Development of the SMART(TM) Project Planning framework (Hartman 2004)

Juli 11th, 2008

Smart Project

Hartman, Francis; Ashrafi, Rafi: Development of the SMARTTM Project Planning framework, in: International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22 (2004), pp. 499-510.

Hartman & Ashrafi present a new trademarked framework for Project Planning. The idea behind this framework is to ensure that the project is SMART. Strategically Managed, Aligned with corporate strategy as well as stakeholder needs, Regenerative [sustainable] for the project team, and Transitional, which stands for smooth execution of changes to the project.

What is new? Four tools are presented by the authors (1) the SMART Breakdown Structure (SBS), (2) the priority triangle, (3) key questions, and (4) RACI+.

The SBS is basically a new take on the work break down structure. On the top-level is the project mission which is then broken down into the key stakeholders‘ expectations on the first level of decomposition. The next levels of decompositions break the expectations down to tangible deliverables. Furthermore they add a parking lot and an explicit list of exclusions.
The priority triangle extends the ABC-priority to 6 permutation of pairs of 2 priorities, e.g., Time (1st) and Cost (2nd); or Quality (1st) and Time (2nd).
The 3 key questions are (1) What is the final deliverable?, (2) What is everyone this project praising for?, and (3) Who decides the first two questions?
Finally the RACI+ chart (derived from the classical RACI „Responsibility, Accountability, Consult, Inform“-Matrix) clarifies the roles of each letter, R=responsible, A=action (does the work), C=consults (=has input, needs to be asked), I=informs (=reviews the output) and adds a new letter S=sanction (=signs-off acceptance).

Posted in Critical Success Factors, Methodology, Planning, Program initiation | No Comments »

Applying Traits Theory of Leadership to Project Management (Gehring, 2007)

Juli 11th, 2008

 Traits Theory + PM

Gehring, Dean R.: Applying Traits Theory of Leadership to Project Management; in: IEEE Engineering Management Review, Vol. 35 (2007), No. 3, pp. 109ff.
And also in: Project Managment Journal, Vol. 38 (2007), No. 1, pp. 44-54. 

I, personally, have mixed attitudes towards the whole Personality Traits Theory. While I still think there is some ground for the NEO-PI constructs and scale, I really do believe the whole Meyers-Briggs-Type-Indicator (MBTI) is total crap, especially using a magical sorting hat which uses binominal (E or I, S or N, T or F, J or P) values on dimensions, when the scale seems to be normally distributed. Furthermore there seems to be proof that the whole thing is situational. I am an eNFP by the way.

However Gehring outlines the typically looked for leadership competencies of project managers in a very nice structured way (see my graphical summary). The author further describes the personality traits usually found with specific MBTI types. He then matches competencies to MBTI types.
ENTJ, ENFJ, INTJ, ISTJ, and INFJ art the top 5 matches between competencies and personality types. Unfortunately the sample is rather small (53 respondents) and the article lacks any statistical information about the validity and quality of the results.

Posted in Leadership, Personality | 2 Comments »

Framing of project critical success factors by a systems model (Fortune & White 2006)

Juli 9th, 2008

IT CSF Research and systems framing

Fortune, Joyce; White, Diana: Framing of project critical success factors by a systems model, in: International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 (2006), No. 1, pp. 53-65.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.07.004

How much overfitting does a model need? Fortune & White reviewed 63 studies on critical success factors of IT projects. And they identified 27 of them, the picture shows the success factors and in brackets how many publications were finding proof for it.
The Top-5 are: (1) Senior management support, (2) Clear and realistic objectives, (3) Strong/detailed project plan kept updated, (4) Good communication/feedback, and (5) user/client involvement.
Furthermore Fortune & White identify the 9 sub-systems typically found on an IT project and they sort the success factors accordingly. Nevertheless, DeMarco’s question (posted earlier in this blog) pops back into my mind: If only one thing succeeds – what should it be?

Posted in Critical Success Factors, IT Project, Theory | No Comments »

A comprehensive framework for the assessment of eGovernment projects (Esteves & Joseph, 2008)

Juli 9th, 2008

eGov Assessment

Esteves, José; Joseph, Rhoda C.: A comprehensive framework for the assessment of eGovernment projects; in: Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 25 (2008), No. 1, pp. 118-132.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2007.04.009

I clearly expected more noteworthy things to write down in my summary sketch. Esteves & Rhoda built a framework on 3 dimensions. (1) Assessment Dimensions for the project, (2) Stakeholders, and (3) eGovernment Maturity Level. For the first dimension, the assessment of the project itself, they describe 6 more dimensions to look into. These are the technology implemented, the strategy behind it, organisational fit, economic viability, operational efficiency and effectiveness, and the services offered.

Posted in IT Project, Planning, Program initiation, Public Sector | No Comments »

No Project is an Island (Engwall, 2003)

Juli 9th, 2008

No Project is an Island

Engwall, Mats: No project is an island – linking projects to history and context; in: Research Policy, Vol. 32 (2003), No. 5, pp. 789-808.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00088-4

I read this article for it’s research implications. Engwall starts with the argument that a project’s success is not independent of the project’s context and the organisations history of previous projects. There is one great point in his argument: Projects become increasingly difficult if they are innovative. BUT innovativeness of a project does not depend whether the project manager has done something similar before, it depends on how new the sponsor thinks his project is.

Engwall’s implications are clear: extend the scope of research time wise and department wise. Furthermore he makes his stand for an open systems approach in researching projects.

Posted in Actuality Research, Context, Critical Success Factors, Theory | 1 Comment »

Are we any closer to the end? Escalation and the case of Taurus (Drummond, 1999)

Juli 8th, 2008

Taurus

Drummond, Helga: Are we any closer to the end? Escalation and the case of Taurus; in: International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17 (1999), No. 1, pp. 11-16.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(97)00074-4

The Taurus Project is a great case study. First of all it is a failed IT project. It took the project some 500 million GBP and 5 years to fail. And secondly it was a visionary project overhauling the IT of the London financial market. Drummond examines the route to failure. In this article she applies Escalation Theory aka Escalation of Commitment or the Vietnam War Syndrome as it was labelled in Freakonomics.

What did Drummond see? A destructive progression, i.e., one sub-optimal decision leading to another sub-optimal decision, that leading to another sub-optimal decision and so on. This effect was reinforced by an effect first found by Kahnemann & Tversky. They showed that gradual deterioration in a condition is usually underestimated and goes unnoticed. [Therefore addicts need an intervention]

What are the lessons learned?
Avoid the Garbage Can Effect. Don’t let the solution dictate the problem. Especialy if you have a keen vendor.
Make progress tangible. On Taurus experienced managers where struggling with controlling and managing the project because progress in IT systems‘ development can not be touched.
Engage in Second-Order Thinking. First-order thinking is solving the problem with the usual problem solving patterns, aka ‚more of the same‘. This does not help in deteriorating conditions. To break that vicious cycle second-order thinking is needed, which basically examines the assumptions of given decisions, plans, requirements, solutions.
And lastly balance power and responsibility. Politics and outside over steering destroyed the power and responsibility balance in this case. Project Managers had huge responsibilities but no decision power whatsoever to really solve the problem. Even if they saw recognised the problem and asked for project cancellation earlier than it was acknowledged by the project board.

Posted in Actuality Research, Case Study, Critical Success Factors, Failed Projects | 1 Comment »

Rethinking Project Management: Researching the actuality of projects (Cicmil et al. 2006)

Juli 8th, 2008

Rethinking PM

Svetlana Cicmil, Svetlana; Williams, Terry; Thomas, Janice; Hodgson, Damian: Rethinking Project Management – Researching the actuality of projects; in: International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 (2006), No. 8, pp. 675-686
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.08.006

Cicmil et al. describe their idea for the future direction of project management research. The authors outline 3 ideas they had in mind when thinking about project management. (1) projects are complex social settings loaded with conflicts, (2) project management practice is a social conduct, (3) Heidegger’s Da-Sein.  With this starting point Cicmil et al. describe their methodological considerations which are rooted in pragmatic epistemology. They argue that in this tradition non-quantitative research can build epistemic theories.

Moreover Cicmil et al. outline quality criteria/standards for Actuality Research. It needs to fulfil practical reasoning, sense-making and thus it can explain hard to quantify concepts of emotions, power, tensions, negotiations, and political agendas. Finally they highlight topics for future research which are suited to be explored using an Actuality Research approach.

Posted in Actuality Research, Methodology, Theory | 1 Comment »

Balancing strategy and tactics in project implementation (Pinto & Slevin 1987)

Juli 8th, 2008

Balancing Strategy and Tactics

Pinto, J.K.; Slevin, D.P.: Balancing strategy and tactics in project implementation; in: Sloan Management Review, (1987), pp. 33–41.

This article is a very classic. It is one of the most cited articles on success factors in research papers on IT projects. Pinto & Slevin outline 10 critical success factors (most of them seem common sense today), which are make-or-break factors on any given project

  1. Communication
  2. Project Mission
  3. Top Management Support
  4. Project Schedule
  5. Client Consultations
  6. Personnel Recruitment, Training, and Selection
  7. Technical Tasks
  8. Client Acceptance
  9. Monitoring & Feedback
  10. Trouble Shooting

Posted in Critical Success Factors | No Comments »

Revisiting the Implementation Metaphor (Borum & Christiansen 2006)

Juli 8th, 2008

Theoretical Basis of PM

Borum, Finn; Christiansen, John: Revisiting the implementation metaphor–a comment on “Actors and structure in IS Projects: What makes implementation happen?“, in: Scandinavian Journal of Management; Vol. 22 (2006), No. 3, pp. 238-242.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2006.08.003

Borum & Christiansen outline which concepts of organisation research they found in their previously published case study research. Somehow Project Management Research seems to be a bit behind the mainstream areas of administration, economics, or organisational research. However Borum & Christiansen provide a comprehensive list of Organisation Theories which conceptualise project behaviour:

  • Neo-Institutional Theory (structure vs. process)
  • Network Theory (actors and dynamic networks)
  • Social constructivism (social fabrics everywhere)
  • Structuration theory (dichotomies everywhere + structure is created by repetition of behaviour)
  • Cultural perspectives on organisations (integrate-differentiate-fragment)
  • Case Study Research (micro processes)

Posted in Theory | 2 Comments »

IJPM vs. JPM

Juli 7th, 2008

After I read the paper
Crawford, Lynn; Pollack, Julien; England, David: How Standards are Standards – An Examination of Language Emphasis in Project Management Standards; in: Journal of Project Management, Vol. 38 (2007), No. 3, pp. 6-21.

I thought about visualising the different foci of the European International Journal of Project Management and the American Journal of Project Management [besides the more than obvious ‚International‘ in the title].

I compiled a list of all keywords which have been submitted by authors between 2003 and 2008. Afterwards I ran this list through the CloudTag Generator at tagcrowd.com which I set to generate 100 Meta-Keywords. This is the result for the International Journal of Project Management:

IJPM Keywords 2003-2008 (100 Tags)

And this is the result for the Journal of Project Management:

JPM 100 Tags Cloud of all Keywords 2003-2008

It’s quite interesting to spot the differences, the easiest difference to make out are the mentions of construction projects. However this also nicely shows the JPM’s focus on ‚Best Practice Research‘.

Posted in Literature Review, Tag Cloud | 2 Comments »

Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria (Atkinson, R. 1999)

Juli 7th, 2008

SCC-Thumb

Atkinson, Roger: Project management – cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criterin; in: International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17 (1999), No. 6, pp. 337-342.

Once I spent some hours discussing with colleagues what the magic triangle might be. PMI says it is Time-Cost-Scope and Quality is a product of these three. My colleague argued it should be Time-Cost-Quality since Quality is defined as meeting or exceeding the expectations of the customer, which includes that the customer gets what he asked for, aka the scope.

Similarly Atkinson argues that this is only asking the question of the project is ‚Doing it right‘, which automatically focuses mainly on the delivery system. Thus leaving huge gaps in the ‚Getting it right‘ part unanswered. Which leads, as many IT project examples show, to a nice but unusable/unwanted/unaccepted piece of software. In order to get it right by doing it right Atkinson proposes the ‚Square Route‘ of success criteria – (1) The Time-Cost-Quality-Triangle, (2) The Information System itself, (3) Organisational benefits, and (4) Stakeholder/community benefits.

Posted in Success Criteria | 1 Comment »

Fundamental Uncertainties in Projects and the Scope of Project Mangement (Atkinson et al. 2006)

Juli 7th, 2008

Uncertainty(1-Thumb) Uncertainty(2-Thumb)

Atkinson, Roger; Crawford, Lynn; Ward, Stephen: Fundamental Uncertainties in Projects and the Scope of Project Management, in: International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 (2008), pp. 687-698.

Very interesting article, clearly in the normative/positivist’s tradition of how to do Risk Management better. Firstly the authors dissect uncertainties typically found in projects into (1) Uncertainty in estimates, (2) Uncertainty with project parties, and (3) Uncertainty with project life cycle. What does it matter? The authors argue that not all uncertainties are typically the scope of classic risk management. Therefore the project objective should be the ultima ratio, especially if trade-off decisions are needed. Furthermore crystal clear decision making needs one decision-maker, therefore project uncertainties need an owner.

In the second part (on my page 2) Atkinson et al. outline the difference between hard and soft projects. They do outline some characteristics of hard vs. soft projects, e.g. degree of external influences, tangibility of artefacts. Secondly they outline two modes of problem-solving sense-making, and data collecting. They put forward, that a problem rooted in a difference in information required vs. information at hand, calls for a data collection effort to solve; whereas a problem caused by different interpretion of the same data requires sense-making as a problem-solving technique. Moreover they locate the typical soft projects in a high ambiguity and high uncertainty quadrant, thus needing sense-making, and value analysis for problem solving.

Lastly they call for trust (especially on soft projects) instead of controls. And outline a Trust Audit as a project management tool, instead of auditing controls.

Posted in Hard and soft projects, Organisational capabilities, Trust, Uncertainty management | 2 Comments »

What is Project Strategy? (Artto, K.; Kujala, J.; Dietrich, P.; Martinsuo, M.; 2008)

Juli 6th, 2008

WIPS? (Thumb)

Artto, Karlos; Kujala, Jaakko; Dietrich, Perttu; Martinsuo, Miia: What is Project Strategy?, in: International Journal of Project Management, 26 (2008), pp. 4-12

Artto et al. do have a very nice article in the first issue of this year’s IJPM. The authors look into behavioural strategies of projects. They see projects being ’sort of‘ autonomous of their organizational environment and that projects not always follow directions and decisions set-up by their mother corporations.

They do map 4 distinctive types of project strategy/behaviour on two axes. (1) Strength of link to parent organisation. (2) Degree of independence. Thus creating a 2×2-Matrix (what consultants usually love – „there is no problem which can not be shown in a 2×2-Matrix“) with 4 strategy types: (a) Obediant Servant, (b) Independent Innovator, (c) Flexible Mediator, (d) Strong Leader.

Their article closes with recommendations for future research on: (1) empirically validating these 4 strategies; (2) the question how strategies are formulated, what are the routes of development; (3) Empirical studies of strategy shaping factors, to address the dynamics and evolutions of projects‘ strategies; (4) Empirical investigations into different environments, aka application areas (innovation, organizational transformation, IT etc.); (5) Connection to mainstream strategy research and ops management; (6) bringing this to a stakeholder perspective: What kind of influences, levers, tactics are used by different stakeholders to formulate and implement a project’s strategy?

Posted in Project Strategy, Strategy | No Comments »

Towards a Conceptual Reference Model for PMIS (Ahlemann, Frederik)

Juli 6th, 2008

M-Model (thumb) Ahlemann, Frederik: Towards a conceptual reference model for project management information systems, in: International Journal of Project ManagementVolume 27 (2009), No. 1, pp 19-30.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.01.008 In his article Ahlemann shows the different functional nodes, from a business perspective of PMIS systems, structurally sorted by main user groups and life cycle stages. Furthermore the article maps all the needed data structures in huge but very nice UML diagrams. Ahlemann calls this reference model RefModPM.

Posted in PMIS | 1 Comment »

Managing incomplete Knowledge (Pender, Steven 2001)

Juli 2nd, 2008

ICK (thumb)

Pender, Steven: Managing incomplete knowledge – Why risk management is not sufficient, in: International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 19 (2001), pp. 79-87.

Pender basically looks into the question if project risks is better described by the term ‚incomplete knowledge‘ and therefore be linked to probability theory. (Kudos to everyone who did the PMP and still knows which contingency reserve accounts for ‚known unknowns‘ and which for ‚unknown unknowns‘.)

He looks into the question of randomness (probability vs. non-probability), repeatability, human limitations to understand such a complex thing as a project, uncertainty & ignorance, flow of knowledge, and fuzziness of parameters.

Posted in Knowledge Management, Risk Management | 1 Comment »

Why does Software cost so much? (DeMarco, Tom 1995)

Juli 2nd, 2008

WDSCSM? (Thumb)

Let’s start with a real classic. Tom DeMarco’s „Why does software cost so much? And other puzzles of the information age“ (http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-Software-Cost-Much/dp/093263334X)

Well, it is a bit aged but given the projects I have seen, it is far from being outdated. So what is his answer? It’s Peopleware not Software and people have to function in their roles and sometimes they don’t.

DeMarco lists as root causes: Scheduling errors („The schedule is crap, when even high performers have no slack“), missing accountability by management („I don’t ask for an estimate, I ask for a promise!“), missing prioritization („All these recommendations for improving ourselves are great. But what if only one thing succeeds? What would it be?“), and the general tendency to ‚fuck up‘ the end-game (i.e. value capturing after implementation).

And of course DeMarcos specialty – Software Development Metrics. He adds the nice insight that measuring something without a clear idea how to improve on that metric is a waste of time and money. It might be worthwhile to sample business case points etc. for a while, but in the long-run only defect counts should be institutionalized.

Posted in Books, Software Development | 1 Comment »

Why this Blog?

Juli 2nd, 2008

Dear Internet:

as you might know from my many searches on scholar.google.com, I currently try to build something, which could be the basis for a thesis on project management. My personal style of working is most effective when I summarise articles and books into pages of my notebook. Today I wanted to look something up, I knew I had written down a couple of weeks ago. Unfortunately that made me realise that I spent a significant amount of time flipping through what is now some 70 pages of my notebook, with no X1 or Google Desktop to help me out.

Solution: This blog!

Posted in Admin | No Comments »

Newer Entries »