress of the project. How do you think teams can build shared definitions of value when stakeholder priorities conflict?
