Archive for Juli 17th, 2008

In the 25 years since The Mythical Man-Month what have we learned about project management? (Verner et al., 1999)

Donnerstag, Juli 17th, 2008

Mythical Man Month

Verner, J. M.; Overmeyer, S. P.; McCain, K. W.: In the 25 years since The Mythical Man-Month what have we learned about project management?; in: Information and Software Technology, Vol. 41 (1999), No. 14, pp. 1021-1026.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0950-5849(99)00077-4

The original Fred Brooks‘ book ‚The Mythical Man-Month‚ (1975) explored why IT projects usually deliver late. It states a couple of reasons

  • Poor estimations and the assumption that everything will go well
  • Estimation techniques which confuse effort with progress and vice versa
  • Managers are uncertain about estimates and the do not stubbornly support them
  • No one publishes productivity figures, thus no one can defend his estimates
  • Poor schedule monitoring and control
  • If slippage occur man power is added, which makes it worse – here Brooks introduces the concept of the n*(n-1)/2 communication channels on a team

Verner et al. revisit the original claims and check them against critical success factor research. They found that most of these claims still hold true – but that ‚recently‘ a lot more factors touching the human side of project management have been discovered, e.g., senior management support, customer relationships, knowledgeable and experienced project manager.

A Case Study of Project and Stakeholder Management Failures: Lessons Learned (Sutterfield et al., 2006)

Donnerstag, Juli 17th, 2008

Stakeholder Management

Sutterfield, J. S. Friday-Stroud, S. S. Shivers-Blackwell, S. L.: A Case Study of Project and Stakeholder Management Failures – Lessons Learned; in: Journal of Project Management, Vol. 37 (2006), No. 5, pp. 26-35.

Sutterfield et al. describe a framework for managing the project’s stakeholders from the perspective of the project manager. Their framework includes the following 9 steps

  1. Identify project vision and mission
  2. Conduct project SWOT analysis
  3. Identify the stakeholders and their goals
  4. Identify selection criteria for strategies on how to manage the stakeholders and identify alternative strategies to manage the stakeholders
  5. Select PSM strategy for each stakeholder (PSM in this case is neither project safety management, nor procurement strategy management, but rather project stakeholder management)
  6. Acquire and allocate resources to manage stakeholders
  7. Implement the selected PSM strategies
  8. Evaluate the implemented PSM strategies
  9. Seek and incorporate continuous feedback

A Framework for the Life Cycle Management of Information Technology Projects – ProjectIT (Stewart, 2008)

Donnerstag, Juli 17th, 2008

 ProjectIT

Stewart, Rodney A.: A Framework for the Life Cycle Management of Information Technology Projects – ProjectIT; in: International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26 (2008), pp. 203-212.

Stewart outlines a framework of management tasks which are set to span the whole life cycle of a project. The life cycle consists of 3 phases – selection (called „SelectIT“), implementation (called „ImplementIT“), and close-out (called „EvaluateIT“).

The first phase’s main goal is to single out the projects worth doing. Therefore the project manager evaluates cost & benefits (=tangible monetary factors) and value & risks (=intangible monetary factors). In order to evaluate these the project manager needs to define a probability function of these factors for the project. Then these distribution functions are aggregated. Stewart suggests using also the Analytical Hierarchy Process Method (AHP) and the Vertex method [which I am not familiar with, neither is wikipedia or the general internet] in this step. Afterwards the rankings for each project are calculated and the projects are ranked accordingly.

The second phase is merely a controlling view on the IT project implementation. According to Stewart you should conduct SWOT-Analyses, come up with a IT diffusion strategy, design the operational strategy, some action plans on how to implement IT, and finally a monitoring plan.

The third stage („EvaluateIT“) advocates the use of an IT Balanced Score Card with 5 different perspectives – (1) Operations, (2) Benefits, (3) User, (4) Strategic competitiveness, and (5) Technology/System. In order to establish the Balanced Score Card measures for each category need to be defined first, then weighted, then applied and measured. The next step is to develop a utility function and finally overall IT performance can be monitored and improvements can be tracked.

On the broadening scope of the research on projects: a review and a model for analysis (Söderlund, 2004)

Donnerstag, Juli 17th, 2008

Broadening research of PM

Söderlund, Jonas: On the broadening scope of the research on projects: a review and a model for analysis; in: International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22 (2004), No. 8, pp. 655-667.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.05.011

Söderlund reviews the research literature on project management. He then illustrates briefly the different developments within this profession. Finally he suggests four different directions on how to broaden the scope of project management research to make it more useful than just adding another project success factor to it.

  • Broaden research to include wider organisational issues (e.g., processes, politics)
  • Broaden research to include inter-organisation aspects and authority system issues (e.g., contracting, cooperation)
  • Broaden the level of analysis (e.g., organisational issues, company-wide issues)
  • Broaden research to include industry-wide matters (e.g., cooperation between firms, network of professionals)

Building theories of project management: past research, questions for the future (Söderlund, 2004)

Donnerstag, Juli 17th, 2008

Theories of Project Managment

Söderlund, Jonas: Building theories of project management – past research, questions for the future; in: International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22 (2004), No. 3, pp. 183-191.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(03)00070-X

Söderlund reviews the ideas around building a theory of project management. He identifies the roots of project management research in the scheduling technique school of Gannt, CPM, and PERT. He argues that these are basically applications of engineering science and optimization theory. Furthermore he identifies two different philosophies right from the beginning. The first one is Gaddis with the notion of a project as an organizational unit devoted to attain a single goal. The second philosophy is Miles et al. who see a project as an organisational form.

Subsequently he identifies three streams of theory building. (1) Universal theory building which focuses on the temporariness of the project as an organisational form and action researc. (2) Normative (Positivist) tradition which is concerned to generate best practices and generic factors of project success, which results in a multitude of textbooks, check lists, and literature on how to optimize the project’s processes. (3) Contingency theory approaches which value the context of projects. These efforts lead to studies into categories of projects and industry specifics of project management.

Söderlund concludes with a set of questions for future research

  • Why do projects exist?
  • Why do they differ?
  • How do project organisations behave?
  • What is the function of the value-add of a project unit?
  • What defines success?

Project management of unexpected events (Söderholm, 2007)

Donnerstag, Juli 17th, 2008

Management of Unexpected Events

Söderholm, Anders: Project management of unexpected events; in: International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26 (2007), No. 1, pp. 80-86.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.08.016

Söderholm qualitatively studies in four cases how unexpected events are dealt with on projects. The author finds three most common root causes for unexpected events, re-openings of topics (mostly due to outside pressure, e.g., new definitions, new issues, politics), revisions of plans, and fine tuning of the project. Furthermore Söderholm identifies four different tactics to manage unexpected events. (1) innovative action, (2) applying detachment strategies, (3) setting up intensive meeting schedules, and  (4) negotiating project conditions.

ad (1) – Innovative action is an inside, short term action to counter the event, examples for this action are the shuffling of resources, delaying activities, and problem solving
ad (2) – Detachment strategies are typical MaxiMin-strategies, the project tries to make itself independent from the event’s consequences as much as possible
ad (3) – Intensive meeting schedules are set up to closely monitor a problematic work package of the project and to assure the best communication flow possible
ad (4) – Negotiating conditions and project safe guarding are mostly used by project managers to gain access to additional resources

Toward a typological theory of project management (Shenhar & Dvir, 1996)

Donnerstag, Juli 17th, 2008

Typological Theory of PM

Shenhar, Aaron J.; Dvir, Dov: Toward a typological theory of project management; in: Research Policy, Vol. 25 (1996), No. 4, pp. 607-632.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(95)00877-2

Basing their text on the metaphor of incremental vs. radical innovations Shenhar & Dvir develop a typological framework for projects. In their model the two factors System Scope (assembly, system, array) and Technological Uncertainty (low, medium, high, and super high tech) distinguish projects. Furthermore the authors give some example and characterise each of the 12 types of projects.