| Course | GM593 Project Execution With Monitoring and Control |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 3 |
| Paper type | Earned value calculation |
| Length | About 870 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MS in Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GM593 Unit 3
One Index, Two Projects: A Unit 3 Earned Value Calculation for a University Lab Relocation
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GM593: Project Execution With Monitoring and Control
Unit 3 Earned Value Calculation
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The university, its relocation project and every figure are composite and illustrative; the methods cited are real.
Measurement Rules
Every earned value figure depends on a rule for when a piece of work counts as done. Each control account in the Hollis Hall relocation has a declared rule, set before work began.
Fit-out and commissioning earns by weighted milestones from the punch list. The lab ventilation system earns its milestone only after thirty days of stable exhaust readings and certification of every fume hood, because a system that passes once and then drifts is not finished.
Inventory and hazard documentation earns in equivalent units when an Environmental Health and Safety officer signs the hazardous materials manifest. Equivalent units weight items by effort: a full ultra-low freezer's contents counts 3 units, a typical instrument 1, and a box of nonhazardous glassware one half.
Packing earns in equivalent units when an item is packed, its manifest signed and it is scanned into the relocation database.
Transport earns on a 0/100 basis by truckload: a load earns nothing until it is delivered and unloaded.
Receiving and verification earns when an item is scanned in place in its new lab and the principal investigator's delegate confirms it.
Project management earns as level of effort, so its earned value equals its planned value.
Quentin Fleming and Joel Koppelman recommend choosing a measurement method suited to each kind of work, and warn that subjective percent-complete estimates invite optimism (Fleming & Koppelman, 2010).
Formulas Used
PV here is what the baseline said would be spent on work scheduled through month five. EV takes the same budget figures but credits only work finished under the rules above. Actual cost is what has been spent, taken from the university's ledger and the movers' invoices for work performed through month five. The two variances subtract PV and AC, in turn, from EV. The schedule performance index divides earned value by planned value, and the cost performance index divides earned value by actual cost. An index below 1.0 means behind schedule or over cost. These are the definitions in the Project Management Institute's earned value standard (Project Management Institute, 2019). The formulas are applied account by account and then summed, rather than calculated only once for the whole project, so that offsetting results in different accounts stay visible.
Results by Account, End of Month Five
All figures are cumulative, in dollars.
Fit-out and commissioning. PV 508,000; EV 595,400; AC 696,400. SV plus 87,400; CV minus 101,000. SPI 1.172; CPI 0.855.
Inventory and hazard documentation. PV 150,000; EV 92,000; AC 95,000. SV minus 58,000; CV minus 3,000. SPI 0.613; CPI 0.968.
Packing. PV 210,000; EV 150,000; AC 148,000. SV minus 60,000; CV plus 2,000. SPI 0.714; CPI 1.014.
Transport. PV 120,000; EV 96,000; AC 101,000. SV minus 24,000; CV minus 5,000. SPI 0.800; CPI 0.950.
Receiving and verification. PV 120,000; EV 91,000; AC 98,300. SV minus 29,000; CV minus 7,300. SPI 0.758; CPI 0.926.
Project management. PV 90,000; EV 90,000; AC 89,400. SV zero; CV plus 600. SPI 1.000; CPI 1.007.
Totals and the Item Subtotal
For the whole project, PV is 1,198,000, EV 1,114,400 and AC 1,228,100. Schedule variance is minus 83,600 and cost variance minus 113,700. SPI is 0.930 and CPI 0.907.
The four item accounts together, inventory, packing, transport and receiving, have PV 600,000, EV 429,000 and AC 442,300. Their SV is minus 171,000 and their CV minus 13,300. Their SPI is 0.715 and their CPI 0.970.
The project's SPI of 0.930 averages a fit-out running 17 percent ahead with an item stream running 28 percent behind, and the average describes neither.
What the Breakdown Shows
The fit-out's positive schedule variance offsets most of the item stream's negative one, which is why the project SPI looks mild. But the fit-out cannot make up for item delays: finishing the new building early does not move a single freezer. The item stream's schedule is what decides whether Hollis Hall is empty when the demolition contractor mobilizes.
Cost tells the opposite story. The item accounts are within 3 percent of budget, while the fit-out has overrun by $101,000. Frank Anbari notes that the indexes are most useful when read together and at the level where decisions are made, because a combined figure can mask offsetting problems (Anbari, 2003).
The lowest SPI, 0.613, is in inventory and hazard documentation, the account that earns only when an EHS officer signs. Packing, transport and receiving all follow it in sequence. That pattern points to a single bottleneck upstream rather than slow work everywhere, which the variance analysis should test.
For the Department Chair
The project looks only a little behind overall, but it is really two projects. The new building is ahead of schedule and over budget by about $101,000. The move of lab items is on budget but more than a quarter behind, and the delay starts at the hazardous materials sign-off. The move's schedule, not the building's, decides whether Hollis Hall is empty in time.
References
Anbari, F. T. (2003). Earned value project management method and extensions. Project Management Journal, 34(4), 12-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280303400403
Fleming, Q. W., & Koppelman, J. M. (2010). Earned value project management (4th ed.). Project Management Institute.
Project Management Institute. (2019). The standard for earned value management.
Reading the GM 593 Unit 3 instructions
In GM593 Unit 3 you calculate earned value for a project in execution, account by account. Declare a measurement rule for each control account before reporting any numbers, choosing a method suited to the work, such as weighted milestones, equivalent units, 0/100 for short discrete tasks or level of effort for management. Explain the formulas you use. Then give each account its planned value, earned value, actual cost, both variances and both indexes. Total the project and subtotal any group of accounts that behaves differently. Interpret the results: where do offsetting variances hide a problem, and which account sits upstream of the others? Close with a short paragraph a sponsor could read alone, stating what the figures mean for the decision at hand. Expect about four pages, citing earned value standards and research in APA 7.
Inside the GM593 Unit 3 example
The measurement rules declare weighted milestones for fit-out, with ventilation credited only after thirty days of stable readings and hood certification, equivalent units for inventory and packing, where a freezer's contents count 3 and a box of glassware one half, 0/100 truckloads, verification in place for receiving and level of effort for management, citing Fleming and Koppelman. Formulas follow the PMI standard. Account results range from the fit-out's SPI of 1.172 and CPI of 0.855 to inventory and hazard documentation at an SPI of 0.613. Totals give SV of minus $83,600 and CV of minus $113,700, and the item subtotal gives SV of minus $171,000. The highlighted sentence explains how the project index averages two opposite results. Anbari supports reading indexes at the decision level. A closing paragraph tells the chair the move's schedule, not the building's, decides the date.
GM593 Unit 3 rubric: what earns full points
GM593 instructors grade this calculation on declared rules, correct arithmetic and interpretation at the right level. Measurement rules set before reporting earn credit because they determine whether earned value is honest. Each account should show all seven figures accurately. Totals and a meaningful subtotal show the writer can see offsetting results. Interpretation carries significant weight: identifying where a project index hides problems and which account sits upstream shows understanding beyond computation. A short paragraph for the sponsor shows the calculation serves a decision. Clear statements of the formulas help the reader follow. APA 7 citations draw on Fleming and Koppelman's handbook, Anbari's article on method and extensions, and PMI's 2019 standard.
GM593 Unit 3 help from the desk
Many GM593 Unit 3 papers calculate only project totals, which can make a serious delay in one stream look like mild trouble everywhere. Others use percent complete estimates without saying how they were made. A common gap is the measurement rule: without one, earned value reflects opinion rather than finished work. Some writers report indexes without explaining what they mean for the decision. Declare a rule for each account, state the formulas, compute every account and the totals, subtotal groups that behave differently, look for upstream accounts that drive the rest and end with plain language for the sponsor.
Get a GM593 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Send the planned, earned and actual figures your Unit 3 case provides, broken down by account if the data allows, together with the rubric. Measurement rules, both variances, both indexes and a plain reading of what they mean are then worked to those numbers, not ours. A first custom sample is free and returns in 24-48h. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More GM593 papers and MS in Management samples
- GM593 Unit 1: Status Reports Nobody Believed Post
- GM593 Unit 2: Lab Relocation Status Report
- GM593 Unit 4: Variance Analysis Memo
- GM593 Unit 5: Change Request Evaluation
- GM593 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GM593 Unit 7: Corrective Action Plan
- GM593 Unit 8: Issue Log and Escalation
- GM593 Unit 9: Forecast to Completion
- GM593 Unit 10: Project Control Package
- GM592 Unit 3: Dry Kiln Scope Statement
- GM591 Unit 3: NPV and Payback Screening Exercise
- GM500 Unit 3: Weber and Seniority Bidding Paper
- GM586 Unit 3: MLQ Self-Rating Interpretation
GM593 Unit 3 questions, answered
What if my case gives percent complete instead of earned value?
Earned value is budget at completion multiplied by percent complete, so the calculation still works, but the result is only as trustworthy as the percentage. A strong paper states how the percentage was determined and flags it where it came from an estimate rather than from a rule tied to finished work.
Do I need to forecast the final cost in this unit?
Only if the prompt asks. Many sections separate the variance calculation from the forecast, and the sample does the same, closing with what the indexes permit a sponsor to conclude today. Where a forecast is required, the method and its assumption should both be stated, since different formulas assume different futures.
Where can I find a free GM593 Unit 3 sample paper?
This page carries a full GM593 Unit 3 earned value calculation for a university lab relocation, with measurement rules, results by control account, an item subtotal and APA 7 references.
What is an equivalent unit?
A way of weighting items by the effort they take. In the sample, a full ultra-low freezer's contents count as 3 units, a typical instrument as 1 and a box of nonhazardous glassware as one half, so progress reflects work rather than item counts.
Why does the project SPI of 0.930 mislead?
It averages a fit-out running about 17 percent ahead with an item stream running about 28 percent behind. The fit-out cannot make up for the delay, because finishing the building early does not move any items.