Hypotheses
1. Hypothesis 1 (H1):
o
Statement: Projects that implement EVM show better cost performance than those that
do not.
o
Rationale: EVM provides a structured method for tracking project performance against
cost and schedule baselines, which should lead to better cost control and fewer
overruns.
o
Testing Method: Compare the cost performance (CPI) of projects using EVM with those
not using EVM through descriptive statistics and t-tests.
2. Hypothesis 2 (H2):
o
Statement: Effective risk management practices lead to fewer cost overruns in PV
projects.
o
Rationale: Proactive identification and mitigation of risks should reduce unexpected
costs and help keep the project within budget.
o
Testing Method: Correlate the effectiveness of risk management practices with cost
performance (using Pearson correlation) and analyze the impact using regression
analysis.
3. Hypothesis 3 (H3):
o
Statement: Implementing comprehensive cost control measures results in better cost
performance in PV projects.
o
Rationale: Continuous monitoring and control of project costs should lead to more
accurate forecasting and fewer cost overruns.
o
Testing Method: Assess the relationship between cost control effectiveness and cost
performance through correlation and regression analysis.
4. Hypothesis 4 (H4):
o
Statement: An integrated approach combining EVM, risk management, and cost control
results in superior cost performance compared to using these practices in isolation.
o
Rationale: The synergy of combining structured project management methods should
provide a more robust framework for managing project costs.
o
Testing Method: Use multiple regression analysis to determine the combined effect of
EVM, risk management, and cost control on cost performance.