Earned Value Management Considering Technical Readiness Level and Its Application to New Space Launcher Program

  • Young-In Choi
  • Jaemyung Ahn
Original Paper


Earned value management (EVM) is a methodology for monitoring and controlling the performance of a project based on a comparison between planned and actual cost/schedule. This study proposes a concept of hybrid earned value management (H-EVM) that integrates the traditional EVM metrics with information on the technology readiness level. The proposed concept can reflect the progress of a project in a sensitive way and provides short-term perspective complementary to the traditional EVM metrics. A two-dimensional visualization on the cost/schedule status of a project reflecting both of the traditional EVM (long-term perspective) and the proposed H-EVM (short-term perspective) indices is introduced. A case study on the management of a new space launch vehicle development program is conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed H-EVM concept, associated metrics, and the visualization technique.


Earned value management (EVM) Technology readiness level (TRL) Project management (PM) Cost overrun 


  1. 1.
    Project Management Institute (2013) A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK Guide), 5h edn. Project Management Institute, Newtown SquareGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    EPA Chief Information Officer (2005) Earned value management (EVM) procedures. US Environment Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cressman K, Humphreys G (2012) Earned value professional certification study guide. AACE International, MorgantownGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Snelgrove KB, Saleh JH (2016) Toward a new spacecraft optimal design lifetime? Impact of marginal cost of durability and reduced launch cost. Acta Astronaut 127:271–282. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Keller S, Collopy P, Componation P (2014) What is wrong with space system cost models? A survey and assessment of cost estimating approaches. Acta Astronaut 93:345–351. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    DoD Instruction Number 5000.02 (2015) Operation of the defense acquisition system. U.S. Department of Defense, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    NASA/SP-2012-599 (2013) Earned value management (EVM) implementation handbook. NASA Headquarters, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lipke W (2003) Schedule is different. Meas News 31(4):31–34Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Henderson K (2003) Earned schedule: a breakthrough extension to earned value theory? A retrospective analysis of real project data. Meas News 1(2):13–23Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vandevoorde S, Vanhoucke M (2006) A comparison of different project duration forecasting methods using earned value metrics. Int J Proj Manag 24(4):289–302. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Khamooshi H, Golafshani H (2014) EDM: earned duration management, a new approach to schedule performance management and measurement. Int J Proj Manag 32(6):1019–1041. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Batselier J, Vanhoucke M (2015) Evaluation of deterministic state-of-the-art forecasting approaches for project duration based on earned value management. Int J Proj Manag 33(7):1588–1596. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lipke W, Zwikael O, Henderson K, Anbari F (2009) Prediction of project outcome: the application of statistical methods to earned value management and earned schedule performance indexes. Int J Proj Manag 27(4):400–407. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Naeni L, Shahram S, Salehipour A (2011) A fuzzy approach for the earned value management. Int J Proj Manag 29(6):764–772. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kwak Y, Anbari F (2012) History, practices, and future of earned value management in government: perspectives from NASA. Proj Manag J 43(1):77–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hunter H, Fitzgerald R, Barlow D (2014) Improved cost monitoring and control through the earned value management system. Acta Astronaut 93:497–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Research Directorate of DoD (2009) Technical readiness assessment (TRA) deskbook. U.S. Department of Defense, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mankins JC (1995) Technology readiness levels, White PaperGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mankins JC (2009) Technology readiness assessments: a retrospective. Acta Astronaut 65(9–10):1216–1223. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mankins JC (2009) Technology readiness and risk assessments: a new approach. Acta Astronaut 65(9–10):1208–1215. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    European Space Research and Technology Centre (2009) Technology Readiness Levels: Handbook for Space Applications (reference: TEC-SHS/5574/MG/ap), TEC-SHSGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Aleina SC, Viola N, Fusaro R, Saccoccia G (2016) Effective methodology to derive strategic decisions from ESA exploration technology roadmaps. Acta Astronaut 126:316–324. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Baiocco P, Ramusat G, Sirbi A, Bouilly Th, Lavelle F, Cardone T, Fischer H, Appel S (2015) System driven technology selection for future European launch systems. Acta Astronaut 107:301–316. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), TRL Guideline of JAXA (reference: BDB-06005A), JAXA, 2008 (Written in Japanese)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Society for Aeronautical & Space Sciences and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Aerospace EngineeringKorea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST)DaejeonRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Korea Space Launch Vehicle (KSLV)-II R&D Program Executive OfficeKorea Aerospace Research Institute (KARI)DaejeonRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations