Earned value, logical framework, scheduling and budget monitoring

Explanation : Planned value PV = 50% × 200,000 = 100,000; earned value EV = 40% × 200,000 = 80,000. CPI = EV / AC = 80,000 / 95,000 = 0.84; SPI = EV / PV = 80,000 / 100,000 = 0.80. The project is behind schedule and over budget.

Explanation : CV = EV - AC = 80,000 - 95,000 = -15,000; SV = EV - PV = 80,000 - 100,000 = -20,000. Negative values indicate a cost overrun and a delay.

Explanation : CPI = 80,000 / 95,000 = 0.842; EAC = 200,000 / 0.842 = 200,000 × 95 / 80 = 237,500 USD. 215,000 would correspond to AC + (BAC - EV), i.e. assuming the remaining work proceeds at the planned cost.

Explanation : The number of latrines built measures what the project delivers directly: it is an output. An outcome indicator would measure a change among the population, for example the latrine usage rate or the incidence of diarrhoea.

Explanation : Only the last formulation is specific, measurable by observation, and linked to a baseline, a target and a deadline. The others are vague or do not lend themselves to objective measurement.

Explanation : Assumptions are external factors on which the vertical logic depends (for example, access to the areas remains possible). Anything within the project's control must be addressed through activities, not assumptions.

Explanation : Path A-C-D: 3 + 7 + 2 = 12 days (critical path); path A-B-D: 3 + 5 + 2 = 10 days. B can therefore slip by 12 - 10 = 2 days without delaying the project.

Explanation : Burn rate: 168,000 / 360,000 = 46.7%; time elapsed: 7 / 12 = 58.3%. With linear spending, 210,000 USD would be expected: the underspend of 42,000 USD must be explained (delayed activities, purchases under way) before any adjustment with the donor.

Explanation : 40,000 × 1.15 = 46,000 USD. Beyond that, a formal request to the donor is required. 34,000 USD is the lower bound (40,000 × 0.85).

Explanation : The A in RACI is the person who is answerable and approves: there must be only one per task to avoid diluting responsibility. R carries out the work, C is consulted before the decision, I is informed.

Explanation : Scores: 2 × 5 = 10; 4 × 4 = 16; 5 × 2 = 10; 3 × 3 = 9. Risk 2 has the highest score and should be given priority for a mitigation measure. A risk with maximum impact nevertheless deserves a contingency plan.

Explanation : Indirect costs: 280,000 × 0.07 = 19,600 USD; total budget: 280,000 + 19,600 = 299,600 USD. 18,318 USD would correspond to 7% calculated on the total (280,000 × 7 / 107), which is not the stated rule.

Explanation : A milestone has no duration: it marks a key event or deliverable used to check progress. Float is a different scheduling concept.

Explanation : The theory of change describes why and how change is expected to happen, including causal assumptions and external factors. The logical framework is a management tool that summarises the intervention logic and the indicators.

Explanation : Any change in scope must be assessed and formalised in writing to avoid scope creep and ineligible expenditure. A verbal agreement protects neither the organisation nor the project during an audit.

Explanation : Segregation of duties distributes the key steps among several people to reduce the risk of fraud and error. It is a basic internal control checked during audits.

Explanation : People assisted: 3,000 × 6 = 18,000; cost per person: 450,000 / 18,000 = 25 USD. 150 USD is the cost per household.

Explanation : Progress achieved: 49 - 38 = 11 points; expected progress: 60 - 38 = 22 points; 11 / 22 = 50%. 81.7% (49 / 60) ignores the baseline.

Explanation : Since 2019, the six DAC criteria have been relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability. Coherence is the added criterion.

Explanation : Each problem is reworded as a desired situation: causes become means and effects become ends. The central problem generally becomes the specific objective, not the overall objective.