Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 32 (2017) 97–113 97

DOI:10.3233/JIFS-151139
IOS Press

An earned value model with risk analysis

for project management under uncertain
conditions
Navid Moradia , S. Meysam Mousavia,∗ and Behnam Vahdanib
a Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran
b Faculty of Industrial and Mechanical Engineering, Qazvin Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qazvin, Iran

Abstract. Earned value is a renowned project management technique that integrates the information on cost and schedule
of projects to evaluate their current status. Despite the ability of earned value management (EVM) to measure and control
the current status, it is not able to estimate the projects’ future performances because EVM does not consider the changes in
environmental circumstances or other elements that could influence on the future performance of the project. In the contrary
with EVM, the risk analysis technique regards risky conditions for the future performance of the project by recognizing and
analyzing the opportunities and threats. In this paper, a new evaluation model of the EVM blended with the risk analysis is
presented to improve the project future performance forecasting. In addition, these indices and evaluations are defined under
real-life uncertain conditions using linguistic variables represented by interval-valued triangular fuzzy numbers. Finally, a
case study from the recent literature for construction industry is given in this paper to show the effectiveness of the proposed
EVM model under uncertain conditions.

Keywords: Earned value management, cost and schedule of projects, risk analysis, interval-valued triangular fuzzy numbers

1. Introduction of the project by evaluating project progress in mone-

Earned value management (EVM) is a method-
ology of measuring the real physical progress of a
project and is regarded for integrating the three main
elements of a project, i.e., time, cost and scope, to
evaluate the performance of project and to forecast
the project outcome [1]. For enhancing the project
validity, the usage of the earned value (EV) starts in
the early initiation and planning stages of project [2].
It takes into account the work completed, the time
spent and the cost obliged to complete the project. The
EV is also helpful to measure and manage the risks
∗ Corresponding
author. S. Meysam Mousavi, Department
of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Shahed
University, Tehran, Iran. Tel.: +98 21 51212091; E-mail:
sm.mousavi@shahed.ac.ir.
tary terms. In fact, EVM provides some information,
e.g., cost and time performance indices, estimation
of completion cost and time and also measurement
of the performance and progress of a project in com-
parison with the planned value and the actual costs
against their corresponding earned values. Although
the applicability of implementing EVM in real-life
projects under uncertainty is generally believed, the
studies about this domain are still limited.
Lipke [3] developed schedule and cost ratio to man-
age the schedule and cost reserves in the projects.
Anbari [4] improved the effectiveness of the EV
by means of graphical tools. Kim et al. [5] applied
the EVM in different types of projects. Lipke [6]
introduced the earned schedule (ES) concept, and
Henderson [7, 8] implemented the ES measure to

1064-1246/17/$35.00 © 2017 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved
98 N. Moradi et al. / An earned value model with risk analysis for project management under uncertain conditions
examine the applicability and validity. Vandervo-
orde and Vanhoucke [9] and also Narbaev and De
Marco [10] have stated that ES is the most accurate
method for estimating time at completion by com-
paring the classical EV-performance indices against
the ES performance indices. Cioffi [11] introduced
a formalism and corresponding notation for the EV
analysis. Lipke et al. [12] enhanced the ability of
project managers for making decisions by provid-
ing a powerful predicting method of the final cost
and duration. Bagherpour et al. [13] implemented
EV-analysis to model the uncertainty associated with
activity duration. Lee [14] regarded and computed
cumulative inefficiency by the EVM in construction
projects. Alam Tabriz et al. [15] presented the risk
ratio in combination with the EVM indices. Kim
et al. [16] combined CO2 , cost, and schedule man-
agement system regarding construction projects by
the EVM. Mojabi et al. [17] compared EVM and
project schedule risk analysis using Monte Carlo
simulation. Naeni et al. [18] introduced a fuzzy-
based earned value model under uncertain conditions.
Willems and Vanhoucke [19] have categorized the
studied on the project control and the EVM. Batselier
and Vanhoucke [20] have considered deterministic
state-of-the-art forecasting models for project dura-
tion according to the EVM. Colin and Vanhoucke [21]
implemented tolerance limits for statistical project
control using EVM. Hunter et al. [22] improved
cost monitoring and control through the EVM sys-
tem. Rubio et al. [23] used EVM with performance
indices evaluation and statistical methods to manage
the project assessment. Despite the important effect
of risk analysis in real case projects, a few studies
regarded the influence of risk attributes for the EVM
according to project managements.
In this paper, a new interval-valued fuzzy model
with risk analysis is presented for project-EVM under
uncertain conditions; it has been tried to improve the
ability of projects to have more accurate and pre-
cise forecasting by considering the effects of risk
analysis with implementing interval-valued fuzzy
sets (IVFSs). In addition, analyzing the risk factors
helps the project managers to recognize the elements
that could have influence on the future performance
of the project and also could assist them to have
more accurate prediction about the future progress
of the project. In this paper, for the first time in
the literature, the indices of EVM and project risk
management are simultaneously calculated with the
IVFSs. The IVFSs have more reliability to control
imprecision and incomplete information in real-life
project situations than classical fuzzy sets and makes
the EV-analysis more precise and close to the real-
ity under risky situations. Finally, a case study for
construction industry is given to show the effective-
ness of the proposed EVM model under uncertain
conditions.
The remaining of this paper is organized as fol-
lows. In Section 2, firstly, the interval-valued fuzzy
sets are explained. Then, the EVM indices are
described. After that, the risk concepts are presented
in Sections 3. Research methodology is presented in
Section 4. A case study has been brought for imple-
menting the proposed model in Section 5. Finally,
conclusions are given in Section 6.
2. Research backgrounds
2.1. Interval-valued fuzzy sets
Fuzzy sets theory introduced by Zadeh [24] for the
first time with the goal to describe uncertainty and
vagueness in real-life situations. Zimmerman [25]
and Hanss [26] tried to develop fuzzy sets’ concepts.
The IVFSs theory is an applicable extension of fuzzy
sets theory which is defined by an interval-valued
membership function [0, 1]. It is worth to mention that
there are some recent studies in engineering and man-
agement fields, in which linguistic terms have been
applied for their computations [e.g., 27–36]. In fact,
because of difficulties that may happen for decision
makers to explain their exact opinions of subjective
judgments as a number within the interval [0, 1] [e.g.,
37–42], it is suggested to clarify the degree of mem-
bership by an interval rather than by a single number
in the projects’ evaluations. Because of this reason,
the IVFSs can be implemented to deal with uncertain
and imprecise information to assist project managers.
2.2. EVM techniques
The EV measures the work completed in terms
of authorized budget and displays the efficiency of
project team in utilizing the project resources. Differ-
ent kinds of projects need different kind of techniques
to be appropriate for them. The percent complete
method shows an estimation of the percentage of
completed work based on subjective judgment. The
person in charge of the work packages estimates the
percent of work completed against the full-planed
value of that work package. The percent complete
method has attracted the most attention among the
 N. Moradi et al. / An earned value model with risk analysis for project management under uncertain conditions 99

Table 1
Assigned linguistic terms corresponding with interval-valued fuzzy numbers
IVF-numbers Linguistic terms
[(0,0,0.025,0.05;0.6),(0,0,0.02,0.075;1)] Near to the beginning
[(0.075,0.1,0.1,0.125;0.6),(0.05,0.1,0.1,0.15;1)] Extremely low
[(0.15,0.175,0.225,0.25;0.6),(0.125,0.15,0.25,0.275;1)] Very low
[(0.275,0.3,0.3,0.325;0.6),(0.25,0.3,0.3,0.35;1)] Low
[(0.35,0.375,0.425,0.45;0.6),(0.325,0.35,0.45,0.475;1)] Less than half
[(0.475,0.5,0.5,0.525;0.6),(0.45,0.5,0.5,0.55;1)] Half
[(0.55,0.575,0.625,0.65;0.6),(0.525,0.55,0.65,0.675;1)] More than half
[(0.675,0.7,0.7,0.725;0.6),(0.65,0.7,0.7,0.75;1)] High
[(0.75,0.775,0.825,0.85;0.6),(0.725,0.75,0.85,0.875;1)] Very high
[(0.875,0.9,0.9,0.925;0.6),(0.85,0.9,0.9,0.95;1)] Extremely high
[(0.95,0.975,1,1;0.6),(0.925,0.95,1,1;1)] Near to the end

other techniques in the private industry [43]. If an The BACi is the budget at completion of
organization has implemented the percent complete activity i, which specifies the planned budget to
method, there should be some supervisions on the perform the activity i. The total interval-valued
accuracy of the periodic estimates. Despite the fact fuzzy-earned value could be calculated by rolling
that percent complete is the most applicable method, 
i for each measurement period as
up all the EV
there are some disadvantages about it. As an exam- follows:
ple, the approximate estimation of completed work
is not easy all the time and also the biased judgment  n 
i =
EV i
EV
of the person in charge may cause some problems i=1
for the project. Utilizing linguistic terms and get-
 n n n n 
L L L L
= E1i , E2i , E3i , E4i ,ŵ ] ,
ting assisted by new extensions of fuzzy sets theory, i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1 ]
EV L

like IVFS, in estimating the status of the project  n n n n 

U U U U
could assist project managers to conquer the prob- E1i , E2i E3i E4i , ŵ ]
i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1 ]
EV U

lems. According to the ambiguity and vagueness

  
of applying linguistic terms, they should convert = E1L , E2L , E3L , E4L ; ŵ ] , E1U , E2U , E3U , E4U ; ŵ ]
]
EV L ]
EV U
to interval-valued fuzzy numbers (IVFNs). Table 1 (2)
illustrates the IVF-membership values with their cor-
responding linguistic terms.

2.3. EVM calculations 2.4. Interval-valued fuzzy performance indices

The basic concept of EVM is to compare the Cost performance index (CPI) and schedule
amount of earned value against the money paid for performance index (SPI) are measurements to eval-
each activity. The interval-valued fuzzy earned value uate the cost performance and time progress of
for activity i can be considered using the following a project. SPI compares the working of project
equation: team with the planned schedule. SPI is calcu-

i = F
i ∗ BACi lated by dividing the earned value (EV) by the
EV
  planned value (PV). The Equation (3) indicates
L L L L 

= E1i , E2i , E3i , E4i ; ŵ ] , the SPI.
]
EV L
 


 = EV

U U U U
E1i , E2i , E3i , E4i ; ŵ ] (1) SPI
]
EV U
PV
 L 
Where E1 E2L E3L E4L
  = , , , ; ŵ ] ,
 PV PV PV PV SPI ]L
Fi = L L L L
a1i , a2i , a3i , a4i ; ŵ ,  
L
F
  E1U E2U E3U E4U
, , , ; ŵ ] (3)
U U U U
a1i , a2i , a3i , a4i ; ŵ  PV PV PV PV SPI ]U
FU
100 N. Moradi et al. / An earned value model with risk analysis for project management under uncertain conditions

The planned value (PV) is often called bud-    

geted cost of work scheduled (BCWS) and is the 
C 
R=S  ∗C
CI = SPI 
PI
⎡  ⎤
L2
E2L E3L E4L
2 2 2
time-phased budget baseline as an immediate result E1
, , , ; ŵ ,
of the CPM scheduled constructed from the project ⎢ PV ∗ AC PV ∗ AC PV ∗ AC PV ∗ AC C  ⎥
⎢ RL ⎥
network. CPI is an indicator of the cost efficiency of ⎢ ⎥
⎣ E1U
2
E2U E3U E4U
2 2 2
⎦
a project, evaluating the effectiveness of project team , , , ; ŵ
PV ∗ AC PV ∗ AC PV ∗ AC PV ∗ AC CR 
U
in utilizing resources. It is calculated by dividing the

 is defined as (5)
EV by the actual cost (AC). The CPI
follows:

  EL EL EL EL
  2.5. Interval-valued fuzzy cost estimates
 = EV =

CPI 1
, 2 , 3 , 4 ; ŵ ^ , at completion
AC AC AC AC AC CPI ^ L
 
E1U E2U E3U E4U EVM can also be used to forecast cost and time at
, , , ; ŵ ^ (4) project completion. For both cost and duration fore-
AC AC AC AC CPI ^ U
casting, several formulas have been introduced in the
related literature. Among several formulas available
The AC is often referred to as the actual cost to calculate cost estimate at completion (EAC), a
of work performed (ACWP) and is the cumulative common formula presumes the future trend of the
actual cost spent at a given point of time. The critical project cost performance remains untouched. In the
ratio (CR) is a multiplication of the SPI and CPI and formula, the EAC is computed by separating the bud-
illustrates the project health. It is often referred as get at completion (BAC) by CPI. In other words, this
schedule cost index (SCI) which is calculated using formula regards that the CPI will be fixed during the
Equation (5): rest of the project. The interval-valued fuzzy EAC is
as below:

] = BAC = 
]
EAC
BAC
  

 E1L E2L E3L E4L E1U E2U E3U E4U
CPI , AC , ,
AC AC AC ; ŵ ^ , , ,
AC AC AC AC, ; ŵ ]
^
CPI L ]U
SPI
⎡  ⎤
BAC ∗ AC BAC ∗ AC BAC ∗ AC BAC ∗ AC
⎢ , , , ; ŵ ^ ,⎥
⎢ E4L E3L E2L E1L ^L
EAC ⎥
=⎢
⎢ ⎥⎥ (6)
⎣ BAC ∗ AC BAC ∗ AC BAC ∗ AC BAC ∗ AC ⎦
, , , ; ŵ ^
E4U E3U E2U E1U ^U
EAC

Also, EAC could be affected by both current

cost performance and current schedule performance
indices. Another formula for EAC based on this
assumption is provided in Equation (7):
  ⎡
    ⎤
  BAC − EL1 , EL2 , EL3 , EL4 ; ŵ ] , 1 , E2 , E3 , E4 ; ŵ ]
EU U U U

 = AC +
EAC
BAC − E V
= AC + ⎣

EV ]L

]U EV
 ⎦


SCI
EL1
2
EL EL
2
EL
, 2 , 3 , 4 ; ŵ ]
2 2
,
EU
1
2
EU EU
2
EU
, 2 , 3 , 4 ; ŵ^
2 2

PV*AC PV*AC PV*AC PV*AC ]L

SCI PV*AC PV*AC PV*AC PV*AC ^
SCI U

⎡ ⎤
BAC − EL4 BAC − EL3 BAC − EL2 BAC − EL1
⎢ , , , ; ŵ ^ , ⎥
⎢ ⎥
2 2 2 2
EL EL EL EL ^L EAC
⎢ ⎥
4 3 2 1
PV*AC PV*AC PV*AC PV*AC
= AC + ⎢  ⎥ (7)
⎢ ⎥
⎣ BAC − EU4 BAC − EU3 BAC − EU2 BAC − EU1 ⎦
2
, 2
, 2
, 2
; ŵ ^
EU EU EU EU ^U
EAC
4 3 2 1
PV*AC PV*AC PV*AC PV*AC
 N. Moradi et al. / An earned value model with risk analysis for project management under uncertain conditions 101
 

 L L L L
2.6. Interval-valued fuzzy time estimates ES = ES1 , ES2 , ES3 , ES4 ; ŵ ,
at completion 
E SL
 
Lipke [6] criticized the implementation of typical ES1U , ES2U , ES3U , ES4U ; ŵ  (9)
ESU
SPI metric because of its ineffectiveness time fore-
casts near the end of the project. Instead, the study EVM has been designed to help project managers
proposed a time-based measure ES to evaluate project to control both time and cost of project, but consider-
performance. The ES relies on same principles with ing cost aspects has been gotten more attention from
earned value; in other word, the ES is the time equiv- the researchers (e.g., [43]); thus, the estimation of the
alent of the earned value. total project endeavor to evaluate time aspects has
been insolvent between the studies [4, 6, 8, 44]. The
 
EV − PVN ES technique developed by Lipke [6] and improved
ES = N + (8) by Henderson [8] is the most commonly-used tech-
PVN+1 − PVN
nique [9]. The following equation demonstrates the
ES-based estimation of time at completion:
where the longest time interval that the PVN is less
 
than EV has been defined as N. PVN and PVN+1 are PD − ES
planned value at time N and N+1, respectively [9]. EACt = AD + (10)
PF
New formulation of the ES under uncertainty using
IVFSs is presented in Equation (9) as follows. The where the AD is the actual duration, the PD is the
IVF-ES could simply be set by Equation (9). planned duration and the PF stands for performance
factor which relates to the project status. The three
  different cases of PF are represented as follows:
Ei − PVN
ESi = Ni +
PVN+1 − PVN • PF = 1 : The duration of the remained activities
is as planned.
 
^ 

^t = AD + PD − ES
EAC


= AD + PD − ES4L , AD+ PD − ES3L , AD + PD − ES2L , AD + PD − ES1L ; ŵ ^ L ,
^t
EAC


AD + PD − ES4U , AD + PD − ES3U , AD+ PD − ES2U , AD + PD − ES1U ; ŵ ^ U (11)
^t
EAC


t : The duration of remained activities
• PF = SPI

t trend.
changes with the current SPI
⎡  ⎤
L L L L
PD − ES4 , PD − ES3 , PD − ES2 , PD − ES1 ; ŵ  ,
⎢ ESL ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
  ⎢ ⎥
 ⎢ PD − ES4U , PD − ES3U , PD − ES2U , PD − ES1U ; ŵ ⎥
^ PD − ES ⎢ 
 U ⎥
^
EACt = AD + ⎢
= AD + ⎢
ES
⎥
  ⎥

SPIt ⎢ 
SPIt ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦

⎡  ⎤
PD − ES4L PD − ES3L PD − ES2L PD − ES1L
⎢ L , L , L , L ; ŵ ^ L ,⎥
⎢ ES4 ES3 ES2 ES1 ]t
EAC ⎥
⎢ AD AD AD AD ⎥
= AD + ⎢  ⎥ (12)
⎢ ⎥
⎣ PD − ES4U PD − ES3U PD − ES2U PD − ES1U ⎦
, , , ; ŵ ^ U
ES4U ES3U ES2U ES1U ]t
EAC
AD AD AD AD
102 N. Moradi et al. / An earned value model with risk analysis for project management under uncertain conditions


t : The duration of remained activities tunity, respectively. Here, n shows the total number of
• PF = SCI
 threats and m shows the total number of opportunities.
t trend, where
changes with the SCI

 
t = SPI 
t ∗ CPI

SCI (13)
⎛ ⎞


^
^t = AD + ⎝ PD − ES ⎠
EAC


SCIt
⎡⎛ ⎞ ⎤
L L
PD − ES4 PD − ES3 PD − ES2 PD − ES1 L L
⎢⎝ , , , ; ŵ L ⎠ ,⎥
⎢ ES4L ∗E4L ES3L ∗E3L ES2L ∗E2L ES1L ∗E1L 
 ⎥
⎢ SCIt ⎥
⎢ AD∗AC AD∗AC AD∗AC AD∗AC ⎥
= AD + ⎢ ⎛ ⎞⎥ (14)
⎢ ⎥
⎢ PD − ES U PD − ES3U PD − ES U PD − ES U ⎥
⎣⎝ 4
, , 2
, 1
; ŵ U ⎠ ⎦
ES4U ∗E4U ES3U ∗E3U ES2U ∗E2U ES1U ∗E1U 

SCIt
AD∗AC AD∗AC AD∗AC AD∗AC

⎡  ⎤
3. Proposed project risk management pl1i , pl2i , pl3i , pl4i ; ŵP̃˜ L ,
⎢ ⎥
P̃˜ i = ⎣ 
i
⎦ (15)
Risk management helps project managers to set pu1i , pu2i , pu3i , pu4i ; ŵP̃˜ U
i
priorities, allocate resources and implement actions ⎡  ⎤
and also processes to decrease the risk of the project f1il , f2il , f3il , f4il ; ŵF̃˜ L ,
⎢ ⎥
F̃˜ i = ⎣ 
i
to not achieve its goals [45]. There are six steps of ⎦ (16)
processes and practices to manage projects’ risks [2]: f1iu , f2iu , f3iu , f4iu ; ŵF̃˜ U
i
planning risk management, identifying risks, qualify-
i = 1, 2, . . . , n.
ing risks, quantifying risks, planning risk responses ⎡  ⎤
and monitoring and controlling risks. Project man- l l l l
agers can use risk breakdown structure (RBS) for ⎢ p1j , p2j , p3j , p4j ; ŵP̃˜ jL , ⎥
⎢ ⎥
providing the list. The RBS assists the managers for P̃j = ⎢ 
˜ ⎥ (17)
⎣ ⎦
a common understanding of the risk endemic to an pu1j , pu2j , pu3j , pu4j ; ŵP̃˜ U
j
organization and the way that risks could be cate- ⎡  ⎤
gorized. Hence, it is suggested to provide a list of l , f l , f l , f l ; ŵ
f1j ,⎥
⎢ 2j 3j 4j F̃˜ jL
opportunities and threats, which may happen dur- ⎢ ⎥
ing the project. If it is considered to recognize more F̃˜ j = ⎢  ⎥ (18)
⎣ u , f u , f u , f u ; ŵ ⎦
changes in the future condition of the project, the f1j 2j 3j 4j F̃˜ U j
more comprehensive RBS should be provided. In
this paper, it is assumed that there is not any knowl- j = 1, 2, . . . , m.
edge about the possibility of occurrence or the effect 
of probable events or it costs a lot of money and  is the risk quantity and is developed based on
RQ
time to reach this information. Under these uncer- IVFSs. It measures the effects of the opportunities
tain circumstances, each of these quantities is defined against the threats and could be positive or negative
based on the judgment of the person in charge, so [15]. Although because of the feasibility study and
the calculation according to the linguistic terms will override of opportunities against threats in most of
improve the results. Tables 2–4 illustrate the occur- the projects, it will be positive.
rence possibility and the effect quantity of the threats  n   m 

  
  
 

and opportunities with implementing linguistic terms RQ = P i ∗ Fi − P j ∗F j
i=1 j=1
which are converted to IVFNs. ⎡  ⎤
P̃˜ i and P̃˜ j are the IVFNs related to the occurrence RQ l , RQl , RQl , RQl ; ŵ ,⎥
probability of the ith threat and the jth opportunity, ⎢ 1 2 3 4 ]
]L
⎢ RQ
 ⎥
=⎢ ⎥(19)
respectively. Also F̃˜ i and F̃˜ j are the IVFNs related to ⎣ u u u u ⎦
RQ1 , RQ2 , RQ3 , RQ4 ; ŵ ]
the effect quantity of the ith threat and the jth oppor- ]
RQ U
 N. Moradi et al. / An earned value model with risk analysis for project management under uncertain conditions 103

Table 2
Linguistic terms related to the event’s occurrence (threats and opportunities)
Linguistic terms related to threats Linguistic terms related to opportunities Linguistic terms
1 The event is completely preventable. There is no probability of achieving the event and it Near to the beginning
is achievable by no solutions.
2 The event occurrence probability is extremely low. The probability of achieving the event is extremely Extremely low
low, but it can achieved by trying harder.
3 The event occurrence probability is very low. The probability of achieving the event is very low, Very low
but it can achieved by hardworking.
4 The event occurrence probability is low. The probability of achieving the event is low, but it Low
can be achieved by extra attempt.
5 The event occurrence probability is relatively low. The probability of achieving the event is relatively Less than half
low, but it can be achieved by adding extra shifts.
6 The event occurrence probability is medium. The probability of achieving the event is average Half
and it can be achieved according to the planned
schedule.
7 The event occurrence probability is relatively high, The probability of achieving the event is relatively More than half
but it can be prevented by extra attempt. high.
8 The event occurrence probability is high, but it can The probability of achieving the event is high. High
be prevented by increasing the budget.
9 The event occurrence probability is very high, but it The probability of achieving the event is extremely Very high
can be prevented by extra attempt and also high.
increasing the budget.
10 The event occurrence is extremely high, but it can be The probability of achieving the event is extremely Extremely high
prevented by extra shifts, hardworking and high.
increasing the budget.
11 The event cannot be prevented and certainly The event is easily achievable. Near to the end
happens.

Table 3
Linguistic terms related to the effect quantity of the events (opportunities)
Linguistic terms Linguistic terms related Linguistic terms related to Linguistic terms
related to cost to schedule scope and quality
1 More than 45% More than 45% It has a great and desirable effect on the Near to the end
decrease acceleration scope & quality.
2 Between 40–45% Between 40–45% It has an extremely high desirable effect on Extremely high
decrease acceleration scope & quality.
3 Between 35–40% Between 35–40% It has a very high desirable effect on scope & Very high
decrease acceleration quality.
4 Between 30–35% Between 30–35% It has a high desirable effect on the scope & High
decrease acceleration quality.
5 Between 25–30% Between 25–30% It has a relatively high desirable effect on the More than half
decrease acceleration scope & quality.
6 Between 20–25% Between 20–25% It has a desirable effect on the scope & Half
decrease acceleration quality.
7 Between 15–20% Between 15–20% It has a relatively low desirable effect on the Less than half
decrease acceleration scope & quality.
8 Between 10–15% Between 10–15% It has a low desirable effect on the scope & Low
decrease acceleration quality.
9 Between 5–10% Between 5–10% It has a very low desirable effect on the Very low
decrease acceleration scope & quality.
10 Less than 5% decrease Less than 5% acceleration It has an extremely low desirable effect on Extremely low
the scope & quality.
11 Almost without cost Almost without Without any desirable effect Near to the beginning
decrease acceleration in schedule
104 N. Moradi et al. / An earned value model with risk analysis for project management under uncertain conditions

Linguistic terms related
to cost
1 Almost without cost increase Almost without delay in
2 Less than 5% increase
3 Between 5–10% increase
4 Between 10–15% increase
5 Between 15–20% increase
6 Between 20–25% increase
7 Between 25–30% increase
8 Between 30–35% increase
9 Between 35–40% increase
10 Between 40–45% increase
11 More than 45% increase
Linguistic terms related to the effect quantity of the events (threats)
Linguistic terms related
to schedule
schedule
Less than 5% delay
Between 5–10% delay
Between 10–15% delay
Between 15–20% delay
Between 20–25% delay
Between 25–30% delay
Between 30–35% delay
Between 35–40% delay
Between 40–45% delay
More than 45% delay
Table 4
Linguistic terms related to Linguistic terms
scope and quality
It has not any desirable effect on scope & quality Near to the beginning
and no problem arises.
It has an extremely low undesirable effect on the Extremely low
scope & quality.
It has a very low undesirable effect on the scope Very low
& quality.
It has a low undesirable effect on the scope & Low
quality.
It has a relatively low undesirable effect on the Less than half
scope & quality.
It has an undesirable effect on the scope & quality Half
and may be rejected by the employer.
It has a relatively high undesirable effect on the More than half
scope & quality and may be rejected by the
employer.
It has a high undesirable effect on the scope and High
won’t be accepted by the employer.
It has a very high undesirable effect on the scope Very high
& quality and surely be rejected by the employer.
It has an extremely high undesirable effect on the Extremely high
scope & quality won’t be accepted by the
employer in all probabilities.
It has an indescribable and absolute undesirable Near to the end
effect on the scope & quality and leads to
duplication.


 is another risk index that developed by IVFSs not regarding the possible events that could influence
PRI
the future performance of the project, the authenticity
and evaluates the performance of the project accord-
and accuracy of the estimations are not confirmed.
ing to the opportunities and threats related to the
One of the points that is concentrated in this
project and illustrated as follows:
paper is about the presumption in EVM systems that
expresses the future efficiency of the project can be

 = [(1, 1, 1, 1; 1), (1, 1, 1, 1; 1)] − predicted by the past efficiency. Time and cost perfor-
PRI
⎡ ⎤ mance indices in the EVM are applied to measure and
(RQl1 , RQl2 , RQl3 , RQl4 ; ŵ ] ), evaluate the performance and progress of the project
]
⎢ RQL ⎥
⎣ u u u u
⎦ and according to these indices the future performance
(RQ1 , RQ2 , RQ3 , RQ4 ; ŵ ] ) and final results of the project will be estimated.
]
RQ U
Inexistence of attention to the risks that could
m+n occur to the project in the future would make a dif-
⎡ ⎤
(PRI1l , PRI2l , PRI3l , PRI4l ; ŵ ^ ), ference between forecasted results and real ones.
⎢ ^
PRI L⎥
=⎣ ⎦ In fact, project’s performance is not always about
(PRI1u , PRI2u , PRI3u , PRI4u ; ŵ ^ ) development, and in the 15% progress of the project
^
PRI U
performance almost never will be more than its cur-
(20) rent performance average and often will lessen [46].
According to the variable conditions in future status
of projects, there is suggested formulas to take into
4. Proposed research methodology account the effect of risks in forecasting the projects’
final results that presented as follows:
The EVM indices for estimating the final status of
the project are based on the past performance status of
the project and does not consider the possible changes I. Interval-valued fuzzy adjusted cost estimate at
in the condition of the project in the future. Because of completion (AEAC)
 N. Moradi et al. / An earned value model with risk analysis for project management under uncertain conditions 105

If the cost at completion is under the influ-

ence of the current cost performance indices,
the interval-valued fuzzy-AEAC is obtained as
follows:



^ = AC + BAC − EV
^
AEAC

 ∗ PRI

CPI
⎡⎛ ⎞ ⎤
BAC − EV4L BAC − EV3L
⎢⎜ AC + , AC + , ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎜ CPI4L ∗ PRI4L CPI3L ∗ PRI3L ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎜ ⎟ ,⎥
⎢ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎝ BAC − EV2L BAC − EV1L ⎠ ⎥
⎢ AC + , AC + ; ŵ ^ ⎥
⎢ L
CPI2 ∗ PRI2 L L
CPI1 ∗ PRI1 L ^
AEAC L ⎥
⎢ ⎥
= ⎢⎛ ⎞ ⎥
⎢ BAC − EV U BAC − EV U ⎥
⎢ AC + 4
, AC + 3
, ⎥
⎢⎜ U U U U ⎟⎥
⎢⎜ CPI4 ∗ PRI4 CPI3 ∗ PRI3 ⎟⎥
⎢⎜ ⎟⎥
⎢⎜ ⎟⎥
⎣⎝ BAC − EV2U BAC − EV1U ⎠⎦
AC + , AC + ; ŵ ^
CPI2U ∗ PRI2U CPI1U ∗ PRI1U ^
AEAC U
⎡  ⎤
L L L L
⎢ AEAC 1 , AEAC 2 , AEAC 3 , AEAC 4 ; ŵ ^ ,⎥
⎢ ^L
AEAC ⎥
= ⎢ ⎥ (21)
⎣ ⎦
AEAC1U , AEAC2U , AEAC3U , AEAC4U ; ŵ ^
^U
AEAC

If the cost at completion is under the influ-
ence of the current cost and schedule performance
indices, the interval-valued fuzzy-AEAC is obtained
as follows:
PF = 1: If the duration of remained activities are
making progress based on the plan, the interval-
^
^ (t) will be obtained as follows:
valued fuzzy AEAC



^ = AC + BAC − EV
^
AEAC
 
 ∗ PRI

SCI
⎡⎛ ⎞ ⎤
BAC − EV4L BAC − EV3L
⎢ ⎜ AC + SCI L ∗ PRI L , AC + SCI L ∗ PRI L , ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎜ 4 4 3 3 ⎟ ,⎥
⎢⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎝ BAC − EV2L BAC − EV1L ⎠ ⎥
⎢ AC + , AC + ; ŵ ⎥
⎢ SCI L ∗ PRI L SCI L ∗ PRI L ^
^
AEAC L ⎥
⎢ 2 2 1 1 ⎥
= ⎢⎛ ⎞ ⎥
⎢ U U ⎥
⎢ AC + BAC − EV4 , AC + BAC − EV3 , ⎥
⎢⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎜ SCI4U ∗ PRI4U SCI3U ∗ PRI3U ⎟⎥
⎢⎜ ⎟⎥
⎢⎜ ⎟⎥
⎣⎝ BAC − EV2U BAC − EV1U ⎠⎦
AC + U U
, AC + U U
; ŵ ^
SCI2 ∗ PRI2 SCI1 ∗ PRI1 ^U
AEAC
⎡  ⎤
L L L L
⎢ AEAC1 , AEAC2 , AEAC3 , AEAC4 ; ŵ ^ ^L
,⎥
⎢ AEAC ⎥
= ⎢ ⎥ (22)
⎣ ⎦
AEAC1U , AEAC2U , AEAC3U , AEAC4U ; ŵ ^
^U
AEAC

II. Interval-valued fuzzy adjusted schedule esti-

mate at completion (AEAC(t) )
106 N. Moradi et al. / An earned value model with risk analysis for project management under uncertain conditions



^ (t) = AD + PD − ES
^
AEAC


PRI
⎡⎛ ⎞ ⎤
PD − ES4L PD − ES3L
⎢ ⎜ AD + , AD + , ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎜ PRI4L PRI3L ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎜ ⎟ ,⎥
⎢⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎝ PD − ES2L L
PD − ES1 ⎠ ⎥
⎢ AD + , AD + ; ŵ L ⎥
⎢ PRI2L L
PRI1 ^
^ (t) ⎥
⎢ AEAC ⎥
=⎢⎢⎛ ⎞⎥⎥
U
⎢ PD − ES4U PD − ES3 ⎥
⎢ ⎜ AD + , AD + , ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎜ PRI4U U
PRI3 ⎟⎥
⎢⎜ ⎟⎥
⎢⎜ ⎟⎥
⎢⎝ U
PD − ES1U ⎠⎥
⎣ AD + PD − ES2 , AD + ; ŵ ^ U ⎦
PRI2U U
PRI1 ^
AEAC(t)
⎡  ⎤
L L L L L
⎢ AEAC(t)1 , AEAC(t)2 , AEAC(t)3 , AEAC(t)4 ; ŵ ^ ,⎥
⎢ ^ ( t)
AEAC ⎥
⎢ ⎥
= ⎢  ⎥ (23)
⎢ ⎥
⎣ U U U U U ⎦
AEAC(t) 1
, AEAC (t)2
, AEAC (t)3
, AEAC (t)4
; ŵ ^ ^ ( t)
AEAC


 (t) : If the duration of the remained
PF = SPI 
 (t) : If the duration of the remained activ-
PF = SCI

 (t) trend, the
activities is influenced by the SPI 
 (t) trend, the interval-valued
ities is influenced by SCI
^
^ (t) will be obtained as
interval-valued fuzzy AEAC ^
^ (t) will be obtained as follows:
fuzzy AEAC
follows:


^ (t) = AD + PD − ES
^
AEAC
 
 (t) ∗ PRI

SPI
⎡⎛ ⎞ ⎤
PD − ES4L PD − ES3L
⎢ ⎜ AD + SPI L ∗ PRI L , AD + L ∗ PRI L
SPI(t)
, ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎜ (t)4 4 3 ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎜ 3
⎟ ,⎥
⎢⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎝ PD − ES2L PD − ES1 L
⎠ ⎥
⎢ AD + , AD + ; ŵ L ⎥
⎢ L ∗ PRI L
SPI(t) L
SPI(t)1 ∗ PRI1L ^
^ (t) ⎥
⎢ 2 AEAC ⎥
=⎢ ⎥
2
⎢⎛ U ⎞⎥
⎢ PD − ES4U PD − ES3 ⎥
⎢ AD + , AD + , ⎥
⎢⎜ U
SPI(t) ∗ PRI4U U
SPI(t)3 ∗ PRI3U ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎜ ⎟⎥
⎢⎜ 4
⎟⎥
⎢⎜ ⎟⎥
⎣⎝ PD − ES2U PD − ES1U ⎠⎦
AD + U
, AD + ; ŵ U
SPI(t) 2
∗ PRI2U U
SPI(t)1 ∗ PRI1U ^
^ (t)
AEAC
⎡  ⎤
L L L L
⎢ AEAC(t)1 , AEAC(t)2 , AEAC(t)3 , AEAC(t)4 ; ŵ ^ L ,⎥
⎢ ^ (t)
AEAC ⎥
⎢ ⎥
= ⎢  ⎥ (24)
⎢ ⎥
⎣ U U U U ⎦
AEAC(t)1
, AEAC (t)2 , AEAC (t)3 , AEAC (t)4 ; ŵ ^
U
^ (t)
AEAC
 N. Moradi et al. / An earned value model with risk analysis for project management under uncertain conditions 107



^
^ (t) = AD + PD − ES
AEAC
 
 (t) ∗ PRI

SCI
⎡⎛ ⎞ ⎤
PD − ES4L PD − ES3L
⎢ ⎜ AD + SCI L ∗ PRI L , AD + SCI L ∗ PRI L , ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎜ (t)4 4 (t)3 3 ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎜ ⎟ ,⎥
⎢⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎝ PD − ES2L PD − ES1L ⎠ ⎥
⎢ AD + , AD + ; ŵ ^ L ⎥
⎢ SCI L ∗ PRI L SCI L ∗ PRI L
^ (t) ⎥
⎢ (t)2 2 (t)1 1 AEAC ⎥
=⎢
⎢⎛ ⎞
⎥
⎥
⎢ PD − ES4U PD − ES3U ⎥
⎢ AD + , AD + , ⎥
⎢⎜ SCI U
∗ PRI U
SCI U
∗ PRI U ⎟⎥
⎢⎜ (t)4 4 (t)3 3 ⎟⎥
⎢⎜ ⎟⎥
⎢⎜ U U ⎟⎥
⎣⎝ PD − ES PD − ES ⎠⎦
AD + U
2
U
, AD + U
1
U
; ŵ ^
U
SCI(t) 2
∗ PRI 2 SCI (t)1 ∗ PRI 1 ^
AEAC(t)
⎡  ⎤
L L L L
⎢ AEAC(t)1 , AEAC(t)2 , AEAC(t)3 , AEAC(t)4 ; ŵ ^ L ,⎥
⎢ ^ (t)
AEAC ⎥
⎢ ⎥
= ⎢  ⎥ (25)
⎢ ⎥
⎣ U U U U ⎦
AEAC(t)1
, AEAC (t)2
, AEAC (t)3
, AEAC (t)4
; ŵ ^
U
^ (t)
AEAC

^ ^
^ (t) is calculated as follows:
^ and AEAC
The ranking of the interval-valued fuzzy numbers AEAC

⎛ ⎞
⎜ ŵ ^ × AEAC1L
+ +⎟ ŵ ^ × AEAC2L
⎜ ^L
AEAC ⎟ ^L
AEAC
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
  ⎜ ŵ ^ × AEAC3L + ŵ ^ × AEAC4L + ⎟
^ ⎜ ^ ^ ⎟
^ = 1 × ⎜ AEAC
L AEAC L
R AEAC ⎟ (26)
⎜
8 ⎜ ŵ ⎟
× AEAC U
+ ŵ × AEAC U
+ ⎟
⎜ ^
^U 1 ^
^U 2 ⎟
⎜ AEAC AEAC ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎝ U U ⎠
ŵ ^ × AEAC3 + ŵ ^ × AEAC4
^U
AEAC ^U
AEAC

⎛ ⎞
L
ŵ ^ L × AEAC(t) L +
+ ŵ ^ L × AEAC(t)
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ^ (t)
AEAC
1
^ (t)
AEAC
2 ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ŵ ^ L × AEAC(t)3 + ŵ ^ L × AEAC(t)4 + ⎟
L L
  ⎜ ⎟
^ ⎜ ^ (t)
AEAC ^ (t)
AEAC ⎟
^ (t) = 1 × ⎜
R AEAC ⎟ (27)
8 ⎜ ⎜ U U
⎟
⎟
⎜ ŵ ^ U × AEAC(t)1 + ŵ ^ U × AEAC(t)2 + ⎟
⎜ ^
AEAC(t) ^
AEAC(t) ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ŵ U × AEAC U
+ ŵ U × AEAC U ⎠
^
^ (t)
(t)3 ^
^ (t)
(t)4
AEAC AEAC
108 N. Moradi et al. / An earned value model with risk analysis for project management under uncertain conditions

Table 5
^
^
Interpretations related to the comparison between BAC and R(AEAC)
Status Interpretation
^
^ ≤ BAC
R(AEAC) The cost at completion of the project will lessen than its budgeted cost.
^
^ ≥ BAC
R(AEAC) The cost at completion of the project will go beyond than its budgeted cost.
^
^ = BAC
R(AEAC) The cost at completion will equal to its budgeted cost.

Table 6
^
^ (t) )
Interpretations related to the comparison between PD and R(AEAC
Status Interpretation
^
^ (t) ) ≤ PD
R(AEAC The time at completion of the project will lessen than its planned time.
^
^ (t) ) ≥ PD
R(AEAC The time at completion of the project will go beyond than its planned time.
^
^ (t) ) = PD
R(AEAC The time at completion will equal to its planned time.

The project managers usually determine the total
amount of budget at completion (BAC) of the project
and its planned duration (PD) from the beginning
of the project. They try to accomplish the project
based on its plan. The calculated predicted cost and
schedule should be compared to the planned cost and
schedule. The comparison and its related interpreta-
tions are shown in Tables 5 and 6.
5. Case study
In this section, an illustrative case has been
presented to demonstrate the applicability of the pro-
posed interval-valued fuzzy model for earned value
analysis in real-life situations. The case is drawn from
a construction-based study presented in Salari et al.
[47]. According to Fig. 1, the first level of the WBS
consisted of concrete, framing, plumbing, electrical,
interior and roofing, and each of these elements con-
sisted of three work packages. Although the work
packages also can be divided into some activities, the
WBS is limited to first and second levels.
Table 7 demonstrates the planned values and actual
costs of the project up to the data date, i.e. month 8.
The information relating to activity budget at com-
pletion (BAC) and activity progress are shown in
Table 8.
Table 9 shows the linguistic terms transformed into

IVFNs (Fi ) to state the progress of the activities.

Fig. 1. WBS of case study’s project.

 N. Moradi et al. / An earned value model with risk analysis for project management under uncertain conditions 109

Table 7
PV and AC of the project
Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
PV 4000 8000 11500 14000 16500 19600 23200 27500 28000 31500 37000 42500 47500 49500
AC 3500 7500 10100 14460 16760 19360 22460 24410

According to Table 9, the total EV for all the activ- Table 8

ities is as follows: Information of work packages

 18  Activity Progress BAC($)

=
EV i
EV 1 Pour foundation Completed 8000
i=1
2 Install patio Very high 3400
= [(19510, 20246.25, 2113.75, 21850; 0.6) , 3 Stairway Half 2500
4 Frame exterior walls Not started 2500
(18773.75, 19812.5, 21547.5, 22586.25; 1)] 5 Frame interior walls Low 3000
6 Install roofing trusses Not started 1250
According to Table 7, the PV and AC at the data 7 Install water lines Low 1900
date, i.e. week 8 is 27500$ and 24410$, respectively. 8 Install gas lines Low 2300
Thus, the SPI and the CPI of the project at the data 9 Install bath and kitchen fixture Not started 850
10 Install wiring Very low 950
date are determined as follows: 11 Install outlet/switches Not started 1350

 12 Install fixtures Very low 1200
 = EV

SPI 13 Install drywalls Half 2400
PV 14 Install carpets Not started 3200
⎡  ⎤ 15 Paintings Less than half 5600
27500 , 27500 , 27500 , 27500 ; 0.6
,
19510 20246.25 21113.75 21850 16 Install felt More than half 3600
⎢ ⎥
= ⎣  18773.75 19812.5 21547.5 22586.25  ⎦ 17 Install shingles Very low 2600

27500 , 27500 , 27500 , 27500 ; 1

18 Install vents Not started 2900

  Table 9
(0.76, 0.79, 0.82, 0.85; 0.6) , Earned values of project activities
=
(0.73, 0.77, 0.84, 0.88; 1)  
Activity 
E i ∗ BACi
Vi = F

 1 [(8000,8000,8000,8000;0.6),
 = EV

CPI (8000,8000,8000,8000;1)]
AC 2 [(2550,2635,2805,2890;0.6),
⎡  ⎤ (2465,2550,2890,2975;1)]
, 24410 , 24410 , 24410 ; 0.6 ,
19510 20246.25 21113.75 21850
3 [(1187.5,1250,1250,1312.5;0.6),
⎢ 24410 ⎥
= ⎣  18773.75 19812.5 21547.5 22586.25  ⎦ (1125,1250,1250,1375;1)]
24410 , 24410 , 24410 , 24410 ; 1
4 [(0,0,0,0;0.6),(0,0,0,0;1)]
5 [(825,900,900,975;0.6),
  (750,900,900,1050;1)]
(0.8, 0.83, 0.86, 0.89; 0.6) , 6 [(0,0,0,0;0.6),(0,0,0,0;1)]
= 7 [(522.5,570,570,617.5;0.6),
(0.77, 0.81, 0.88, 0.93; 1) (475,570,570,665;1)]
8 [(632.5,690,690,747.5;0.6),
Estimating cost at completion of the project is (575,690,690,805;1)]
determined as follows: 9 [(0,0,0,0;0.6),(0,0,0,0;1)]
10 [(142.5,166.25,213.75,237.5;0.6),
] = BAC
]
EAC (118.75,142.5,237.5,261.25;1)]

 11 [0,0,0,0;0.6),(0,0,0,0;1)]
CPI
⎡  ⎤ 12 [(180,210,270,300;0.6),
(150,180,300,330;1)]
, , ,
49500 49500 49500 49500
; 0.6 ,
⎢ 0.89 0.86 0.83 0.8 ⎥ 13 [(1140,1200,1200,1260;0.6);
= ⎣  49500 49500 49500 49500  ⎦ (1080,1200,1200,1320;1)]
0.77 , 0.81 , 0.88 , 0.92 ; 1 14 [(0,0,0,0;0.6),(0,0,0,0;1)]
15 [(1960,2100,2380,2520;0.6),
 
(55617.98, 57558.14, 59638.55, 61875; 0.6) , (1820,1960,2520,2660;1)]
= 16 [(1980,2070,2250,2340;0.6),
(64275.81, 61111.11, 56250, 53804.35; 1) (1890,1980,2340,2430;1)]
17 [(390,455,585,650;0.6),
The calculation of the ES is based on project- (325,390,650,15;1)]
ing each of the eight members of the trapezoidal 18 [(0,0,0,0;0.6),(0,0,0,0;1)]
110 N. Moradi et al. / An earned value model with risk analysis for project management under uncertain conditions

Table 10

S calculations
E
i Ei Ni Ei − PVNi PVNi+1 − PVNi+1  ES i = Ni 
E −PV
i Ni+1
+ PVNi+1 −PVNi

1 19510 5 3010 3100 5.97

2 20246.25 6 646.25 3600 6.18
3 21113.75 6 1513.75 3600 6.42
4 21850 6 2250 3600 6.62
5 18773 5 2273 3100 5.63
6 19812.5 6 212.5 3600 6.06
7 21547.5 6 1947.5 3600 6.54
8 22586.25 6 2986.25 3600 6.83



 on the baseline as given in 14 − 6.83 14 − 6.54
interval-valued EV 8+ ,8 + ,8
Table 10. For example, ES1 is calculated as follows: 0.85 0.82

N1 = 5 as PV5 < E1l = 19510 < PV6 ; thus, 14 − 6.06 14 − 5.63
+ ,8 + ;1
  0.76 0.7
E1l − PV5  
ES1 = N1 + (16.89, 17.47, 18.16, 18.71; 0.6) ,
PV6 − PV5 =
  (14.43, 17.10, 18.45, 19.96; 1)
18385 − 16500
= 5+ = 5.97
19600 − 16500 In this example, some threats and opportunities that
could affect the project performance are explained
According to these calculations, we have: with their occurrence possibility and the amount of
their effects on the time and cost of the project com-

 = [(5.97, 6.18, 6.42, 6.62; 0.6) ,
ES pletion. The threats that may have influence on the
project performance are categorized in three fields as
(5.63, 6.06, 6.54, 6.83; 1)]
the threats related to the safety of project and employ-
 ees, the related to the cost of the project and the threats
 t could be derived from the
Calculation of the SPI related to the time of the project. In the same way,


ES Equation (15): the opportunities are categorized in two fields related
to the cost and time of the project. Table 11 shows

 
 the opportunities and threats with their impact on the
 t = ES = ES

SPI project.
AD 8

 based on the
= [(0.75, 0.77, 0.8, 0.83; 0.6) , The whole project risk quantity (RQ)
Equation (19) is calculated as below:
(0.7, 0.76, 0.82, 0.85; 1)]

 = {[(0.3, 0.33, 0.39, 0.42; 0.6),
RQ
] 

] t could be calculated relied on the ES
EAC and
 (0.27, 0.3, 0.39, 0.45; 1)]

SPI t as follows:
⎡ ⎤ +[(0.15, 0.17, 0.19, 0.21; 0.6),


] t = AD + ⎣ PD − ES ⎦
]
EAC
(0.13, 0.16, 0.19, 0.24; 1)]

t
SPI −(0.18, 0.21, 0.21, 0.24; 0.6),

14 − 6.62 (0.16, 0.21, 0.21, 0.26; 1)]
= 8+ ,8
0.83 −[(0.06, 0.08, 0.08, 0.11; 0.6),
14 − 6.42 14 − 6.18
+ ,8 + ,8 (0.04, 0.07, 0.08, 0.13; 1)]
0.8 0.77
 −[(0.02, 0.03, 0.05, 0.06; 0.6),
14 − 5.97
+ ; 0.6 ,
0.75 (0.01, 0.02, 0.06, 0.07; 1)]}
 N. Moradi et al. / An earned value model with risk analysis for project management under uncertain conditions 111

Table 11 cost at completion of the project will be calculated as

Interval-valued fuzzy numbers related to the event’s occurrence
below:
and the quantity of threats and opportunities effects
 
^ = AC + BAC − EV
Threats Impacts ^
 AEAC
j = [(0.675, 0.7, 0.7, 0.725; 0.6),
P 
 

Safety C PI ∗ P RI
(0.65,
0.7, 0.7, 0.75; 1)] [(27650, 28386.25, 29253.75, 29990; 0.6) ,


Fj =
(0.275, 0.3, 0.3, 0.325; 0.6) ,
(0.25, 0.3, 0.3, 0.35; 1) (26913.75, 27952.5, 29687.5, 30726.25; 1)]

j ∗ F̃j = [(0.18, 0.21, 0.21, 0.24; 0.6) ,
P = 24410 +
[(0.74, 0.79, 0.83, 0.88; 0.6) ,
(0.16, 0.21, 0.21, 0.26; 1)]

j = [(0.075, 01, 01, 0125; 0.6),
P
(0.69, 0.76, 0.86, 0.93; 1)]
Cost
(0.05,
0.1, 0.1, 0.15; 1)] = [(55830.45, 58610.3, 61440.06, 64937.03; 0.6) ,


j = (0.75, 0.775, 0.825, 0.85; 0.6) ,
F
(0.725, 0.75, 0.85, 0.875; 1) (53349.52, 56912.91, 63472.5, 68940.8; 1)]

j ∗ F̃j = [(0.06, 0.08, 0.08, 0.11; 0.6) ,
P

 
^ (t) = AD + PD − ES
(0.04, 0.07, 0.08, 0.13; 1)] ^

j = [(0.15, 0.175, 0.225, 0.25; 0.6) ,
P
AEAC
Time S

 

PI t ∗ PRI

0.15, 0.25, 0.275; 1)]
(0.125, [(7.38,7.58,7.82, 8.03; 0.6) ,(7.17, 7.46, 7.94, 8.37; 1)]

j =
F
(0.15, 0.175, 0.225, 0.25; 0.6) , =
(0.01, 0.02, 0.06, 0.07; 1) [(0.7, 0.73, 0.78, 0.82; 0.6) , (0.63, 0.71, 0.8, 0.86; 1)]

j ∗ F̃j = [(0.02, 0.03, 0.05, 0.06; 0.6) ,
P = [(17, 17.72, 18.54, 18.71; 0.6) ,
(0.01, 0.02, 0.06, 0.07; 1)]
Opportunities Impacts (16.34, 17.32, 19.18, 21.28; 1)]

i = [(0.55, 0.575, 0.625, 0.65; 0.6) ,
P
Cost ^
^ and
Now, the corresponding crisp value of AEAC

0.55, 0.65, 0.675; 1)]
(0.525, ^

i = (0.55, 0.575, 0.625, 0.65; 0.6) ,
F
^ (t) using the interval-valued fuzzy ranking is cal-
AEAC
(0.525, 0.55, 0.65, 0.675; 1)
 culated as below:
i ∗ F̃i = [(0.3, 0.33, 0.39, 0.42; 0.6) ,
P  
^
^
(0.27, 0.3, 0.39, 0.45; 1)] R AEAC

i = [(0.275, 0.3, 0.3, 0.325; 0.6) ,
P
Time 1

0.3, 0.3, 0.35; 1)]
(0.0.25, = × (|0.6 × 55830.45| + |0.6 × 58610.3|
 (0.55, 0.575, 0.625, 0.65; 0.6) , 8

Fi =
(0.525, 0.55, 0.65, 0.675; 1) + |0.6 × 61440.06| +|0.6 × 64937.03| +|53349.52|

i ∗ F
P i = [(0.15, 0.17, 0.19, 0.21; 0.6) ,
+ |56912.91| + |63472.5| + |68940.8|) = 48395.8
(0.13, 0.16, 0.19, 0.24; 1)]
 
^
^ (t) 1
R AEAC = × (|0.6 × 17| + |0.6 × 17.72|
= [(0.04, 0.16, 0.26, 0.37; 0.6), 8
(−0.06, 0.11, 0.28, 0.48); 1] + |0.6 × 18.54| + |0.6 × 18.71|

The risk ratio based on Equation (20) will be + |16.34| + |17.32| + |19.18|
obtained as follows:
+ |21.28| = 14.66


PRI = [(1, 1, 1, 1; 1) , (1, 1, 1, 1; 1)]
The results show that the cost at completion of the project
[(0.04, 0.16, 0.26, 0.37; 0.6) ,(−0.06, 0.11, 0.28, 0.48; 1)]
− is lessen than its budgeted cost, because the amount of
2+3
^
^ is smaller than total budget, i.e. 49500. Also,
R(AEAC)
= [(0.93, 0.95, 0.97, 0.99; 0.6) , (0.9, 0.94, 0.98, 1; 1)]
the time at completion of the project will go beyond its
^
^ ( t)) is bigger
So far, the EVM-performance indices and risk ratio planned time because the amount of R(AEAC
has been achieved. Here the adjusted schedule and than PD, i.e. 14.
112 N. Moradi et al. / An earned value model with risk analysis for project management under uncertain conditions
6. Conclusions
The earned value management (EVM) measures and
evaluates the performance and progress of a project through
cost and performance indices. It also tries to predict the
final cost and time of the project based on its past perfor-
mance. However, there are some risky situations that could
affect the status of the project. These risks are classified
in two fields: threats and opportunities. In this research, a
model considering EVM with risk factors in companion
with interval-valued fuzzy sets (IVFSs) has been presented
to integrate EVM and risk issues of projects. The purpose
of this paper is to assist the project managers to have more
accurate estimations about the future status of the project.
To this end, it has been tried to recognize the threats and
opportunities that could have influence on the performance
of the project to make the project managers able to calculate
the risk factors with more confidence. In fact, risk factors
adjust the EVM indices and estimations. Also, implement-
ing IVFSs in calculating EVM and risk factors is because
of the degree of uncertainty that exists in the judgments of
experts about the project and helps the managers to make
the estimations closer to the reality rather than classical
fuzzy sets. The model via linguistic variables expressed
as interval-valued triangular fuzzy numbers is effective
and easy to understand under project uncertain conditions.
Finally, a case study for construction industry is presented
to show the effectiveness of the proposed EVM step by
step under risky conditions. The proposed approach could
be further extended to consider more aspects of risks in
projects to cope with the EVM. Also, other new extensions
of fuzzy sets could be implemented to face with uncertain-
ties in projects.
References
[1] M. Vanhoucke, Measuring time: Improving project perfor-
mance using earned value management. Vol. 136. Springer
Science & Business Media, 2009.
[2] PMI, Guide, A Project Management Body of Knowledge
(PMBOK® GUIDE). Project Management Institute, 2011.
[3] W. Lipke, Applying management reserve to software project
management, Journal of Defense Software Engineering
(1999), 17–21.
[4] F.T. Anbari, Earned value project management method
and extensions, Project Management Journal 34(4) (2003),
12–23.
[5] E.H. Kim, W.G. Wells and R.D. Michael, A model for
effective implementation of earned value management
methodology, International Journal of Project Management
21(5) (2003), 375–382.
[6] W. Lipke, Earned schedule–ten years after, The Measurable
News (3) (2013), 15–21.
[7] K. Henderson, Earned schedule: A breakthrough exten-
sion to earned value theory? A retrospective analysis
of real project data, The Measurable News 1(2) (2003),
13–23.
[8] K. Henderson, Further developments in earned schedule, The
Measurable News 1(1) (2004), 15–22.
[9] S. Vandevoorde and M. Vanhoucke, A comparison of differ-
ent project duration forecasting methods using earned value
metrics, International Journal of Project Management 24(4)
(2006), 289–302.
[10] T. Narbaev and A. De Marco, An earned schedule-based
regression model to improve cost estimate at completion,
International Journal of Project Management 32(6) (2014),
1007–1018.
[11] D.F. Cioffi, Designing project management: A scientific
notation and an improved formalism for earned value calcu-
lations, International Journal of Project Management 24(2)
(2006), 136–144.
[12] W. Lipke, O. Zwikael, K. Henderson and F. Anbari, Pre-
diction of project outcome: The application of statistical
methods to earned value management and earned sched-
ule performance indexes, International Journal of Project
Management 27(40) (2009), 400–407.
[13] M. Bagherpour, A. Zareei, S. Noori and M. Heydari, Design-
ing a control mechanism using earned value analysis: An
application to production environment, International Jour-
nal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 49(5-8) (2010),
419–429.
[14] J.-S. Lee, Calculating cumulative inefficiency using earned
value management in construction projects, Canadian Jour-
nal of Civil Engineering 42(4) (2015), 222–232.
[15] A. Alam Tabriz, M. Farrokh, G.M. Nooshabadi and H.H.
Nia, A combined approach of the earned value manage-
ment and the risk management for estimating final results of
projects in fuzzy environment, Business Management and
Strategy 4(1) (2013), 32–52.
[16] J. Kim, C. Koo, C.-J. Kim, T. Hong and H.S. Park, Inte-
grated CO 2, cost, and schedule management system for
building construction projects using the earned value man-
agement theory, Journal of Cleaner Production 103 (2015),
275–285.
[17] B. Mojabi, R. Radfar and J. Nazemi, A comparative model of
evm and project’s schedule risk analysis using Monte Carlo
simulation, International Journal of Information, Security
and Systems Management 2(2) (2013), 219–225.
[18] L.M. Naeni, S. Shadrokh and A. Salehipour, A fuzzy
approach for the earned value management, Interna-
tional Journal of Project Management 32(4) (2014),
709–716.
[19] L.L. Willems and M. Vanhoucke, Classification of articles
and journals on project control and earned value manage-
ment, International Journal of Project Management 33(7)
(2015), 1610–1634.
[20] J. Batselier and M. Vanhoucke, Evaluation of deterministic
state-of-the-art forecasting approaches for project duration
based on earned value management, International Journal
of Project Management 33(7) (2015), 1588–1596.
[21] J. Colin and M. Vanhoucke, Setting tolerance limits for
statistical project control using earned value management,
Omega 49 (2014), 107–122.
[22] H. Hunter, R. Fitzgerald and D. Barlow, Improved cost mon-
itoring and control through the Earned Value Management
System, Acta Astronautica 93 (2014), 497–500.
 N. Moradi et al. / An earned value model with risk analysis for project management under uncertain conditions
[23] J. Rubio, J.I. Muñoz and J.R. Otegi, Engineering projects
assessment using earned value management with perfor-
mance indexes evaluation and statistical methods, Project
Management and Engineering, Springer International Pub-
lishing, 2015, pp. 61–72.
[24] Zadeh and A. Lotfi, Fuzzy sets, Information and Control
8(3) (1965), 338–353.
[25] H.-J. Zimmermann, Fuzzy Control. Fuzzy Set Theory—and
Its Applications, Springer Netherlands, 1996, pp. 203–240.
[26] M. Hanss, Applied fuzzy arithmetic, Springer-Verlag Berlin
Heidelberg, 2005.
[27] S. Ebrahimnejad, S.M. Mousavi, R. Tavakkoli-Moghaddam
and M. Heydar, Risk ranking in mega projects by fuzzy
compromise approach: A comparative analysis, Journal of
Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 26(2) (2014), 949–959.
[28] V. Mohagheghi, S.M. Mousavi and B. Vahdani, A new
optimization model for project portfolio selection under
interval-valued fuzzy environment, Arabian Journal for Sci-
ence and Engineering 40(11) (2015), 3351–3361.
[29] S.M. Mousavi, H. Gitinavard and B. Vahdani, Evaluat-
ing construction projects by a new group decision-making
model based on intuitionistic fuzzy logic concepts, Interna-
tional Journal of Engineering-Transactions C: Aspects 28(9)
(2015), 1312–1319.
[30] S.M. Mousavi, S. Mirdamadi, A. Siadat, J. Dantan and R.
Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, An intuitionistic fuzzy grey model
for selection problems with an application to the inspection
planning in manufacturing firms, Engineering Applications
of Artificial Intelligence 39 (2015), 157–167.
[31] S.M. Mousavi, B. Vahdani, H. Hashemi and S. Ebrahim-
nejad, An artificial intelligence model-based locally linear
neuro-fuzzy for construction project selection, Journal of
Multiple-Valued Logic and Soft Computing 25(6) (2015),
589–604.
[32] S.M. Mousavi, B. Vahdani and S. Sadigh Behzadi, Design-
ing a model of intuitionistic fuzzy VIKOR in multi-attribute
group decision-making problems, Iranian Journal of Fuzzy
Systems 13(1) (2016), 45–65.
[33] H. Gitinavard, S.M. Mousavi and B. Vahdani, A new
balancing and ranking method based on hesitant fuzzy
sets for solving decision-making problems under uncer-
tainty, International Journal of Engineering-Transactions B:
Applications 28(2) (2014), 214–223.
[34] H. Gitinavard, S.M. Mousavi and B. Vahdani, A new
multi-criteria weighting and ranking model for group
decision-making analysis based on interval-valued hesitant
fuzzy sets to selection problems, Neural Computing and
Applications 13(1) (2016), 45–65.
113
[35] B. Vahdani, S.M. Mousavi, H. Hashemi, M. Mousakhani
and S. Ebrahimnejad, A new hybrid model based on least
squares support vector machine for project selection problem
in construction industry, Arabian Journal for Science and
Engineering 39(5) (2014), 4301–4314.
[36] B. Vahdani, M. Salimi and S.M. Mousavi, A compromise
decision-making model based on VIKOR for multi-
objective large-scale nonlinear programming problems with
a block angular structure under uncertainty, Scientia Iran-
ica Transaction E, Industrial Engineering 22(6) (2015),
2571–2584.
[37] M.B. Gorzałczany, A method of inference in approximate
reasoning based on interval-valued fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets
and Systems 21(1) (1987), 1–17.
[38] M.-S. Kuo, A novel interval-valued fuzzy MCDM method
for improving airlines’ service quality in Chinese cross-
strait airlines, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review 47(6) (2011), 1177–1193.
[39] S.J. Chen, A new method for handling the similarity measure
problems of interval-valued fuzzy numbers. Proceedings
of the Second International Conference on Natural Com-
putation and the Third International Conference on Fuzzy
Systems and Knowledge Discovery, 2006.
[40] G. Wang and X. Li, Correlation and information energy
of interval-valued fuzzy numbers, Fuzzy Sets and Systems
103(1) (1999), 169–175.
[41] S.-M. Chen and J.-H. Chen, Fuzzy risk analysis based on
ranking generalized fuzzy numbers with different heights
and different spreads, Expert Systems with Applications
36(3) (2009), 6833–6842.
[42] P. Liu and F. Jin, A multi-attribute group decision-making
method based on weighted geometric aggregation opera-
tors of interval-valued trapezoidal fuzzy numbers, Applied
Mathematical Modelling 36(6) (2012), 2498–2509.
[43] Q.W. Fleming and J.M. Koppelman, Earned value project
management. Project Management Institute, 2000.
[44] D.S. Jacob and M. Kane, Forecasting schedule completion
using earned value metrics revisited, The Measurable News
1(11) (2004), 26–30.
[45] C.L. Pritchard, Risk management, concepts and guidance.
CRC Press, 2014.
[46] D.S. Christensen, Using performance indices to evaluate
the estimate at completion, Journal of Cost Analysis 11(1)
(1994), 17–23.
[47] M. Salari, M. Bagherpour and J. Wang, A novel earned value
management model using Z-number, International Journal
of Applied Decision Sciences 7(1) (2014), 97–119.
Copyright of Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems is the property of IOS Press and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.