This research investigated the importance of stability (ability of schedules to absorb disruption) to project outcomes. Managers involved in aviation systems development were surveyed for their perceptions of importance and usefulness for project attributes and performance management measures. Traditional measures of cost, schedule, performance, and earned value were compared to proposed measures of stability. Stability and earned value had both importance and usefulness to the managers. Stability was perceived to be as important as the more common measures. Perceptions differed depending on program size, scope, and stage of completion and between managers depending on experience and certification level.
AlreckP. L., & SettleR. B. (1985). The survey research handbook.New York: McGraw-Hill.
2.
AnbariF. T. (2003). Earned value project management method and extensions. Project Management Journal, 34(4), 12–23.
3.
AtkinsonR. (1999). Project management: Cost, time, and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria. International Journal of Project Management, 17, 337–342.
4.
BadiruA. B. (1988). Towards the standardization of performance measures for project scheduling heuristics. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 35(2), 82–89.
5.
BlanchardF. (1995). Net present value: An old tool finding use in assessing public sector capital expenditures. Project Management Journal, 26(1), 41–47.
6.
BonnalP., de JongheJ., & FergusonJ. (2006). A deliverable-oriented EVM system suited to a large-scale project. Project Management Journal, 37(1), 67–80.
7.
BonnerJ. M., RuekertR.W., & WalkerO. C. (2002). Upper management control of new product development projects and project performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19, 233–245.
8.
ChangA. S., & IbbsC. W. (1998). Development of consultant performance measures for design projects. Project Management Journal, 29(2), 39–54.
9.
ChristensenD. S. (1992). Determining an accurate estimate at completion. National Contract Management Journal, 25(1), 17–25.
10.
ChristensenD. S. (1993). The estimate at completion problem: A review of three studies. Project Management Journal, 24(1), 37–43.
11.
ChristensenD. S. (1994). A review of cost/schedule control system criteria literature. Project Management Journal, 25(3), 32–41.
12.
CioffiD. F. (2006). Completing projects according to plans: An earned-value improvement index.Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57, 290–295.
13.
CortinaJ. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104.
14.
CronbachL. J., GleserG. C., NandaH., & RajaratnamN. (1972). The dependability of behavioral measurements: Theory of generalizability for scores and profiles.New York: Wiley.
15.
CronbachL. J., & ShavelsonR. J. (2004). My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 391–418.
16.
Department of Defense. (1991). Defense acquisition management policies and procedures (DOD Instruction 5000.2). Washington, DC.
17.
EdenC., WilliamsT., AckermanF., & HowickS. (2000). The role of feedback dynamics in disruption and delay (D&D) in major projects. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 51, 291–300.
18.
FlemingQ. W., & KoppelmanJ. M. (1994). The essence and evolution of earned value. Journal of Cost Engineering, 36(11), 21–29.
19.
GarrettG. A. (2006). Earned value management. Contract Management, 46(12), 49–51.
20.
GerbingD. W., & AndersonJ. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 186–192.
21.
HauptE. (2003). Basic earned value management for program managers. Retrieved July 17, 2004, from http://www.acq.osd.mil/pm
22.
HauserJ. R. (2001). Metrics thermostat. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18, 134–153.
23.
KaplanR., & NortonD. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard—measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71–79.
24.
KellyJ. E.Jr., & WalkerM. (1959). Critical path programming and scheduling. Proceedings of the Eastern Joint Computing Conference (pp. 160–173).
25.
KloppenborgT., & MantelS. J.Jr. (1990). Tradeoffs on projects: They may not be what you think. Project Management Journal, 21(1), 13–21.
26.
LeedyP. D., & OrmrodJ. E. (2004). Practical research planning and design (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
27.
LiuY., & ZumboB. D. (2007). The impact of outliers on Cronbach's coefficient alpha estimate of reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 620–634.
28.
LochC. H., & Staffan TapperU. A. (2002). Implementing a strategy-driven performance measurement system for an applied research group. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19, 185–198.
29.
NunnallyJ. C., & BernsteinI. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
30.
PagellM. (1995). A measure of stability for project scheduling. Presented at the 1995 Annual Meeting of the Decision Sciences Institute.
31.
PinderJ. A., & MarucheckA. S. (1996). Using discounted cash flow heuristics to improve project net present value. Journal of Operations Management, 14, 229–240.
32.
Project Management Institute (PMI). (2004). A guide to the project management body of knowledge—Third edition. Newtown Square, PA: Author.
33.
RussellA. H. (1970). Cash flows in networks. Management Science, 16, 357–373.
34.
StewartW. E. (2001). Balanced score-card for projects.Project Management Journal, 32(1), 38–53.
35.
StuckenbruckC. L. (1989). The implementation of project management: The professional's handbook.Los Angeles: Addison-Wesley.
36.
SwartzS. M. (1998a). The relative performance of selected heuristics on the resource-constrained project scheduling problem under differing project execution strategies. Presented at the 1998 Annual Meeting of the Production and Operations Management Society.
37.
SwartzS. M. (1998b). Effects of variability and disruption on project stability, duration, and net present value. Presented at the 1998 Annual Meeting of the Decision Sciences Institute.
38.
SwartzS. M. (1999). The effects of variability and disruption on project stability, duration, and net present value. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.
39.
TukelO. I., & RomW. O. (2001). An empirical investigation of project evaluation criteria. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 21, 400–409.
40.
U.S. Navy. (1958). PERT phase I summary report.Washington, DC: Department of the Navy, Bureau of Ordnance, Special Projects Office.
41.
VandevoordeS., & VanhouckeM. (2006). A comparison of different project duration forecasting methods using earned value metrics. International Journal of Project Management, 24, 289–302.
42.
WiestJ. (1964). Some properties of schedules for large projects with limited resources. Operations Research, 12, 395–418.
43.
ZwikaelO., GlobersonS., & TzviR. (2000). Evaluation of models for forecasting the final cost of a project. Project Management Journal, 31(1), 53–57.
