Project Management Framework

D.G. Carmichael

• Editore: CRC Press
• Anno: 2005
• ISBN:
  9781135292829
• Edizione: 1
• Argomento: Commerce
• Categoria: Gestion de projet

This book covers the framework of project management, a discipline that is topical in many quarters. The aims of 'Project Management Framework' are to understand project management and to stimulate and contribute to a structured way of thinking in applying this discipline. In this work, a systems view to project management is described, based on the realization that management is a synthesis or inverse problem. One of the overriding reasons for writing this book was to counter the myriad of misconceptions and thinking errors that exist amount project management writers and practitioners. In addition, the usage of correct terminology and application of right level of thinking are discussed as factors contributing to the heart of more mature management practices.The subject matter is developed in this edition through looking at the fundamentals of projects and management and subsequently through studying the chronological development of the project life cycle. In order to support theory, numerous case examples from diverse industries are included. Aspects that are generally not available elsewhere are highlighted, whereas project management material that is readily available in other texts has been deliberately omitted.This book is intended to serve students, teachers and practitioners. As only very few prerequisites are needed apart from a basic interest in projects, some exposure to the discipline and a systematic thinking ability, this book serves a broad group of interested readers who want to know more about the discipline.

PART A Overview

CHAPTER 1 Introduction

DOI: 10.1201/9780203971116-3

1.1 General

The original developments in project management are usually attributed to engineering disciplines particularly in the defence and construction industries. Today, project management is far wider than engineering projects. In a broad sense all people are involved with projects every day of their lives. This contributes to the plethora of people who call themselves project managers.

As well, many people either intuitively or deliberately convert management tasks associated with ongoing enterprises into a project management format – management by projects. For example in the management of a factory operation (mass production), a certain desired outcome and an associated time period are prescribed. This is then identified as a project and the full set of project management tools, including planning and control, are utilised to achieve the desired outcome. In the technical literature this has partly led to a blurring of the distinction between general business management and project management with reciprocal borrowing of ideas occurring. Extremely self-confident project managers accordingly claim that they can manage anything. The distinction between general business management and project management is an historical one and perhaps this will disappear with time. Project management's early push came from people with technical backgrounds. The push in business management is from people who might tend to use other parts of their brains compared to technically-oriented people.

Many people today term themselves project managers. Generally, such people are involved, at different levels and to different degrees, in the process of managing a project through its lifetime, and all will have different management styles depending on their personalities and circumstances. There are also those given the perceived prestigious title of project manager by their employers as a cynical trade-off for lower pay and lower work conditions, when other titles would be more appropriate.

In the community there is an impreciseness about the role and duties of project managers. This is compounded by there being no educational or vocational qualification requirement to calling oneself a project manager. In some contexts a project manager is not a new concept, only a new term.

There is similarly an impreciseness as to what constitutes a project. A number of definitions can be given but for now it is perhaps sufficient to think of a project as any undertaking with starting and ending points and with defined objectives as well as constraints. Research and development projects, for example, are different from construction projects, yet both share commonalities.

Projects may be large or small. Project start and end points may be different in different applications.

Project managers or members of project teams can face complex challenges in dealing with tight constraints on project resources, finances and the natural environment while attempting efficiency, productivity and performance. One of the characteristics of project management well practised is better control and use of resources.

It is often said that good project managers make it happen; poor project managers watch it happen.

Project management contains elements of both art and science. Project managers need competency in a number of areas. The analogy with decathlon athletes is sometimes made; there it is the aggregate score over a number of events that determines their success or otherwise.

1.2 Project Success and Under-Performance

1.2.1 Influences and criteria

Through an examination of past projects, it is possible to identify some factors that are believed to contribute to project success, to project under-performance and/or project failure.

To some people, project success is profitability, or the profit margin left at the end of the project. On a resource project, success may be measured in terms of productivity, which translates into profit.

Project success, to others, is viewed in terms of ‘beating plan’, that is, beating the planned performance, typically in terms of time, cost and quality.

However performance measures in terms of time, cost and quality may not represent the total picture of project success. These measures do not necessarily include the views of all project stakeholders; the real test of success possibly is when all stakeholders believe the project to be a success. This might be in terms of satisfaction levels or opinions of the stakeholders, and as such is subjective and subject to influence. Often projects are ‘sold’ to stakeholders as being successful; the stakeholders’ expectations are ‘managed’ (read manipulated). Measures of project success (and the frequency of measurement) are decided by the stakeholders or need to be agreed.

Each stakeholder may have, as well, its own internal measures of success. For example, project participants may have their own personal success measures such as improved status, enlarged experiences, training development, opportunities to have authority and responsibility, expectations of further work, perhaps more complicated, and improved ability/skills.

The useability of the end-product may also influence people's views on the success of a project.

Case example

Software development project

A software development project was initially deemed a success. The end-product was to the owner's specification and it was delivered in a timely and cost effective manner. The system fell into disuse within a year of its implementation. The project team knew what the problems would be and how to rectify them and had communicated this to the owner. The information loaded into the system and the catalogue definition used to categorise the information were both of poor standard. The project was considered a failure even though it delivered a product on time, within budget and to the required specification. The end-product was not useable and the project team was somewhat demoralised.

It is interesting to note that, by most people's standards, a project may be a failure but that it can later be rationalised into a success.

Case examples

Buildings

An internationally well known building cost approximately 3½ times per square metre of floor to build more than equivalent buildings in the same neighbourhood.

Success was later viewed in terms of the building's looks, its lower running costs and more efficient operation, even though at 3½ times the cost, the project would never have got off the ground.

As another example, a building for the arts was not completed on time or within budget. Success was interpreted in terms of its providing a world class venue for music and dance and the world-wide attention it gained.

Is it thus the case that a project can be a success despite poor project management performance? Or is it a case of confusion between what is the project and what is the end-product of a project? Or is it the case that the ‘project’ has been interpreted for project management purposes as the means of getting to the end-product, but for success/failure purposes the project is interpreted to also include the lifetime of the end-product? Clearly there is confused thinking somewhere here.

Case example

Consultant/contractor

One company views project success by both quantitative and qualitative means. The quantitative measure is profitability or overall profit margin remaining at the end of the project. This has to be considered in the light of the project risk involved. Project managers may not be in a position to influence initial profitability discussions – these, for example, might be dealt with by sales people.

The qualitative measures of success relate to the stakeholders’ satisfaction with the project and include:

• Customer letters of commendation; customer confidence and faith; good customer relationships.
• Minimum defects, rework required, and issues that may resurface at a later date (‘skeletons’).
• New business opportunities made available or positive industry publicity.

These three measures may cause the success of a project to be retrospectively adjusted (upwards or downwards).

Skeletons cost the company time and money after the project is finished, and sour relationships.

Case example

Mining projects

Success in mining industry projects may be measured by the following factors:

• The project meets the (as-planned) performance anticipated by the owner in terms of it being completed on time, within budget and to the quality specification and requirements.
• The mine (incorporating the end-product infrastructure) shows a profit because of its ability to achieve planned productivity, at the planned cost of operation and at planned throughput rates, and to meet maintenance requirements.
• Satisfaction on the part of the owner and the operational personnel in that th...