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?

The post raises a strong point about how earned value management can be used to monitor project success, but it's important to remember that these metrics are just one aspect of the monitoring and control process. In practice, EV, PV, and AC are meant to support decision making alongside other inputs like performance reports, team discussions, and formal change control processes. When those elements are used together, the data becomes much more meaningful.

There is a real risk when teams rely too heavily on the numbers alone. A negative schedule or cost variance clearly shows that something is off, but it does not explain the underlying cause. The monitoring procedure is set up so that after a deviation is found, the team assesses its effects, talks about potential fixes, and decides on the best course of action before implementing adjustments. If teams react directly to the numbers, they may fix what is visible while missing what is actually driving the problem.

A useful analogy is tracking gym progress using only a scale. A person's weight loss may appear to be progress, but it doesn't indicate if the change was caused by muscle loss, fat loss, or even dehydration. Without looking at other factors like strength, energy levels, and consistency, the number alone can be misleading. In the same way, EVM provides a snapshot of performance, but it does not explain what is happening behind the scenes.

A balanced approach connects both sides. While qualitative insights clarify what needs to be done, metrics might indicate when attention is required. The monitoring and controlling phase also emphasizes documenting lessons learned and managing changes carefully, which helps teams avoid repeating the same issues and keeps decisions grounded in actual project conditions.

This leads to an interesting question. Should a project still be deemed on track if it exhibits great performance based on EV and CV but the team is feeling burned out or confused about requirements, or should such qualitative issues be given more weight when assessing the project's health?

@kelsipetrillo this is an interesting suggestion!

While on the surface, this may be a way to help broach the topic with the team and address the issue, I see potential issue with rolling this out in the real world. A team receiving surveys to update their thoughts on a project may not always be successful. Team members could choose to not answer. Why should they if its not an obligation? They can also distrust such approaches. For example, they might be concerned that management would know their true negative feelings toward a project and that that would be blamed on them. This is certainly a tricky subject to balance, however, you have the right idea with trying to involve the team in some way.

Maybe the manager having 1-1's with the team members consistently to understand their workload could help close that gap.

It is also significant to take the perspective on how an overreliance on EVM metrics can also develop a false sense of control for everyone, especially in a highly complex project where progress can be nonlinear. EV, PV, and AC can assume that progress can be predictable and measurable. However, in reality progress can happen in short bursts. For example, a single success in a test or a design breakthrough can cause there to be a cascade of multiple downstream activities. Therefore, a project could seem to be behind on an EVM even though it is close to a milestone or may appear to be on track, yet critical technical tasks are still unresolved. In terms of balance, it is essential for teams to complement EVM with a milestone or a risk based tracking system where careful consideration is given to uncertainties being reduced, not only focusing on completion timelines or budgeting. A shift can be seen from following the plan compared to learning enough to move forward, which can be seen as more meaningful in projects. Overall, is it more valuable to have predefined metrics, monitoring through progress, or a combination of both for a team to reduce uncertainty or risk over time?

Relying too heavily on metrics like EV, PV, and AC can hurt the team when they cannot control the variables that affect them. If the project scope is not defined, the tasks in the work breakdown structure are less accurate and more likely to change, and the earned value calculation cannot provide any insight. Inaccurate earned value can also allow project managers to overlook high actual costs and missing work. It is better to plan when these metrics are calculated, especially for key timeframes, as long as there is a standard for comparing progress. It's also valuable to have data on qualitative insights, resource efficiency, productivity, and defect trends to further support project success, especially as milestones approach.