Has anyone else noticed how the majority of illustrations depicting Earned Value Management methodology show projects over budget and behind schedule? Why the pessimism? I know it’s frequently how things work out, but why do we put up with what amounts to continuous failure improvement? Why don’t we – since we’re only depicting how measurements and calculations are made – show the positive side, e.g. under-spent and ahead of schedule?
It seems like it would make a difference if, rather than presenting failure in the abstract, we presented success in the abstract. Isn’t it better to be going in with a success-oriented mindset, tempered with a good dose of reality? Of course, this presupposes situations where we’re not driven by the dynamics to be overly optimistic and unrealistic at the front end of a project in order to win a bid or compete with others, especially in large programs/projects. A tall order methinks.

Leave a Reply