THE THREE ACTIVITIES ARE DISTINCT AND ARE OFTEN CONFUSED: MONITORING — CONTINUOUS collection of data on what is happening: progress, cost, quality, safety, risks. It OBSERVES; it does not judge. EVALUATION — PERIODIC, deeper assessment of whether the project is achieving its OBJECTIVES and whether those objectives remain valid. It asks "are we doing the right thing?", not merely "are we on schedule?" CONTROLLING — TAKING ACTION on the difference between plan and actual. WITHOUT CONTROL, MONITORING IS MERELY EXPENSIVE RECORD-KEEPING. THE CONTROL CYCLE, which is a closed loop: PLAN (the BASELINE) ↓ EXECUTE ↓ MEASURE actual performance ↓ COMPARE with the baseline → VARIANCE ↓ ANALYSE the cause ↓ ACT — corrective action, or a formal change to the baseline ↓ (back to EXECUTE) TWO PROPERTIES OF A USEFUL CONTROL SYSTEM: · IT MUST BE TIMELY. Information about a deviation is only valuable while there is still time to act; a report arriving after the concrete has cured is history, not control. · IT MUST COMPARE AGAINST A BASELINE. Without the approved scope, schedule and budget, there is nothing to have a variance from. ── EARNED VALUE ANALYSIS (EVA) ───────────────────────────── THE CENTRAL TECHNIQUE OF THIS TOPIC, AND THE MOST EXAMINED. THE THREE MEASURES, at a given point in time: PV PLANNED VALUE (BCWS) — the budgeted cost of the work SCHEDULED to be done by now. EV EARNED VALUE (BCWP) — the BUDGETED cost of the work ACTUALLY COMPLETED. THIS IS THE KEY QUANTITY: it values real progress at planned rates. AC ACTUAL COST (ACWP) — what has actually been spent on the work completed. THE VARIANCES: SCHEDULE VARIANCE SV = EV − PV negative → BEHIND SCHEDULE COST VARIANCE CV = EV − AC negative → OVER BUDGET THE INDICES, which are preferred because they are dimensionless and comparable across projects: SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE INDEX SPI = EV / PV COST PERFORMANCE INDEX CPI = EV / AC > 1 is good, < 1 is bad, for both. A WORKED EXAMPLE — the standard exam calculation: A project has a budget (BAC) of Rs 1,000,000 over 10 months. At the end of month 4: PV = Rs 400,000 (40% was scheduled) EV = Rs 350,000 (35% is actually complete) AC = Rs 450,000 (that is what has been spent) SV = 350,000 − 400,000 = − Rs 50,000 BEHIND SCHEDULE CV = 350,000 − 450,000 = − Rs 100,000 OVER BUDGET SPI = 350,000 / 400,000 = 0.875 CPI = 350,000 / 450,000 = 0.778 READ THAT TOGETHER: THE PROJECT IS DOING 87.5% OF THE WORK IT PLANNED AND PAYING 1/0.778 = 1.29 RUPEES FOR EVERY RUPEE OF VALUE IT EARNS. Both are bad, and the cost problem is the worse of the two. NOTE WHAT A SIMPLE COST REPORT WOULD HAVE SAID: "spent 450,000 of 1,000,000, so 45% of the budget is gone at month 4 of 10" — which sounds broadly fine. EARNED VALUE IS WHAT REVEALS THAT ONLY 350,000 OF VALUE EXISTS FOR THAT MONEY. THE FORECASTS, which are what management actually wants: ESTIMATE AT COMPLETION, assuming current efficiency continues: EAC = BAC / CPI = 1,000,000 / 0.7778 = Rs 1,285,714 ESTIMATE TO COMPLETE: ETC = EAC − AC = 1,285,714 − 450,000 = Rs 835,714 VARIANCE AT COMPLETION: VAC = BAC − EAC = − Rs 285,714 TO-COMPLETE PERFORMANCE INDEX — the efficiency now required to finish within the original budget: TCPI = (BAC − EV) / (BAC − AC) = 650,000 / 550,000 = 1.182 THE TCPI IS THE REALITY CHECK: a project running at CPI 0.78 must switch to 1.18 for the remainder to hit its budget — A 52% IMPROVEMENT IN EFFICIENCY, WHICH ALMOST NEVER HAPPENS. THAT IS THE NUMBER THAT TELLS MANAGEMENT THE BUDGET IS GONE, and it is why the technique is valued: it converts a vague concern into an arithmetic impossibility. EARNED VALUE'S KNOWN LIMITATION: SV AND SPI ARE MEASURED IN MONEY, NOT TIME, and SPI misleadingly converges to 1.0 at the end of a project even if it finishes late, because eventually EV = PV = BAC. EARNED SCHEDULE is the refinement that expresses schedule performance in time units instead.

THE MONITORING TOOLS BEYOND EARNED VALUE: S-CURVE — planned versus actual cumulative cost, as in the life cycle topic. Simple and universally understood, but it shows spend, not value — so it shares exactly the weakness earned value was invented to fix. UPDATED NETWORK / GANTT — with actual progress marked, and THE CRITICAL PATH RECALCULATED, since it moves. MILESTONE TRACKING — the milestone slip chart, plotting forecast milestone dates against reporting date, makes creeping delay unmistakable. PROGRESS REPORTS at fixed intervals, in a fixed format. PHYSICAL MEASUREMENT AND SITE INSPECTION — the check that keeps the reported figures honest. QUALITY CONTROL records, NON-CONFORMANCE reports. RISK REGISTER REVIEW — risks reassessed, not filed and forgotten. CHANGE LOG. ── CHANGE CONTROL ────────────────────────────────────────── Every proposed change passes through a defined procedure: 1. the change is REQUESTED in writing 2. its impact on SCOPE, TIME, COST, QUALITY AND RISK is assessed 3. it is APPROVED OR REJECTED by an authority appropriate to its size (a CHANGE CONTROL BOARD on large projects) 4. if approved, THE BASELINE IS FORMALLY UPDATED 5. it is communicated to everyone affected THE PURPOSE IS NOT TO PREVENT CHANGE — projects legitimately change. IT IS TO ENSURE THAT NO CHANGE HAPPENS WITHOUT ITS COST AND TIME BEING PRICED AND ACCEPTED FIRST. Uncontrolled change is SCOPE CREEP, and its characteristic signature is a project that is late and over budget with nobody able to say which decision caused it. ── CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AVAILABLE ──────────────────────────── · reallocate resources to critical activities · CRASH or FAST-TRACK, as in the scheduling topic · work overtime or add shifts (with declining productivity) · re-sequence the remaining work · reduce scope, with the client's agreement · accept the delay and formally re-baseline · in the extreme, TERMINATE the project THE PRINCIPLE: ACT ON THE CRITICAL PATH, since action anywhere else changes the end date by nothing. ── EVALUATION ────────────────────────────────────────────── Distinct from monitoring, and conducted at intervals: FORMATIVE (mid-term) evaluation — during implementation, to improve the remaining work. SUMMATIVE (terminal) evaluation — at completion, on whether objectives were achieved. EX-POST evaluation — years after completion, on whether the benefits actually materialised. THE MOST NEGLECTED AND THE MOST INFORMATIVE, because it is the only one that tests the FEASIBILITY STUDY'S PREDICTIONS against reality. A road built to carry 5,000 vehicles a day that carries 1,200 was appraised wrongly, and only an ex-post evaluation will ever say so. THE STANDARD EVALUATION CRITERIA — the OECD-DAC framework used by essentially every development agency working in Nepal: RELEVANCE — was it the right thing to do? COHERENCE — does it fit with other interventions? EFFECTIVENESS — were the objectives achieved? EFFICIENCY — were resources used economically? IMPACT — what wider changes resulted? SUSTAINABILITY— will the benefits continue after the project ends? SUSTAINABILITY IS THE CRITERION MOST OFTEN FAILED IN PRACTICE: a water supply scheme built successfully, handed over, and non-functional in three years because no maintenance funding or trained operator was arranged. THE PROJECT SUCCEEDED AND THE INVESTMENT FAILED. THE LOGICAL FRAMEWORK (LOGFRAME) is the standard instrument, setting out INPUTS → ACTIVITIES → OUTPUTS → OUTCOMES → IMPACT, each with OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE INDICATORS, MEANS OF VERIFICATION and ASSUMPTIONS. Required by most donors funding projects in Nepal. ── IN THE NEPALI PUBLIC SYSTEM ───────────────────────────── · The NATIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION monitors development projects. · The Ministry of Finance tracks budget release and expenditure. · The OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL audits after the fact and publishes an annual report. · NATIONAL PRIDE PROJECTS receive high-level monitoring. · A RECURRENT FINDING ACROSS AUDITOR GENERAL REPORTS is LOW CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ABSORPTION with a heavy concentration of spending in the final month of the fiscal year — evidence that monitoring exists but control is weak, since the pattern repeats annually without being corrected.