INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF

PROJECT
MANAGEMENT
International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 215–222
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

A tool for managing projects: an analytic

parameterization of the S-curve
Denis F. Cioffi *

Project Management Program, The George Washington University, Monroe Hall 302, 2115 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20052

Received 27 January 2004; received in revised form 30 March 2004; accepted 5 August 2004

Abstract

The solution to a differential equation used frequently in ecology is found to reproduce the well-known S-curve seen in various
aspects of project management. The solution is modified in a minor way to fit project management boundary conditions. An excel-
lent fit of this theoretical curve to two samples of project cost data shows the utility of the formula. Numerical approximations valid
under typical project conditions are utilized to produce an analytic expression that can easily generate classic project management
evolution curves under a variety of conditions. The curves are normalized to two basic parameters: the total of the relevant quantity
(e.g., project costs) and the duration of the project. The user can choose the steepness of the climb and the point in time at which half
the total has been accumulated.

2004 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Managing projects; Progress; Cost; Cash flow management; S-curve; Earned Value

1. Introduction: population growth in nature and cost
growth in projects
When displayed as a function of time, accumulated
efforts or costs of a project usually take a form described
as the S-curve. The guide to the Project Management
Body of Knowledge (the PMBOK) defines the term
only by its appearance: ‘‘Graphic display of cumulative
costs, labor hours, percentage of work, or other quanti-
ties, plotted against time. The name derives from the S-
like shape of curve (flatter at the beginning and end,
steeper in the middle)...’’ [1].
One earlier work in the project management litera-
ture showed how to construct a curve numerically by
building it from a normal distribution and forcing it
through the fixed point of 5% progress at 10% of project
*
Tel.: +1 202 994 9533; fax: +1 202 994 2736.
E-mail address: denis.cioffi@gwu.edu.
duration [2]. The curve was used to monitor progress in
a series of related Argentine projects.
By comparison, the more flexible form presented here
should have uses in different contexts and in different
types of projects. The first question that comes to mind
would be to discover whether project S-curves have
common characteristics within a single specific, narrow
industry (e.g., construction of houses) or type of indus-
try (construction as a whole), but differ as the type of
industry changes (to information systems, say). The
existence of known common characteristics would
greatly facilitate future industry-specific simulation and
planning.
As an example within a single project, an S-curve of
planned cash flow may assist risk analysis of project fi-
nances by showing altered spending rates needed to
achieve completion by different dates. Actual progress
measured against the planned S-curve can also influence
scheduling adjustments. Also, project resources, both
human and material, show similar evolution, and the
curve can be applied to these data, too. Finally, earned

0263-7863/$30.00
2004 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.08.001
216 D.F. Cioffi / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 215–222
value calculations, where different S-curves are used to
represent actual costs, planned spending, and the budg-
eted cost of work performed, hold particular potential
(see, for example [3]). With this new formalism, produc-
ing curves to illustrate different possibilities for discus-
sion becomes a simple algebraic exercise, which should
encourage practitioners to take this perspective of pro-
jects more frequently.
In what follows, I will first use the exact solution to
the differential equation that generates an S-curve in
population studies to fit project management data.
Then, approximations to the exact solution produce an
expression that can be used more easily, and this
approximate solution meets project management needs.
Most important, with this approximation the progres-
sion of the total cost of any project can be characterized
by two numbers: the slope of the rise in the S-curve and
the time at which half the total funds have been spent.
Eager readers may bypass the details of the equationÕs
generation by proceeding immediately to the answer,
Eq. (7).
2. An equation for project management S-curves
Before proceeding with the mathematics, let us ask
why an S-shaped curve arises, whether in nature or in
project costs. The common characteristics of all systems
that demonstrate this behavior include slow growth fol-
lowed by rapid growth, which in turn is followed by
slow growth again to an asymptotic maximum – hence
an S-shaped curve. Note that the Gompertz curve,
which is used in mortality calculations [4], does not show
the initial slow growth [5], and so it would not be useful
for modeling this effect.
In natural settings S-curves arise in closed systems
where the growth of a relatively small population is ini-
tially unlimited. At first the population increases slowly
because the growth rate depends on the number of its
individual elements. As that number increases, the rate
increases and the population grows more swiftly. At
some point, however, limits are imposed, e.g., the food
or energy supply is finite, or in the case of an epidemic,
the number of potential new victims declines (essentially
everyone has already been infected). The population
then reaches a maximum.
Even the largest projects start with an initially small
number of tasks, but projects soon begin to tackle mul-
tiple activities simultaneously. These parallel, often
interconnected activities – a key characteristic of pro-
jects that mandates project management – increase the
spending greatly compared to the work at the beginning,
which by comparison is usually more limited and nar-
rowly focused (e.g., planning). But in almost all projects
(with the exception of some defense work!), a cap on the
total cost limits the budget and forces this large spend-
ing rate to decline. Because the tasks depend on each
other, most often in a start–finish mode, they cannot
all end simultaneously. Activities dwindle to a small
number again as deliverables are completed, and eventu-
ally the entire project ends, with no further funds being
allocated. Thus, in projects the S-curve is driven by the
multiple interconnected activities that occur in the mid-
dle of a projectÕs life.
Appendix A sketches the derivation of the logistics
differential equation (Eq. (A.1)) in its common ecologi-
cal context. There three quantities determine the exact
progress of the solution (Eq. (A.3)) that models a popu-
lationÕs growth in a given system: the birth rate, the
death rate, and the so-called carrying capacity of the
environment. Whether or not useful management ana-
logs of these quantities exist (and they may), the initial
boundary condition of the ecology equation (below)
does not further the cause of well-planned projects,
and its solution should be modified.
The growth of a living population, Y, from a low-lying
initial state begins with some pre-existing, ground-state
population, so at time zero (t = 0) the initial boundary
condition of the ecology equation requires a non-zero
quantity, Y = Y0. But in project management, the quan-
tity Y represents cost or effort (task duration multiplied
by resource intensity, e.g., [6]). A comprehensive plan
allows a well-managed projectÕs costs to accrue only after
the project begins, and thus subtracting Y0 from the
ecological solution changes the initial condition to a
more appropriate one: Y = 0 at t = 0.
One can write the new solution in terms of the same
parameters found in the ecological solution: the con-
stants d and Y0, and the maximum cost of the project,
Y1 (to which the solution asymptotes at infinite time).
But the ratio of Y1 to Y0, which is generally much
greater than one, turns out to be a useful parameter.
Thus, we divide Y1 by Y0 and instead of using Y0
explicitly, define a constant c ” Y1/Y0; one can then
write a generic solution for the project management
S-curve as
1
expð
dtÞ
Y ¼ Y1 : ð1Þ
1 þ c expð
dtÞ
At early times, i.e., at t  0, the growth is linear,
Y  Y0dt. At late times, as t gets very large, Y  Y1,
as desired. However, this equation will be more useful
for planning if the summed costs equal the total project
cost at the end of the project (t = t1), and not just at infi-
nite time. The proper normalization in the solution that
follows (Eq. (7)) will ensure this equality, but for now we
need not worry about it; in most cases it will be approx-
imately correct as written (of order 10%, which will be
shown later, in Table 2).
These behaviors at the temporal extremes of the curve
replicate the verbal PMBOK description noted previ-
ously, but does the equation truly work with project
 D.F. Cioffi / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 215–222 217

Table 1
2500
This table shows the statistics of the sample data set taken from PS8
Statistics of sample data
Number of points 207 2000
Minimum 0

Cost (Dollars) Per Day

Maximum $2456
Sum $92,464
1500
Mean $447
Standard deviation $590

1000

Table 2
This table shows the calculated values of c and y1
1 for five 500
combinations of r0.67 and b1/2. Also shown are the values of the
corresponding b 0 , which are the times at which y = 0.5 exactly, and
parenthetically, the b1/2 parameters that one would need to use to
obtain the actual halfway points represented by the original numbers 0
used for b1/2
r0.67 c b1/2 b0 y1
1 (b1/2) 0 50 100 150 200
Time(Days)
0.5 5.389 0.500 0.454 0.119 0.5607
1 5.389 0.250 0.250 0.002 0.2505 Fig. 1. The data points show the daily costs, in dollars, for a 207
1 52.60 0.500 0.496 0.018 0.5045 calendar-day project. Many days (e.g., weekends) have zero cost. The
1 401.4 0.750 0.720 0.135 0.7889 solid curve is the (arithmetically calculated) derivative of the exact
2 2979. 0.500 0.500 0.0003 0.5000 solution shown in Fig. 2, and so its units are also dollars per day.

data? That is, does the equation fit well the accumulated 1 105
cost data of a project? Without overestimating the value
of a least-squares fit to summed numbers, we should first
ask if the standard (PearsonÕs) coefficient of determina- 8 104
tion, R2, approaches one. For this test, instead of using
Summed Costs (Dollars)

actual project data, which are often proprietary and dif-

ficult to understand or duplicate, I took a set of numbers 6 104
from an example used in Version 8 of ScitorÕs Project
Scheduler software, PS8 [7].
Fig. 1 shows daily cost data taken directly from the 4 104
intranet example in PS8. PS8 calculates the total cost
of each day for every day of the week; sometimes the
dayÕs cost is zero (e.g., weekends). Table 1 gives some 2 10
4

statistics of the raw data (i.e., not the accumulated

costs).
This example was chosen initially because of its avail- 0
ability, but the wide dispersion of the data and the
roughness of the resultant curve of the accumulated 0 50 100 150 200
costs make the test particularly appealing. The jagged Temporal Units (Days)
curve in Fig. 2 shows the accumulated cost data as a
Fig. 2. The exact solution, Y (Eq. (1), dashed line), fit to the sample
function of time (in the unit days, which is irrelevant
data of Fig. 1 (jagged solid line). The four fit parameters here are:
to this discussion). The smooth, dashed curve is a Y1 = 89,437; d = 0.03392; c = 16.88 and R2 = 0.99638.
least-squares fit 1 of the project management S-curve
equation, Eq. (1). An eyeball view of the graph alone
gives a powerful impression about the accuracy of the (1) represents well the S-curve seen frequently when
fit. The value of the coefficient of determination, managing projects.
R2 = 0.996, confirms this impression (a low number
would cause concern). In this one example, then, Eq.
3. A form more useful for project management

1
Via the general curve-fit function of Kaleidagraph software, The above form works well with project data, and
Version 3.52. one can determine numerically the three parameters
218 D.F. Cioffi / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 215–222
necessary for a good fit (d, Y1, and c). However, what if
the detailed planning that makes a fit possible has not
yet occurred? How can we take advantage of this solu-
tion to create a first guess of what the spending profile
might look like?
Again three quantities will parameterize the solu-
tion, but using the equation in the absence of detailed
data suggests a slightly different set of constants. First
one uses the final cost of the project, now written
explicitly as Y1. The other two parameters are the total
duration of the project, t1, and the time at which the
project has used half its total funds, t1=2 . With esti-
mates of these three numbers, at the start of any pro-
ject a manager can write an S-curve equation that can
indicate how labor or funds might be specified
throughout the project.
First we calculate this new time, t1=2 . Letting Y = 0.5
Y1 yields
    
1 Y1 Y1
t1=2 ¼ ln c þ 2
ln 2
1
d Y1 Y1
1 the previous equation for t1/2 (Eq. (2)) yields the follow-
’ lnðc þ 2Þ: ð2Þ
d ing expression for determining the c parameter:
In the second line of the above equation, we take advan-
tage of the near equality that occurs in many cases,
Y1  Y1. Retaining the distinction here between Y1
and Y1 would not justify the resulting algebraic com-
plexity, and the difference introduced can be corrected
easily with a simple numerical solution that converges
quickly (see Appendix B).
We want to express this time in terms of the total
duration of the project, t1, and so now define b as the
ratio
t project cost) will be expended only after an infinite time!
b :
t1
We term the specific b where Y . 0.5Y1 as b1/2, subject
to the condition that 0 < b1/2 < 1. If the project manager
uses a so-called front-loaded distribution, where the
funds are disbursed earlier rather than later, b1/2 will
sit closer to the beginning of the project. Other projects
will have this time more towards the middle (b1/2  0.5)
or perhaps nearer the end of the scheduled duration
(say, b1/2 J 0.7). An approximation to the slope of
the curve at b = b1/2 will allow us to take full advantage
of this new formalism. From the original differential
equation (Eq. (A.2)) and its solution (Eq. (A.3)), where
Y1 = d/b, we find
ical approximation to this slope that permits an estimate
of d.
The classic S-curve is described as having three parts:
a gentle rise, a steep slope, and a gradual path to the
asymptote. To start, we can assume that these three
parts occur over equal intervals of time, each occupying
t1/3. We can further assume, temporarily, that the steep
slope in the center portion comprises two-thirds of the
rise from Y = 0 to Y = Y1. The remaining one-third of
the rise occurs throughout the two gently rising end por-
tions. To give the individual project manager the free-
dom to choose an approximation to this central slope,
we introduce r as the factor that describes the magnitude
of the rise in the middle third, and define r0.67 through
2
r ¼ r0:67 : ð4Þ
3
When r0.67 = 1, two thirds of the rise occurs in the mid-
dle interval; r0.67 > 1 steepens the slope.
With this definition, we find an expression for d in
terms of r and t1: d = 8r0.67/t1. Using this form for d with
lnðc þ 2Þ ¼ 8r0:67 b1=2 : ð5Þ
These expressions may be inserted back into the original
equation (Eq. 1) to find:
Y ðbÞ 1
expð
8r0:67 bÞ
¼ :
Y1 1 þ c expð
8r0:67 bÞ
As written, this equation would provide a good fit to
cumulative cost or effort data under the assumption that
Y1 = Y1. When planning, however, one does not want
to imply that the workersÕ total effort (and hence total
We can fix this problem by dividing both sides of the
equation by Y1, defined through
1
expð
8r0:67 Þ
Y1  Y1 ; ð6Þ
1 þ c expð
8r0:67 Þ
and writing the final form of the equation in terms of the
ratio y = Y/Y1:
1
expð
8r0:67 bÞ
yðbÞ  y 1 ; ð7Þ
1 þ c expð
8r0:67 bÞ
where y1 = Y1/Y1 > 1. By definition, y = 1 at the end
of the project, and y ! y1 > 1 beyond that time. At
b = b1/2, y = y1/2.
 Because this equation forces y to equal 1 at b = 1, it
dY  dY 1
’ ; ð3Þ has less freedom to fit the data, but it still does an excel-
dt  1=2 4
which can only be an approximation because of the
changed boundary conditions; the ‘‘1/2’’ on the left-
hand side of the equation reminds us that this quantity
is calculated at b = b1/2. Based on the PMBOKÕs verbal
description of the curve, we will next introduce a numer-
lent job. When the normalized data are fit with Eq. (7),
the R2 value drops insignificantly, from 0.996 to 0.993,
and with the exception of the end point (y = 1) the
graph is nearly identical to the display of Fig. 2 (and
so it is not reproduced); c = 12.1 and r0.67 = 0.746. To
ensure that this one example is not a special case,
 D.F. Cioffi / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 215–222 219

Appendix C shows the good fit to another randomly

chosen data set. 1
Finally, how is it all used? For any project, the man-
ager can choose values for b1/2 and r0.67, calculate c from
Eq. (5), find the normalization factor (y1) from Eq. (6), 0.8
and plot the desired evolution curve with Eq. (7). If the β = 0.25 0.50 0.75
1/2
manager wants to insist that y = 1/2 at b = 1/2, perform-
ing the b 0 calculation (see Appendix B) will produce a 0.6
new b1/2 (and a corresponding new c) that will fulfill

y
the desired condition. In the fit to the PS8 data, for
0.4
example, b1/2 = 0.435, but y = 1/2 at b = b 0 = 0.433.
The conversion to actual durations and costs (i.e., with
dimensions of time and money) comes through the ac-
0.2
tual Y1 and t1.

0
4. Adjusting the curve by changing the rise or the halfway
point 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
β
Textbooks (e.g., [8]) present typical S-curves as sym-
Fig. 3. The approximate solution, y = Y/Y1 (Eq. (7)), shown at
metric about both the abscissa and the ordinate, that r0.67 = 1 for three values of b1/2.
is, symmetric both in time and in cost. But this solution
(Eq. (7)) allows a project manager to change either or
both of the two determining parameters, r0.067 and b1/2,
either to match the curves that result from the actual
1
scheduling or to influence schedule planning by playing
with alternative cash outflows while still in a projectÕs
r =2 1 0.5
development stage. In this section, we see how the shape 0.8
0.67

of the curve changes as b1/2 moves away from 1/2 and as

r0.67 moves away from 1. At r0.67 = 1, the curve produces
the strong rise in the middle noted in the derivation of 0.6
Eq. (4). Increases in r0.67 steepen the rise.
y

If a manager wants spending symmetrical in time, b1/2

should be set to about 1/2. When r0.67 = 1, c = 54.6, 0.4

which is reassuringly much greater than 1, and

y1
1 = 0.018. One front-loads projects by moving
b1/2 closer to the beginning of the project. Similarly, a
project with most of its spending much later than the
midpoint would use a larger b1/2, closer to the end of
the project.
Table 2 shows the values of the different parameters
at three choices for the parameters r0.67 and b1/2. Note
that when r0.67 is small (0.5) or when b1/2 is large
(0.75), the curve does not have time to approach its
asymptote sufficiently quickly, and y1
1 is then of or-
der 10–15%.
Figs. 3 and 4 show two sets of three curves corre-
sponding to the values in Table 2. The curves behave
as expected, giving confidence in the approximations.
Fig. 3 groups curves with constant rise, r0.67 = 1, at three
values of b1/2: 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4. The middle one is the
familiar textbook curve. The first and third ones corre-
spond to families of front-loaded and rear-loaded
projects.
Fig. 4 shows three curves at a common b1/2 = 0.5,
with the rise r0.67 doubling from 0.5 to 1 to 2. Despite
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
β
Fig. 4. The approximate solution, y = Y/Y1 (Eq. (7)), shown at
b1/2 = 0.5 for three values of r0.67.
the common b1/2 parameter, the curves do not intersect
at y = 0.5 because the actual halfway points (the b 0 s) are
0.454, 0.496 and 0.500, respectively. The large rise in the
slope for the last one produces a large value of c that re-
sults in b1/2 . b 0 .
The curve with the lowest rise, r0.67 = 0.5, does not
show much of the familiar S-curve shape, but doubling
the standard rise produces a curve with little time
allowed from minimal spending to full cost. Thus,
again we have some confidence that a reasonable
220 D.F. Cioffi / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 215–222

approximation was used originally, when r0.67 = 1, and
in the current absence of further examined data, we
may expect most real projects to show r0.67  1. The
range of the values about unity awaits analysis.
5. The derivative of the accumulated cost: the cost
distribution
The derivative of the accumulated cost as a function
of time yields the instantaneous cost rate, dY/dt, at any
2.5
2
given time, i.e., the spending distribution. (Fig. 1 shows
this curve for the sample data.) For a symmetric accu-
mulated cost (b1/2 = 0.5), the plotted derivative looks
similar to a Gaussian (normal) distribution, but it does
differ slightly.
As one might expect, an asymmetrical spending rate
generates an asymmetrical accumulated cost. Many ref-
erences (e.g., [8]) show a symmetrical accumulated cost
but then one or more asymmetrical spending rates with-
out pointing out that these graph sets are internally
inconsistent.
The three curves of Fig. 5 derive from the curves of
Fig. 3, where r0.67 is held constant but b1/2 takes three
different values. Similarly, the three curves of Fig. 6 hold
b1/2 at 0.5 while taking the three values of r0.67 that gen-
erate the curves of Fig. 4.

β = 0.25
1/2
6. Summary
1.5

This paper shows the derivation of a modified logis-

dy/dβ

0.5 tics equation that project managers can use, in any stage
1 of a project, when working with costs or other limited
quantities. When plotted versus time, such quantities
typically take a form commonly known in the project
0.5
0.75
management community as the S-curve, and Eq. (7)
reproduces that shape. The modifications used to pro-
duce the equation required only a few minor mathemat-
0 ical assumptions, and their validity is bourne out in the
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
results.
β With this representation of the curve, a manager has
complete flexibility to generate any desired smooth pro-
Fig. 5. Derivatives of the three curves shown in Fig. 3. file by selecting the strength of the rise of the curve and
the point at which half the total (e.g., of costs) has been
expended. Future studies anticipate examining real data
to find the parameters b1/2 and r0.67 and to determine,
r
0.67
=2 for example, if they vary in some regular fashion with
4
projects in different industries.

3 Acknowledgements

The original solution of the Prigogine differential

dy/dβ

1 equation is courtesy of Dave van Buren. Nabil Bedewi

2 and Homayoun Khamooshi gave helpful comments that
improved the paper. Two anonymous referees also
0.5 zprovided constructive comments that led to important
fine-tuning, and one of them pointed out the epidemic
1
example that is noted.

0 Appendix A. The differential equation, via Priogine [9]

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
β
In the chapter called ‘‘Self-Organization,’’ in a section
entitled ‘‘Ecology,’’ Nobel-Prize winner Ilya Prigogine
Fig. 6. Derivatives of the three curves shown in Fig. 4. discusses ‘‘structural stability’’ and writes about a popu-
 D.F. Cioffi / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 215–222 221

lation X in a given medium. Prigogine relates that one
often describes the growth of the population through
the following differential equation,
dX
 ;
¼ bX ðN
X Þ
dX ðA:1Þ
dt
where ‘‘b is related to the rate of birth, d is related to
mortality, and N is a measure of the milieuÕs capacity
to support the population.’’ Prigogine does not provide
an analytic solution to the equation, but instead refers
the reader to a figure that any project management stu-
dent or practitioner would recognize immediately as a
prototypical S-curve.
This curve, often known now as the ‘‘logistics
curve,’’ was used, for example, by Hubbert, who made
the first calculations of the finite duration of fossil fuels
(e.g., [10,11]). The curve also models the growth rate of
a population of interstellar clouds created in galactic
simulations [12]. Those simulations determined the
cloud birth rate and mortality intrinsically (i.e., the
rates were not input), so the variables were redefined
(and X changed to Y) to produce a form more appro-
priate both to the interstellar medium and project
management:
dY
¼ dY
bY 2 ; ðA:2Þ
dt
where in terms of PrigogineÕs original variables,
 Appendix C. Fitting the curve to a second data set
d ¼ bN
d.
The general solution to this equation is
 
1
b does not represent any specially chosen case, the
Y ðtÞ ¼ þ ce
dt ðA:3Þ
d
as can be demonstrated by differentiating it (i.e., Eq.
(A.3)).
Imposing the boundary conditions appropriate to
project management changes its form slightly, to Eq.
(1), as explained in the main text. The transformation re-
quires subtracting the initial value, Y0, from the general
solution and defining Yss = d/b = Y1 + Y0 to remove Yss
in favor of Y1.
We find the new b1/2 through:
b1=2 ¼ b0 þ Db ðB:1Þ
where
  
1 y1
1 c þ 1
Db ¼ : ðB:2Þ
4r0:67 y1 cþ2
As an aside, I note that in deriving the above expres-
sion, one sees the consistency with the original slope cal-
culation. The slope used above equals that from Eq. (3)
multiplied by (c + 2)/(c + 1), which approximately
equals 1 for any large c.
Most project managers will probably not be con-
cerned about the small difference Db, but for those who
would like to specify the exact point at which y = 0.5, a
quick iteration will generate the b1/2 that corresponds
with the desired b 0 , as follows. First, set b 0 to the desired
time. The given r0.67 and an initial guess at b1/2 (one can
use the b 0 itself) determine the first c. Calculate Db. Use
this Db with b 0 to obtain the first new b1/2. The new b1/2
yields a new c, from which one obtains a new b1/2, and so
forth. In usually fewer than ten loops, the equations
converge to a fixed value of b1/2 that corresponds to
the desired b 0 . Thus, the b1/2 term is now only a param-
eter that is near the actual b 0 at which y = 1/2.
To demonstrate that the example in the main text
approximate solution, Eq. (7), was fit to an example ta-
ken randomly from a textbook [13] (in the book, it is not
used to demonstrate an S-curve). The data in Fig. 7 are
1000
800
Cumulative Expense ($1000)

600
Appendix B. Obtaining the exact value of the one-half
point
400

By definition, the value of b at which y . 1/2 is b1/2.

Let b 0 equal the value of b such that y = 1/2 exactly. This
200
section explains how to calculate b 0 .
From the solution represented by Eq. (7), we can cal-
culate the slope at b1/2 and join, with only a slight error, 0
b1/2 and b 0 on a straight line of that slope. With this
approximation, we can find the desired b1/2 parameter 0 10 20 30 40 50
such that y = 1/2 at a chosen b 0 , as shown in Table 2. Weeks

(There the b1/2s corresponding to the ‘‘chosen’’ bs are Fig. 7. A second example of data fit by the approximate solution, Eq.
listed in the column under the parenthetical b1/2.) 7; r0.67 = 0.881 and c = 22.4.
222 D.F. Cioffi / International Journal of Project Management 23 (2005) 215–222
the early-start-time weekly expenses in the ‘‘LOGON’’
project, Table 9.5, in NicholasÕs book. These data vary
from the classically shown S-curve in two respects: (1)
The three points sitting at about 20 weeks have identical
values, and (2) The summed expenses continue to climb
at the end of the project. (If most projects showed this
type of accumulated cost growth, the phrase ‘‘S curve’’
might not have arisen.)
Nevertheless, the solution fits sufficiently well. The
difference between the fit and the final data point is
only about 6 percent: the curve would serve as a
working management model for the projectÕs cost
evolution. If we add data points at the same or
slightly greater magnitude at the end to flatten the
curve and produce a more standard profile, the fit
improves.
References
[1] Project Management Institute Standards Committee, A guide to
the project management body of knowledge – 2000 ed. (PMBOK).
Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute, Inc., 2000.
[2] Murmis GM. ÔSÕ curves for monitoring project progress. Project
Manage J 1997:29–35.
[3] Cioffi DF. Completing projects according to plans: An earned
value improvement index. J Oper Res Soc 2004 [submitted].
[4] Weisstein EW. Gompertz curve, from MathWorld–A Wolfram
Web Resource. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GompertzCurve.
html, accessed 3 June 2004.
[5] Bourke P. Gompertz function. http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/
~pbourke/analysis/gompertz, accessed 3 June 2004.
[6] Cioffi DF. Managing project integration. Vienna, Virginia: Man-
agement Concepts, Inc.; 2002.
[7] The Sciforma Corporation, Project Scheduler software, PS8.
(http://www.sciforma.com/products/ps_suite/ps8_overview.htm)
(2001).
[8] Meredith JR, Mantel SJ. Project management: A managerial
approach. 5th ed.. New York: Wiley; 2003.
[9] Prigogine I. From being to becoming: Time and complexity in the
physical sciences. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company;
1980.
[10] Hubbert MK. Energy from fossil fuels. Science
1949;109(2823):103–9.
[11] Hubbert MK. Exponential growth as a transient phenomenon in
human history. In: Presented before the World Wildlife Fund,
fourth international congress, the fragile earth: toward strategies
for survival, San Francisco, 1976. Copyright 1976 by M. King
Hubbert, 1976.
[12] Cioffi DF, Shull JM. Simulations of supernovae-dominated
interstellar media in disk galaxies. Astrophys J 1991;367:96.
[13] Nicholas JM. Project management for business and technology:
Principles and practice. 2nd ed.. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-
Hall; 2000.