Kim, Y W and Ballard, G (2002) Earned value method and customer earned value. Journal of Construction Research, 3(1), pp. 55-66. ISSN 1609-9451
Abstract
Construction The Earned Value Method (EVM) is considered an advanced project control technique for integration of schedule and cost. However, prevailing project control, including the earned value method, is an effective tool only under the limiting assumption that every activity (or cost account) is independent. EVM lacks flow and value generation concepts in that value is created only if what a customer wants is made when the customer needs it. This paper shows that EVM does not differentiate between value generating work and non-value-generating work. The study suggests a new cost measure, Customer Earned Value (CEV), which can differentiate between value and non-value-generating work. With the use of CEV, managers can get information on work-in-process inventory levels and co-ordination between trades. CEV motivates trades to consider their internal customer's needs, thereby it can contribute to improvement of work flow. The critique of EVM and creation of CEV is part of an on-going research effort, the next step in which will be development of a methodology for implementation of the CEV concept.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | earned value method; customer earned value; work flow; value generation |
| Index terms: | project control, implementation, inventory, critique, integration, methodology, manager, value generation |
| Subjects: | inventory management, research methods, practitioner, evaluation and assessment methods, contractual arrangements, organizational analysis, control systems, financial and cost management |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Roles and Professions, Cost Management, Research Practice, Supply Chain Management, Procurement, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here