Everything I know about project time management

I learned in sports car racing

 

SECOND EDITION

By Stacy Goff

Colorado, USA

 



Introduction

The parallels between managing a successful project (including meeting due dates) and managing a successful amateur sports car racing campaign are striking. In this article, we explore those parallels, and the insights to be gained even by those who have never experienced life “at speed”.

Background: for six years, from 1975 through 1981, the author raced in Sports Car Club of America’s West Coast circuit. While this was amateur racing, we began with a Fiat 124 Spyder, and competed with some professional teams, who were funded by the car factories. The rationale: excel on the track on the weekend, and buyers will flock to the showrooms to buy the cars the following week. And it worked!

We were often successful competing with professional teams, but our greatest success came from a more-level playing field when we switched to Showroom Stock. In this class, cars had no modifications but increased tire pressure. The Great Racing Rabbit (left, ‘at speed’) set lap records on every track we ran, and was undefeated in three years of the toughest competitions West of the Mississippi. From these experiences we can distill the essence of managing project time.

The Edge Moves

Life on the edge on a closed-course racetrack (one with left and right turns, plus plenty of vertical curves) is an emotional high—approaching self-actualization, for some people. And yet, the more you practice, and the more you understand your abilities and those of your car, the faster you go. What was the very edge of control last weekend is your starting-point for optimization this weekend.

Preparations during the week certainly help. Making minor adjustments or major expenditures for new racing tires could significantly improve performance.

Our preparations were focused on the major events, with consistent-enough individual event success hopefully leading to a season championship. Our success measures and strategies were clear to all. Risks (threats and opportunities) applied both to us and our competition.

Through it all, the edge continued to move, until each new improvement had only minor impact on our success—we had hit the wall. Then we tried radical new approaches to go faster. Some of our innovations didn’t work at all; others did not work well at first, but opened the doors to new opportunities in the non-stop quest for speed.

Some race drivers don’t know where lies the edge. They never fail, so they don’t know what it feels like. Worse, they never learned how to recover from a failure. The secret we discovered was to fail small, to fail safe. Some fail big: Dead drivers never learn. So our first lesson to learn from racing in Project Time Management is to learn how to fail small so you know where your edge lies…

More…

To read entire paper, click here

 

Editor’s note: Second Editions are previously published papers that have continued relevance in today’s project management world, or which were originally published in conference proceedings or in a language other than English. Original publication acknowledged; authors retain copyright. This paper was originally published in 2008 and posted on the IPMA-USA (asapm) website. It is republished here with the permission of the author. 2008 reader reactions are included at the end of this version.



About the Author


Stacy A. Goff

ProjectExperts®
Colorado, USA

 

 

Stacy A. Goff, PMP®, IPMA Level-D®, the PM Performance Coach, is CEO of ProjectExperts®, a global Program and Project Management consulting, methods, tools and Learning consultancy.

A co-founder and past President of IPMA-USA, Stacy has been an officer in IPMA®, the International Project Management Association. In 2015, he was named an IPMA Honorary Fellow. As well, he has contributed to the success of the Project Management Institute since 1983.

A Project Management practitioner since 1970 and PPM consultant since 1982, he improves Enterprise or project team PM competence, efficiency, and Performance. Mr. Goff speaks at industry events, offers coaching and consulting services, and presents workshops of great interest to Executives, Managers, Project Managers and leaders, technical staff, and individual contributors.

His Project Management tools and methods are used by enterprises and consultancies on six continents. By 2000, his workshops had helped over 45,000 people improve their project success. He combines his PM Process insights with sensitivity for the human aspects of projects.

The result: Measurably increased project performance.

Stacy can be contacted at [email protected] or visit http://www.projectexperts.com/

All trademarks are the property of their registered owners.

 

Clean Water as a Human Right!

Implications for Project Management

 

SECOND EDITION

By David Pells

Managing Editor, PMWJ

Addison, Texas, USA

 



On July 28, 2010, the United Nations General Assembly approved a motion making access to clean water a basic human right.  Although the motion was non binding on member countries, and 41 countries did not vote for the resolution, it was nonetheless significant.  Access to clean water is now considered a human right, along with access to food and a non-violent environment.  So what does this have to do with project management?  With nearly a billion people without access to clean water and nearly 2.5 billion without clean toilets and wastewater treatment, for one thing it means massive investment in water related projects in coming years.

But there are many other considerations as well, for example, the economics, politics and social impact of water-related projects in some parts of the world.  Even in some parts of the Northern Hemisphere, where water is generally more plentiful, there are water shortages – for example, in California where agricultural use of available water is now resulting in potential problems.

At the same time, on a planet that is 80% covered with water, it seems ironic that there are shortages.  The old adage, “water water everywhere, but not a drop to drink” comes to mind.  So what are the issues?

I have been thinking about water off and on since reading the announcement about the UN vote in late July.  It seems that there has been nothing written about this in the project management field, and very little in the press, even though access to clean water is widely recognized as a global social and economic issue.  In some countries, the lack of clean water is already at a crisis level.

I am not an engineer, scientist or expert on water or wastewater topics.  Nevertheless, I have had some experience in this industry.  One of my first jobs as a teenager, summer work after high school and before leaving home for university, I worked for the city engineer in my small home town.  He was responsible for maintaining all city utilities and infrastructure, including roads, lighting, wastewater (sewers) and water system.  I learned to mix chemicals for the water plant, clean and maintain the sewage treatment plant, and lay pipes and fire hydrants in a new residential development.  I have never forgotten those experiences over 40 years ago.

More recently during 1993-1995, I represented two Texas-based water technology companies that were pursuing project opportunities in Russia and the former Soviet Union.  One company was an engineering firm that specialized in the design of water and wastewater treatments plants, and in solutions for those types of projects.  The second company sold equipment for water and wastewater plants, including pumps, valves, piping, etc.  On their behalf, I met with Vodocanal executives in Moscow, Sochi and St. Petersburg, toured big water and sewage plants, discussed projects to build new facilities, and learned a great deal.  I learned that nearly every Russian town and city needed new or better water treatment facilities.  I also learned the hard way, becoming quite ill several times, that water borne diseases occur even in modern cities and hotels.

As I have gotten older, it seems that I drink more water.  And when I am traveling, I have become much more careful to have water with me, whether traveling by auto, air, train or taxi.  I have become more aware of the body’s need for water, both for survival and better health.  Water is a personal need, a very personal topic, not just an industrial, economic or social issue.  It deserves more attention.  Here in North America, and I think in most fully developed countries, water is taken for granted.  It’s considered free or cheap, because it is generally readily available.

This is a huge mistake, in my opinion.  So this month I want to discuss some aspects of the clean water issue that may often be overlooked, or unknown to too many in the project management profession.

Some Issues and Perspectives

Here are some issues that are discussed in more detail below:

  • The Human Rights Aspect
  • Global Demand – Water Projects as a Growth Field for PM
  • Water Projects as a Base Global Industry
  • Water Projects in Economic Development Programmes
  • Water Projects for Emergencies and Natural Disasters
  • Industrial Wastewater Treatment
  • The Supply Chain – Projects in Related Industries
  • Clean Water Technologies – R&D Projects
  • Complexity Issues – The non-technical factors
  • Economics of Water – other uses for water (industry, etc.)
  • The Politics of Water
  • The Ultimate Solution – Water & Energy
  • Drinking Water for Your Project Team
  • The Water Tower – An American Icon

Qualification: this paper is not a fully researched treatise but rather includes my personal observations and opinions.  If I err with facts, I think they will be close enough and the message should be clear.  Water is a huge global topic and we need to take it more seriously.

More…

To read entire paper, click here

 

Editor’s note 1: Although this paper was written more than seven years ago, the topic seems more relevant than ever.  All of the issues addressed still apply; if anything, the problems are more acute as climate change has led to more drought-stricken regions around the world.  And here in the United States, the recently headlined lead-tainted water system in Flint, Michigan has been a disaster, with serious local health, economic, legal and political repercussions.  The project management profession can play a unique role in solving these and other global problems.  Hopefully this paper will stimulate more thinking and action in that regard.

Editor’s note 2: Second Editions are previously published papers that have continued relevance in today’s project management world, or which were originally published in conference proceedings or in a language other than English.  Original publication acknowledged; authors retain copyright.  This paper was originally published in the December 2010 edition of PM World Today.  It is republished here with the author’s permission.



About the Author


David L. Pells

Managing Editor, PMWJ
Managing Director, PMWL

 

 

David L. Pells is Managing Editor of the PM World Journal (www.pmworldjournal.net) and Managing Director of the PM World Library (www.pmworldlibrary.net). David is an internationally recognized leader in the field of professional project management with more than 35 years of experience on a variety of programs and projects, including engineering, construction, energy, defense, transit, technology and nuclear security, and project sizes ranging from thousands to billions of dollars. He occasionally acts as project management advisor for U.S. national laboratories and international programs, and currently serves as an independent advisor for a major U.S. national nuclear security program.

David Pells has been an active professional leader in the United States since the 1980s, serving on the board of directors of the Project Management Institute (PMI®) twice.  He was founder and chair of the Global Project Management Forum (1995-2000), an annual meeting of leaders of PM associations from around the world. David was awarded PMI’s Person of the Year award in 1998 and Fellow Award, PMI’s highest honor, in 1999. He is also an Honorary Fellow of the Association for Project Management (APM) in the UK; Project Management Associates (PMA – India); and Russian Project Management Association.  Since 2010 he is an honorary member of the Project Management Association of Nepal.

Former managing editor of PM World Today, he is the creator, editor and publisher of the PM World Journal (since 2012).  David has a BA in Business Administration from the University of Washington and an MBA from Idaho State University in the USA.  He has published widely and spoken at conferences and events worldwide.  David lives near Dallas, Texas and can be contacted at [email protected] 

To see other works by David Pells, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at http://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/david-l-pells

 

 

Considerations for Information Security in Projects

SECOND EDITION

By Neelov Kar

Dallas, Texas, USA

 



Abstract

Use of information in our daily life has become essential in the 21st century. Projects are planned and executed based on a plethora of information that has accumulated in the past or has been generated during the process. Information processing has become a part and parcel of any project, whether it is constructing a high rise condo, building a nuclear submarine, developing a new application, building a new hospital or manufacturing a self-driving car. On one hand information helps us to develop a sophisticated service but at the same time it becomes our responsibility to protect it from unauthorized access.

We deal with sensitive information such as intellectual property or personally identifiable information. For example, we cannot think of building a new hospital without an integrated information processing system that is interfaced with the medical devices used in different departments such as radiology or pathology etc., as well as the front office where patient registration happens. At every step of the way we are either receiving sensitive information from the patient or generating new information during the service or storing the information for future use.

During the project planning we must analyze the security exposer and should plan to protect the information. Some of the international standards define this as mandatory requirements.

The author would like to provide the basic requirements from different international standards such as ISO 27001, ISO 27018, PCI, SSAE16 and CSA STAR that are relevant for project initiation, planning, execution, control and closing phases.

Introduction

Information technology is part of our daily life. As a project manager we use social media, web based application and other IT tools to manage our projects. People are biggest risk for information security. We need to be careful about who we recruit and how we maintain the information security discipline in the team. We not only have to protect the project information but also need to analyze if there is any security vulnerability that can impact information security of the project. Here are some examples that can happen to your projects.

More…

To read entire paper, click here

 

Editor’s note: Second Editions are previously published papers that have continued relevance in today’s project management world, or which were originally published in conference proceedings or in a language other than English.  Original publication acknowledged; authors retain copyright.  This paper was originally presented at the 11th Annual UT Dallas Project Management Symposium in August 2017.  It is republished here with the permission of the authors and conference organizers.



About the Author


Neelov Kar

Dallas, Texas, USA

 

 


Neelov Kar
has been working as Account Manager (Client Executive) in Perot Systems since 1998, where he has been instrumental in opening new accounts and managing and expanding existing accounts at different client sites with different technologies and domain expertise. As an Account Manager/ Program Manager he has implemented multiple large projects on mainframe and client server environment.  He was also involved in recruiting and training/ mentoring the project managers and helped them in their career progression.

He is a PMP, RABQSA certified ISO 9000 Lead Auditor, ISO 14001 Lead Auditor, ISO 27000 Lead Auditor, ISO/IEC 20000 certified, Six Sigma Certified, CSA STAR certified and a Certified Quality Analyst.  Neelov can be contacted at [email protected]

 

 

Imperatives for Successful Collaboration in Virtual Teams

SECOND EDITION

Anil Wadhwa

Baker Hughes, a GE company

Houston, Texas, USA

 



Abstract

Collaboration is not only about working together—where everyone focuses on their individual roles—it also takes advantage of collective wisdom and accepts risks to foster creativity and achieve better-than-expected results. In other words, while working together is important for linear or incremental progress, collaboration is necessary to produce exponential or break-through outcomes.

Any professional collaboration within physical or virtual teams entails several phases of engagement after the initial work assignment is completed. While the team and group development model of forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning, first proposed by Bruce Tuckman in 1963, is still relevant, it is premised on teamwork in a physically cohabitated setting and employs traditional management principles. Despite advances in tele-communications and information technology, achieving collaboration in virtual team environments remains challenging because of factors such as the degree of virtuality, the virtual workplace, different time zones, interpersonal skills, cultural differences, and the emotional intelligence of the team leader. This leader is expected to manage the triple constraints of the project while allaying the fear and concerns of team members whom he might not have met or worked with previously. It is a daunting task to get the best out of virtual team members because it requires the effective use of various relationship-management techniques. Consequently, while the most important factor for achieving collaboration in a virtual team is effective communication, it is imperative to promote coordination, coopetition, and concurrence to maximize the team’s potential.

This paper examines several projects completed during 2013-2016 in which virtual team members were engaged. It discusses the challenges and outcomes of those projects and provides a detailed analysis using a competency-based model to help companies consistently achieve superior results.

1   Introduction

Collaboration, in simple and practical terms, can be defined as the action of working with someone to achieve a defined and common business purpose. The use of this noun has gained huge popularity since the early twentieth century when the Wright brothers collaborated to invent the first airplane and flew it successfully over a beach in North Carolina. Until then, all major inventions of the Industrial Age were largely credited to the individuals, e.g., Alfred Nobel, Louis Pasteur, Graham Bell, and Thomas Edison, to name a few. The central idea behind collaboration is co-laboring, which is also one of the reasons why organizations exist, i.e., to tap into the collective skillset, knowledge, and experience of a group of people to solve problems, innovate, and create intellectual property that would otherwise be difficult to achieve individually.

Global competition and the internet of things have compelled companies to innovate and transform their businesses at a pace not seen in the twentieth century. The need to innovate applies not only to traditional industries in technology, manufacturing and supply chain domains, but also to knowledge-based industries1 that rely on intellectual capabilities. Such needs require a diverse workforce that may or may not be co-located to foster new ideas, processes, and management techniques. The power of successful collaboration within virtual teams, across companies and geographies, is exemplified by two Fortune 500 companies – Apple and Boeing. The first, with the highest market capitalization in the world, relies on 100+ suppliers located in six continents, yet delivering a stunning 73 inventory turns in a year, i.e., one every five days. The latter uses more than two million parts manufactured in a dozen of countries to assemble a 787 Dreamliner, performing with unparalleled fuel efficiency and range flexibility.

Collaboration takes place in two primary forms, active or synchronous, and passive or asynchronous. In active collaboration, driven physically or remotely, the individuals interact directly and in real time, where responses and feedback are provided instantly. In the passive form, interaction is time-lagged, i.e., the information is shared electronically, and individuals read and respond at their convenience. The success of either form of collaboration is, however, not guaranteed and depends on the organizational culture, employee engagement, accountability matrix, social presence, training, and coopetition. In the following sections, some of the key imperatives for successful collaboration are examined, which applies to both forms, albeit in varying degrees.

More…

To read entire paper, click here

 

Editor’s note: Second Editions are previously published papers that have continued relevance in today’s project management world, or which were originally published in conference proceedings or in a language other than English.  Original publication acknowledged; authors retain copyright.  This paper was originally presented at the 11th Annual UT Dallas Project Management Symposium in August 2017.  It is republished here with the permission of the authors and conference organizers.



About the Author


Anil Wadhwa

Houston, Texas, USA




Anil Wadhwa, MBA, PMP
is a Vice President and Head of Remote Operations and Managed Services at Baker Hughes, a GE company. He has extensive domestic and international experience in upstream oil and gas industry spanning digital oilfield technologies, drill bits, well engineering, land rig operations, managed services and project management. Anil has a Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering from Jabalpur University and an MBA in Project Management from the University of Texas. He has managed many successful projects in operations, technology and product development. Anil is based in Houston, Texas.

Contact email: [email protected]

 

 

Performance Enhancement through Smart Modelling

Making Dammam Metropolitan City SMART

SECOND EDITION

By Prof Mark Reeson

UK and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

 


 

When you think of Saudi Arabia, what comes to mind?

Maybe you think of oil, deserts and a traditional lifestyle that steps back over a thousand years?

However, “With the sands of time, things are changing!”

Here is where the story begins.

Eighteen months ago, a decision was made that will alter how projects are delivered in Saudi Arabia, starting at Ministerial level and cascading down throughout the thirteen provinces. One such province, the largest and furthest flung of the East coast, simply known as “The Eastern Province” is leading that change under the guidance of the APM’s best practices.

Within the province’s capital, Dammam, a project is currently finishing its delivery stage and is ready to launch into operation this July. But what makes it so special? This project and its project sponsor have pushed the initial boundaries requested by the ministry and is attempting to shatter the glass ceiling of capability. In a region that is home to most of Saudi Arabia’s oil production and is fast becoming the global hub for the chemical industry, a new style of PMO and project delivery is ready to emerge!

For so long this region has been fragmented and although covered by multiple municipalities and governed through many ministries there has never been any major structure to the governance or government of the province. In September 2015 it was decided that this had to change and that a new approach should be undertaken. The first step behind this was to set up a project team within the main Municipality Building in Dammam and then draw in a project team that could deliver the project to change the city, not just for a while but for a sustainable future. The decision was made that the best way to deliver this major change would be to centralise the strategic planning of the whole region under one roof to be governed by one individual, the head of the Strategic Coordination Centre, Engineer Mosaad Mqhtani. His project team that would deliver this was made up of four different companies spanning eight different nationalities from Saudi Arabians, other Middle Eastern countries, American, German and Venezuelan, all headed up by Mark Reeson from England.

Although there were many major dignitaries involved in the decision making process of what was needed for the new Coordination Centre, a typical Arab approach to decision making, the major stakeholder after the Governing Prince was the Eastern Province’s Mayor, Jamal Nasser Al-Mulhim. With so much notoriety watching over the project this made every step sensitive to the needs of those making the decisions and the community that would be affected by the delivery of this new approach to project management in the whole province.

The first question that had to be asked was, what exactly is this Strategic Coordination Centre and where did this proposal come from? The Strategic Coordination Centre was the result of the proposal to centralise the coordination of projects throughout all the municipalities in the region. For far too long each municipality and authority had work independent from one another therefore creating a counterproductive working environment. This would then allow and demonstrate for a new way to look at utilising the resources within the Eastern Province more efficiently. What this new approach would offer was a clearer picture of what is happening in the province and more importantly, to allow people to understand why it is happening.

Further to this it was decided that a new way of selecting and prioritising projects should be brought into force through the new department. The prioritisation of work would be based on the need of the work rather than simply a wish and to also eliminate the amount redundant work which takes place within the region where roads, rails and electrical cabling is dug up once and then within weeks dug up again. As a further aspect to make this work more effectively, it was decided to enlist a team to write a specific bespoke piece of software that could monitor, control and report the whole region in one system to modernise the process of how municipality work was recorded. In addition to the requirement of the IT System, there would need to be a new procedural set up for the department and these procedures, objectives and the governance behind them would have to be drafted from scratch and then gain the highest level of stakeholder approval.

More…

To read entire paper, click here

 

Editor’s note: Second Editions are previously published papers that have continued relevance in today’s project management world, or which were originally published in conference proceedings or in a language other than English. Original publication acknowledged; authors retain copyright. This paper was originally presented at the 11th Annual UT Dallas Project Management Symposium in August 2017. It is republished here with the permission of the authors and conference organizers.



About the Author


Mark Reeson, RPP, FAPM, PMP

United Kingdom and
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

 


Professor Mark Reeson is a project management specialist with over thirty years’ experience. A Fellow of the Association for Project Management, he has been involved in many project and programme consultative roles.   Most recently Mark has been working with the Saudi Arabian Municipality of the Eastern Province to change the way that project management is carried out within the region, using his newly recognised SMART Sustainability Modelling for project and business management.

He was appointed a Professor of Project Management at the University of Business and Technology, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia which was a culmination of his work in training and consulting in the region on matters that relate to project management, supply chain management and sustainability modelling. Having previously held the position of a specialist Sustainability Management Global Advisor he has moved forward from that position and now regularly supports businesses and projects alike in streamlining their approaches to change and strategic development providing greater longevity in their business planning.

Having started his career in the Royal Air Force, Mark has continued to develop by working and delivering projects in multiple fields of industry ranging from the nuclear environment, into pharmaceuticals, finance and also the international sporting fields.

Mark has developed his role within project management through further experience with the nuclear industry and is now the owner of M R Project Solutions Limited where he has fulfilled the role of Project Management Advisor for the last three and a half years covering every continent. His role is very much client facing and Mark now almost permanently travels the world meeting clients, developing solutions and providing training for their project families either directly through his own organisation or in support of others. Mark’s main role is the development and the consultation with many organisations on ensuring they choose the right approach or methodology to deliver their projects and then follows this up with the correct bespoke training programmes for how their company wants to share this learning with their staff members.

Mark has changed the approach to learning by the ongoing development of his original ‘Living Learning’ programme by introducing a new learning experience for all taking the classroom format and making it come to life with his popular and original ‘Applied Learning’ simulation training and coaching technique. He has taken this forward over the past few years to introduce this training style so that project management learning and behaviour has now started to be delivered into the schools and colleges looking to develop the technical, behavioural and contextual skills and attitudes of their students.

As a regular public speaker Mark now shares his experience, knowledge and commitment with those associations wanting to move forward in a more sustainable and successful manner.

Mark’s next aim is to develop this further and to spread project management knowledge and competency to many more organisations worldwide, having already started with successful deliveries globally.

Mark can be contacted at [email protected]

 

 

Attitudes and Personality towards Risk Management in the Construction Industry

SECOND EDITION

By Zakari Tsiga, Michael Emes, Alan Smith

University College London
Mullard Space Science Laboratory

Holmbury St. Mary, Dorking
United Kingdom

 


Abstract

This research paper looks at the attitudes and personality of people who deliver construction projects. The study was performed using an online questionnaire which encompassed aspects of risk decisions and personality questions. In total, 50 responses have been collected and analysed. The results of this study show that people who have experience in the delivery of projects in the construction industry are aware of the risk in projects and prefer not to take on the risk in most cases. In the aspect of personality, the results were compared to the Carl Jung personality theory and shows that the participants are extroverts, judging, more intuitive than sensing, and are equally thinkers and feelers.

Keywords: Construction Projects; Project Risk Management; Personality Profile; Risk Decisions.

JEL codes: D20, D81, L10, M19

Introduction

As one of the biggest sectors, the construction industry is one that entails all the activities from project initiation to the final demolition of developed infrastructure. Being a service industry, the construction sector is interlinked with other sectors. The industry is the largest employer as compared to others (World Market Intelligence, 2010). The report by the Global Construction Perspectives and Oxford Economics (2015) states that the cumulative volume of construction will reach US$ 212 trillion by 2030.

Project success is a topic of great focus and one that is currently being researched in project management (Alexandrova & Ivanova, 2012). The global construction industry is one of competition and constant innovation. Companies invest heavily in innovation to improve performance and capabilities. All projects are accompanied by a variety of risk. Previous research by Tsiga et. al (2016) has identified the critical success factors for the construction industry and their research also highlights the importance of risk management in the delivery of projects for the construction industry.

There are currently gaps in research in the construction industry which has led to the implementation of generic project management techniques. Risk management in projects has been researched and improved in recent times, but still, project success rate failed to improve in a similar pattern (Mir & Pinnington, 2014). Studies by Johansen et. al. (2014) have suggested that project risk managers and their teams are poorly equipped to handle risk and uncertainties. Katz (1991) suggest the need for the development of human, conceptual and technical skills of project managers. This has led to researchers such as Montequina et. al. (2015), Fisher (2011) and Tsiga et. al (2016) to take the first steps in identifying the ideal skills for project managers. El-Sabaa (2001) also suggest a framework for the selection of perfect project managers.

This research study identifies the attitudes and personality of project participants towards risk management in the construction industry. The decision scenarios implemented in this study have been derived from well documented past projects (Tsiga, Emes, & Smith, 2016), some of the decisions have led to project success and others to failure. In the aspect of the personality section of this study, it was derived from Carl G. Jung’s work on psychological theory (Jung, 1988). The theory looks at how people behave differently in different situations. The differences depict how individual use mental reasoning in justifying their individual reasoning. The Carl G. Jung’s psychological preferences are shown in Table 1.

There are currently various psychometric questionnaires that have been derived from the Carl G. Jung’s work, an example of such is the Temperament Sorter II (KTS II) (Keirsey & Bates, 1984) and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Briggs & Myers, 1977). Various studies have highlighted the importance and need of such tool (Clinebell & Stecher, 2003). The approach implemented in this research has been used to identify the attitudes of project participants for the Petroleum Industry (Tsiga, Emes, & Smith, 2016) and Space Industry (Tsiga, Emes, & Smith, 2016)…

More…

To read entire paper, click here

 

Editor’s note: Second Editions are previously published papers that have continued relevance in today’s project management world, or which were originally published in conference proceedings or in a language other than English. Original publication acknowledged; authors retain copyright. This paper was originally presented at the 6th Scientific Conference on Project Management in the Baltic States, University of Latvia, April 2017. It is republished here with the permission of the author and conference organizers



About the Authors



Zakari Danlami Tsiga

London, United Kingdom

 


Zakari Danlami Tsiga
, MSc is a PhD student working at the University College London. Prior to beginning the PhD program, Zakari undertook a masters’ program at the same university, this gave him the opportunity to work on the delivery of various projects for different clients such as Microsoft and the London Clearing House. From his work he developed an interest in Technology management and the importance of successful project delivery

 


Emes, PhD

London, United Kingdom

 

 

Michael Emes, MEng, PhD, MIET, MAPM, MINCOSE is Deputy Director of UCL Centre for Systems Engineering and Head of the Technology Management Group at UCL’s Mullard Space Science Laboratory (MSSL). He completed his first degree in Engineering, Economics and Management at St John’s College, Oxford, and a PhD at MSSL in developing cooling technologies for spacecraft. He worked as a strategy consultant for Mercer Management Consulting (now Oliver Wyman) on projects in retail, energy and transport, including a project advising the Department for Transport on how to address the problems of the rail sector in the last days of Railtrack plc. Michael now conducts teaching and research at UCL in the areas of systems engineering and technology management in domains including transport, health, defence and aerospace. He is a member of APM, INCOSE and the IET. He is Programme Manager and a lead trainer for the European Space Agency’s Project Manager Training Course and is Programme Director for UCL’s MSc in the Management of Complex Projects.

 


Prof. Alan Smith, PhD

London, United Kingdom

 

 

Alan Smith was awarded a PhD at Leicester University in 1978 based on his X-ray study of supernova remnants. His work involved the payload development and flight of a Skylark sounding rocket from Woomera, South Australia. Between 1984-1990 he worked for the European Space Agency at its technology centre in the Netherlands as both an astrophysicist and as an instrument developer. His early career involved a combination of technology development (space flight hardware on European, and Russian satellites), project management and astrophysics. In 1990 he joined University College London’s Mullard Space Science Laboratory, initially as Head of Detector Physics eventually becoming Director and Head of Department (2005). In 1998 he was made a Professor of Detector Physics. While at UCL he has been Director of UCL’s Centre for Advanced Instrumentation Systems (1995-2005), a Co-Director of the Smart Optics Faraday Partnership (2002-2005) and is presently founding Director of the Centre for Systems Engineering (1998-present). Alan was appointed Vice-Dean for Enterprise for the faculty of Mathematical and Physical Sciences in 2007, helped set up UCL’s Centre for Space Medicine in 2011 and is a member of UCL’s Institute for Risk and Disaster Reduction board. He is a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society and of the Association of Project Management.

 

 

Disruptive Escalation

Are we asking the right questions?

SECOND EDITION

By Carlie Cornell, PMP

North Texas, USA

 



Introduction

Escalation is not a poisonous snake to be avoided at all costs. It is a tool project managers can learn to use for the betterment of their projects. Project management.com (2017) says, “Project escalation is both an art and a science – it is also a risky art as escalation can lead to personal clashes and backfires.” Maybe it is poisonous after all, even if it is not a snake, and must be handled with care. But done well, escalation can lead to successful delivery of a previously troubled project and it can enhance the reputation of the project manager who knows when and how to escalate.

This paper will examine two cases studies in which a disruptive escalation interrupted project progress, but eventually enabled the project teams to deliver successfully. The first case study is a story of a team that spun its wheels and delivered nothing for weeks, sliding gradually from green to yellow to bright, burning red. We will look at how we measured that slide and how we halted it and got the team back on track. The second case study looks at a project that the sponsoring CIO called “the worst project ever.” We will study how the project earned that moniker and what the team did to turn things around.

What is escalation?

Escalation is a process used to call attention to activities or issues that have the potential to harm a project, if not resolved. Such harm can include delay of project timelines, cost overruns, jeopardizing the quality of project deliverables and other damage to project outcomes (Puleo, 2016).

We would like to call attention to the first few words of this definition. If escalation is a process, it makes sense that we should define our process before we need it. If your organization or PMO does not have a pre-defined escalation process, you should create one in your project plan. If you have a defined process, you may wish to elaborate or make it more specific in your project plan.

Some of the elements you might want to document include:

  1. Whom you need to escalate to per topic or area, at each level of escalation.
  2. Levels of escalation: a scale of severity of risk will likely drive this. You may also wish to consider difficulty of resolution as a factor in escalation level.
  3. Triggers that will drive a need to escalate.
  4. Measurements that will alert you to developing problems.

(projectmanagement.com, 2017)

An example of an escalation matrix is included in Appendix A.

Disruptive or obstacle removal?

Not all escalations are disruptive. In fact, in our experience, most are not. For example, today, one of our team project managers escalated the problem that one of her team members still did not have access to tools used by her team to one of the development managers. The manager reached out to the support team and authorized the access. Within an hour access was granted…

More…

To read entire paper, click here

 

Editor’s note: Second Editions are previously published papers that have continued relevance in today’s project management world, or which were originally published in conference proceedings or in a language other than English. Original publication acknowledged; authors retain copyright. This paper was originally presented at the 11th Annual UT Dallas Project Management Symposium in August 2017. It is republished here with the permission of the authors and conference organizers.



About the Author


Carlie Cornell

Texas, USA

 

 

Carlie (Gehle) Cornell, PMP, has managed projects and programs, using plan-driven and agile approaches for product development and information systems software teams since 2004. As a PMO leader, she has trained and managed project managers, business analysts and business process analysts from IT and business organizations. She has been recognized as a top performer and received a Chairman’s Award in recognition of her project and program management efforts. Most recently she slipped over to the dark side to manage development resources directly. Now, she collaborates with the PMO team to ensure that strategic projects have proper staffing.

Carlie Cornell can be contacted at [email protected]

 

 

When Risk Management Meets Risk Realized

Mitigating Project Impact

SECOND EDITION

By Vince Yauger, AIA, CCCA, CCM, LEED AP, PMP

University of Texas at Dallas

Richardson, Texas, USA

 




ABSTRACT

Most project managers are familiar with the practice of developing risk registers, and the need to evaluate and plan for risk in a major project. But what happens when a risk is realized in spite of your best planning? How we respond to a crisis when one occurs is vital to limiting the potential impact of a realized risk to the outcome of the affected project.

This paper will emphasize the importance of performing detailed emergency response planning before a problem occurs. We will explore tools and techniques for preplanning for the known risks. Using construction project risk management as a framework, we will also look at multiple case studies where a potential risk occurred, causing damage to infrastructure and/or injury to workers. This exercise will illustrate how cost and delay impacts can be mitigated through the decisive application of preplanned contingency and response plans.

The Project Management Institute’s PMBOK Guide 5th Edition describes Project Risk Management as “the processes of planning, identification, analysis, response planning and controlling risk on a project.” It further states that “the objectives of project risk management are to increase the likelihood and impact of positive events, and decrease the likelihood and impact of negative events on the project. In this paper, we will focus on identification of risks, planning for risk responses, and controlling risk through execution of response plans.

RISK MANAGEMENT

What is risk management? Project Risk Management Processes as defined by PMI:

11.1 Plan Risk Management – defining how to conduct risk management activities for a project

11.2 Identify Risks – process for determining which risks may affect the project

11.3 Perform Qualitative Risk Analysis – prioritizing risks for probability of occurrence and impact

11.4 Perform Quantitative Risk Analysis – numerically analyzing the effect of identified risks

11.5 Plan Risk Responses – developing options and actions to reduce threats to project objectives

11.6 Control Risks – process of implementing risk response plans

Source: PMBOK Guide, 5th Edition, Page 309

A key component of any risk management exercise is identification of risks that could impact the project. “Identifying Risks is the process of determining which risks may affect the project and documenting their characteristics.” Source: PMBOK Guide, 5th Edition, Page 319

More…

To read entire paper, click here

 

Editor’s note: Second Editions are previously published papers that have continued relevance in today’s project management world, or which were originally published in conference proceedings or in a language other than English. Original publication acknowledged; authors retain copyright. This paper was originally presented at the 11th Annual UT Dallas Project Management Symposium in August 2017. It is republished here with the permission of the authors and conference organizers.



About the Author



Yauger, PMP

University of Texas at Dallas
North Texas, USA

 

 

Vince Yauger, AIA, CCCA, CCM, LEEP AP, PMP has 36-years’ experience in design and construction, working as a project manager for both private industry and the government sector. His construction experience covers a broad spectrum of building types, ranging from small residences to multi-million dollar multi-family high-rise, airport terminals, and higher education projects. Vince currently serves as a Resident Construction Manager / PM for the University of Texas System Office of Facilities Planning and Construction – managing new construction and major renovation projects at the University of Texas at Dallas campus since 2007.

Vince earned a Bachelor of Environmental Design (Architecture) from Texas A&M University, with additional graduate studies in Architecture and Management. He holds multiple professional certifications: Project Management Professional (2011), CSI – Certified Construction Contract Administrator (2006), CMAA – Certified Construction Manager (2017), LEED Accredited Professional (2004), and Registered Architect (1999 – Texas).

Past speaking engagements include a keynote address at the 2015 UTD PM Symposium, 2016 Virtual Construction and Field Technology Conference, UTD Applied Project Management Forum, 2013 Texas Society of Architects Convention, 2013 UTD Facilities Management Conference, and multiple UT System OFPC annual conferences. He also serves as a guest lecturer for UTD’s PM core curriculum program, speaking to groups of foreign graduate students visiting UT Dallas, and conducting construction site tours on campus.

Vince can be contacted at [email protected]

 

 

The Epistemological Analysis of the Concept “Risk” in Project Risk Management

SECOND EDITION

by Juris Uzulāns

University of Latvia

Riga, Latvia

 



Abstract

The aim of the current research series is to examine the risk registers of real projects to find correlations between the project management theory, especially project risk management, and practical results of the risk management of real projects – the risk registers publicly available in the Internet.

In the current research the author analysed the concept “event” that defines the content of the concept “risk”. The use of the concept “event” was analysed in 9 different sources to find out how to use the concept “event”. Epistemological analysis of the concepts “event” in the “risk” definition was used to answer the question what the risk in project management means.

In the previous studies the author concluded that the methods used for the analysis of the definitions of the concept are insufficient because the theoretical risk registers do not coincide with the risk registers of real projects. However, we can conclude that the risk registers of real projects are not sufficiently substantiated theoretically if we assume that the risk registers of real projects comply with the documents governing project management.

Key words: project, risk, concept, event, epistemological analysis.

JEL code: M00, M10, M190

Introduction

Project management history is a relatively new science characterized by dynamic development. Defining precise, unanimous and generally accepted concepts is important for any branch of science. In project management as a new branch of science many concepts are under construction, many concepts differ both in the content and scope. One of such project management concepts is “risk”. The genius concepts of the risk definitions are different. The most common concepts are “event” and “uncertainty”. The concept “event” is widely used in different areas, in philosophy, mathematics, and physics or away from the scientific definition. The same is true in the case of the concept “uncertainty”. The content of the concepts “event” and “uncertainty” is very different and maybe the analysis of the ontological, epistemological and methodological and real project risk register of the definitions of “event” and “uncertainty” will provide the analysis, which reveals relationships, which could not be identified by the methods used in previous studies.

Methodology of Research

The research was conducted in two stages. The goal of the first stage was to find out if the selected methods of research can be used to carry out the ontological, epistemological and methodological analysis of the concept “risk”. The author assumed that the selection of at least three sources in each kind of sources will be sufficient for the assessment of the validity of the selected methods. In the second stage of the research a wider use of the sources is intended. It is also planned to compare the results of the theoretical analysis of the sources with the results of the project risk analysis. The article deals with the results of the first stage which analysed how to use the concept “event” in 9 different sources, 3 project management guidelines of international project management institutions, 3 project risk management guidelines, and 3 author books.

One of the definitions of the term “epistemology” in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is “the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity”, in the Cambridge Dictionary epistemology it reads “the part of philosophy that is about the study of how we know things” and in the Collins dictionary epistemology there the definition: “the theory of knowledge, esp the critical study of its validity, methods, and scope”. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy states that “Defined narrowly, epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief” and lists several questions: “As the study of knowledge, epistemology is concerned with the following questions: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its structure, and what are its limits? As the study of justified belief, epistemology aims to answer questions such as: How we are to understand the concept of justification? What makes justified beliefs justified? Is justification internal or external to one’s own mind?”

More…

To read entire paper, click here

 

Editor’s note: Second Editions are previously published papers that have continued relevance in today’s project management world, or which were originally published in conference proceedings or in a language other than English. Original publication acknowledged; authors retain copyright. This paper was originally presented at the 6th Scientific Conference on Project Management in the Baltic States, University of Latvia, April 2017. It is republished here with the permission of the author and conference organizers



About the Author



Uzulāns

Riga, Latvia

 


Juris Uzulāns
possesses more than 15 years’ experience in theoretical and practical project management. It includes managing projects in state governance, health care systems, institutions of higher education and IBM Latvia. He has designed and delivered courses in project management in HEI School of Banking and Finance, Baltic Computer Academy as well as commercial firms specialized in training.

In science the Juris focuses on risk management, analysis of project processes and documentation. Juris is author of 4 books on project management and 20 scientific publications.

Juris can be contacted at [email protected]

 

 

Understanding Project Stakeholder Psychology

The Path to Effective Stakeholder Management and Engagement

SECOND EDITION

by Aurangzeb Z. Khan
Department of Management Sciences,
COMSATS Institute of Information Technology,
Islamabad, Pakistan

and

Miroslaw J. Skibniewski and John H. Cable
Project Management Center for Excellence,
James A. Clark School of Engineering,
University of Maryland
College Park, Maryland, USA

 



Abstract

Effective stakeholder management and engagement is now universally acknowledged by project manage­ment practitioners and academics as a prime critical success factor for all projects. However, many pro­jects still encounter serious unaddressed problems, issues and challenges in dealing with their stake­holders, espe­cially external ones. These can have damaging consequences both for the projects and their stake­­holders. A major cause for this deficiency is the evident paucity of knowledge about the underlying psycho­logical factors which profoundly influence stakeholders to act as they do towards projects. On many projects, especially in construction and civil infrastructure development, external stakeholders collec­tively tend to constitute an exceedingly diverse, large and complex community and their actions may range from supportive to neutral to adversarial. These stances can change over time potentially increasing the danger level for the project if not handled properly.

Based on an in-depth analysis of available information on numerous large completed and on-going pro­jects across the globe, mainly in construction and civil infrastructure development, this research attempts to address this knowledge gap. It identifies and discusses six key psychological factors – motiva­tion and concern, expectation and perception, and attitude and behavior – which apply universally to all internal and external stakeholders (individual, organizational or otherwise) on every project. A thorough under­stand­ing of these factors and why they influence stakeholders to adopt positions pro or contra pro­jects is essential in order to assist project owners, planners and executors craft effective management and engage­ment strategies which enable the development of an amicable, ethical, mutually beneficial and sus­tainable relationship with their stakeholders throughout the project life-cycle. By doing so, they can maxi­mize the opportunities for their projects and concurrently and proactively reduce or minimize the threats to them, existential or lessor, which typically would ensue from stakeholder opposition to their projects.

Introduction

Stakeholders are now acknowledged as the key driving force and most important critical success factor on every project. Even if a project is successful in the narrow conventional sense in that it achieves its goal within its cost, time, scope and quality constraints, modern interpretations of project success hold that the project cannot be considered truly successful if key stakeholders are dissatisfied with the way in which it was undertaken or if significant and unresolved stakeholder conflicts and issues emerged prior to project initiation, during the course of the project life-cycle or subsequent to project completion.

However, although the criticality of effective stakeholder management and engagement is undisputed by project management academics and practitioners, and in recent years has emerged as a major thematic area of research in which a voluminous body of literature now exists, major conflicts and issues relating to stakeholders are inevitable in most projects and are identified in several project performance surveys undertaken over time as constituting a prime reason for ‘project failure’. Long is the list of projects which experienced cost and schedule overruns, unwanted and unanticipated scope modifications, severe reputa­tional damage, or which were doomed to premature termination because of flawed stakeholder manage­ment and engage­ment by project decision-makers. Effective stakeholder management and engagement is hence an existential (and ethical) imperative for projects and is at least as important as effectively managing their cost, time, scope, quality and other ‘hard’ or ‘technical’ aspects. It is also a highly complex and challenging task because it invariably requires a good understanding of psychology and allied disciplines such as sociology which normally do not apply to the hard or technical aspects.

Very few contributions specifically highlighting stakeholder psychology have appeared in the project stake­­holder literature. This dearth of material on this increasingly important but surprisingly still neglect­ed research area encouraged the authors to closely explore the relationship between psychology and project stake­holders. The two fundamental questions this research addresses are which major psycho­logi­cal factors specifically influence project stakeholders on construction and civil infrastructure projects, and in what relationship do these identified psychological factors stand to each other.

The outcome of this research was the development of a psychological knowledge framework for projects. The authors are of the view that by applying this framework projects can, on the one hand, signi­ficantly reduce the level of opposition they encounter from their stakeholders and, on the other, simul­tan­eously identify and exploit oppor­tunities which present themselves in the course of their interaction with them. Doing so may increase the chance of project success and boost project effective­ness and efficiency. This psychological knowledge framework, which is based on simple logic and supported by extensive empirical analysis, provides detailed insight into the reasons why stakeholders adopt positive or negative stances and courses of action towards projects and shows how these stakehol­ders can be used as a force in favor of rather than against the project. It is hence of potentially immense benefit to project owners, managers, planners and executors.

For their research the authors conducted a detailed and systematic analysis of information from multiple sources available in the public domain on over fifty high-profile, well-documented and large and contro­ver­sial on-going and completed projects across the globe primarily in Construction and Civil Infrastruc­ture Development (CCID). CCID encompasses a broad category of projects which in the understanding of the authors include, inter alia, the creation of large residential and commercial buildings, major industrial facilities, dams, transportation systems (highways, rail, air- and seaports), energy systems (oil and gas pipelines, power generation stations and power transmission infrastructure), mine development, commu­ni­cation infrastruc­ture, and urban regeneration schemes. Their research resulted in the identification of six fundamental and inter-related stakeholder psychological ‘attributes’ grouped into three pairs: motivation and concern, expectation and perception, and attitude and behavior. The authors have also determined that these attributes are common to all project stakeholders regardless of whether the stakeholders are internal or primary, meaning, they have contractual relationship with and/or legal obligations to the project and are consequently actively involved in it and normally have a vested interest in its success, or whether they are external or secondary, meaning they lie outside the project’s formal direct control and who may or may not want the project to succeed depending on whether they are positively or negatively affected by the project during its life-cycle or subsequently when it enters its operational phase. Further­more, the attributes apply to stakeholders of any type – individuals, groups, communities, organizations and even countries – and to projects in all categories, regardless of duration, size, level of complexity and physical location. In other words, these six attributes have universal application.

Understanding these six psychological attributes and systematically collecting data and information on them is an integral part of the complex process of stakeholder analysis which constitutes the third step in the five step process of project stakeholder management and engagement which the authors proposed and discussed in their paper on a suggested project stakeholder governance frame­work which was presented at the University of Maryland’s first annual project management symposium in 2014. Sequentially the steps are contextualization, stakeholder identification, stakeholder analysis, and design and implementation of stakeholder management and engagement strategies. As the stakeholder analy­sis is dependent on the pre­ceding steps of stakeholder contextualization and identifi­cation, it is crucial that the latter are thoroughly undertaken. Stakeholders obviously must be comprehen­sively and accurately identified and categorized before they can be analyzed. All major project stakeholder identification methods were explored and discussed by the authors in their paper on the subject they presented at the University of Maryland’s second annual project management symposium in 2015. The identification of internal stake­holders is comparatively easier and quicker to undertake than for the external stakeholders. Internal stakeholders on a large CCID project for instance are typically the project owner, sponsor or client, project manager and team, financiers, consultants, contractors and sub-contractors, vendors, hired labor and various involved public agencies; important external stakeholders usually include the affected residents and business community, environmentalists, political entities, the media, academia, and other public agencies which are not involved in the project but have some interest professional interest in it. Failure by the project to identify some external stakeholders – and consequently not to engage them – can result in complications later.

Projects must be mindful of the practical hurdles and limitations associated with analyzing their stake­holders’ psychological attributes. Both the internal and especially the external stakeholder community can be very large and complex in terms of, inter alia, (for organizations) their respective missions, interests, goals, priorities and culture and (for individuals, groups, communities) their social and cultural diversity, economic background, objectives, awareness, education and intelligence, family upbringing, norms, values and personal or shared experiences and so forth. The stakeholder psychological attribute analysis is only as useful as the quality of information it is based on, meaning, in order for it to be useful the information must at least be accurate, precise, complete, relevant, specific, up-to-date, reliable and actionable. Finding information which satisfies this set of criteria on all stakeholders, especially external ones, can be very difficult, time-consuming, costly and sometimes simply impossible to do. Powerful or influential stakeholders must hereby be prioritized as these can significantly affect the project in either the positive or negative sense. Sentiments towards projects may change immensely and rapidly in response to project developments and such chan­ges must be reflected in a prompt corresponding change in the project’s stakeholder management/engage­­ment strategies. This implies that a situational or periodic repeat of the information collection task and stakeholder attributes analysis would be necessary, adding to the process complexity and cost.

Hence, attempting to devise and implement effective and customized stakeholder management/ engage­ment strategies on the basis of the stakeholder attributes analysis can be highly challenging, tedious and expensive and offers no guarantee of success. Without qualified support, for instance in the form of a team of highly skilled, competent, creative and experienced analysts or hired consultants, such activities would excessively burden project managers and teams already heavily burdened with the arduous technical and administrative tasks they typically encounter in the day to day operations of their projects.

More…

To read entire paper, click here

 

Editor’s note: Second Editions are previously published papers that have continued relevance in today’s project management world, or which were originally published in conference proceedings or in a language other than English. Original publication acknowledged; authors retain copyright. This paper was originally presented at the 4th Annual University of Maryland PM Symposium in May 2017. It is republished here with the permission of the authors and conference organizers.



About the Authors        


Dr. Aurangzeb Z. Khan

COMSATS Institute of Information Technology
Islamabad, Pakistan

 


Dr. Aurangzeb Z. Khan
is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Management Sciences at the COMSATS Institute of Information Technology in Islamabad, Pakistan. He introduced Pakistan’s first master degree program in project management at his university in the fall semester 2008. His prime areas of research are project stakeholder management, and project monitoring and evaluation, which he teaches to project management graduate-level students. He can be contacted at [email protected]

 


Dr. Miroslaw J. Skibniewski

University of Maryland
College Park, MD, USA

 


Dr. Miroslaw Skibniewski
is a Professor in the Center of Excellence in Project Management at the University of Maryland. He is also Editor-in-Chief of Automation in Construction, an international research journal published by Elsevier, and North American Editor of the Journal of Civil Engineering and Management published by Taylor & Francis. An author/coauthor of over 200 research publications, he lectures on information/automation technologies in construction, construction equipment management, and legal aspects of engineering. Miroslaw can be contacted at [email protected]

 


John Cable

Director, Project Management Center for Excellence
University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

 


John Cable
is Director of the Project Management Center for Excellence in the A.J. Clark School of Engineering at the University of Maryland, where he is also a professor and teacher of several graduate courses in project management. His program at the University of Maryland offers masters and PhD level programs focused on project management. With more than 1,300 seats filled annually with students from many countries, including more than 40 PhD students, the program is the largest graduate program in project management at a major university in the United States.

John Cable served in the newly formed U.S. Department of Energy in 1980, where he was involved with developing energy standards for buildings, methods for measuring energy consumption, and managing primary research in energy conservation. As an architect and builder, Mr. Cable founded and led John Cable Associates in 1984, a design build firm. In 1999 he was recruited by the University of Maryland’s Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering to create and manage a graduate program in project management. In his role as founder and director of the Project Management Center for Excellence at Maryland, the program has grown to offer an undergraduate minor, master’s degrees, and a doctoral program. Information about the Project Management Center for Project Management at the University of Maryland can be found at http://www.pm.umd.edu/.

In 2002, PMI formed the Global Accreditation Center for Project Management Educational Programs (GAC). Mr. Cable was appointed to that inaugural board where he served as vice chair. In 2006, he was elected as chairman, a role he held through 2012. As Chair of the PMI GAC, John led the accreditation of 86 project management educational programs at 40 institutions in 15 countries in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Latin America and the Asia Pacific Region. John was awarded PMI’s 2012 Distinguished Contribution Award for his leadership at the GAC. He can be contacted at [email protected].

 

 

Culture Eats Strategy

Impact on Disruptive Change Programs

SECOND EDITION

Darci Prado, PhD
Minas Gerais, Brazil

Renata Kalid
Minas Gerais, Brazil

and

Russell Archibald
San Miguel de Allende, Mexico

 



Summary

The above title was borrowed from Peter Drucker, but perfectly fits the project management environment. The purpose of this paper is to show the influence of culture on the evolution of an organization’s project management skills. The authors were awakened to the importance of the theme “culture” in their maturity research conducted in Brazil since 2005. The Prado-PMMM maturity model contains 5 levels. The vast majority of Brazilian organizations are at the initial levels of maturity (1 and 2). In this text, initially the authors analyze the difficulties to reach level 3 (“Standardized”) and also to go to level 4 (“Managed”). Then, analyzing in depth the difficulties to move to these two levels, it was discovered that the “organizational culture” aspect is present. This text addresses, in an introductory level, some concepts of culture and a case that shows how culture can impact the evolution of management. It also addresses critical aspects to be observed in project management to minimize such effects.

  1. INTRODUCTION

In the last 12 years we have worked with the Maturity Research in Project Management (http://www.maturityresearch.com/) and as consultants of FALCONI – Result Consultants(www.falconi.com), which enabled us to follow hundreds of Brazilian organizations. The Prado-PMMM model measures the maturity of a department of an organization on a scale of 1 to 5, with levels 4 and 5 being the so-called “threshold of excellence”. So it’s only natural that organizations want to reach this level. According to KERZNER (2006), an organization spends 7 years to reach the plateau of excellence (Figure 1).

Figure 1: According to Kerzner, 7 years have been spent to reach the level of excellence (levels 4 and 5)

One thing that stands out in the eyes of those who analyze the results of the research over the last 12 years is that only a small group of organizations has managed to reach this level. For example, in the 2014 survey, when 435 organizations participated, only 12.7% of them were at the level of excellence (Figure 2), as shown on www.maturityresearch.com.We still have a group of organizations that have not yet reached the level of excellence, but, by the pace of evolution, everything leads one to believe that they will succeed. Between 2010 and 2016 our attention was focused on these organizations, as they became a benchmark. We interviewed several of them.

Figure 2: In the 2014 survey, only 12.7% of the organizations were at the level of excellence (levels 4 and 5)

From 2014 our attention has turned also to those organizations that do not evolve. This group is somewhat heterogeneous. Here we have organizations that, for various reasons, know that they will not reach the level of excellence and accept it peacefully. There are even cases of regression at maturity. However, we note that some organizations would love to evolve and unfortunately can not. Many park in level 2 or, if they can reach level 3, they do not leave. For them, the obstacles to this walk are much more difficult than expected. Then a question arises naturally: what is the cause of this? Why a strong and sustained effort by high administration cannot overcome the difficulties and leads many organizations to accept, unwillingly, to live with a situation of poor performance?

An analysis of this question initially points out that the reasons vary greatly depending on the type of organization (private, governmental or third sector), the category of projects (construction, T.I., etc.) and the moment the organization is living. A conclusion that always seemed right to us is that something was missing. Parallel with the benchmark organizations, we believed that the effort should have been greater (including greater discipline, better tools), leadership should have been more proactive, senior management support should have been better, etc.

It was only when we started interacting with professionals from other disciplines in our consulting firm that we discovered that the above conclusion is superficial. We realize that the same problem exists in many areas of almost every organization. Or rather, it is not just with project management that this happens, but also with the management of routine operations. We have identified a common cause. And what is the name given to this common cause? Organizational culture.

More…

To read entire paper, click here

 

Editor’s note: Second Editions are previously published papers that have continued relevance in today’s project management world, or which were originally published in conference proceedings or in a language other than English. Original publication acknowledged; authors retain copyright. This paper was originally presented at the 11th Annual UT Dallas Project Management Symposium in August 2017. It is republished here with the permission of the authors and conference organizers.



About the Authors


Darci Prado, PhD

Minas Gerais, Brazil

 

 

Darci Prado, PhD is a partner at FALCONI Consultores de Resultado, Brazil. Bachelor degree in Chemical Engineering from UFMG, postgraduate degree in Economic Engineering from FDC and PhD from UNICAMP. He participated in the establishment of the PMI chapter in Minas Gerais and Paraná, and was a Board member of PMI-MG between 1998-2002. He was the president of Clube IPMA-BH between 2006 and 2008. Author of 10 project management books. Conducts a maturity survey in Brazil and Italy with Russell Archibald since 2005 by the site http://www.maturityresearch.com/.

 


Renata Henrique Mendes Kalid

Minas Gerais, Brazil

 

 

Renata Henriques Mendes Kalid Graduated in Psychology from PUC-MG, Renata used to be with FALCONI Consultores de Resultado for 10 years, responsible for the creation and management of the Corporate University since 2014. Previously, People Development Manager covering Performance Evaluation, Career and Allocation Assessment.Graduated in Management with Emphasis on People by FDC, she worked for 7 years in companies in the beverage and food industries. She began his career at ABInbev, assuming leadership in HR Generalist. Later HR Manager in Andina – Coca-Cola and Danone. Participation in projects of Culture Diagnosis and Leadership Development, with Brazilian and American consultancies.

 


Russell D. Archibald

San Miguel de Allende, Mexico




Russell D. Archibald,
PhD (Hon), MScME, BSME, PMP, Fellow PMI and Honorary Fellow APM/IPMA (member of the Board of IPMA/INTERNET 1974-83), held engineering and executive positions in aerospace, petroleum, telecommunications, and automotive industries in the USA, France, Mexico and Venezuela. Since 1982 he has consulted to companies, agencies and development banks in 16 countries on 4 continents. He is the author of Managing High-Technology Programs and Projects, 3rd Edition 2003, also published in Russian, Italian, and Chinese, and has published other books (in English, Italian, Japanese, and Hungarian) and many papers on project management. Web site: http://www.russarchibald.com/

 

 

Disruptive Opportunity

How the U.S. Census Bureau Reimagined its Portfolio

SECOND EDITION

by Susan Hostetter and John Walsh

U.S. Census Bureau

Washington, DC, USA

 



Executive Summary

This is the story of how one organization at the U.S. Census Bureau put in place portfolio management processes to reimagine and energize its core mission. The Demographic Statistical Methods Division (DSMD) at the Census Bureau relies heavily on work sponsored by other federal agencies and, in the disruptive reality of shrinking federal budgets, was facing increased competition from private sector and other federal service providers. This disruptive reality was a sink or swim opportunity for DSMD to improve how it competes for work and manages its resources.

To survive, DSMD had to enhance its portfolio by bringing in more research projects. To do this, it developed methods to elicit creative opportunities for research from staff, produced more accurate cost estimates and tracked the progress of the proposals as we presented them to our customers. Additionally, DSMD needed to do a better job managing its existing resources. It improved the WBS and project management methods to track cost expenditures, control project scope, and product delivery. It did this all under the constraints of the federal budget and federal hiring processes.

As a result, DSMD is now in a better place. The good news is that the creative proposal initiative has given DSMD increased stability in its operating budget across all programs. Additionally, DSMD is operating more efficiently. It has identified ongoing work, defined scope for each project, and has improved how it tracks costs, resources and deliverables.

Introduction

The U.S. Census Bureau, like many federal agencies, has had to contend with the double reality of budget reductions and Congress expecting the same amount of work despite the lower funding levels. Due to this, DSMD was facing a serious challenge: how to succeed in a market where there were fewer dollars for the statistical products it produced. Historically, DSMD has provided statistical methodological support for current demographic surveys conducted by the Census Bureau, as well as by other government agencies, through ‘reimbursable’ agreements. This was an especially challenging situation since DSMD competes for shared program money among other areas within the Census Bureau.

DSMD is unique in that it is supported by funding from multiple sources. This includes appropriated funding where DSMD has control over the scope, schedule, and budget and reimbursable funding from other government agencies and nonprofit entities through reimbursable agreements where DSMD does not have control over the scope, schedule, and budget and must act in alignment with priorities and needs of the external stakeholders. Additionally, DSMD faces constraints from the federal budget and hiring regulations. First, DSMD is constrained by the Federal budget process in that its funding cannot be rolled from one year to the next. It must spend a predetermined amount each fiscal year. Second, DSMD is constrained by the federal hiring process. DSMD is required to have steady (multi-year) funding for all of its positions in order to hire and maintain employment and the process to hire new employees is a cumbersome 6-month process.

Due to its particularly diverse portfolio and federal budget and hiring constraints, DSMD encountered challenges in how it solicited, planned, prioritized, and performed work. DSMD elicited work from sponsors that were independent of each other and with little visibility across the whole portfolio of sponsors. This process failed to ensure that the proposed and agreed to work was the ‘right size’ for DSMD staffing level and it contributed to the DSMD challenge of not being able to efficiently align budget and staffing with the work performed. These problems in turn led to missed deadlines, work products of poor quality and, eventually, the loss work to other government entities and private contractors. This became the catalyst for reimagining DSMD’s portfolio process.

Before things continued out of hand, the PMO in DSMD, in cooperation with the leadership group, decided it was time to take a step back and look at DSMD’s portfolio from the top down and see where they could make changes and improvements.

More…

To read entire paper, click here

 

Editor’s note: Second Editions are previously published papers that have continued relevance in today’s project management world, or which were originally published in conference proceedings or in a language other than English. Original publication acknowledged; authors retain copyright. This paper was originally presented at the 11th Annual UT Dallas Project Management Symposium in August 2017. It is republished here with the permission of the authors and conference organizers.



About the Authors


Susan Hostetter

U.S. Census Bureau
Washington, DC, USA




Susan Hostetter
, PMP, is a Project Manager in the Demographic Survey Methodology Division (DSMD) at the U.S. Census Bureau in Washington, DC, USA. She has spent twenty plus years at the U.S Census Bureau as a data analyst and project management professional. She has been instrumental in standing up and improving risk management, project management, portfolio management, strategic planning, and performance management processes for multiple Census and Survey programs. She received her undergraduate degree in Business Administration and Economics at Mary Baldwin College and her Master’s degree in Project Management from the University of Maryland’s University College. Susan can be contacted at [email protected]

 


John Walsh

U.S. Census Bureau
Washington, DC, USA

 

 

John Walsh, PMP, is Chief of the Management Operations Office in the Demographic Statistical Methods Division (DSMD) at the U.S. Census Bureau in Washington, DC, USA. As a project management professional over the last 10 years, he has been instrumental in introducing project management processes across large-scale programs across the Census Bureau, including the Economic Census, as well as the Current Demographic and Current Economic survey programs. He received undergraduate degrees in Economics and Criminology & Criminal Justice from the University of Maryland at College Park. John can be contacted at [email protected]

 

 

Be Bold or Be Beige

 

SECOND EDITION

by Amanda Arriaga and Jessica Ballew

Texas Department of Public Safety                                 

Austin, Texas, USA                                            

 



Introduction

Chaos can be defined as a state of confusion in which chance is extreme, while disruption is typically considered to be an interruption of unity.   Chaos and disruption are typically considered to be related adjectives that typically describe a negative situation, but they do not have the same meeting. In fact, when it comes to the leadership domain, disruption does not necessarily equate to a negative circumstance. While chaos is almost always harmful, disruption can be considered quite the opposite.

Disruptive Leadership is on the rise and is causing organizations to think beyond how they have always done it. New perspectives are sometimes considered bold and scary.

Traditional managers do what is expected of them, but their style is considered beige, rather than bold.

Typically, we identify executives as those most likely to be disruptive leaders, particularly if they are new to the organization and have not yet been incorporated into the culture.

But if a project team is comprised of all disruptive leaders, with their own disruptive ideas, would that be a benefit, or would it cause chaos? Conversely, what would happen if the team consisted only of traditionalists?

What is a Disruptive Leader?

A traditional leader is one who understands the charge ahead and seeks to meet that charge exactly. You may also think of this leader as “beige”. This leader gets the job done adequately, but is more likely to support maintaining the status quo or to look for ways to minimize deviation from “the way we’ve always done it” when change does become necessary. You may think of this person as a “manager” more than as a leader.

A disruptive leader on the other hand, not only meets their objectives, but they also challenge convention when it comes to those objectives. The disruptive leader will likely ask “why” before beginning their role, and then will look for new and innovative ways to accomplish the goal. They must also seek out ways to expand or modify services to adapt to an ever changing environment as opposed to focusing primarily on changes to the methods of development or delivery of existing services.

Disruptive leaders may initially scare a traditional organization with their new ideas. Examples of disruptive leaders include Steve Jobs and Gordon Ramsay. Both are known to ask “why” in harsh tones, but they ultimately receive the results they are seeking. In the context of a commercial kitchen, it may be important to ensure your staff knows, in no uncertain terms, why the chicken cannot be raw.

How does this translate to your organization? If you are a steward of public or private funds, you would likely want to ensure that your staff also knows what the consequences are of their actions (or inactions).

More…

To read entire paper, click here

 

Editor’s note: Second Editions are previously published papers that have continued relevance in today’s project management world, or which were originally published in conference proceedings or in a language other than English. Original publication acknowledged; authors retain copyright. This paper was originally presented at the 11th Annual UT Dallas Project Management Symposium in August 2017. It is republished here with the permission of the authors and conference organizers.



About the Authors


Amanda Arriaga, JD

Austin, TX, USA

 

 


Amanda Arriaga
is the Chief Administrative Officer at the Texas Department of Public Safety, overseeing the functions of Human Resources, Facilities, Procurement & Contracts and Enterprise Projects. She is also the co-chair of the Texas Association of State Systems for Computing and Communication (TASSCC) Special Interest Group in Project Management, and Immediate Past President of the Austin Young Lawyer’s Association. Amanda earned her BBA in Management from Texas A&M University and a J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law. She has served as Governor Rick Perry’s Special Assistant for Homeland Security and Border Affairs and DPS Chief of Government and Media Relations. Amanda can be contacted at [email protected]

To view more works by Amanda Arriaga, visit her author showcase in the PM World Library at http://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/amanda-arriaga/

 


Jessica Ballew

Austin, TX, USA

 




Jessica Iselt Ballew
is the Deputy Assistant Director for Policy and Planning at the Texas Department of Public Safety, overseeing enterprise projects, procurements, and contracts.  She is co-chair of the Texas Association of State Systems for Computing and Communication (TASSCC) Special Interest Group in Project Management. Jessica has a B.S. in Communications through Arizona State University.  In addition, she has over 18 years of experience in the planning, development, and delivery of information technology solutions and conducting business and process analysis to achieve operational improvement. Email: [email protected]

To view more works by Jessica Iselt Ballew, visit her author showcase in the PM World Library at http://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/jessica-iselt-ballew/

 

 

Managing an Agile Developed IT Project Portfolio

 

SECOND EDITION

by Rosenberger Philipp
FH Campus Wien

and

Struzl Katharina
A1 Telekom Austria AG

Vienna, Austria

 



Abstract

This article clarifies the challenges in using classical portfolio management tools and methods on agile developed IT projects. Based on a short introduction on agile development according SCRUM and a description of classical portfolio management, standard key performance indicators of such are collected grouped according project phases and briefly analysed. After creating such a basic understanding of that matter, each and every single key performance indicator is investigated about suitability regarding the use in agile developed IT projects.

This investigation will show a large gap. Meaning, that nearly half of the identified key performance indicators are not really suitable for agile IT projects, due to many different reasons like lack of budget, timing and resource information. Therefore new solutions are needed and postulated to close this described gap.

A brief qualified expert interview is used as scientific method to proof the effectiveness of the created new solutions and key performance indicators (short: KPIs). Also showing that needs of KPIs in project management can differ from those in portfolio management.

Keywords: Agile Project Management, Agile Project Portfolio Management, Key Performance Indicators

JEL Codes: M15, H43, O22

Introduction

Agile development is getting increasingly popular and more technology projects are getting developed with an agile approach (Komus and Kuberg, 2015). Reporting and measurability for top management of those projects is often not as traceable as with a classic approach because some important classical portfolio management KPI’s cannot be used.

Predictability and reliability are key factors for project- and portfolio managers, but those are completely subordinated topics in agile development methods, approaches and culture.

There are still some old mind sets deep-seated. Such as “widget engineering” – it is possible to analyze everything before starting to develop – or “order taker” – the IT has to do what they are told, saying no is not an option. (Thomas and Baker, 2008)

Those mind sets include the opposite of what agile development stands for. (Thomas and Baker, 2008)

Agile developed projects work from one sub-product or increment to the next and accept no detail planning beforehand at all. (Gloger, 2009)

This area of conflict brings up the question, whether agile developed projects are suitable for prioritization and monitoring within a portfolio of such. Other questions that will be answered in this article are: Which KPI’s are needed in classical portfolio management and can they be used with an agile approach? Why can some not be used? And what has to be changed to close the gap?

To answer those questions each KPI has been individually analyzed and solutions to close the gap have been elaborated. Those results have been discussed with experts to substantiate the developed KPIs.

More…

To read entire paper, click here

 

Editor’s note: Second Editions are previously published papers that have continued relevance in today’s project management world, or which were originally published in conference proceedings or in a language other than English. Original publication acknowledged; authors retain copyright. This paper was originally presented at the 6th Scientific Conference on Project Management in the Baltic States, University of Latvia, April 2017. It is republished here with the permission of the author and conference organizers



About the Authors


Philipp Rosenberger

Vienna, Austria

 




Philipp Rosenberger
is a lecturer at FH Campus Vienna at master program technical management focusing on IT project management in an agile development context. After many years in aftersales and business consulting as well as project management and especially IT project management development in Europe and China, he got into the financial sector, managing the implementation of a current account financial product implementation project at ING DiBa Online bank in Vienna and in parallel starting his consulting company ROSCON.at. Philipp now focuses on scientific research of hybrid IT project management models, fulfilling the both needs of a tightly managed classical project regarding budget, cost, quality, predictability and reliability, as well as the needs of an agile culture in the development part of the project. Philipp can be contacted at mailto:[email protected]

 


Katharina Struzl

Vienna, Austria

 

 


Katharina Struzl
is an IT project manager and business analyst for planning systems in the telecommunication company A1 Telekom Austria AG in Vienna. Before that she was working as a portfolio manager for the same company, managing the IT project portfolio. She has gained a BSc in internet technology and is currently finishing her Master of Science in technical management at the FH Campus Wien. She has managed the IT part on a number of different projects.

 

 

 

Project Management Uncertainty

The Impact of Project Management Uncertainty on Project Management Practices in Family Firms

SECOND EDITION

Joanna Sadkowska

University of Gdansk

Gdansk, Poland

 



Abstract

The growing role of family businesses, independently of the economic and cultural context of these enterprises, has been widely confirmed in literature. Important finding from the aforementioned studies is that family firms have to tackle many, dynamically changing obstacles of different character which strongly determine their growth opportunities. The primary objective of this research is to study how Polish family firms, as representatives of Eastern-European emerging economy, evaluate the influence of project environment uncertainty on their project management practices. The results of this study provide broader and better understanding of the impact of project environment over project management success from a family firm perspective.

Keywords: project environment uncertainty, project management, family firms, emerging economy.

JEL code: L21, M21, O22

Introduction

There is a common consensus in literature on the importance of family firms in every economy, independent of the development stage. The significance of businesses founded and managed by families results among other from the fact that these entities generate the majority of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). At the same time however family firms have to look for solutions which enable them to overcome many obstacles they encounter in their business activities. For the above reason many family companies have started to employ project management practices. Employing project management facilitates performing business activities by these firms by offering them different methods and tools they can use to support their decisions and activities. As every project is implemented in a specific environment, family firms constantly have to pay attention and react to changes taking place in their environment. To the best knowledge of the author of this paper, there have been little, if any research dedicated to the problem of how Eastern European family firms evaluate the influence project environment has on projects they manage. This paper tries to fill in this gap by asking the research question: how do family enterprises evaluate the impact of project environment uncertainty on management and success of their projects. For the purpose of the paper, family businesses in the emerging economy of Poland have been investigated. This paper provides better understanding of project management practices in family-owned companies in the context of the impact of project environment uncertainty.

Theoretical framework

Project management success in light of the uncertainty of the project environment

Project management success is perceived in literature in many ways. The authors emphasize different aspects which influence project failure or success. An interesting approach can be observed while studying project management methodologies authored by: Project Management Institute, International Project Management Association and Office of Government Commerce (Project Management Institute 2013; International Project Management Association 2006; OGC 2005).

Project Management Institute in the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) discusses the concept of project success in relation to both project knowledge areas and project processes (Project Management Institute, 2013, pp. 71-344). Successful completion of a project is seen among others as a consequence of project scope-, human resource-, quality-, cost-, time-, communications-, risk-, integration-, and procurement management. The aforementioned approach, by integrating project processes with particular management areas, builds a stable knowledge platform for a project manager and a project team.

International Project Management Association in the International Competence Baseline (ICB) approaches project success as a result of the proper and optimum application of three groups of competences: technical, contextual and behavioural ones (IPMA 2015). Such an approach underlines an important aspect of: the people, the project team and other project stakeholders- as a foundation for establishing processes and procedures in a particular project and further on building the basis for project management. It also underlines the necessity of a project manager to identify and work successfully with project context: organisational, economic and social one (International Project Management Association 2006; IPMA 2015). At the same time however, project is seen as successful when its outcomes finally gain the appreciation of different project stakeholders (International Project Management Association, 2006, p. 16). The idea of relating project success to the satisfaction of its stakeholders brings however certain risks (Compare Sadkowska J., 2016). The aforementioned are related mainly to the fact that, in most cases, projects ‘are unable’ to satisfy all stakeholder groups. This happens mainly for the reason that particular stakeholders have different expectations and requirements- which are in conflict. While managing projects in such an ‘environment’- project managers have to base their choices and decisions on the priorities – agreed according to the defined project objectives. Key project management success factors have been presented in figure number 1.

More…

To read entire paper, click here

 

Editor’s note: Second Editions are previously published papers that have continued relevance in today’s project management world, or which were originally published in conference proceedings or in a language other than English. Original publication acknowledged; authors retain copyright. This paper was originally presented at the 6th Scientific Conference on Project Management in the Baltic States, University of Latvia, April 2017. It is republished here with the permission of the author and conference organizers



About the Author


Joanna Sadkowska

Gdansk, Poland

 

 


Joanna Sadkowsk
a has been a Researcher and academic teacher at the University of Gdansk- Management Faculty. She is a Project Management Associate (IPMA-D) certified by the International Project Management Association and PRINCE2 Foundation Certified. She specializes in project management with special attention to family-owned enterprises. She has participated in many projects including: Poland- Heat Supply Restructuring and Conservation Project by GPEC and the Worldbank – Modernization of Gdansk Matarnia HOB – CHP plant by GPEC and Global Environmental Fund. She has authored more than 40 publications dedicated to managing projects, innovations and functioning of family firms.

Joanna can be contacted at [email protected].

 

 

Productivity & Innovation as a Support in Project Management

A Study through Construction Industry in Brazil

SECOND EDITION

Adriano A. R. Barbosa

Consultant and Professor
Federal Institute of Sao Paulo

Sao Paulo, Brazil

 



Abstract

Construction in Brazil occupies an important role in the economy, with direct participation in the GDP and acting on an extensive productive chain of suppliers, commercialization services and maintenance. The sector has undergone major changes in recent years, facilitated by factors such as the resumption of public investments, the creation of laws that facilitate the construction of real estate, investments and funding of external resources. However, the sector faces problems of productivity that can meet the growth needs of the sector. The aspects of lack of skilled labour, nonconformity, low quality, high tax burden, outsourcing and informality of the workforce were not yet adequately addressed and resolved. This article illustrated the economics Brazilian construction scenario. Through the use of indicators of innovation, productivity, economic growth and project management actions, the main challenges of construction in Brazil industry are reported. A proposal for implanting productivity and innovation steps in construction sites is presented, searching for possible paths for the sector allow their improvement, in times of increasing productivity and competitiveness in the global economy.

Key words: Productivity; Innovation; Construction; Developing Countries Economics; Management;

JEL code: O1; O2.

Introduction

Brazilian Construction Scenario of the Last Decade: Economic growth of the sector

Civil construction in Brazil, starting in 2000, once again plays a leading role in the national economy and is on the road to a new and important virtuous cycle of growth. Construction as a development lever has important socio-economic standpoints, helping to cope with the housing shortage, as well as contributing to infrastructure solutions, which constrain the country’s rapid growth. The industry continues to be one of the leaders of the current pattern of economic growth in the country (Sinduscon, 2015).

The construction sector has a significant socio-economic role in Brazil, with a formal participation of 5.6% of total salaries paid to workers in the Brazilian economy and 9% of employed persons. The building industry needs more growth. In 2010, the Brazilian housing shortage was estimated at 6,273 million households, of which 82.6% are concentrated in urban areas (IBGE, 2015).

Data on the expansion of construction indicates that there is robust growth in the sector. Between 2006 and 2013, construction investments totalled more than 39.3% of the country’s gross fixed capital formation (FGV, 2011). Fig. 1 shows the evolution of cement consumption in construction in Brazil in the last years. However, in comparison with the growth of the country, it can be seen that Brazilian construction has not been following the real growth of its GDP in relation to National GDP (Fig. 2). Although improving compared to the previous period, the proportion of growth in relation to national growth is small, to the detriment of achieving better results and proportional development.

More…

To read entire paper, click here

 

Editor’s note: Second Editions are previously published papers that have continued relevance in today’s project management world, or which were originally published in conference proceedings or in a language other than English. Original publication acknowledged; authors retain copyright. This paper was originally presented at the 6th Scientific Conference on Project Management in the Baltic States, University of Latvia, April 2017. It is republished here with the permission of the author and conference organizers



About the Author


Adriano Barbosa

Sao Paulo, Brazil

 

 


Adriano Barbosa
has a degree and PhD in civil engineering, and master’s degree in production management. Consultant in construction management, quality and work safety. Fixed in Brazil, has solid knowledge in public resources management and has directed a number of domestic and foreign financial and planning projects. Acting in Latin America and Europe. Researcher professor at the Federal Institute of Sao Paulo. Author of technical books and published papers in periodicals, highligting the topic “Exploring your self-awareness”, and the tool for building management based on value added, productivity and innovation – API Tool.

Adriano can be contacted at mailto:[email protected]

 

 

Cooperation and Competition in Project Teams

SECOND EDITION

Joanna Cewinska and Anna Krasnova

University of Lodz

Lodz, Poland

 



Abstract

The topic of cooperation and competition in the workplace is the subject of discussions between representatives of social sciences, including sociology, psychology and management. Among researchers there is no clear position on the superiority of one over the other. Either concept can in certain circumstances be effective, or on the contrary, it might have an opposite effect. Although there have been many studies on cooperation and competition within various groups and between them, there is no research available on cooperative and competitive behaviour in project teams. For this reason, authors decided to take a look at the relationships between members of such groups in order to find answers to our questions: how do respondents define the concepts of cooperation and competition (what words do they use to describe them?), have they experienced cooperation and rivalry, and if so, which do they think occurs more frequently: what promotes cooperation and teamwork? Why does competition occur, and how does it manifest itself?

The aim of this article is to present the results of our study on cooperation and rivalry in project teams. The subjects of authors study are individuals working in project teams who are also students of the Faculty of Management at the University of Lodz. Authors used the biographical method to collect the data. Authors asked respondents to describe a situation from work within the scope of relevant information according to our instructions. The presentation of the results of study is preceded by a brief literature review, and a description of the methodology used (introduction). At the end of author’s presentation a summary of author observations included. Although the results of this study are not subject to generalization for the entire population, it shows that employees working in project teams more often cooperate than compete with each other. Their attitude is largely due to keeping the focus on the goal of the team, and the belief that each member has specific skills, which may affect the results of the team’s work. The results of the preliminary study will be used to prepare the tools for use in complex research: a survey and interview questionnaire.

Key words: project team, cooperation, competition.

JEL code: M54      Labor Management

Introduction

The topic of cooperation and competition in the workplace is the subject of discussions between representatives of social sciences, including sociology, psychology and management. The question of which of these concepts is more effective in the workplace seems to remain without a clear answer. In some situations, cooperative attitude might dominate, while in others, the competitive approach has an edge. The issue of cooperation and competition is of particular importance when it comes to the new, more flexible organisational structures where project teams are utilised.

A project team is a unit composed of employees who, on a daily basis, work in different organisational units, but for the duration of the project are given specific tasks associated with it, and are responsible for completing them. (Дедова В.Е. 2014, Дроздова В.А, 2016). Project teams are characterised by their temporary nature – they are appointed for the duration of the project and dissolve after its completion. They function on the basis of subject specialisation, selecting participants based on their expertise, which is often specialised and unique. It is also important to direct the focus of all team members to the goal of the project, and ensure the complementary knowledge and skills of all participants.

Project teams constitute certain communities, in which interactions occur between their members and reveal a variety of behaviours, such as “they may seek to maximize their dominance over their partner (rivalry, competition), or to gain mutual benefits for both themselves and their partner (cooperation)” (Pajestka G., 2012). In the first case authors are dealing with actions aimed at individual success, that is the attitude of “it’s most important that I win”, we are enemies”, while in the second case we see a different attitude: “we are here for each other, we need each other to achieve the goal”. Although subject literature presents views on cooperation and competition in teamwork within the organization, there is no discussion regarding these issues in project teams. Due to the subject and purpose of this article we have concentrated on inter-team cooperation and competition.

More…

To read entire paper, click here

Editor’s note: Second Editions are previously published papers that have continued relevance in today’s project management world, or which were originally published in conference proceedings or in a language other than English. Original publication acknowledged; authors retain copyright. This paper was originally presented at the 6th Scientific Conference on Project Management in the Baltic States, University of Latvia, April 2017. It is republished here with the permission of the authors and conference organizers.



About the Authors


Joanna Cewi
ńska

Lodz, Poland

 


Joanna Cewińska,
Ph. D., Associate Professor, Head of the Department of Human Resource Management, Faculty of Management, University of Lodz, Poland.

She has over 20 years’ experience in research, teaching and international cooperation, including: Sweden: Örebro 2001 – scientific cooperation, Portugal: Porto 2009 – Erasmus, lecturer, Germany: Karlsruhe 2014 – Erasmus, lecture.

Participant in different projects in positions:

  • expert and recruiter – „Science as a way to business – scholarship program for doctorial students from region of Lodz”, EU funded;
  • coach and expert – „System support management processes in public administration”, EU funded
  • expert – „The dialogue of generations”, „Graduates in business”, „The art of management – postgraduate course for the staff of the labour market”, EU funded; „Ear – Coalition for breaking social resistance: project carried out with the participation of the European Social Fund under the EQUAL Community Initiative”;
  • lecturer and expert – „Human Capital Operational Program” 2010-2013;
  • researcher – „Dysfunctions in human resource management”, funded by the Committee for Scientific Research (Poland); „Personnel management in the Polish business”, funded by the Committee for Scientific Research (Poland)
  • consultant – „The activity of women in the labor market”, project implemented by the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy in Warsaw, co-financed by the European Social Fund

Research interests: human resource management, strategies and programs for HRM, virtualization of HRM, human resource development, development of interpersonal skills, human resource management in sport, dysfunction in human resource management tendencies of development of labor markets, appearance of new professions, knowledge management system in student’s education process. Prof Cewinska cane contacted at [email protected].

 


Anna Krasnova

Lodz, Poland

 


Anna Krasnova
, MSc, has few-years’ experience in organizing and conducting integration and motivation training, business events, career development lessons and soft skills development workshops.

Anna Krasnova is Russian, who was born and grew up in multicultural Kazakhstan. After high school, she obtained a scientific grant for studies in Poland. She graduated “Management” study with the specialization “Human Resources Management” at the University of Lodz, where she is currently working on her PhD dissertation. Since 2014, she has been employed as an assistant professor in the Department of Human Resources Management at the University of Lodz.

She is co-author of a book devoted to adapting students to the academic environment and author of a few publications in the field of human resources management, including employee recruitment and selection, employer branding and decruitment. Her scientific interests are centered on:

  • Modern forms of recruitment and selection of employees
  • Business tourism and incentive trips as tools of human resources management
  • Employer and employee branding
  • Decruitment as a human resource management function

Anna can be contacted at [email protected]

 

 

Interrelated UAS-BIM System

SECOND EDITION

Application of an interrelated UAS – BIM system for construction progress monitoring, inspection and project management

By Shahab Moeini, Azzeddine Oudjehane, Tareq Baker, Wade Hawkins

Southern Alberta Institute of Technology

Calgary, Alberta, Canada

 



ABSTRACT

Construction progress monitoring and constant comparison between “AS Planned” and the actual state of the project “as-built” is a critical task for construction project managers to keep projects on track. Currently, progress and inspection reports are based on manual input and observation of each and every phase of the construction projects. Such processes are costly and time consuming.

Unlike the traditional method for project control, integrating advanced technologies such Building Information Modeling (BIM), Unmanned Autonomous Systems (UAS) and real-time cloud based data modeling and analysis, enable real time project control, monitoring and inspection,

Advanced BIM encompasses project As-Planned information such as design, specification, cost, and schedule which enables CPMs to have an accurate comparison between as As-Planned and the UAS based As-Built states of the project. This paper describes

  • The current state for building information modelling and unmanned aerial system in construction projects
  • A strategy for the application and integration of BIM and UAS throughout progress monitoring of the construction of a recreational facility.
  • The challenges and opportunities for full automation and data analytics towards real time project control and monitoring of Construction projects.

INTRODUCTION

In the knowledge era and time of Artificial Intelligence (AI) the world is changing much faster than ever before. In a time of disruptive technologies, and rapid social, political and environmental changes, it is the moral obligation of each and every industry to transform (WEF, 2016). While this transformation will have positive impacts on construction cost, schedule, productivity, efficiency and environmental, the construction industry has remains one of the least efficient industries with an unimpressive track record in the world.

Even though other industry sectors have embraced fundamental changes over the last few decades, and have gained the benefits of advanced technological achievements, process and product innovations, the construction sector has been hesitant to fully embrace the latest technological opportunities, which has thus far resulted in stagnation of productivity in major global construction projects.

Technological advancement and market maturity of digitalization such as 3D scanning and virtual reality, in addition to Building Information Modelling (BIM), Unmanned Aerial and Ground systems (UAS and UGS), autonomous machineries and equipment and advanced building materials has provided a potential for fundamental changes to boost construction sector productivity and efficiency. While new technologies and innovation have emerged to some extent on the enterprise or company level, the rate of innovation and overall productivity in construction sector has remained nearly flat for the last 50 years (Beck, 2016).

According the World Economic Forum report in 2016, the unimpressive record of the construction industry is mainly caused by:

  • Lack of innovation and delayed adaptation
  • Informal process or insufficient rigour and consistency in process execution
  • Insufficient knowledge transfer from project to project
  • Weak project monitoring
  • Little collaboration with supplier
  • Conservative company culture
  • Little cross functional cooperation
  • Shortage of young talent and people development

Despite all the above mentioned issues and dominant conservative culture in construction sectors, few construction companies have adopted a progressive and innovative approach to pioneer the integration of advanced technologies such as BIM and UAS. This research and its outcomes herein have been the result of a collaborative approach between progressive construction industry partner/owners and academic Scholars/practitioners to: a) study the integration of the advanced BIM UAV based data into the progress reporting, technical inspection and safety analysis of the construction sites, b) demonstrate the advantages of implementing of the integrated strategy and c) identify the technical barrier to advanced technologies such as UAS in the construction sector.

More…

To read entire paper, click here

Editor’s note: Second Editions are previously published papers that have continued relevance in today’s project management world, or which were originally published in conference proceedings or in a language other than English. Original publication acknowledged; authors retain copyright. This paper was originally presented at the 4th Annual University of Maryland PM Symposium in May 2017. It is republished here with the permission of the authors and conference organizers.



About the Authors


Shahab Moeini

Alberta, Canada

 


Shahab Moeini
is currently completing a doctorate degree in Business Administration with a focus on organizational management with the University of Liverpool in the UK. He holds a Master of Science in Geospatial Science from the University of Salzburg and a Bachelor of Science in Natural Resource Engineering (Water Resources) from the Azad University in Iran.

Shahab started his professional career as an emergency construction manager and worked six years as a manager in charge of rehabilitation and reconstruction of municipal infrastructure after natural disasters or conflicts. He then worked 10 years as a water resources and soil engineer in water infrastructure project management before joining international organizations as a water and habitat engineer, leading projects in conflict and post-conflict zones throughout Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. In addition to his work as an instructor, Shahab is also the director of a Canadian-based consulting firm, providing project management and strategic advice to international organizations.

 


Dr. Azzeddine Oudjehane

Southern Alberta Institute of Technology
Calgary, Alberta, Canada

 


Dr. Azzeddine Oudjehane
joined SAIT to teach in and the BSc Construction Project Management in 2012 and develop applied and scholarly research opportunities meeting the needs of the construction industry in Alberta. With over 20 years of experience leading multi-disciplinary projects in R&D, business innovation and market development and performance evaluation, Dr. Oudjehane working with various stakeholders from government and industry. He is also Principal of AZZO Consulting. He holds graduate degrees in both Applied Science and Business Administration.

With over 50 publications and presentations at international conferences, Dr. Oudjehane serves in various journal review committees and has chaired sessions at conferences. In 2014, Azzeddine was elected to the Board of Directors of the Alberta Chapter for Canada Green Building Council, where he leads the Green School Initiative. Over the past year, he has given talks and presentations on sustainability and innovation in construction project management.

 


Dr. Tariq Baker

Alberta, Canada

 



Tareq Baker
holds a PhD in Environmental Design from the University of Calgary and a Master of Building Science from the University of Southern California. During his PhD, his research evaluated the performance of the mechanical system in a LEED Platinum building, while his master’s degree research focused on developing software for visualizing building performance data.

Dr. Baker’s has worked as an architectural engineer, project manager, mechanical engineer design assistant, building information modelling (BIM) specialist and building energy simulation researcher. Through his work and research experience, Tareq developed a strong passion for green building technologies, construction project management and BIM. His current research focuses mainly on the use of BIM in construction project management and the integration of BIM in evaluating building performance.

 


Wade Hawkins

Alberta, Canada

 


Wade Hawkins
holds a Geographic Information System Professional (GISP) designation from the GIS Certification Institute (GISCI) and received his Bachelor of Science (Geography) and Certificate in Geographic Information Systems and Remote Sensing from the University of Winnipeg.

Wade is a faculty member in the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology (SAIT) Bachelor of Applied Technology Geographic Information Systems (BGIS) program. He has been responsible for teaching and curricula development. He has taught introductory and advanced courses in Geomatics technology such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS), Remote Sensing, Programming and Project Management. In addition, he manages over 50 student capstone projects per year, is responsible for ongoing curriculum development and program renewal, manages software licensing and server infrastructure, and participates in Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) research activities.

 

 

Lean or Agile: Lessons Learned from a Tech Startup

SECOND EDITION

By John Johnson, PMP

Co-Founder, Second Nature Software LLC
Chief Technology Officer, Softek Enterprises LLC

Graduate Masters of Systems Engineering
Clarke School of Engineering
University of Maryland

College Park, Maryland, USA

 



Abstract

“Lean or Agile” provides a model of how any businesses can discover, develop, and deploy innovative solutions under extreme uncertainty. This paper evaluates project management techniques by using a technology startup case study to explore the extreme conditions which clarify when Lean and Agile management are most successful at achieving the organization’s goals. The paper presents insights on the indicators of when and where it is most appropriate to use Lean or Agile project management techniques, and how to transition between the two. The case study uses real-world examples of success and failure in applying these techniques to enrich its proposed theory on Lean and Agile. The paper’s subject is a startup, Second Nature Software LLC, that began with neither a product nor a target market and that, within one year, developed a cutting edge application piloted by five large research institutes, including two institutes at the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Influences and project management theories referenced include: Lean Startup, Customer Development, Product Development, Design Thinking, Theory of Constraints, Scrum, Disciplined Agile Delivery, Kanban, and Total Quality Management.

Introduction

Which method is the best for managing uncertainty in startup-like environments – Lean or Agile?

This is the question that Second Nature Software LLC faced when beginning with one goal in mind: start, develop and build a successful product company. The three co-founders had over twenty years of software development experience, and about ten years’ experience using Agile. However, they had no market, no product, and no identified customers – and only a small amount of savings. By the end of their first year, Second Nature Software had built a data science product that was in trial at the largest medical research organizations in the world; including three institutes at NIH (NCI, NIAID, and NCATS), Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Maryland School of Medicine.

There are many competing perspectives on what works best for success in organizations discovering and building new technology to sell in the marketplace. Startups, especially technology startups, work in such extreme conditions that they have only a 10% chance of succeeding [1]. With so much uncertainty, traditional business plans, schedules, resource matrixes, and requirements specs do not last long enough to write them down. Teams must be willing to change fast and leverage management processes that can ensure order in a chaotic environment.

In the case study of Second Nature Software LLC, both Lean, Agile, and Hybrid methods were used at different stages in the company’s development. The case study offers details of the how the methods were employed, the tools used, the success of employing the techniques, and lessons learned for how to do it better. The Conclusion then judges which method is better for most startup and extremely uncertain project environments, based on these real-world experiences.

More…

To read entire paper, click here

Editor’s note: Second Editions are previously published papers that have continued relevance in today’s project management world, or which were originally published in conference proceedings or in a language other than English. Original publication acknowledged; authors retain copyright. This paper was originally presented at the 4th Annual University of Maryland PM Symposium in May 2017. It is republished here with the permission of the authors and conference organizers.



About the Author


John Johnson, PMP

Virginia, USA

 


John
Johnson serves as the Chief Technology Officer for Softek Enterprises LLC, a minority-owned small business providing technology solutions to government clients since 2007. Softek specializes in evolving business systems using Agile, DevOps, and Cloud technologies to deliver working solutions faster for the government’s most critical IT challenges. He has 10 years of project management, systems engineering, and advanced analytics experience. Prior to joining Softek, Mr. Johnson co-founded Second Nature Software LLC, a data science products company focused on Life Science Research. He helped design and promote their product “Rocketfish,” a data management tool that simplifies preparing data for analysis while automating data tracking and organization. Rocketfish is currently in an organization-wide trial at NCI and NIAID, as well as major universities in the DC Metro Area. Previously, Mr. Johnson was a Senior Agile Project Manager with IBM, where he led multiple development teams building applications for the National Archives Records Administration (NARA). These applications were built on Amazon’s Gov Cloud (AWS) with cutting-edge cloud technologies to process, store, and search the hundreds of petabytes of government records expected at NARA by 2020. This project won “Project of the Year” across all of IBM globally for its success in project management innovation.  He also worked as a Management Consultant with Booz Allen Hamilton, where he led projects for the Marine Corps, Air Force, and Navy from optimizing site investments and posture for Reserve forces, to developing award-winning project analysis and portfolio management software to optimize billions in shore energy investments. Mr. Johnson holds a Master’s degree in Systems Engineering and a B.S. in Civil Engineering from the University of Maryland.

 

 

Communication Management Tools

SECOND EDITION

Communication Management Tools for Managing Projects in an Intercultural Environment

by Olga Mikhieieva,
Dortmund University of Applied Sciences and Arts
Kyiv National University of Construction and Architecture

Matthias Waidmann,
Dortmund University of Applied Sciences and Arts,

Dortmund, Germany

 



Abstract

Insufficient communication and the lack of stakeholder integration are among the most common drivers for unattended change causes and uncontrolled change impacts in a project (Zhao et al., 2010) (Ochieng and Price, 2010). Especially in case of international projects, where different cultures are present and teams are often only virtually connected, projects teams face even more communication problems that can affect the outcome of a project. Intercultural differences influence the way each team member gets engaged into interaction with other stakeholders of the project.

In the main project management standards, there are tools and methods for managing communication and stakeholders, but their application has to be analyzed from an intercultural perspective. Besides a project communication plan, we address such tools as the mission breakdown structure (MBS) in order to give this perspective (Andersen, 2014). It is suggested that the MBS can be used as one of the tools enhancing the engagement of stakeholders (SH) (Andersen et al., 2009) and increasing communication effectiveness through a shared vision (Lee et al., 2015). In this article, we categorize and describe the main communication issues and tools for managing international projects within an intercultural environment.

Key words: Intercultural differences, international projects, communication management, stakeholders

JEL code: Z00

Introduction

“Communication has been identified as one of the single biggest reasons for project success or failure” (PMBOK 5, 2013, p. 515). Good communication, which is needed for project success, is structured in a way that helps to minimize or even avoid unexpected delays and misunderstandings, prevent duplication of efforts, discover issues, implement preventive measures and deal with all mentioned above in an effective way. In addition, stakeholder management is a crucial point in managing international projects as stakeholders are “individuals, groups or organizations who affect or can be affected by, or interested in the execution or the result of the project” (ICB 4, 2015, p. 145). That is why, in this article, various approaches (in standards of project management, such as ICB 4, PMBOK 5, Prince2, etc.) on communication and stakeholder management are analyzed from the intercultural point of view.

In order to analyze existing issues and tools, the literature review was conducted using key words such as communication, international, intercultural, skills, competencies, and stakeholders. The following databases were used: Science Direct, Google Scholar, and Web of Science. The goal was to explore and analyze issues and tools applied for managing communication in international and intercultural projects. The authors assumed that issues are also discussed in the literature as challenges, threats, barriers, and sometimes as risks. Although it may seem to be quite a big area of research, this approach allowed the discovery of different facets of issues in managing communication. High attention was specifically paid to studies devoted to intercultural skills and stakeholder management in international projects as these aspects help to shed light on the so-called ‘human’ side of communication issues.

As international communication (= people speaking in a language other than their native) occurs in an intercultural environment, it is more challenging to communicate effectively and it causes a higher rate of misunderstandings. Hence, more efforts are required to ensure common goals and values among project stakeholders. One of the main tools in managing the project stakeholders is the stakeholder analysis (PMBOK 5, 2013, p. 292). In the initiation phase in any international project, the stakeholder analysis is of outstanding importance and high complexity as stakeholders often are not well-known and sometimes difficult to be identified and analyzed. When it comes to stakeholders in an intercultural project, Lückmann and Färber advise that due to complexity reasons, it is reasonable to initially focus on those stakeholders that define the requirements of the project (Lückmann and Färber, 2016, p. 86).

However, the literature review has not revealed very much information and studies particularly on stakeholder communication issues in international projects. That is why, additionally, the authors explored how a mission breakdown structure can be applied for stakeholder engagement and communication using an example of the case study done by Andersen (Andersen, 2014).

More…

To read entire paper, click here

Editor’s note: Second Editions are previously published papers that have continued relevance in today’s project management world, or which were originally published in conference proceedings or in a language other than English. Original publication acknowledged; authors retain copyright. This paper was originally presented at the 6th Scientific Conference on Project Management in the Baltic States, University of Latvia, April 2017. It is republished here with the permission of the author and conference organizers



About the Authors



Olga Mikhieieva

Kiev, Ukraine

 

 

Olga Mikhieieva, M.Sc., IPMA Level D, conducts a PhD at university KNUCA Kiev and has come for a doctoral exchange to The University of Applied Sciences and Art, Dortmund, Germany. Since she has come to Dortmund, she works as scientific support staff in the DAAD EuroPIM project, the largest internationalization project of the university and the only DAAD strategic partnership at universities of applied sciences in North Rhine-Westphalia. In addition, she studies in the international program on project management “European Master in Project Management” (EuroMPM) and is a part time lecturer for intercultural competences in EuroMPM.

As a scientific support staff, she works closely with team members from many countries, including Belgium, Spain, Lithuania, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. During the last two years, Olga has been involved in the organization of the annual Dortmund International Research Conference and Summer School, an event with approximately 60 scientists and 130 students from several partner universities and countries. She is a co-organizer of several international block teaching events in Dortmund. Olga coordinates the student and lecturer exchange with Ukrainian universities.

Furthermore, Olga conducts own research on competence development in project management in the international environment. Olga has published and presented several papers and articles within scientific conferences and publications.

Before coming to Germany, Olga got 8 years of experience in international projects as project coordinator and interpreter (English to Russian, Russia to English) of trainings and seminars conducted in Asia and Russian-speaking countries. Olga speaks several languages.

Olga can be contacted at mailto:[email protected]

 


Matthias Waidmann

Dortmund, Germany

 

 


Matthias Waidmann, B.Sc.
, studies in the international program on project management “European Master in Project Management” (EuroMPM) in Dortmund, Germany. He comes from Southern Germany, where he graduated his bachelor studies in Industrial Engineering in 2016.

Matthias shows excellent results in studying and promising leadership and analytical skills. He is active in the scientific area, having published three papers at the international conferences in the universities of Dortmund, Riga, and Kiev since he started his master degree in Dortmund. As one of the best students, he has been nominated with a scholarship to do a semester abroad in the postgraduate program in Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Engineering at the University of Leuven (KU Leuven), Belgium, one of the most renowned European universities.

During his bachelor studies, Matthias studied a semester abroad at California State University Long Beach in the United States. While conducting his studies, he has been employed in various international companies as a part-time working student. These academic and international activities are the milestones in his striving for a career as a project manager in an international company.

Matthias can be contacted at [email protected]