When Earned Value and Time Analysis Don’t Match: A Planner’s Dilemma

Earned Value indices are powerful tools to evaluate project performance. But what happens when your time-based analysis doesn’t match the output of your Earned Value curves?

It’s not a theoretical question—it’s a real situation that many planners face.

As project control professionals, we often rely on SPI (Schedule Performance Index) to evaluate progress. It’s logical, data-driven, and rooted in actual earned/planned values. But sometimes, the numbers don’t align with what your client sees on the ground.

I’ve been in this situation before. I presented a report showing zero recorded delay, based on critical path analysis. At the same time, the SPI stood at 0.74, clearly indicating the project was behind schedule. The client was puzzled—and frustrated.

His response was honest and direct:"It seems what you're saying makes a lot of sense to you, but I simply need to know—will I be able to open my business on time or not?"

This moment forced me to reflect: It's not just about the logic—it's about the message.

Here’s what’s really happening: SPI only reflects the earned value versus planned value—it doesn’t differentiate between critical and non-critical work. If a contractor focuses all resources on the critical path and delays non-critical activities, SPI may drop, even though the completion date remains unaffected.

This is where Earned Schedule Analysis (ESA) enters the discussion. ESA attempts to bridge the gap by projecting earned value onto the time axis—translating cost performance into time units. It’s a promising approach, though not without debate.

Do I believe in it? Yes—at least as a method that brings clarity when traditional metrics feel disconnected.

Because in the end, data means nothing if it doesn’t help decision-makers understand what’s really happening—and when it matters.