Hello -

I am creating a report in MS Project 2013. When I create a time-phased line chart containing ACWP, the ACWP shown in the chart for the current status date does not match the ACWP shown in a table (same status date) or in a column chart within the same report. The table and the column chart show $10,401.45, while the line chart shows $90,401.45. Images provided below for reference. Also for reference - the ACWP shown in the report's tabular view exactly matches the ACWP shown in the Earned Value table in Project's Gantt chart view.

ACWP for 9/8/2014



(Matches values shown in Gantt view and in a column chart in the report.)







The difference between the two ACWP values is exactly $80,000. This precisely matches the value of a specific task in the schedule that is set up as a milestone and has no associated hours, but DOES have a cost resource assigned with an $80,000 cost. I am not certain why the chart is picking up this additional $80,000 when the tables do not show it. (Also note that when I export the data to Excel using "Visual Reports," the $80,000 task is not included in the exported ACWP.

Any idea why I am seeing this seeming inconsistency?

Thanks!

Hi Bill,
I've answered you at stack exchange.

http://pm.stackexchange.com/question...tch-acwp-in-co

Thanks Julie. I replied with comments in the same thread on Stack Exchange. For quick reference for other readers, my response is below:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Julie - I appreciate it. I tried a couple of different things based on your post. First, I removed the fixed cost entry for the task in question, and instead created a cost resource (with a per unit rate of $80,000). I assigned the cost resource to the task with an estimated usage of 1 unit, then re-baselined that task (with roll-up to summary tasks.) When I did this, for some reason, the Planned Value (BCWS) would not pick up the $80,000 cost, even when I set the status date well beyond the time for which I entered the actual usage. Neither did the Earned Value (BCWP). However, the ACWP did pick up the $80,000 cost. So it still left me with very large artificial variances. In the end, I simply decided to remove that element from the schedule entirely, since it has no potential to deviate from the planned value, and I am more concerned, at this time, with tracking the progress of the actual work effort.

In addition, upon further reflection, I decided that the magnitude of the $80,000 cost was so large in proportion to the relatively small weekly labor costs of $3K-$4K that a positive schedule variance for that task (if completed ahead of schedule) would severely obscure any negative variances in the labor tasks when the project was viewed as a whole. (At least until the original planned date of the $80,000 task had passed.) This was an additional reason I chose to drop it.

This results in an overall cost picture that is not entirely accurate since it doesn't include the $80,000, but it allows me to more effectively track the work being done on the project. And in case anyone is wondering, this technique is being used on a small project as a "work out the kinks" exercise before being applied to larger efforts. That is why I am spending so much monitoring effort on a set of tasks that is relatively small.

Hi Bill.

Replied at Stack Exchange.