# Monitoring of Time and Cost Variances of Schedule Using Simple Earned Value Method Indicators
## 3 Results: Application of T/S and T/C Monitoring
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Registration** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**BCWP**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**TC/C**} \\
**Stage/Variance** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**BCWS**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**BCWP-BCWS**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**BCWP-ACWP**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**T/S**} \\
**Scenario** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**ACWP**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(PLN)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(PLN)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(\(-\))**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{Models a2(II): s = 100\%, c = 120\% (for T/S)// a2b2(II): s = 110\%, c = 120\% (for T/C)} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{31.03.2017} & 736.965,50 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.00} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.00} \\  & 736.965,50 & & & \\  & 736.965,50 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{30.04.2017} & 2.545.693,31 & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)62.263,86} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)187.533,60} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(0.647\)} \\  & 2.607.957,17 & & & \\  & 2.733.226,91 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{31.05.2017} & 5.177.570,36 & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)140.214,66} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)413.977,66} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)81.75} \\  & 5.591.548,02 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{30.06.2017} & 8.315.325,53 & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)634.603,20} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)198.17} \\  & 8.536.187,74 & & & \\  & 8.949.928,73 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{31.07.2017} & 14.705.597,15 & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)431.896,50} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)1.285.552,08} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(252.62\)} \\  & 15.137.493,65 & & & \\  & 15.991.149,23 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{31.08.2017} & 18.341.804,13 & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)586.880,50} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)1.610.296,69} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)331.78} \\  & 18.928.684,63 & & & \\  & 19.952.100,82 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{30.09.2017} & 19.464.076,19 & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)642.775,78} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)1.928.327,34} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(0.00\)} \\  & 20.106.851,97 & & & \\  & 21.392.403,53 & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{Models a3(II): s = 100\%, c = 130\% (for T/S)// a3b3(II): s = 115\%, c = 130\% (for T/C)} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{31.03.2017} & 736.965,50 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.00} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.00} \\  & 736.965,50 & & & \\  & 736.965,50 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{30.04.2017} & 2.505.066,94 & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)102.890,23} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)313.913,81} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)75.57} \\  & 2.607.957,17 & & & \\  & 2.818.980,75 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{31.05.2017} & 5.089.287,12 & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)228.497,90} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)700.919,66} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)123.14} \\  & 5.790.206,78 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{30.06.2017} & 8.196.966,41 & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)339.221,33} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)1.097.445,08} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)296.76} \\  & 8.536.187,74 & & & \\  & 9.294.411,49 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{31.07.2017} & 14.494.399,50 & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)643.094,15} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)1.925.267,09} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(0.666\)} \\  & 15.137.493,65 & & & \\  & 16.419.666,59 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{31.08.2017} & 18.050.078,17 & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)878.606,46} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)2.491.596,65} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)657.66} \\  & 18.928.684,63 & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & 20.541.674,82 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{30.09.2017} & 19.145.749,34 & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)961.102,63} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)2.889.429,97} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(0.00\)} \\ \cline{1-1}  & 20.106.851,97 & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & 22.035.179,31 & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: _Cont._Similar calculations were carried out for the steady execution method and the sequence work execution. The picture of emerging disturbances is presented in Figure 4 (monitoring of variances from the assumed time T/S) and Figure 5 (monitoring of variances from the assumed costs T/C). Monitoring of variances from the assumed duration (T/S) in the schedule planned according to the assumptions of the steady execution method shows the highest values in the fifth control stage. At this stage, the highest production throughput occurs, reaching 15% of the total costs (Figure 3).