Filip Popoviฤ – Comtrade Group, Comtrade Digital Services, Dublin, Ireland
Tatjana Atanasijeviฤ – Comtrade Group, Comtrade Digital Services, Dublin, Ireland
Srdjan Atanasijeviฤ – Comtrade Group, Comtrade Digital Services, Dublin, Ireland
DOI: https://doi.org/10.31410/LIMEN.S.P.2019.17
5th International Scientific-Business Conference – LIMEN 2019 – Leadership, Innovation, Management and Economics: Integrated Politics of Research – SELECTED PAPERS, Graz, Austria, December 12, 2019, published by the Association of Economists and Managers of the Balkans, Belgrade; Printed by: SKRIPTA International, Belgrade, ISBN 978-86-80194-27-1, ISSN 2683-6149, DOI: https://doi.org/10.31410/LIMEN.S.P.2019
Abstract
Earned value management, as project management practice for monitoring, reporting, forecasting,
and controlling, is generally characteristic of traditional project management. The method
reckons on baselined plans with fixed and well-defined scope. This technique measures cost and schedule
upon a project baseline. A resulting simple set of metrics provides early warnings of performance
issues and allows timely and appropriate adjustments. On the other hand, the Agile approach in project
management focuses on maximizing Return of Investment through early and continuous delivery of
value, as outlined in the Agile manifesto. What is not defined is in which way to manage and track the
cost to evaluate actual ROI. A possible solution is to implement a well-known EVM in Agile by using
only three basic planning parameters: Velocity, Estimated Backlog, and Cost.
Based on our results, EVM could be used effectively at sprint and release levels, to provide additional
transparency of project progress to the stakeholders and to allow us to implement corrective measures
just in time.
Keywords
Agile, EVM, ROI, Control, Forecasting, Sprint, Release.
References
Atanasijeviฤ, S. (2016). Approach to project management in dynamic reality – Differences between
traditional and agile approaches. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.10519.27047/1.
Atanasijeviฤ, S. (2019). Managing AI Projects. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10771.02080/1.
Atanasijeviฤ, S., Atanasijeviฤ, T., & Zahar, M. (2019). PMO Approach in choosing the optimal
Project Governance Framework for contracted engagement model. doi:10.13140/
RG.2.2.15466.06080/1.
Atanasijeviฤ, S., Stefanoviฤ, M., Atanasijeviฤ, T., & Nediฤ, V. (2010). Customer Satisfaction
Survey AnalysisโUltimate Tool for Measuring Quality of Software Services Today. In 4th
International Conference for Quality Research (pp. 299-308). Kragujevac, Serbia.
Dragiฤeviฤ, D., Milosavljeviฤ, A., & Atanasijeviฤ, S. (2013). Combination of traditional and
agile project management methodologies on software project of health information system
in Ministry of Defence of Republic of Serbia. In 16. International Conference of Quality
Management. Belgrade: ICDQM.
EVM (Earned Value Management) vs. Agile Project Management. (2016). [Blog].
Retrieved from https://blog.humphreys-assoc.com/evm-earned-value-management-vs-agile-
project-management/
Ghosh, S. (2015). Systemic Comparison of the Application of EVM in Traditional and Agile
Software Project. PM World Journal, 4(8).
Kamphorst, J., Mendys-Kamphorst, E., & Westbrock, B. (2018). Fixed Costs Matter. SSRN
Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3292536
Rai, V., & Mehta, S. (2014). Understanding the Dynamics of Fixed-price Programs: A Case
Study Illustration and Generalization. In 1st Asia Pacific System Dynamics Conference.
Tokyo, Japan. doi: 10.13140/2.1.2717.5041.
