| Course | BU 442 Cost and Time Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 6 |
| Paper type | Earned value calculation |
| Length | About 900 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Project Management |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for BU 442 Unit 6
Planned $803,389, Earned $658,689, Spent $684,500: An Earned Value Calculation at Day 80 for a Composite Fort Wayne Shared Kitchen, Worked From Raw Figures
Student Name
Business, Herzing University
BU 442: Cost and Time Management
Instructor Name
May 27, 2026
Planned $803,389, Earned $658,689, Spent $684,500: An Earned Value Calculation at Day 80 for a Composite Fort Wayne Shared Kitchen, Worked From Raw Figures
Status Date and Crediting Rules
This calculation measures the shared kitchen project at Fort Wayne Food Works, the invented nonprofit converting a former hardware store, at the close of business on Friday, May 22, 2026, after 80 of 135 planned working days. It uses the time-phased budget of $1,317,000, excluding contingency and management reserve, as the performance measurement baseline. Planned value, earned value and actual cost are established package by package from raw figures, the two variances and two indices are computed, and each is interpreted.
Earned value depends on how work is credited, so the rules were set when the baseline was approved, not now. Fleming and Koppelman (2010) stress that crediting rules must be objective and fixed in advance, or earned value becomes an opinion. Four rules are used. Packages that are either done or not, design approval and the permit, earn 0 percent until complete and 100 percent when complete. Demolition, plumbing, mechanical and interior work earn percent complete measured in physical units: square feet cleared, fixtures roughed in, units set, wall panels hung. Hood and walk-in fabrication earn by units completed in the shop, as confirmed by the fabricator's inspection photographs; seven of ten hood sections are finished. Electrical work earns by weighted milestones: service equipment set, 40 percent; panels installed, 20 percent; feeders pulled, 20 percent; branch rough-in, 20 percent. Project management is level of effort and earns its planned value.
Package by Package
Planned value is each package's budget times the share of its scheduled duration that should be done by day 80. Earned value is its budget times the share actually done under the crediting rules. Actual cost is what has been invoiced and accrued for the work. Accruals matter here: the electrical contractor's May invoice had not arrived by the status date, so the project manager accrued $21,000 for work observed on site, using the contractor's schedule of values. Without the accrual, actual cost would look $21,000 lower and the electrical overrun would be hidden for a month. The same rule applies to every package: actual cost follows the work performed, not the date a bill arrives, so that earned value and actual cost describe the same slice of work. The accruals are reversed when the invoices arrive, and any difference is recorded in the next status report.
| Package | Budget | Planned value | Earned value | Actual cost | Cost variance | Schedule variance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 Design | $68,000 | $68,000 | $68,000 | $71,500 | -$3,500 | $0 |
| 1.2 Permit review | $6,500 | $6,500 | $6,500 | $6,500 | $0 | $0 |
| 2.1 Demolition and abatement | $42,000 | $42,000 | $42,000 | $47,800 | -$5,800 | $0 |
| 4.1 Hood fabrication | $140,000 | $140,000 | $98,000 | $98,000 | $0 | -$42,000 |
| 4.3 Walk-in fabrication | $70,000 | $70,000 | $70,000 | $70,000 | $0 | $0 |
| 3.1 Electrical | $118,000 | $118,000 | $70,800 | $83,000 | -$12,200 | -$47,200 |
| 3.2 Plumbing | $96,000 | $96,000 | $96,000 | $104,500 | -$8,500 | $0 |
| 3.3 Mechanical | $132,000 | $132,000 | $132,000 | $128,000 | $4,000 | $0 |
| 5.1 Interior | $185,000 | $74,000 | $18,500 | $17,000 | $1,500 | -$55,500 |
| 7.0 Project management | $96,000 | $56,889 | $56,889 | $58,200 | -$1,311 | $0 |
| Total to date | $803,389 | $658,689 | $684,500 | -$25,811 | -$144,700 |
Variances and Indices
Subtracting actual cost from earned value, $658,689 less $684,500, gives a cost variance of -$25,811. The project has spent about $25,800 more than the budgeted cost of the work it has done.
Subtracting planned value from earned value, $658,689 less $803,389, gives a schedule variance of -$144,700. The project has completed about $144,700 less work, measured in budget dollars, than it planned to by day 80.
Dividing earned value by actual cost gives the cost performance index: 658,689 / 684,500 = 0.962. For every dollar Food Works has paid, about 96 cents of budgeted work is in place.
Dividing earned value by planned value gives the schedule performance index: 658,689 / 803,389 = 0.820. These are the four standard measures the PMBOK guide sets out for earned value analysis (Project Management Institute, 2017). The project has accomplished about 82 percent of the work it planned to have done by now.
What Each Figure Implies
The cost figures describe a moderate overrun concentrated in three packages. Demolition, plumbing and electrical account for $26,500 of overrun between them, partly offset by $4,000 saved on mechanical work and $1,500 on interior work so far. The cost index of 0.962 is within the range many organizations treat as acceptable, but it matters that two of the three overrunning packages are finished. Their overruns are spent money, not a trend that must continue. Whether the index predicts the rest of the project is the question for the forecast unit.
The schedule figures need more care. A schedule index of 0.820 sounds alarming, but schedule variance is measured in dollars and weighs every package by its budget, whether or not it is on the critical path. Of the $144,700 shortfall, $42,000 is hood fabrication, which had 45 days of float, and $47,200 is electrical work, which had 35 days. Neither threatens the finish date yet, although both are being watched because their float is being used up. Only the interior shortfall, $55,500, sits on the critical path. Interior construction should have started at day 70 but started at day 76, because plumbing finished six days late after the crew hit an old footing while excavating for the grease interceptor. That six-day slip is the schedule problem; the rest of the variance is noncritical work running behind in its float.
This is the known weakness of the schedule index as a measure of time. Vandevoorde and Vanhoucke (2006) showed that the dollar-based schedule index becomes unreliable in the later part of a project, drifting back toward 1.0 because all planned work is eventually earned however late it is, and that time-based measures forecast duration better. The index should therefore be read alongside the critical path, which shows a six-day slip at day 80. The variance analysis that follows tests each gap against thresholds and traces the ones that matter to causes. Food Works and its figures exist only in this course's case.
References
Fleming, Q. W., & Koppelman, J. M. (2010). Earned value project management (4th ed.). Project Management Institute.
Project Management Institute. (2017). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) (6th ed.). Project Management Institute.
Vandevoorde, S., & Vanhoucke, M. (2006). A comparison of different project duration forecasting methods using earned value metrics. International Journal of Project Management, 24(4), 289-302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.10.004
Reading the BU 442 Unit 6 instructions
For the sixth unit, BU 442 asks students to calculate earned value at a status date. Standard requirements include stating the crediting rules, establishing planned value, earned value and actual cost, computing cost and schedule variances and the two performance indices, and interpreting what each means for the project. Many prompts ask which crediting rule to use and whether software is required; most instructors accept spreadsheet or hand calculations if the working is shown. Students are often asked whether a schedule index can mislead. The calculation should be built from package-level data rather than totals alone. A detailed table with a few paragraphs of APA 7 interpretation is typical, and many instructors check one package's figures by hand.
How this BU 442 Unit 6 example is built
The paper opens with the status date and the baseline, then states four crediting rules and applies them to specific packages. It explains how planned value, earned value and actual cost are established, including an accrual for an uninvoiced electrical bill. A table lists each package's budget, its planned, earned and actual figures and two variances, with totals. A section computes the variances and indices from those totals. The interpretation section explains that two finished packages drive most of the cost overrun and that most of the schedule variance comes from work within its float, identifying the six-day slip on the critical path as the true schedule problem, supported by research on the index's limits.
Reading the BU 442 Unit 6 rubric
Earned value rubrics at Herzing typically reward correct crediting rules, accurate values at the package level, correct variance and index calculations, meaningful interpretation and clear presentation. Crediting rules earn full points when stated and applied consistently. Package values score highest when each can be traced to evidence of progress and cost. Calculations are judged on accuracy and on showing the formulas with numbers. Interpretation earns the most credit when the student explains what each figure implies, including limits such as the schedule index ignoring the critical path. Instructors also credit correct treatment of accruals and level-of-effort work, which are common sources of distortion that can hide an overrun for a month or more.
Common BU 442 Unit 6 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Earned value work often loses points when only totals are given, so the instructor cannot see where the figures come from. Another common error is crediting earned value by money spent rather than work done. Students frequently apply different crediting rules to similar packages without explanation. Some compute indices correctly but interpret them as if the schedule index measured time directly. Others ignore accruals, making actual cost look lower than it is. Level-of-effort work is often credited as if it produced deliverables. Finally, reading a low schedule index as proof the project is late, without checking the critical path, leads to wrong conclusions and sometimes to expensive acceleration that was never needed.
Get a BU 442 Unit 6 example written to your instructions
Upload the Unit 6 instructions, the BU 442 rubric your classroom carries, and the baseline, progress data and status date the assignment sets. We write a custom example that fixes one status date, declares the crediting rule, shows variances before indices and interprets each control account separately. First custom sample free, returned in 24 to 48 hours.
More BU 442 papers and project management samples
- BU 442 Unit 1: Estimating methods paper
- BU 442 Unit 2: Cost estimate with basis
- BU 442 Unit 3: Work breakdown and durations
- BU 442 Unit 4: Network diagram and critical path
- BU 442 Unit 5: Budget and contingency
- BU 442 Unit 7: Variance analysis with response
- BU 442 Unit 8: Forecast and status report
- BU 433 Unit 6: Ceremony analysis
- BU 434 Unit 6: Prioritization exercise
- BU 436 Unit 6: Supplier and procurement standards
- BU 345 Unit 6: Risk response table
BU 442 Unit 6 questions, answered
Which crediting rule should the example use?
Use whichever rule the instructions specify; if the choice is yours, pick one and defend it in a sentence. Crediting nothing until an element finishes is conservative and easy to audit; crediting a fixed share at start and the rest at finish smooths reporting; crediting measured units suits work with countable output. The choice matters less than stating it and applying it consistently across every account.
Do I need software to do this?
A spreadsheet is normally enough and often preferred, because the formulas stay visible and a marker can follow them. Where your section requires a particular tool, use it and still show one account calculated by hand. What loses credit is a screen capture of results with no working, since the arithmetic is precisely what this unit is examining.
Can a schedule index be favorable while the project is late?
Yes, and noticing it is worth marks. The schedule index is built from money rather than from dates, so work finished early on a non-driving chain can lift it while the critical path slips. Say what the index reads, then check it against the network from the earlier unit, and report the disagreement rather than letting the ratio speak alone.
Where can I find a free BU 442 Unit 6 sample paper?
The whole BU 442 Unit 6 earned value calculation appears above for free, with crediting rules, the package table and margin notes. For your own status data, forward the instructions and we prepare a custom calculation at no charge, usually within 48 hours.
Can the schedule index mislead in BU 442 Unit 6?
Yes. It measures work in dollars across all packages, including those with float. In the sample, the index is 0.820, yet most of the lag sits in noncritical work; the real delay is six days on the critical path.