Over the last couple of months there has been a discussion running in the Project Management World Journal around the purpose of EVM. The general consensus seems to be EVM is a performance management system, focused on measuring the performance of the managers assigned to manage the work packages, control accounts and overall project. Identifying emerging issues early, at the work package level allows management intervention to improve the situation.
EVM was developed in the 1960s, based on PERT COST, which in turn was developed from the PERT TIME scheduling system[1]. EVM also drew on the well-established practice of cost engineering[2], but these two disciplines are designed for very different purposes. Cost engineering is focused on project cost estimating and control, EVM is focused on performance management. Appreciating the difference between financial management, cost accounting, cost engineering, and earned value management is important for their successful implementation. These terms are not, and never have been, synonymous.
Our latest published article The Purpose of Earned Value Management summarizes the discussion and identifies the role of EVM in a comprehensive project controls framework. Download from https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-SCH-040.php#Overview
For more on the implementation of EVM and free EVM resources see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-SCH-040.php
[1] For more on The Origins and History of Earned Value Management see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PDF_Papers/P207_EVM_History.pdf
[2] For more on The Origins and History of Cost Engineering see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PDF_Papers/P207_Cost_History.pdf
Pat Weaver
Lynda Bourne
Mosaicproject's Blog 
I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on your position that “Earned Value originated in the 1960s” and that it was “never a cash flow management’ or “incentive payment system”.
Click to access pmwj121-Sep2022-Giammalvo-origins-and-history-of-evm-a-contractors-perspective.pdf
In the world of science, there is no such thing as CONSENSUS. (For a long time “consensus” was that the world was FLAT and more recently that MRNA vaccines were “safe” and could stop Covid 19, and we know what that “consensus” did to us!!)
The scientific method requires that theories or hypothesis meet 5 tests: https://sciencing.com/five-characteristics-scientific-method-10010518.html
1) Empirical Observation
The scientific method is empirical. That is, it relies on direct observation of the world, and disdains hypotheses that run counter to observable fact. This contrasts with methods that rely on pure reason (including that proposed by Plato) and with methods that rely on emotional or other subjective factors.
2) Replicable Experiments
Scientific experiments are replicable. That is, if another person duplicates the experiment, he or she will get the same results. Scientists are supposed to publish enough of their method so that another person, with appropriate training, could replicate the results. This contrasts with methods that rely on experiences that are unique to a particular individual or a small group of individuals.
3) Provisional Results
Results obtained through the scientific method are provisional; they are (or ought to be) open to question and debate. If new data arise that contradict a theory, that theory must be modified. For example, the phlogiston theory of fire and combustion was rejected when evidence against it arose.
4) Objective Approach
The scientific method is objective. It relies on facts and on the world as it is, rather than on beliefs, wishes or desires. Scientists attempt (with varying degrees of success) to remove their biases when making observations.
5) Systematic Observation
Strictly speaking, the scientific method is systematic; that is, it relies on carefully planned studies rather than on random or haphazard observation. Nevertheless, science can begin from some random observation. Isaac Asimov said that the most exciting phrase to hear in science is not “Eureka!” but “That’s funny.” After the scientist notices something funny, he or she proceeds to investigate it systematically.
The 1909 published work of Gillette and Dana meets those 5 criteria, providing sufficient evidence that EVM did originate on the factory floors of 18th Century Industrial Revolution as a “pay for performance” or “incentive payment system” that is still in use today by any CONTRACTOR who prices, costs, bids and bills for his/her services based on a “Unit in Place” method. This includes not only construction but many in the medical, legal and other professions today.
Whether this meets “PMI” or “AACE” “approval” I could care less.
We have been using EVM as described by Gillette and Dana for 50+ years now and based on your KPMG-AIPM research, https://home.kpmg/au/en/home/insights/2020/08/australian-project-delivery-performance-survey-2020.html I don’t think PMI or AACE have much EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to support MANY of the practices they advocate and endorse including the use of EVM.
Paul, you can carry on with your idiotic assertions that Earned Value Management was invented by Mohamed, and/or used by cloth merchants and stone masons in the 14th century and/or documented by various authors writing about cost accounting and/or cost engineering if you wish. I use the information provided by:
• The USA DoD, the organization that invented Earned Value,
• The committee responsible for publishing the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) / Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA) standard EIA-748, Earned Value Management Systems,
• The PMI Standards Development group responsible for the publication of ANSI/PMI 19-006-2019 The Standard for Earned Value Management,
• The AACE® committee responsible for International Recommended Practice No. 82R-13 Earned Value Management (EVM) Overview and recommended practices consistent with EIA-748-C, and
• The International Standards Organization (ISO), Technical Committee TC258 with representatives from 82 national standard bodies, responsible for publishing ISO 21508:2018 Earned value management in project and programme management.
These are the people who developed EVM, refined EVM and standardised EVM, a process you clearly have never had any understanding of, or involvement in. However, be advised, every time I come across some of your idiotic rubbish, I will call it out for what it is. Ill informed rubbish.
It is a pity someone who claims some academic credentials is so unable to understand the fundamental differences between financial management, cost accounting, cost engineering (defined by Gillette and Dana), and earned value management. You may think these processes are all the same, 99.999% of professionals in the field think they are distinct and different disciplines.