SPONSORS

SPONSORS

Quality Management Process

 

Project Workflow Management

SERIES ARTICLE

by Dan Epstein

New York, USA

 



Note: This article is based on the book Project Workflow Management: A Business Process Approach by Dan Epstein and Rich Maltzman, published by J Ross Publishing in 2014. The book describes PM Workflow® framework, the step-by-step workflow guiding approach using project management methods, practical techniques, examples, tools, templates, checklists and tips, teaching readers the detailed and necessary knowledge required to manage project “hands-on” from scratch, instructing what to do, when to do and how to do it up to delivering the completed and tested product or service to your client.

The project workflow framework is the result of Dan’s research into the subject, having the following objectives:

  1. Create the virtually error-free project management environment to ensure significant reduction of project costs
  2. Reduce demands for highly qualified project managers using the step-by-step workflow guiding approach.

While PM Workflow® is the continuous multi-threaded process, where all PM processes are integrated together, this article will attempt to describe the resource management group of processes as a stand-alone group that can be used independently outside of PM Workflow® framework. It will be difficult in this article not to venture into processes outside of the current subject, such as planning, quality, communications and other management processes, so they will be just mentioned. However, to get full benefit and the error free project management environment, the complete implementation of PM Workflow® is required. In order to understand how PM Workflow® ensures this environment, I strongly recommend reading my article Project Workflow Framework – An Error Free Project Management Environment. in the PMI affiliated projectmanagement.com (https://www.projectmanagement.com/articles/330037/Project-Workflow-Framework–An-Error-Free-Project-Management-Environment)

For more information, please visit my website www.pm-workflow.com

Purpose

The Quality Management process is a set of planned and executed project activities to ensure that all project deliverables conform to the documented and agreed-upon requirements, and meet documented stakeholder expectations.

Quality Management controls all PM processes described in this book and ensures the project has the required quality. The main vehicle to achieve that target is the quality audits and reviews which are planned and executed. All non-compliance issues found in reviews must be resolved by the project team or escalated to senior management in those cases when local resolution is not possible. If several different departments or organizations are involved in the project, the set of Quality Management processes must be recognized and implemented on the enterprise-wide level. It has already been mentioned in the Requirements Frame section that quality is conformance to the documented and approved requirements and specifications and, therefore, it is not the same as the ‘perfect’ performance that the client and business users would like to have. Quality is not a part of any project variable, unlike cost, time and resources. Quality can never be compromised and it cannot be changed under any circumstances. If the project duration, budget or resources are not realistic to implement all business requirements, then some requirements should be dropped or changed to reflect the new situation as mutually agreed with the business. This newly defined set of requirements will become a new quality standard of the project. Still, all deliverables must be produced with the agreed quality– no less and no more.

No quality variations may ever exist in the deliverable, since the documented quality is either there or it is not there. Therefore, it is not possible to exceed the deliverable quality expectations, because that would mean that the product has the unplanned, unbudgeted elements of scope and does not conform to agreed specifications. The project may be ahead of or behind the schedule, the cost may be below or above the budget, but it is impossible to have it of a better or lesser quality.

Quality Management of a project means building and implementing plans to meet the documented quality expectations of clients and stakeholders. The planning effort contains two major groups of processes:

  1. Quality Assurance or QA (processes P2-1-1 through P2-1-7)
  2. Quality Control or QC (processes P2-2-1 through P2-2-7)

There is major difference between QA and QC. QA focuses on environment in which deliverables are created and the guiding processes. In fact, the key distinguishing aspect of QA is that it is all about process.  QC, on the other hand, focuses on the inspection of deliverables and defects removal to ensure they are complete and satisfy the stated quality. QA and QC terms cannot be used interchangeably.

Quality Management activities start at the beginning of the Requirements Frame and end after the project is delivered to client at the end of the Closing Frame.

Quality Assurance (QA)

The purpose of Quality Assurance is to build quality into deliverables from day one of the project, rather than to inspect finished products. QA is all about project processes.  The major vehicle of QA activities is the QA audit. The QA audit will judge the quality of the future deliverables based on the quality of the processes used for their creation. QA Audits are conducted by QA Representatives with active participation of Project Managers and their teams. Auditors do not have to know your project well, but they must be trained to ensure project compliance with processes such as Requirements Management, Risk Management, the Scope Change Control, Project Tracking and all other applicable processes, which build the quality into the project. Even if a project is on schedule and within the budget, poor results of QA audits will credibly predict a troubled project in near future, unless quality gaps are quickly eliminated.

Usually, when senior managers receive project documentation for sign off, they cannot rely on their first-hand knowledge of project details, but rather they sign off based on indirect circumstantial evidence of quality. If, let us say, the senior business managers are required to sign off on the Business Requirements Document, they will probably attempt to verify with the leading client that the following is true:

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

Editor’s note: This series of articles is based on the book Project Workflow Management: A Business Process Approach by Dan Epstein and Rich Maltzman, published by J Ross Publishing in 2014. The book describes the PM Workflow® framework, a step-by-step approach using project management methods, practical techniques, examples, tools, templates, checklists and tips.  The book teaches readers how to manage a project “hands-on” from scratch, including what to do, when and how to do it up to delivering a completed and tested product or service to a client.

How to cite this paper: Epstein, D. (2019).  Quality Management Process, Series on Project Workflow Management, PM World Journal, Vol. VIII, Issue II (February). Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/pmwj79-Feb2019-Epstein-quality-management-process-workflow-series-article.pdf

 



About the Author


Dan Epstein

New York, USA

 

 

 

Dan Epstein combines over 25 years of experience in the project management field and the best practices area, working for several major Canadian and U.S. corporations, as well as 4 years teaching university students project management and several software engineering subjects. He received a master’s degree in electrical engineering from the LITMO University in Leningrad (today St. Petersburg, Russia), was certified as a Professional Engineer in 1983 by the Canadian Association of Professional Engineers – Ontario, and earned a master’s certificate in project management from George Washington University in 2000 and the Project Management Professional (PMP®) certification from the Project Management Institute (PMI®) in 2001.

Throughout his career, Dan managed multiple complex interdependent projects and programs, traveling extensively worldwide. He possesses multi-industry business analysis, process reengineering, best practices, professional training development and technical background in a wide array of technologies. In 2004 Dan was a keynote speaker and educator at the PMI-sponsored International Project Management Symposium in Central Asia. He published several articles and gave published interviews on several occasions. In the summer of 2008 he published “Methodology for Project Managers Education” in a university journal. His book, Project Workflow Management – The Business Process Approach, written in cooperation with Rich Maltzman, was published in 2014 by J. Ross Publishing.

Dan first started development of the Project Management Workflow in 2003, and it was used in a project management training course. Later this early version of the methodology was used for teaching project management classes at universities in the 2003–2005 school years. Later on, working in the best practices area, the author entertained the idea of presenting project management as a single multithreaded business workflow. In 2007–2008 the idea was further refined when teaching the project management class at a university.

Dan is an author of many publications in professional magazines, speaker at the international presentations, a guest at podcasts, etc. The Project Management Institute’s (PMI) assessment of his book says: “Contains a holistic learning environment so that after finishing the book and assignments, new project managers or students will possess enough knowledge to confidently manage small to medium projects”. The full list of his publications and appearances can be found at the website www.pm-workflow.com in the Publications tab.

Dan can be contacted at [email protected].

To see other works by Dan Epstein, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at https://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/dan-epstein/

 

 

Uncertain Benefits

Understanding the effect of risk on benefits realization

 

Applying Earned Benefit Management

SERIES ARTICLE

By Crispin (“Kik”) Piney, PgMP, PfMP

Southern France

 



This article builds on the ideas described earlier in this series, and applies the Benefits Map to provide a comprehensive analysis of threats and opportunities associated with the realization of strategic benefits.

Introduction: Program Risk

In any non-trivial endeavour, the effects of uncertainty must be taken into account. In particular, this need for effective risk analysis applies to programs during all of the stages from the inception right through to the complete realization.

The current article will explain how the Benefits Map and the assocated algorithms can help to broaden the initial analysis of the various categories of uncertainty that affect programs and to take into account their interactions across the entire program.

Link to Previous Articles

Earlier articles in this series [Piney 2018*] explained how to apply the Earned Benefit cost and benefit evaluation algorithms to a representative case study.

The current article changes topic away from determining “certain” outcomes, to address the clouds of uncertainty that surround the results.

In order to allow this article to be understood independently of the earlier ones in the series, some reminders are provided below, plus an overview of the case study,  prior to addressing the current topic of uncertainty analysis and risk management in programs.

Reminder on Benefits Realization Maps

A Benefits Realization Map (BRM) illustrates how to make the benefits happen. The BRM for the case study is shown in Figure 1.

BRMs can be developed in two passes, as follows:

Top-Down Strategy Decomposition

Once the anticipated benefits have been defined by the strategic sponsor, you need to determine all of the steps that are required for delivering this result, as well as their interdependencies, thereby allowing you to identify the necessary component projects (“initiatives”). The links from each logical step to the next are quantified based on their relative importance for contributing to realizing the benefits (the “contribution fraction” for the link).

The Benefits Allotment Routine (BAR) uses the forecast benefit value of the strategic objectives in conjunction with the link contribution fractions to calculate the contribution to the anticipated benefits of each node in the BRM. In particular, the BAR evaluates the contribution to the anticipated benefits of each component project.

Because of the way the BRM is drawn with the strategic outcomes on the right and the component projects on the left, this top-down approach is also characterized as “right-to-left”.

Similarly, the bottom-up approach is also known as “left-to-right”.

Bottom-Up Component Evaluation

Once the full set of parameters that define the model is known (predicted benefits, estimated cost per initiative, and the structure of the benefits map including the links and their contribution fractions), no additional assumptions on the model are required in order to evaluate the cost of each intermediate node in the model. The “Break Even Everywhere Routine” (the BEER) provides the additional link parameters (the “allocation fractions”) required for calculating the corresponding cost of each node, based on the cost of the initiatives and the structure of the map.

The BAR and the BEER

It is important to understand the way in which the model works:

The BAR – by applying the contribution fractions – can be used to evaluate the top-down effect of nodes across the BRM and diffuse values from right to left. Although the BAR algorithm was initially applied to the contributions, it can also be used to diffuse any other program-related values across the model from right to left.

Due to the way in which the BEER was specified, the allocation fractions provide the means for distributing not only costs but also other quantities (such as node Earned Benefit) across the map from the initiatives (on the left in the BRM) towards the strategic outcomes (on the right).

In general, therefore, the strategic effects diffuse from right to left, according to the BAR. Tactical activities affect downstream nodes, from left to right, based on the BEER.

These algorithms are used to evaluate the forecast contribution and allocation of each node based on the forecast benefits and implementation costs. This is known as the “static model”. The addition of ramp-up durations and other lead times illustrated by use of a roadmap can be used to forecast the program’s cash-flow. This is known as the “dynamic model”. The current article focusses principally on the static model, although the concepts used can also be applied directly to the dynamic model.

The Case Study for the Current Article

The business objective of the program in this example is to increase profits for an organization in the area of customer service. The premise of the case study is that strategic analysis by senior management has shown that increased customer satisfaction with after-sales support enhances business results and has the potential for delivering additional revenue of €300,000 per annum compared with the current level of business. However, this service will also lead to an increase in operational costs amounting to 25% of the corresponding financial improvement, thereby reducing the net benefit by that amount.

In the previous articles, the steps to achieving the business objective were developed and quantified, all the way back from the required strategic outcome across to identifying the required projects. The corresponding BRM for this program, including the financial numbers and allocation fractions mentioned above, is shown in Figure 1 and, in tabular form as the forecast baseline in Table 1.

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

Editor’s note: This series is by Crispin “Kik” Piney, author of the book Earned Benefit Program Management, Aligning, Realizing and Sustaining Strategy, published by CRC Press in 2018.  Merging treatment of program management, benefits realization management and earned value management, Kik’s book breaks important new ground in the program/project management field.  In this series of articles, Kik introduces some earned benefit management concepts in simple and practical terms.

How to cite this article: Piney, C. (2019). Uncertain Benefits: Understanding the effect of risk on benefits realization, Series on Applying Earned Benefit Management PM World Journal, Vol. VIII, Issue II (February). Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/pmwj79-Feb2019-Piney-Benefits-series-part-8-Uncertain-Benefits.pdf

 



About the Author


Crispin Piney

Southern France

 

 

 

After many years managing international IT projects within large corporations, Crispin (“Kik”) Piney, B.Sc., PgMP is now a freelance project management consultant based in the South of France. At present, his main areas of focus are risk management, integrated Portfolio, Program and Project management, scope management and organizational maturity, as well as time and cost control. He has developed advanced training courses on these topics, which he delivers in English and in French to international audiences from various industries. In the consultancy area, he has developed and delivered a practical project management maturity analysis and action-planning consultancy package.

Kik has carried out work for PMI on the first Edition of the Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3™) as well as participating actively in fourth edition of the Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge and was also vice-chairman of the Translation Verification Committee for the Third Edition. He was a significant contributor to the second edition of both PMI’s Standard for Program Management as well as the Standard for Portfolio Management. In 2008, he was the first person in France to receive PMI’s PgMP® credential; he was also the first recipient in France of the PfMP® credential. He is co-author of PMI’s Practice Standard for Risk Management. He collaborates with David Hillson (the “Risk Doctor”) by translating his monthly risk briefings into French. He has presented at a number of recent PMI conferences and published formal papers.

Kik Piney is the author of the book Earned Benefit Program Management, Aligning, Realizing and Sustaining Strategy, published by CRC Press in 2018

Kik Piney can be contacted at [email protected].

To view other works by Kik Piney, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at http://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/crispin-kik-piney/

 

 

Implementing Risk Management in the African Context

 

Risk Doctor Briefing

SERIES ARTICLE

By Liz Dewing

The Risk Doctor Partnership

Cape Town, South Africa

 



A recent Risk Doctor Briefing outlined the special challenges of introducing risk management in developing countries. Cultural factors affect expectations over what risks might exist, how important they might be, and what responses might be appropriate. Some large organisations have experienced problems when attempting to apply a “Western” approach to risk management in Africa, for the following reasons:

  • The “one Africa” delusion. Organisations seeking to invest in Africa often start in countries they regard as “safer”, such as South Africa, then aim to branch out across the continent. But each African country has its own complexities in terms of local business culture, ethics and customs, even apparently “westernised” nations. We cannot transpose what is known about one country blindly onto another. Thinking that what works in South Africa will also work in West Africa is like setting up a base in France in order to exploit opportunities in Russia. There is no “one Africa”.
  • Flawed priorities. Considerations like political stability and regulatory controls must informthe approach to entering a new market, but they may be less important in Africa compared to an established Western market. Depending on the nature of the business, it may be more relevant to consider factors like the socio-economic makeup of the population and the economic prospects of the country. For example, if a bank wishes to enter a country that lacks regulatory controls, instead of delaying entry they might seek to support and encourage the rapid formalisation of suitable regulation.
  • Preferring elephants to ants. Western business tends to believe that anything worth doing is worth doing big. This can cause organisations to miss the opportunities presented by many people all doing something small, as is commonly the case in Africa. Efficient aggregation of a large number of individual or community efforts can compete strongly with traditional Western large-scale approaches. For example, the Sameer Agriculture and Livestock Limited (SALL) dairy in Uganda manages the largest milk collection network in East Africa, with more than 140,000 farmers each contributing milk from a few cows to the production process. The 2015 acquisition of SALL by a subsidiary of Danone recognised the sustainability of this highly distributed model.

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

How to cite this paper: Dewing, L. (2019).  Implementing Risk Management in the African Context, Risk Doctor Briefing; PM World Journal, Volume VIII, Issue II (February).  Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/pmwj79-Feb2019-Dewing-implementing-risk-management-in-the-african-context.pdf

 



About the Author


Liz Dewing

Cape Town, South Africa

 

 

 

Liz Dewing is an experienced Consultant with over 28 years’ experience in roles spanning Strategy Development, Project Resource and Change Management, Project Office Management, Business Analysis, Technical Writing, Training and Presentation. She has experience in both SME and Corporate environments including 13 years with Old Mutual during which she worked in IT, Strategy and the Mass Market.

Beginning with a BSc from WITS University with dual majors across Faculties in Computer Science and English, Liz is highly business literate with a good understanding of the business drivers and personnel challenges within both Corporates and SME’s.

Capable of straddling the divide between Business and IT, Liz has always had a foot in both worlds. After a brief stint in hands-on development she progressed rapidly and has spent most of her career engaging with the Senior Leadership of organisations to effect business change. Her experience encompasses systems development, implementation and migration, strategic response initiation, major process improvement undertakings, and operating model development and transition.

A strong Communicator and Systems Thinker, in her last role with Old Mutual she was responsible for the Strategic Project Delivery Office of the Retail Mass Market Division for some 8 years. During this period she developed and implemented a revised standard Project Management Framework fully incorporating a Change Management Framework that represented a ground-breaking advance in the organisational approach to managing business change.

She is recognised for her strengths in people leadership and empowers others to manage effectively by being a strong sounding board and coach rather than by intervening unnecessarily. Liz also believes hard conversations are sometimes required to challenge thinking and test business decisions, and that conflict should not necessarily be seen as negative.

Most recently she has been engaged for a period of 2 years to assist an e-learning Vendor deliver an e-learning capability into the African footprint of one of the major Retailers. In her personal capacity Liz operates Magnetic North – a Consultancy specialising in Speech Writing, Public Speaking Coaching and Independent Facilitation. She is also a published Author, Professional Speaker and a past President of Cape Town Toastmasters Club.

Liz can be contacted at [email protected]

 

 

Contracting Models for Agile Projects

 

Project Business Management

SERIES ARTICLE

By Antje Lehmann-Benz

Munich, Germany

 


 

“Effectively, change is almost
impossible without industry-wide
collaboration, cooperation, and consensus.”
– Simon Mainwaring

Summary

When companies come together to do projects as customers, contractors, and in other roles, it is high-risk business for all parties involved. Often, this concerns agile projects as well.

Most agile methods and techniques pay little regard to cross-corporate team setups. Instead, they seem to have been described mostly for company-internal projects. However, the fourth value of the Agile Manifesto does urge us to consider “customer collaboration over contract negotiation”. With more and more project-related work outsourced, this addresses an increasingly undeniable reality teams face. Does this not mean that we should take a closer look at this often ignored aspect of agile project work?

The following article intends to clarify some facts around cross-corporate setups for agile teams in general and give suggestions for possible contract models.

Case Study

Sweet Taffy Inc. was developing a new HR software interface for their customer Cold Wax Ltd., a large car manufacturer with rigid procurement processes. They had agreed on a fixed price, and at this time, many unexpected problems had come up that made them invest much more effort than anticipated at the beginning. Sweet Taffy was looking at a potential loss situation, and to make matters worse, the customer had recently made deadlines tighter. When Sweet Taffy raised concerns about being able to meet this deadline given the unresolved issues, the responsible manager at Cold Wax told them: “Well, you’re probably not agile enough? Just have your development team work more agile and you will be faster.”

Overview: Agile Methods

Unfortunately, the situation described above is extremely common. In reality, of course, things are much more complex than that. Agile methods were not developed simply to deliver results faster. Instead, contractual models have to reflect the necessities of a given project situation.

In 1997, Ken Schwaber introduced the framework that he and Jeff Sutherland had recently developed at a conference for object-oriented programming called OOPSLA (Schwaber, 1995). The framework took some ideas from Lean manufacturing (Jansson, 2017) and translated them from production to (software development) project environments. Also, new ideas were added to accommodate for this environment’s realities and with hopes to mitigate the pain points many in the domain felt every day: Processes were too heavyweight for the complexity and uncertainties they faced, communication problems and disputes arose, features were developed that never got used later, reaction times to changing circumstances were slow, money and time was wasted, and teams felt they could not be creative or responsible for their own results. Schwaber and Sutherland hoped that by applying the principles and values of the Scrum framework and promoting its use also to stakeholders, while requiring a certain amount of discipline from the people in the project, such issues could be addressed more effectively.

The introduction of the Scrum framework marked the start of a series of events: In 2000, Kent Beck published his book “Extreme Programming Explained – Embrace Change” (Beck & Andres, 2000), and one year later, Beck, Schwaber, and Sutherland met with several others who had also been active with developing more “lightweight” management methods for software projects. They all had in common that they felt traditional project management tools were often too heavyweight and hard to adapt to the software domain. After all, this domain had been growing more and more complex, and still is to this day. Although as a tendency, complexity is increasing across all industries, software development experts were among the first people to experience this first-hand.

Figure 1: The Cynefin framework was used as a basis for this graphic. It attempts to help choose a suitable project management approach according to the uncertainty regarding technology and requirements in a given project situation (Wikipedia, 2019).

When the rather diverse participants of the gathering met in the winter of 2001 in a skiing resort in Snowbird, Utah, many of them thought this would not lead to “anything substantive”, as Alistair Cockburn put it (Beck et al., 2001). After all, they’d met before to loosely network and share and exchange ideas for lightweight software development processes. To call methods that would reflect these ideas “agile” did not go undiscussed—but in the end, not only that name was decided upon, but also something very substantive was indeed published and came to be known as the Agile Manifesto (Beck et al., 2001).

It consists of four main values and twelve underlying principles that have often been referenced since and hit a nerve in the software community. It could be referred to as nothing less than the start of a new era in software development, valuing

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

Editor’s note: This is the 15th in a series of articles based on the book by Oliver Lehmann, “Project Business Management” (ISBN 978-1138197503), published by Auerbach / Taylor & Francis in 2018. See author profile below.

How to cite this article: Lehmann-Benz, A. (2019). Contracting Models for Agile Projects, PM World Journal, Vol. VIII, Issue II (February).  Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/pmwj79-Feb2019-Lehmann-Benz-Contracting-Models-for-Agile-Projects.pdf

 


 

About the Author


Antje Lehmann-Benz

Munich, Germany

 

 

 

Antje Lehmann-Benz, MA, PMP, PMI-ACP, PSM is a project management and agile training professional for Oliver F. Lehmann Project Management Training, working with various training providers.  Recent experience includes:

Since 2017: Lecturer at the Technical University Munich, teaching Scrum Fundamentals to PhD candidates in Informatics

  • 2017: Agile training for a US military institution in Germany
  • 2018: Online PMP preparation training sessions for a global telecommunications company
  • Since 2018: Scrum trainer for a German car manufacturer
  • Since app. 2009: Project management and Scrum practitioner, consultant in the semiconductor and IoT industries (Atlassian JIRA / Confluence implementations)

She is also active as a volunteer for the Project Management Institute Southern Germany Chapter e.V. (Editor-in-chief, chapter magazine “PMI SG Live”; Director at Large for English Speaking Meetings in Munich). Active in 2016-2017 for PMI International as Subject Matter Expert regarding specific industry experience.

Magister Artium in linguistics, (M.A., LMU Munich), Antje holds the following certifications: PMI-ACP, PMI Agile Certified Practitioner (http://www.pmi.org); PSM, Professional Scrum Master (http://www.scrum.org); PMP Project Management Professional (http://www.pmi.org)

She can be contacted at [email protected]

To view other works by Antje Lehmann-Benz, visit her author showcase in the PM World Library at https://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/antje-lehmann-benz.

 

 

Statement of Work

 

Project Workflow Management

SERIES ARTICLE

by Dan Epstein

New York, USA

 



Note: This article is based on the book Project Workflow Management: A Business Process Approach by Dan Epstein and Rich Maltzman, published by J Ross Publishing in 2014. The book describes PM Workflow® framework, the step-by-step workflow guiding approach using project management methods, practical techniques, examples, tools, templates, checklists and tips, teaching readers the detailed and necessary knowledge required to manage project “hands-on” from scratch, instructing what to do, when to do and how to do it up to delivering the completed and tested product or service to your client.

The project workflow framework is the result of Dan’s research into the subject, having the following objectives:

  1. Create the virtually error-free project management environment to ensure significant reduction of project costs
  2. Reduce demands for highly qualified project managers using the step-by-step workflow guiding approach.

While PM Workflow® is the continuous multi-threaded process, where all PM processes are integrated together, this article will attempt to describe the resource management group of processes as a stand-alone group that can be used independently outside of PM Workflow® framework. It will be difficult in this article not to venture into processes outside of the current subject, such as planning, quality, communications and other management processes, so they will be just mentioned. However, to get full benefit and the error free project management environment, the complete implementation of PM Workflow® is required.

In order to understand how PM Workflow® ensures this environment, I strongly recommend reading my article Project Workflow Framework – An Error Free Project Management Environment. in the PMI affiliated projectmanagement.com (https://www.projectmanagement.com/articles/330037/Project-Workflow-Framework–An-Error-Free-Project-Management-Environment)

For more information, please visit my website www.pm-workflow.com

This article includes, along with SOW (P10), also the High Level Design (P11), the Create/Update Project Plan Package (P8) and the Approve Construction Frame Plan and Budget (P9) processes, because they are precursors to SOW.

Create SOW (P10)

This process describes steps necessary to create the SOW, which is the single most important legal document laying the foundation for the project.

Purpose

The purpose of the SOW is to outline the work required for the project completion. The SOW helps to control client’s expectations. It is written and finalized during the Planning Frame of the project. Statements of Work Contents include:

  1. Revisions
  2. Overview and Objectives
  3. Assumptions
  4. Scope
  5. Approach
  6. Deliverables
  7. Major Milestones
  8. Delivery Organization Responsibility
  9. Client Responsibility
  10. Ownership and License
  11. Completion Criteria
  12. Project Benefits
  13. Charges and Payments Schedule
  14. Approvals Page

The description of the SOW contents will provide the general form of the SOW and relations between the delivery organization, which owns the project and is responsible for the satisfaction of the client’s expectations and requirements.

Revisions

This section lists all revisions to the document, dates of approval and names of approvers. The Document Revision Form is shown in Table 13-1. The additional signature page at the end of the SOW will be added for each new revision. Project scope changes, as described in the Change Control process, do not necessarily require changing the SOW, but do include modifications to the Traceability Matrix.

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

Editor’s note: This series of articles is based on the book Project Workflow Management: A Business Process Approach by Dan Epstein and Rich Maltzman, published by J Ross Publishing in 2014. The book describes the PM Workflow® framework, a step-by-step approach using project management methods, practical techniques, examples, tools, templates, checklists and tips.  The book teaches readers how to manage a project “hands-on” from scratch, including what to do, when and how to do it up to delivering a completed and tested product or service to a client.

How to cite this paper: Epstein, D. (2019).  Statement of Work, Series on Project Workflow Management, PM World Journal, Vol. VIII, Issue I (January).  Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/pmwj78-Jan2019-Epstein-statement-of-work-series-article.pdf

 



About the Author


Dan Epstein

New York, USA

 




Dan Epstein
combines over 25 years of experience in the project management field and the best practices area, working for several major Canadian and U.S. corporations, as well as 4 years teaching university students project management and several software engineering subjects. He received a master’s degree in electrical engineering from the LITMO University in Leningrad (today St. Petersburg, Russia), was certified as a Professional Engineer in 1983 by the Canadian Association of Professional Engineers – Ontario, and earned a master’s certificate in project management from George Washington University in 2000 and the Project Management Professional (PMP®) certification from the Project Management Institute (PMI®) in 2001.

Throughout his career, Dan managed multiple complex interdependent projects and programs, traveling extensively worldwide. He possesses multi-industry business analysis, process reengineering, best practices, professional training development and technical background in a wide array of technologies. In 2004 Dan was a keynote speaker and educator at the PMI-sponsored International Project Management Symposium in Central Asia. He published several articles and gave published interviews on several occasions. In the summer of 2008 he published “Methodology for Project Managers Education” in a university journal. His book, Project Workflow Management – The Business Process Approach, written in cooperation with Rich Maltzman, was published in 2014 by J. Ross Publishing.

Dan first started development of the Project Management Workflow in 2003, and it was used in a project management training course. Later this early version of the methodology was used for teaching project management classes at universities in the 2003–2005 school years. Later on, working in the best practices area, the author entertained the idea of presenting project management as a single multithreaded business workflow. In 2007–2008 the idea was further refined when teaching the project management class at a university.

Dan is an author of many publications in professional magazines, speaker at the international presentations, a guest at podcasts, etc. The Project Management Institute’s (PMI) assessment of his book says: “Contains a holistic learning environment so that after finishing the book and assignments, new project managers or students will possess enough knowledge to confidently manage small to medium projects”. The full list of his publications and appearances can be found at the website www.pm-workflow.com in the Publications tab.

Dan can be contacted at [email protected].

To see other works by Dan Epstein, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at https://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/dan-epstein/

 

 

Before You’re Bound Forever…

 

Project Business Management

SERIES ARTICLE

By Oliver F. Lehmann

Munich, Germany

 


 

“Make sure before you’re bound forever,
That heart and heart will find together.
When folly’s gone—remorse lasts long.”
– From “Song of the Bell” (Friedrich Schiller)[1]

Summary

In Project Business Management (PBM), companies come together to do projects as customers, contractors, and in other roles. PBM is high-risk business for all these parties involved. Many risks are linked with the mutual obligations among the contract parties, in which shortcomings and problems, but also refusal to meet obligations of one organization may translate into problems or even crises for others.

Careful selection of the organizations, with which one is prepared to have a contract, is therefore a key element of success in project business. A simple collection of selection criteria done early in the project may help ensuring that the right questions are being asked before decisions are made that have implications far into the future.

Cross-Corporate Projects

Project Business Management (PBM) describes projects as cross-corporate endeavors that bring together independent organizations as buyers, sellers, and other forms of business partners. Together they form Project Supply Networks (PSNs) that may work very well to the benefit of all members involved and bring the project to a successful end.

Often, they don’t.

In its simplest form, a PSN may consist just of a customer, a contractor and a contract between them. In other projects, PSNs grow into complex and often very opaque networks with lots of organizations involved in various roles, such as customers, contractors, subcontractors, consultants, freelancers, providers of personnel services, consultancies, and many more.

Figure 1 visualizes the basic structure of a still simple PSN.

Figure 1: A simple example of a Project Supply Network (PSN) with a customer and five sellers over two tiers.

PSNs are often very dynamic as the engaged parties may change their roles over time. A prime contractor today may become a subcontractor tomorrow, while one of the subcontractors assumes the responsibility of the new prime contractor. Contractors may leave the PSN, when their work has been done or even earlier, when the contract has been cancelled. Other contractors join the network late in the project, because that’s the time when their contribution is needed first.

PSNs can also become opaque. In many of them, nobody knows for sure, which organizations have become an element of the project, particularly when no one assumes the responsibility to oversee, supervise, and manage all parties in the project and also the interfaces between them. Customers often believe that a contractor performs project work with own resources, when it actually has been forwarded to one or more subcontractors, and they may subcontract it further.

Strange situations can occur in PSNs. To give an example, Figure 2 depicts a situation that occurred in a project of one of my clients: A project customer (Company A in the diagram) contracted a vital part of their key project to a Company B, that in turn contracted out the most difficult pieces of work to Company C as a subcontractor, without knowledge and approval of Company A.

Figure 2: A situation from real life, in which a subcontractor in a project was a business unit of a direct competitor of the project customer, who was not aware of that.

When the customer finally found out that a third company had become a provider in their project, they were especially shocked to learn that Company C was a 100% subsidiary of their most direct competitor, who from time to time filled idle capacities with third party business.

They found that out late in the project, when dependencies were too strong to simply change the supplier. In the role of a subcontractor, Company C learned a lot about details of the project and the general approach taken, which allowed them to adjust own strategies to remain competitive.

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

Editor’s note: This series of articles is by Oliver Lehmann, author of the book “Project Business Management” (ISBN 9781138197503), published by Auerbach / Taylor & Francis in 2018. See author profile below.

How to cite this article: Lehmann, O. (2019). Before You’re Bound Forever; Series on Project Business Management; PM World Journal, Vol. VIII, Issue I (January).  Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/pmwj78-Jan2019-Lehmann-Before-Youre-Bound-Forever.pdf

 


 
About the Author         


Oliver F. Lehmann

Munich, Germany

 

 

 

Oliver F. Lehmann, MSc., PMP, is a project management author, consultant, speaker and teacher. He studied Linguistics, Literature and History at the University of Stuttgart and Project Management at the University of Liverpool, UK, where he holds a Master of Science Degree. Oliver has trained thousands of project managers in Europe, USA and Asia in methodological project management with a focus on certification preparation. In addition, he is a visiting lecturer at the Technical University of Munich.

He has been a member and volunteer at PMI, the Project Management Institute, since 1998, and served five years as the President of the PMI Southern Germany Chapter until April 2018. Between 2004 and 2006, he contributed to PMI’s PM Network magazine, for which he provided a monthly editorial on page 1 called “Launch”, analyzing troubled projects around the world.

Oliver believes in three driving forces for personal improvement in project management: formal learning, experience and observations. He resides in Munich, Bavaria, Germany and can be contacted at [email protected].

Oliver Lehmann is the author of “Situational Project Management: The Dynamics of Success and Failure” (ISBN 9781498722612), published by Auerbach / Taylor & Francis in 2016 and ofProject Business Management” (ISBN 9781138197503), published by Auerbach / Taylor & Francis in 2018.

To view other works by Oliver Lehmann, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at https://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/oliver-f-lehmann/

 

[1] Own translation from the German original

 

 

Moving beyond project delivery

Reflecting on the life cycle concept as way for organising project work

 

Advances in Project Management

SERIES ARTICLE

By Prof Darren Dalcher

Director, National Centre for Project Management
Lancaster University Management School

United Kingdom

 



Life cycles are fundamental to the management of project work. Indeed, Professor Peter Morris, reflecting on the prevailing state of the profession, affirms that ‘the one thing that distinguishes projects from non-projects is their life cycle’ (Morris, 2013; p. 150).

The notion of the project life cycle has become a ubiquitous part of the theory and practice of project management to the extent that it often defines and delineates the process, flow, rhythm, dynamics and boundaries of projects. In doing so it also shapes the discipline and the way we think about projects, organising work and      temporary structures.

Why life cycles?

The life cycle concept, as we know it, serves many purposes. The life cycle represents a path from the origin to completion of a venture. Division into phases enables managers to control and direct the activities in a disciplined, orderly and methodical way that can be responsive to change. Phases group together directly related sequences and types of activities to facilitate visibility and control, thus enabling the successful completion of the venture.

The project life cycle acts as an important management tool focusing on the allocation of resources, the availability of key individuals, the integration of activities, the support of timely decision making, the reduction of risk and the provision of control and governance mechanisms.

The additional benefits associated with using a life cycle approach include (see, Dalcher, 2002):

  • attaining visibility,
  • breaking work into manageable chunks,
  • identifying the tasks,
  • providing a framework for co-ordinating and managing,
  • controlling project finance,
  • identifying and obtaining correct resource profiles,
  • encouraging systematic evaluation of options and opportunities,
  • addressing the need for stakeholder review,
  • providing a problem-solving perspective,
  • verifying ongoing viability on a progressive basis,
  • encouraging continuous monitoring,
  • managing uncertainty, and
  • providing a common and shared vocabulary.

Control is attained through the division into phases and the breaking up of work into identifiable and significant milestones and meaningful deliverables (products delivered at certain times). Partitioning activities into phases gives the impression of natural order of thought and action. The spacing of activities along a time axis suggests the mutual exclusivity of stages and the primarily unidirectional flow of activities.

Each phase has specific content and management approaches with clearly identified decision points between them. Matching the content requires the application of an ever-changing mix of resources—skills, tools, expertise, money and time. Introducing phases with formal interface points encourages the opening of a communication path and the transfer of project information through formal hand-over or technology transfer between life cycle phases.

Rethinking project management

As highlighted above, the project life cycle has dominated and shaped project management thinking. The resulting instrumental rationality is often interpreted as how projects ought to be performed in the real-life environment of project work (Dalcher, 2016). Some of the ideas implied through this type of thinking have been challenged by the UK Government funded Rethinking Project Management Network (Winter and Smith, 2006; Winter et al., 2006). Over the course of two years, the Network brought together senior practitioners and leading researchers ‘to develop a research agenda aimed at extending and enriching project management ideas in relation to developing practice’ (Winter and Smith, 2006). Overall, the network found a strong need for new thinking to inform and guide practitioners beyond the current conceptual base (Winter et al., 2006; 640).

The main outcome of the network was the development of a new agenda for research presented in the form of five directions identified by the participants as critical to the management of projects. Each direction is represented as a move from a current way of thinking, represented on the left, towards a more promising perspective – as described on the right (see, Table 1, (Winter et al, 2006, Dalcher, 2016))…

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

Editor’s note: The PMWJ Advances in Project Management series includes articles by authors of program and project management books published by Gower and other publishers in the Routledge family.  Each month an introduction to the current article is provided by series editor Prof Darren Dalcher, who is also the editor of the Gower/Routledge Advances in Project Management series of books on new and emerging concepts in PM.  Prof Dalcher’s article is an introduction to the invited paper this month in the PMWJ. 

How to cite this paper: Dalcher, D. (2019). Moving beyond project delivery: Reflecting on the life cycle concept as way for organising project work, PM World Journal, Volume VIII, Issue I (January).  Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/pmwj78-Jan2019-Dalcher-moving-beyond-project-delivery.pdf

 



About the Author


Darren Dalcher, PhD

Author, Professor, Series Editor
Director, National Centre for Project Management
Lancaster University Management School, UK

 

 

 

Darren Dalcher, Ph.D., HonFAPM, FRSA, FBCS, CITP, FCMI, SMIEEE, SFHEA is Professor in Strategic Project Management at Lancaster University, and founder and Director of the National Centre for Project Management (NCPM) in the UK.  He has been named by the Association for Project Management (APM) as one of the top 10 “movers and shapers” in project management and was voted Project Magazine’s “Academic of the Year” for his contribution in “integrating and weaving academic work with practice”. Following industrial and consultancy experience in managing IT projects, Professor Dalcher gained his PhD in Software Engineering from King’s College, University of London.

Professor Dalcher has written over 200 papers and book chapters on project management and software engineering. He is Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, a leading international software engineering journal. He is the editor of the book series, Advances in Project Management, published by Routledge and of the companion series Fundamentals of Project Management.  Heavily involved in a variety of research projects and subjects, Professor Dalcher has built a reputation as leader and innovator in the areas of practice-based education and reflection in project management. He works with many major industrial and commercial organisations and government bodies.

Darren is an Honorary Fellow of the APM, a Chartered Fellow of the British Computer Society, a Fellow of the Chartered Management Institute, and the Royal Society of Arts, A Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy and a Member of the Project Management Institute (PMI) and the British Academy of Management. He is a Chartered IT Practitioner. He sits on numerous senior research and professional boards, including The PMI Academic Member Advisory Group, the APM Research Advisory Group, the CMI Academic Council and the APM Group Ethics and Standards Governance Board.  He is the Academic Advisor and Consulting Editor for the next APM Body of Knowledge. Prof Dalcher is an academic advisor for the PM World Journal.  He is the academic advisor and consulting editor for the forthcoming edition of the APM Body of Knowledge. He can be contacted at [email protected].

To view other works by Prof Darren Dalcher, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at http://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/darren-dalcher/.

 

 

The project framework

Understanding gates and stages

 

Advances in Project Management Series

SERIES ARTICLE

By Robert Buttrick

United Kingdom

 



Projects as vehicles of change

Ignore the reborn discipline of enterprise-wide project management at your peril!  .No longer the preserve of the engineering and IT sectors,  project management is fast becoming a core competence which many organizations require of their employees and an activity every executive and manager should be familiar with.  Projects, in the modern sense, are strategic management tools and this article, based on a chapter from the latest edition of The Project Workout, shows how they can be used as vehicles of change.

Most organizations are never short of suggestions for improvement and your own is probably no exception. Ideas can come from anywhere within the organization or even outside it: from competitors, customers, or suppliers. Actually deciding which initiatives the business leaders should spend time and money on is more difficult. Care needs to be taken in choosing which projects to do, as:

  • there is probably not enough money, manpower, or management energy to pursue all the ideas;
  • undertaking projects which do not align to the organization’s strategy will, almost certainly, create internal conflicts between senior managers, confuse the direction of the business and ultimately, reduce the return on the company’s investment.

Business leaders should consider for selection only those projects which:

  • have a firm root in the organization’s strategy;
  • meet defined business needs;
  • will realize real benefits;
  • are derived from gaps identified in business plans;
  • and are achievable.

Having created a shortlist of “possible projects”, it is important to work on them in the right order, recognizing interdependencies, taking account of scarce skills and resources and bringing the benefits forward whenever possible.

Figure 1 shows illustrates how selecting the right projects will help to achieve the business objectives by realizing benefits to support the business strategy. Two key roles are associated with projects:

  • the project sponsor who wants the benefits the project will provide;
  • the project manager who manages the project on a day-to-day basis, ensuring its deliverables are presented on time, at the right quality and to budget.

Figure 1 Select the right projects to support your strategy

Selecting the right projects will help you achieve your objectives by realizing benefits which support your strategy. (Copyright © PA Consulting Group, London. Adapted with kind permission)

 

To illustrate these key project roles, imagine you want to build an extension to your house for a home office. To gain the benefits this will bring, you accept the price and the inconvenience of building works. The architect’s role is to design an appropriate solution to meet your needs. As project manager, the benefits he receives for carrying out the work is his fee but he must, however, understand your needs fully to deliver an appropriate solution. In a good partnership, sponsorship and management are mutually compatible. Thus:

  • the project sponsor is primarily “outcome and benefits focussed”; he or she directs the project.
  • the project manager is primarily “action focused” towards the achievement of the outcomes and benefits the sponsor needs. He or she manages the project on a day to day basis.

The framework for managing business-led projects is aimed at making the results of projects more predictable by:

  • being outcome and benefits focussed;
  • building in quality;
  • managing risks and exposure;
  • exploiting the skill base of the entire organization.

As a project progresses, the amount of money invested increases. If none of this money is spent on reducing the risks associated with the project, then it is poorly spent. Your objective, as a business leader, project sponsor or project manager, is to ensure that risks are driven down as the project moves from being an idea to becoming a reality.

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

Editor’s note: The Advances in Project Management series includes articles by authors of program and project management books published by Routledge worldwide. Information about Routledge project management books can be found here.

How to cite this paper: Buttrick, R. (2019). The project framework: understanding gates and stages, PM World Journal, Vol. VIII, Issue I (January). Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/pmwj78-Jan2019-Buttrick-project-framework-understanding-gates-and-stages.pdf

 



About the Author


Robert Buttrick

United Kingdom

 

 

 

Robert Buttrick has a successful track record for building project management excellence in major organizations and as a contributor to project management methods, best practice and standards. He a UK Principal Expert working on the development of national and international project management standards, for which he received a Distinguished Service Certificate from BSI. He was an author of the 2017 edition of PRINCE® and the lead developer for the UK government’s project delivery standard. He is a Member of the Chartered Institute of Marketing, a Chartered Engineer and an Honorary Fellow of the Association for Project Management. Robert is currently an independent author, a consultant and a Visiting Teaching Fellow at the University of Warwick.

Robert Buttrick is the author of the book The Project Workout: Directing and managing business-led projects, recently published in its 5th edition, by Routledge. You can find more information and a companion web site at projectworkout.com.

 

 

The Benefits of the Earned Benefit Framework

Counteracting the Common Causes of “Project” Failure

 

Applying Earned Benefit Management

SERIES ARTICLE

By Crispin (“Kik”) Piney, PgMP, PfMP

Southern France

 



This article was triggered by Alan Stretton’s series of articles in the PM World Journal, and especially his latest one, in November 2018, entitled “Responsibilities for ‘project’ successes/failures?” On reading that article, I realized that the Earned Benefit Framework can – and should – be applied to counteract a number of the highlighted issues.

Introduction: What I Had Overlooked

I have just realized that, although the Earned Benefit Method insists on the importance of starting from the “why” of any endeavour,  (i.e., the intended benefit) before focussing on the “how” (i.e., the actions, tools and techniques), I have so far omitted to explain the basic, organizational benefits of applying this method. To date, I have explained the power of the method for providing all of the information required for effective realization of the forecast benefits along with the associated techniques and algorithms. However, if the organization is dysfunctional, the results of the techniques will also be worthless

The real “why” for applying the Earned Benefit Framework is to enhance project value and business success in a predictable and repeatable manner. As will be explained, one definite cause of failures in benefits-realted endeavours is the lack of tools and concepts specific to program management, allied, all-too-often, to the lack of the will for greater visibility. In addition, all such endeavours are carried out as if the use of project management concepts and tools will be sufficient for ensuring success. It will be shown that neither these project management concepts nor these tools are, in fact, adequate for achieving success in complex programs, and that the Earned Benefit Framework can provide the solution to these problems.

The current article will explain how the application of the Earned Benefit Framework along with the adoption of an Organizational Project Management model can counteract incomplete and unreliable organizational practices that seriously undermine the chances of project success.

Acknowledgement

Alan Stretton has given me permission to quote extensively from his recent article in PM World Journal [Stretton (2018)], and I would like to acknowledge his contribution to raising my awarenesss of the issues and for trusting me to make good use of his material.

Link to Previous Articles

Earlier articles in this series [Piney 2018b, Piney 2018c, Piney 2018d, Piney 2018e, Piney 2018f, Piney 2018g] explained how to apply the Earned Benefit cost and benefit evaluation algorithms to a representative case study.

The current article changes topic, away from the technical details of method, to concentrate on the organization as a whole.

In order to allow this article to be understood independently of the earlier ones in the series, some reminders are provided below, plus an overview of the case study,  prior to addressing the current topic of counteracting common sources of project failure.

Reminder on Benefits Realization Maps

A Benefits Realization Map (BRM) illustrates how to make the benefits happen. The BRM for the case study is shown in Figure 1.

BRMs can be developed in two passes, as follows:

Top-Down Strategy Decomposition

Once the anticipated benefits have been defined by the strategic sponsor, you need to determine all of the steps that are required for delivering this result, as well as their interdependencies, thereby allowing you to identify the necessary component projects (“initiatives”). The links from each logical step to the next are quantified based on their relative importance for contributing to realizing the benefits (the “contribution fraction” for the link).

The Benefits Allotment Routine (BAR) uses the forecast benefit value of the strategic objectives in conjunction with the link contribution fractions to calculate the contribution to the anticipated benefits of each node in the BRM. In particular, the BAR evaluates the contribution to the anticipated benefits of each component project.

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

How to cite this article: Piney, C. (2018). The Benefits of the Earned Benefit Framework: Counteracting the Common Causes of “Project” Failure; Series on Applying Earned Benefits Management, PM World Journal, Vol. VII, Issue XII (December). Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/pmwj77-Dec2018-Piney-Benefits-of-the-Earned-Benefit-Framework.pdf



About the Author


Crispin Piney

France

 

 

After many years managing international IT projects within large corporations, Crispin (“Kik”) Piney, B.Sc., PgMP is now a freelance project management consultant based in the South of France. At present, his main areas of focus are risk management, integrated Portfolio, Program and Project management, scope management and organizational maturity, as well as time and cost control. He has developed advanced training courses on these topics, which he delivers in English and in French to international audiences from various industries. In the consultancy area, he has developed and delivered a practical project management maturity analysis and action-planning consultancy package.

Kik has carried out work for PMI on the first Edition of the Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3™) as well as participating actively in fourth edition of the Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge and was also vice-chairman of the Translation Verification Committee for the Third Edition. He was a significant contributor to the second edition of both PMI’s Standard for Program Management as well as the Standard for Portfolio Management. In 2008, he was the first person in France to receive PMI’s PgMP® credential; he was also the first recipient in France of the PfMP® credential. He is co-author of PMI’s Practice Standard for Risk Management. He collaborates with David Hillson (the “Risk Doctor”) by translating his monthly risk briefings into French. He has presented at a number of recent PMI conferences and published formal papers.

Kik Piney is the author of the book Earned Benefit Program Management, Aligning, Realizing and Sustaining Strategy, published by CRC Press in 2018

Kik Piney can be contacted at [email protected].

To view other works by Kik Piney, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at http://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/crispin-kik-piney/

 

 

A Health Check for a Portfolio with Customer-Facing Projects

 

Project Business Management

SERIES ARTICLE

By Oliver F. Lehmann

Munich, Germany

 



Summary

Project portfolio management for corporations doing customer projects to make a living has its specific challenges. Projects in crisis can impact the entire portfolio and jeopardize the existence of the company. The magic triangle on contractor-side is made of customer-happiness, profitability and liquidity.

A Project Portfolio in Need of a Turnaround

ArmyAnt, Inc.[1] is a company that performs projects for a major number of customers integrating hardware and software to complex working systems. Companies decide to buy and use their services due to ArmyAnt’s great experience from past projects and also to a thick folder with letters of reference and of gratitude from customers of previous projects.

ArmyAnt has many assets such as skilled people, know how, licenses and equipment that customers love to tap into and use them as project resources. ArmyAnt in turn loves to tap into customers’ financial assets and turned them into revenue and finally into profit. ArmyAnt was just a typical company bringing money home by performing projects for customers against payment under contract.

As any company that made its living from being a contractor for one or more customers, ArmyAnt worked inside a magic triangle of objectives, that included the happy customer, protection of the own liquidity, and profitability. Liquidity protects the presence of the organization, the happy customer as an incumbent and a reference allows it to be successful in the future, and profitability provides the resources to realize this future. The magic triangle is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Profitability of customer-facing projects is one corner of the “Magic triangle” of Project business management for vendors

However, in the recent past this profit topic turned out to become more and more a problem. ArmyAnt had started almost two decades ago as a one-man-one-customer provider. Archibald Ant, the founder of the organization, began doing customer projects as a self-employed service provider for his former employer, after his boss had to run a lay-off project, which affected many jobs including Archibald’s. While the company made him redundant, his no-more boss still wanted to use his competencies and experience. The solution was to assign work to him as a contractor instead of hiring him as an employee. The costs he incurred for the organization moved from the payroll to the procurement budget, a development that was welcomed by shareholders. Archibald found that somewhat strange, because as a contractor he was rather more expensive. So he started his little business, which soon proved to be highly profitable  for him.

Despite the profit, Archibald soon noticed the risk of having only one customer: The company could end business with him at any time and such a decision would leave him without income from one day to the next. His income was fully dependent on his single client, and when they had negotiations about fees and contractual conditions of business, he learned that the company was fully aware of his dependency.

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

Editor’s note: This series of articles is by Oliver Lehmann, author of the book “Project Business Management” (ISBN 9781138197503), published by Auerbach / Taylor & Francis in 2018. See author profile below.

How to cite this article: Lehmann, O. (2018). A Health Check for a Portfolio with Customer-Facing Projects; Series on Project Business Management; PM World Journal, Vol. VII, Issue XII (December).  Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/pmwj77-Dec2018-Lehmann-A-Health-Check-for-Customer-Facing-Projects.pdf



About the Author 


Oliver F. Lehmann

Munich, Germany

 

 

 

Oliver F. Lehmann, MSc., PMP, is a project management author, consultant, speaker and teacher. He studied Linguistics, Literature and History at the University of Stuttgart and Project Management at the University of Liverpool, UK, where he holds a Master of Science Degree. Oliver has trained thousands of project managers in Europe, USA and Asia in methodological project management with a focus on certification preparation. In addition, he is a visiting lecturer at the Technical University of Munich.

He has been a member and volunteer at PMI, the Project Management Institute, since 1998, and served five years as the President of the PMI Southern Germany Chapter until April 2018. Between 2004 and 2006, he contributed to PMI’s PM Network magazine, for which he provided a monthly editorial on page 1 called “Launch”, analyzing troubled projects around the world.

Oliver believes in three driving forces for personal improvement in project management: formal learning, experience and observations. He resides in Munich, Bavaria, Germany and can be contacted at [email protected].

Oliver Lehmann is the author of “Situational Project Management: The Dynamics of Success and Failure” (ISBN 9781498722612), published by Auerbach / Taylor & Francis in 2016 and ofProject Business Management” (ISBN 9781138197503), published by Auerbach / Taylor & Francis in June 2018.

To view other works by Oliver Lehmann, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at https://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/oliver-f-lehmann/

 

[1] All names changed.

 

 

Overcoming Fear of Failure

 

Risk Doctor Briefing

SERIES ARTICLE

Dr David Hillson, PMI Fellow, HonFAPM, FIRM

The Risk Doctor Partnership

United Kingdom

 



The fear of failure often stops us taking risks, because most of us think of failure as “A Bad Thing”. Reality is more balanced. The following ten key characteristics of failure show it includes both negative and positive aspects:

  1. Failure is natural. Failure is an intrinsic part of life, as illustrated by the natural laws of competition and survival of the fittest.
  2. Failure is universal. Failure can be found everywhere, affecting all facets of human existence, including both personal and corporate activities, in both private and business arenas.
  3. Failure is inevitable. Perfection is an illusion, 100% success is unattainable, and there will always be more failures than successes.
  4. Failure is pain. Failure nearly always has negative consequences, and it is usually unpleasant for those who experience it.
  5. Failure is opportunity. Failure offers us the chance to draw a line under the past and make a fresh start, stepping out into the future.
  6. Failure is learning. Failure teaches us where further effort would be wasted and encourages us not to repeat the same mistakes in the future.
  7. Failure is information. Failure is a definite result, a clear outcome, indicating what not to do in future.
  8. Failure is directional. Failure closes off some potential paths of action, and leaves others open or untried, encouraging us to try something different.

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

How to cite this paper: Hillson, D. (2018).  Overcoming Fear of Failure, Risk Doctor Briefing; PM World Journal, Volume VII, Issue XII (December).   Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/pmwj77-Dec2018-Hillson-overcoming-fear-of-failure.pdf



About the Author


Dr David Hillson HonFAPM PMI-Fellow CFIRM CMgr FCMI

The Risk Doctor

 

 

 

Known globally as The Risk Doctor, David Hillson leads The Risk Doctor Partnership (www.risk-doctor.com), a global consultancy offering specialist risk services across the world.

David has a reputation as an excellent speaker and presenter on risk. His talks blend thought-leadership with practical application, presented in an accessible style that combines clarity with humour, guided by the Risk Doctor motto: “Understand profoundly so you can explain simply”.

He also writes widely on risk, with eleven major books, and over 100 professional papers. He publishes a regular Risk Doctor Briefing blog in seven languages to 10,000 followers, and has over 4000 subscribers to the RiskDoctorVideo YouTube channel (www.youtube.com/RiskDoctorVideo).

David has advised leaders and organisations in over fifty countries around the world on how to create value from risk based on a mature approach to risk management, and his wisdom and insights are in high demand. He has also received many awards for his ground-breaking work in risk management over several decades.

To see other works previously published in the PM World Journal by Dr David Hillson, visit his author showcase at http://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/dr-david-hillson/

 

 

Outsourcing and Resource Management Process

 

Project Workflow Management

SERIES ARTICLE

by Dan Epstein

New York, USA

 



Note:
 This article is based on the book Project Workflow Management: A Business Process Approach by Dan Epstein and Rich Maltzman, published by J Ross Publishing in 2014. The book describes PM Workflow® framework, the step-by-step workflow guiding approach using project management methods, practical techniques, examples, tools, templates, checklists and tips, teaching readers the detailed and necessary knowledge required to manage project “hands-on” from scratch, instructing what to do, when to do and how to do it up to delivering the completed and tested product or service to your client.

The project workflow framework is the result of Dan’s research into the subject, having the following objectives:

  1. Create the virtually error-free project management environment to ensure significant reduction of project costs
  2. Reduce demands for highly qualified project managers using the step-by-step workflow guiding approach.

While PM Workflow® is the continuous multi-threaded process, where all PM processes are integrated together, this article will attempt to describe the resource management group of processes as a stand-alone group that can be used independently outside of PM Workflow® framework. It will be difficult in this article not to venture into processes outside of the current subject, such as planning, quality, communications and other management processes, so they will be just mentioned. However, to get full benefit and the error free project management environment, the complete implementation of PM Workflow® is required.

In order to understand how PM Workflow® ensures this environment, I strongly recommend reading my article Project Workflow Framework – An Error Free Project Management Environment. in the PMI affiliated projectmanagement.com (https://www.projectmanagement.com/articles/330037/Project-Workflow-Framework–An-Error-Free-Project-Management-Environment)

The article above provides the overview and explanation of how the project workflow framework works and achieves the established objectives of obtaining resources, both external (P14) and internal (P15) ones.

For more information, please visit my website www.pm-workflow.com

Outsourcing Management

Purpose

The purpose of the Outsourcing Management process in the context of this book is selection of qualified vendors for implementation of project components, as well as managing relationships with vendors for quality deliverables and seamless integration with other components of a project.

Before making a commitment to use outsourcing on a project, there must be a reasonable proof that using outsourcing will increase company benefits and there must be awareness that outsourcing provides significant challenges in producing quality deliverables.

Outsourcing Challenges

Outsourcing, which is also known under the name of subcontracting, exists in several business areas. The government, military, heavy machinery and others use onshore resources, as opposed to the offshore ones. However the heaviest use of offshore outsourcing is in the information technology, electronics and manufacturing industries. In the past ten years there has been a strong trend to take advantage of lower costs of offshore development and manufacturing.

This trend takes jobs out of the higher-cost country, which is profoundly negative, but in order to stay competitive, companies cannot afford to ignore this option. Besides, public companies will have to follow the shareholders’ decisions, which are mostly motivated by profit. It appears that the trend is here to stay for a while, but in the foreseeable future it will slow down or will be gradually reversed, because the cost of the offshore development is steadily going up. As soon as the cost in low cost countries (LCCs) becomes comparable to the cost of the onshore development, the trend will stop. For example, ten years ago Canada was considered a low cost country, because the average rate of the Canadian developer was about 40% lower than the rate of US developers; in part due to 40% difference in value of the Canadian versus the US dollar. Software development by several US corporations was channeled there by using their Canadian branches. Today the cost of software development in Canada is not any lower than in USA and Canada is no longer a low cost country. Having software development done outside the country presents many challenges. Among them are:

  • Language barrier
    In many countries English is spoken only by a small minority. This limits communication between the onshore project manager and the offshore team.
  • Different time zones
    Some of the most popular LCC outsourcing countries have a difference with the US Eastern time zone of 8 to 14 hours. This means that during the period between 8:00AM and 5:00PM Eastern Time, the offshore time may be 8:00PM to 5:00AM, which makes communication for both teams problematic. When email is used for communication, the reply to the query will come – at the earliest -the following day. It is also not always easy to get reliable status reports from an offshore project manager until deliverables are due.
  • Different customs and cultures
    In some cultures people consider asking questions impolite; therefore your business or technical requirements submitted to them must be highly detailed and accurate. If they are not, then the deliverable will reflect the offshore team’s understanding and not yours. This sometimes leads to the misconception that offshore teams are not as qualified as US teams, which is generally incorrect. Experience shows that the problems are often caused by poor – or at least vague -specifications and poor communication, rather than a specific problem of the offshore team’s qualification.
  • Privacy and confidentiality issues
    US companies are not allowed to provide offshore companies with access to actual production data, when it contains private information about customers or other confidential information. This prevents offshore companies from participating in the integration of the deliverables produced by them. The data used by the offshore team must be stripped of all references to the private and confidential information. Whenever the use of large data banks with millions of records is required to test the system, producing and keeping simulated database may be costly and convoluted.

The Outsourcing Process

The Outsourcing process consists of the following elements:

  1. Issue request for proposal
  2. Conduct bidders conference
  3. Receive proposals
  4. Investigate candidates ability to do outsourcing
  5. Select winning proposal
  6. Establish communications and reporting with the outsourcing company
  7. Provide outsourcing company with the detailed SOW and specifications
  8. Receive project plan from the outsourcing company
  9. Track implementation
  10. Track integration with other parts of the project

When outsourcing help is required, the company issues a request for proposal. For the inshore outsourcing, the announcement may be published in a newspaper or sent to a list of potential bidders. For the offshore outsourcing, the request for proposal is sent to a list of the known and reputable offshore companies doing outsourcing business. More details may be provided in a bidders’ conference, which may be either a face-to-face meeting or a teleconference with bidders who expressed interest in bidding. When proposals are received by the due date, they are reviewed and several are selected for further consideration. The bidders whose proposals were selected are investigated for financial strength and the availability of the right resources. All references should be checked. There must be sufficient evidence that the outsourcing company has delivered successfully on similar types of projects in the past with satisfactory quality. Based on the investigation and the suitability of the proposal, a winning proposal is selected. There must be a documented understanding with the outsourcing company that they must adjust their project management processes to make them compatible with standard processes in your organization.

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

Editor’s note: This series of articles is based on the book Project Workflow Management: A Business Process Approach by Dan Epstein and Rich Maltzman, published by J Ross Publishing in 2014. The book describes the PM Workflow® framework, a step-by-step approach using project management methods, practical techniques, examples, tools, templates, checklists and tips.  The book teaches readers how to manage a project “hands-on” from scratch, including what to do, when and how to do it up to delivering a completed and tested product or service to a client.

How to cite this paper: Epstein, D. (2018).  Title, Series on Project Workflow Management, PM World Journal, Vol. VII, Issue XII (December).  Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/pmwj77-Dec2018-Epstein-outsourcing-and-resource-management-process.pdf


 
About the Author


Dan Epstein

New York, USA

 




Dan Epstein
combines over 25 years of experience in the project management field and the best practices area, working for several major Canadian and U.S. corporations, as well as 4 years teaching university students project management and several software engineering subjects. He received a master’s degree in electrical engineering from the LITMO University in Leningrad (today St. Petersburg, Russia), was certified as a Professional Engineer in 1983 by the Canadian Association of Professional Engineers – Ontario, and earned a master’s certificate in project management from George Washington University in 2000 and the Project Management Professional (PMP®) certification from the Project Management Institute (PMI®) in 2001.

Throughout his career, Dan managed multiple complex interdependent projects and programs, traveling extensively worldwide. He possesses multi-industry business analysis, process reengineering, best practices, professional training development and technical background in a wide array of technologies. In 2004 Dan was a keynote speaker and educator at the PMI-sponsored International Project Management Symposium in Central Asia. He published several articles and gave published interviews on several occasions. In the summer of 2008 he published “Methodology for Project Managers Education” in a university journal. His book, Project Workflow Management – The Business Process Approach, written in cooperation with Rich Maltzman, was published in 2014 by J. Ross Publishing.

Dan first started development of the Project Management Workflow in 2003, and it was used in a project management training course. Later this early version of the methodology was used for teaching project management classes at universities in the 2003–2005 school years. Later on, working in the best practices area, the author entertained the idea of presenting project management as a single multithreaded business workflow. In 2007–2008 the idea was further refined when teaching the project management class at a university.

Dan is an author of many publications in professional magazines, speaker at the international presentations, a guest at podcasts, etc. The Project Management Institute’s (PMI) assessment of his book says: “Contains a holistic learning environment so that after finishing the book and assignments, new project managers or students will possess enough knowledge to confidently manage small to medium projects”. The full list of his publications and appearances can be found at the website www.pm-workflow.com in the Publications tab.

Dan can be contacted at [email protected].

To see other works by Dan Epstein, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at https://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/dan-epstein/

 

 

Project Society in the Making

 

SERIES ARTICLE

Managing and Working in Project Society

By Rolf A. Lundin and Tim Brady

Sweden and UK

 



Writers have been heralding the coming of the project age for many years.  As long ago as the late 1950s Paul Gaddis’s book was extolling the virtues of a new type of manager – the Project Manager – whose business is to create a product – a piece of advanced-technology hardware. (Gaddis, 1959). Unlike so-called conventional managers in corporations at the time the project manager had to manage a higher proportion of professionals from the working level up through his subordinate managers. Gaddis points out that “crisis, uncertainty and suspense” are continual elements of project life.  He also says that the role of the project manager will be vital for the US to regain technological leadership.

The adhocracy movement

But while he was advocating the rise of a new type of manager, Gaddis was not forecasting a change in the nature of organisations away from monolithic enduring permanent organisations towards a more temporary form.  Indeed, the environment in which Gaddis was describing the rise of project managers was relatively stable – there was technological change but nothing like the rapid environmental changes that came to the fore in subsequent years.  It was Toffler (1970) who suggested that “(e)ach age produces a form of organization appropriate to its own tempo” (p.143). He acknowledged the existence of project groups as temporary forms by pointing out that there was nothing new about the idea of assembling a group to work towards the solution of a specific problem, then dismantling it when the task is completed. In his view however, what was new at the time of his book was the prevalence of such groups and “the frequency with which organizations must resort to such temporary arrangements.  He suggested the “seemingly permanent structures of many large organizations. . . are now heavily infiltrated with these transient cells.” (p.134). The use of the word ‘infiltrate’ by Toffler about these new forms was interesting in itself, suggesting some kind of surreptitious, almost covert activity in the face of resistance from the extant organizations. It was if the large hierarchical, bureaucratic organizations of industrial society were fighting a rear-guard action against the inevitable march of something new: adhocracy.

In describing the characteristics of what he called ‘super-industrial society’, Toffler was strongly influenced by the work of Warren Bennis who he quotes as suggesting that “(t)he key word will be ‘temporary’; there will be adaptive, rapidly changing temporary systems.” Problems will be solved by task forces composed of “relative strangers who represent a set of diverse professional skills.” (p.144). In Toffler’s vision of the brave new world, “rather than being trapped in a mindless bureaucratic machine, man will find himself liberated, a stranger in a world of kinetic organizations.” (Toffler, 1970 p.125).  In this world of adhocracy rather than permanence there would be transience – high mobility between organizations, never-ending reorganizations within them, and a constant generation and decay of temporary work groupings.  Toffler was at pains to impress on the reader that that “the rise of ad hoc organization is a direct effect of the speed-up of change in society as a whole” (p.135).

But there is not too much evidence that this world of kinetic organizations emerged quickly.  Rather, we find that there has been as gradual transition over the next 40 years or more as the traditional institutions continued to resist revolutionary change, with periodic announcements of the coming of the new age in which projects and temporary forms of organization will become dominant. If we fast-forward over 35 years from Gaddis’s book and 25 years from Toffler book we find researchers suggesting that projects and project management were becoming “the wave of the future in global business’ and that project management might replace traditional functional management as the key to competitive advantage in the 21st century” (Pinto and Kharbanda, 1995). Again, in the 1990s, we find a short book appearing with the title ‘Adhocracy’ extolling the virtues of  “the most common, sturdy, and visible ad hoc form: the project team, or task force” (Waterman, 1992; p.17). Waterman acknowledges the works of Bennis and Toffler but suggests that exactly how to create and manage these ad hoc forms was never fleshed out and applied to the real world of business. Waterman bemoans the trend of businesses employing consultants at huge expense to supply ad hoc teams to work on projects that could and probably should be handled by their own internal managers and employees. His book is filled with stories about successful implementation of ad hoc teams in a variety of settings including life insurance, computer firms, real estate developers, clothes manufacturers, sports teams, oil companies.  The message is clear.  If you want to be successful in today’s (i.e. the 1990s) environment, you need to learn how to manage adhocracy.

Waterman was one of the co-authors of the best-selling management book In Search of Excellence.  His co-author, Tom Peters, was also writing about the rise of projects in a series of ‘how-to’ books which were published at the end of the 1990s – The Project50: Fifty Ways to Transform Every “Task” into a Project That Matters! and The Professional Service Firm 50: Fifty Ways to Transform Your “Department” into a Professional Service Firm Whose Trademarks are Passion and Innovation!  According to Peters, “in the new economy, all work is project work”, and he urges individuals to become project gurus and turn their functional departments into fully-fledged professional service firms.  Again, the language is interesting. He suggests that it is ‘cool’ to be seen to work in this way. According to Peters, “(t)he cool professional service firm is just that: cool talent, a portfolio of cool projects, cool clients. Period. Its only asset—literally—is brains. Its only product is projects. Its only aim is truly memorable client service.” So, shifting towards project forms of organization in which internal teams deliver services to other parts of the organization is something to be encouraged as it’s fashionable, hip and cool.

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

Editor’s note: This is article is one in a series based on the book Managing and Working in Project Society by Rolf A. Lundin, Niklas Arvidsson, Tim Brady, Eskil Ekstedt, Christophe Midler and Jörg Sydow, published by Cambridge University Press in 2015.  The book won the PMI David I. Cleland Project Management Literature Award in 2016.

How to cite this article: Lundin, R. and Brady, T. (2018). Project Society in the Making, PM World Journal, Vol. VII, Issue XII (December). Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/pmwj77-Dec2018-Brady-Lundin-Project-Society-in-the-Making.pdf



About the Authors


Tim Brady

University of Brighton
United Kingdom

 


Tim Brady
is Professor of Innovation in the Centre for Research in Innovation Management at Brighton Business School, University of Brighton. His current research interests include the management of complex projects and programmes and learning and capability development in project-based business. He is a leader of Theme E (Knowledge Management and Capabilities) in Project X, an initiative aiming to improve performance of UK public sector projects and was a member of the EPSRC-funded Rethinking Project Management network, and Deputy Director of the ESRC-funded CoPS Innovation Centre. His research has been published widely in academic management journals.

 


Rolf Lundin, PhD

Jönköping International Business School
Jönköping, Sweden

 

 

Rolf A Lundin is a professor (em.) of Business Administration at the Jönköping International Business School (JIBS) and a Courtesy Professor-in-Residence at the Umeå School of Business and Economics (USBE).  He received his PhD in 1973 at the University of Chicago (now the Booth Business School) in Management Science.  He has been a full professor since 1978, first at the business school of the University of Umeå (in northern Sweden), where he was also the founding dean of that school.  In 2001 he was recruited to dean JIBS.  He stepped down as dean in 2007.  Since then he has been affiliated with the Media Management and Transformation Center.  He has several publications in the management of projects and temporary organization area and is currently serving on the board for the PMI Global Accreditation Center which is working with accreditation of project management educational programs around the world.  His current research focus is on the use of projects in media industries.  Rolf is active in the Swedish Project Academy. He can be contacted at [email protected].

Brady and Lundin are co-authors of Managing and Working in Project Society: Institutional Challenges of Temporary Organizations, published in 2015 by Cambridge University Press and winning the 2016 PMI Book of the Year award.

To view other works by Prof Lundin, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at http://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/rolf-a-lundin/

 

 

The Benefits of Stakeholders

 

Applying Earned Benefit Management

SERIES ARTICLE

By Crispin (“Kik”) Piney, PgMP, PfMP

Southern France

 



This article builds on the ideas described earlier in this series, and applies the Benefits Map to provide a more detailed stakeholder analysis and ensure alignment between benefits, stakeholder engagement, and strategy.

 

Introduction: Program Stakeholders

However good the strategy, planning, and general governance, a program can only succeed with the active support of key stakeholders. Even when the key stakeholders have been correctly identified, one common mistake is to focus only on their principal or most obvious relationship with the program. Although this narrow focus may be a valid approach for projects, it is insufficient for programs due to the complex interactions between the program components.

The current article will explain how to apply the Benefits Map and the assocated algorithms to broaden the initial analysis of the stakeholders’ principal focus to include their extended impact on other areas of the program.

Link to Previous Articles

Earlier articles in this series [Piney 2018b, Piney 2018c, Piney 2018d, Piney 2018e, Piney 2018f] explained how to apply the Earned Benefit cost and benefit evaluation algorithms to a representative case study.

The current article changes topic, away from finance and towards people

In order to allow this article to be understood independently of the earlier ones in the series, some reminders are provided below, plus an overview of the case study,  prior to addressing the current topic of extended stakeholder analysis.

Reminder on Benefits Realization Maps

A Benefits Realization Map (BRM) illustrates how to make the benefits happen. The BRM for the case study is shown in Figure 1.

BRMs can be developed in two steps, as follows:

Top-Down Strategy Decomposition

Once the anticipated benefits have been defined by the strategic sponsor, you need to determine all of the steps that are required for delivering this result, as well as their interdependencies, thereby allowing you to identify the necessary component projects (“initiatives”). The links from each logical step to the next are quantified based on their relative importance for delivering the benefits (the “contribution fraction” for the link).

The Benefits Allotment Routine (BAR) uses the forecast benefit value of the strategic objectives in conjunction with the link contribution fractions to calculate the contribution to the anticipated benefits of every node in the BRM. In particular, the BAR provides the contribution to the anticipated benefits of each component project.

Because of the way the BRM is drawn with the strategic outcomes on the right and the component projects on the left, this top-down approach is also characterized as “right-to-left”.

Similarly, the bottom-up approach is also known as “left-to-right”.

Bottom-Up Component Evaluation

Once the full set of parameters that define the model is known (predicted benefits, estimated cost per initiative, and the structure of the benefits map including the links and their contribution fractions), no additional assumptions on the model are required in order to evaluate to cost of each intermediate node in the model. The “Break Even Everywhere Routine” (the BEER) provides the additional link parameters (the “allocation fractions”) required for calculating the corresponding cost of each node based on the cost of the initiatives and the structure of the map.

The BAR and the BEER

It is important to understand the way in which the model works:

The BAR – by applying the contribution fractions – can be used to evaluate the top-down effect of nodes across the BRM and diffuse values from right to left. Although the BAR algorithm was initially applied to the contributions, it can also be used to diffuse any other program-related values across the model from right to left.

Due to the way in which the BEER was specified, the allocation fractions provide the means for distributing not only costs but also other quantities (such as node Earned Benefit) across the map from the initiatives (on the left in the BRM) towards the strategic outcomes (on the right).

In general, therefore, the strategic effects diffuse from right to left, according to the BAR. Tactical activities affect downstream nodes, from left to right, based on the BEER.

These features are fundamental to the ideas developed in the current article.

These ideas will be applied to provide a benefits-related stakeholder analysis on the ongoing case study.

The Case Study for the Current Article

The business objective of the program in this example is to increase profits for an organization in the area of customer service. The premise of the case study in that strategic analysis by senior management has shown that increased customer satisfaction with after-sales support enhances business results and has the potential for delivering additional revenue of €300,000 per annum compared with the current level of business, but that this service will also lead to an increase in operational costs amounting to 25% of the corresponding financial improvement, thereby reducing the net benefit by that amount.

In the previous articles, the steps to achieving the business objective were developed and quantified, all the way back from the required strategic outcome across to identifying the required projects. The corresponding BRM for this program, including the financial numbers and allocation fractions mentioned above, is shown in Figure 1.

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

How to cite this article: Piney, C. (2018). The Benefits of Stakeholders, Series on Applying Earned Benefit Management, PM World Journal, Vol. VII, Issue XI – November. Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/pmwj76-Nov2018-Piney-Benefits-series-part-6-Benefits-of-Stakeholders.pdf

 



About the Author


Crispin Piney

France

 

 

After many years managing international IT projects within large corporations, Crispin (“Kik”) Piney, B.Sc., PgMP is now a freelance project management consultant based in the South of France. At present, his main areas of focus are risk management, integrated Portfolio, Program and Project management, scope management and organizational maturity, as well as time and cost control. He has developed advanced training courses on these topics, which he delivers in English and in French to international audiences from various industries. In the consultancy area, he has developed and delivered a practical project management maturity analysis and action-planning consultancy package.

Kik has carried out work for PMI on the first Edition of the Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3™) as well as participating actively in fourth edition of the Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge and was also vice-chairman of the Translation Verification Committee for the Third Edition. He was a significant contributor to the second edition of both PMI’s Standard for Program Management as well as the Standard for Portfolio Management. In 2008, he was the first person in France to receive PMI’s PgMP® credential; he was also the first recipient in France of the PfMP® credential. He is co-author of PMI’s Practice Standard for Risk Management. He collaborates with David Hillson (the “Risk Doctor”) by translating his monthly risk briefings into French. He has presented at a number of recent PMI conferences and published formal papers.

Kik Piney is the author of the book Earned Benefit Program Management, Aligning, Realizing and Sustaining Strategy, published by CRC Press in 2018

Kik Piney can be contacted at [email protected].

To view other works by Kik Piney, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at http://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/crispin-kik-piney/

 

 

Bringing Strangers into the Project

 

Project Business Management

SERIES ARTICLE

By Oliver F. Lehmann

Munich, Germany

 


 

“An organization’s ability to learn, and translate that learning
into action rapidly, is the ultimate competitive advantage.”
Jack Welch

Summary

Project management is changing from an internal cross-functional discipline into a cross-organizational business discipline. Project managers today must ever more tap the assets of other business entities, such as vendor companies and freelancers and turn them into project resources to develop the project performance and agility that internal resources alone can no longer deliver.

The lack of education and literature on the topic makes this transformation very difficult for the people involved and bears the risk of costly errors.

 

Delphine’s Story

In my last article[1] in the Project Business Management series in PM World Journal, I told the story of Jack Miller, who had changed job. So far, he had been doing internal projects, but his new employer was a company that generates its income through customer projects, and Jack was surprised at the vastly different requirements that he needed to meet, and for which he was not prepared at all.

Jack had a colleague and friend over many years, Delphine Smith[2], who stayed in the company, when he had to leave.

In the following months, Delphine also saw major changes happening to her work; changing from doing cross-functional projects with internal projects to cross-corporate projects with external resources. In essence, she experienced the same story but from a different standpoint and if only she had been prepared for the changes to come, she would have been able to cope with them, but she was not.

The Trend Towards Buy over Make

In previous articles in the Project Business Management series, I showed that there is an observable trend from internal projects to projects under contract. In a growing number of projects,  two or more organizations work together to achieve the project results, commonly in customer-contractor business relationships, in which the contractor does work for the customer and gets paid in return.

This development splits the project management discipline into two groups:

  • Project manager on customer side, using external resources and paying for them.
  • Project managers on contractor side, whose job it is to bring money home with projects.

Figure 1: The trend from internal, cross-functional project management to cross-organizational project business management doubles (or multiplies) project manager functions.

Figure 1 depicts this split inside the profession as a consequence of the trend towards customer projects.

The two types of project managers have to meet different requirements:

  • The first type of project managers takes over internal projects and procures the services from vendors. They must ensure that the support from the vendors is what is expected and that inside a project supply network (PSN), all parties follow a principle of “Completing over competing”, acting as partners, not as parties.
  • The second type of project managers takes over customer projects. Project Business Management for them means predominantly “bringing money home with projects” and making the customer happy.

This article will focus on the first group, the experiences of the second were the topic of the previous article in this series[3].

There are also project managers who act as “in-betweeners” in organizations such as prime contractors. Their organizations are both at the same time, contractors to customers and clients of sub-contractors.

Sitting between the tiers can be a lucrative position, but it can also be a commercial disaster. Wherever one is sitting in project business, one should remain acutely aware that project business is high risk business for all parties involved.

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

Editor’s note: This series of articles is by Oliver Lehmann, author of the book “Project Business Management” (ISBN 9781138197503), published by Auerbach / Taylor & Francis in 2018. See author profile below.

How to cite this article: Lehmann, O. (2018). Bringing Strangers into the Project; Series on Project Business Management; PM World Journal, Vol. VII, Issue XI – November.  Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/pmwj76-Nov2018-Lehmann-Doing-Projects-with-Contractors2.pdf

 


 
About the Author   


Oliver F. Lehmann

Munich, Germany

 

 

 

Oliver F. Lehmann, MSc., PMP, is a project management author, consultant, speaker and teacher. He studied Linguistics, Literature and History at the University of Stuttgart and Project Management at the University of Liverpool, UK, where he holds a Master of Science Degree. Oliver has trained thousands of project managers in Europe, USA and Asia in methodological project management with a focus on certification preparation. In addition, he is a visiting lecturer at the Technical University of Munich.

He has been a member and volunteer at PMI, the Project Management Institute, since 1998, and served five years as the President of the PMI Southern Germany Chapter until April 2018. Between 2004 and 2006, he contributed to PMI’s PM Network magazine, for which he provided a monthly editorial on page 1 called “Launch”, analyzing troubled projects around the world.

Oliver believes in three driving forces for personal improvement in project management: formal learning, experience and observations. He resides in Munich, Bavaria, Germany and can be contacted at [email protected].

Oliver Lehmann is the author of “Situational Project Management: The Dynamics of Success and Failure” (ISBN 9781498722612), published by Auerbach / Taylor & Francis in 2016 and ofProject Business Management” (ISBN 9781138197503), published by Auerbach / Taylor & Francis in 2018.

To view other works by Oliver Lehmann, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at https://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/oliver-f-lehmann/

 

[1] (Lehmann, 2018b)

[2] Name changed

[3] (Lehmann, 2018b)

 

 

Quantitative Risk Analysis

Why bother?

 

Risk Doctor Briefing

SERIES ARTICLE

Dr David Hulett

California, USA

 


 

Many projects overrun their budget and schedule targets, often due to the following causes:

  • Project plans are biased, usually towards being over-optimistic.
  • Project plans do not fully reflect the impact of uncertainty and risks (including both project-specific risks and systemic risks).

Fortunately, quantitative risk analysis can help to address both of these, through a two-stage analysis. The first stage addresses the two main causes of unrealistic plans:

  • Optimistic or biased plans. All project plans include estimates of cost and duration which are based on assumptions, and these are often optimistic. For instance, we might assume that problems that affected previous similar projects will not happen on this project. Or we might produce unrealistic estimates because of pressure from the customer, management, the competition and the economics of the project, which usually results in optimistic plans that may be unachievable. Ideally, if we could challenge assumptions and remove the effect of optimism or bias, we could ensure that the project starts with a realistic baseline plan. However, it may not be possible to counter estimating bias fully, so the uncertainty component of the risk analysis will usually include a correction for optimistic estimates of cost or duration.
  • Uncertainty and risks. Project managers must recognize that estimates of cost or duration are uncertain due to inherent variability, estimating error and estimating bias (if it exists). In addition, there are both project-specific and systemic risks that may affect achievement of schedule and cost targets. These risks must be identified and quantified, including their probability, impact and which activities they will affect. When both uncertainty and risks are incorporated in the risk analysis model, results obtained using Monte Carlo simulation will indicate a range of possible project outcomes, including the result that can be expected in the absence of actively managing the risks. These results are more realistic (and usually more pessimistic) for both finish date and total cost, but they are not the end of the story.

In the second stage, quantitative risk analysis results can be used to guide proactive risk management actions. Risks can be prioritized using the outputs of a risk analysis model, which indicate where risk management action would lead to the greatest improvement in project outcome. The prioritized risk list forms the input to a workshop or a set of interviews, where effective risk responses can be developed. Implementing these responses will result in improved project outcomes, although there will probably still be residual risks that need further action, since relatively few risks can be managed completely.

Overall, quantitative risk analysis helps the project manager in at least two ways:

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

How to cite this article: Hulett, D. (2018). Quantitative Risk Analysis: Why bother? Risk Doctor Briefing; PM World Journal, Vol. VII, Issue XI – November.  Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/pmwj76-Nov2018-Hulett-quantitative-risk-analysis-series-article.pdf

 



About the Author


David T. Hulett, Ph.D., FAACE

Hulett & Associates, LLC
California, USA

 

 

David Hulett is recognized as a leader in project cost and schedule risk analysis and project scheduling.  He has conducted many risk analyses focusing on quantifying the risks and their implications for project cost and schedule estimating and mitigation, and many schedule assessments.  He is a Fellow of AACE International.

Clients of Hulett & Associates, LLC represent many industries and are in the US, Canada, Europe, South America, South-East Asia and the Middle East.

Dr. Hulett is well-known as a leader in the Project Management Institute (PMI) for project risk standards, including leading the risk management chapter in the Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) and the Practice Standard for Project Risk Management. He is the author of Recommended Practice 57R-09 published in 2011 by the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) International on Integrated Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis and 85R-14 Use of Decision Trees in Decision Making.

Dr. Hulett has published Practical Schedule Risk Analysis (Gower, 2009) for which he was recognized by the PMI College of Scheduling for “contributions to the scheduling profession” in 2010 and Integrated Cost- Schedule Risk Analysis (Gower, 2011).

Dr. Hulett has held strategic planning positions at TOSCO, an oil shale company, and at TRW in aerospace and defense.  In the Federal government, Dr. Hulett managed offices in the Federal Energy Agency (FEA), the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).  He was also an economist with the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.  Dr. Hulett was an Instructor in the Economics Department at Harvard University.  His Ph.D. in Economics is from Stanford University and his B.A. is from the Special Program for Public and International Affairs (Woodrow Wilson School) at Princeton University.

David Hulett can be contacted at [email protected]

 

 

Project Estimating Process

 

Project Workflow Management

SERIES ARTICLE

By Dan Epstein

New York, USA

 



Note:
 This article is based on the book Project Workflow Management: A Business Process Approach by Dan Epstein and Rich Maltzman, published by J Ross Publishing in 2014. The book describes PM Workflow® framework, the step-by-step workflow guiding approach using project management methods, practical techniques, examples, tools, templates, checklists and tips, teaching readers the detailed and necessary knowledge required to manage project “hands-on” from scratch, instructing what to do, when to do and how to do it up to delivering the completed and tested product or service to your client.

The project workflow framework is the result of Dan’s research into the subject, having the following objectives:

  1. Create the virtually error-free project management environment to ensure significant reduction of project costs
  2. Reduce demands for highly qualified project managers using the step-by-step workflow guiding approach.

While PM Workflow® is the continuous multi-threaded process, where all PM processes are integrated together, this article will attempt to describe the estimating group of processes as a stand-alone group that can be used independently outside of PM Workflow® framework. It will be difficult in this article not to venture into processes outside of the current subject, such as planning, quality, communications and other management processes, so they will be just mentioned. However, to get full benefit and the error free project management environment, the complete implementation of PM Workflow® is required. In order to understand how PM Workflow® ensures this environment, I strongly recommend reading my article Project Workflow Framework – An Error Free Project Management Environment in the PMI affiliated projectmanagement.com (https://www.projectmanagement.com/articles/330037/Project-Workflow-Framework–An-Error-Free-Project-Management-Environment)

The article above provides the overview and explanation of how the project workflow framework works and achieves the established objectives.

For more information, please visit my website www.pm-workflow.com

 

Purpose

The purpose of the Estimating process is to describe the steps for developing size, effort, cost, schedule and critical resource estimates for a project throughout its life cycle. P12A and P12B have essentially the same content, but used for different purposes and placed in different areas of the Planning Frame.

Accuracy of Estimates

Accuracy of estimates depends on:

  • Level of detail – i. e. the degree of decomposition of the Work Breakdown Structure.
  • Risk assessment results and the remediation plan.
  • Quality of requirements.
  • The point in the project lifecycle where the estimating took place.
  • The estimator’s experience.
  • The estimating method.

There are three levels of estimating accuracy:

  1. Ballpark estimates – Ballpark or initial estimates are made when little information about the project is available and there are no detailed requirements, except the initial project request. In order to do estimates, the delivery team must be familiar with the similar types of project and the technology used. This type of estimate is also done when significant risks are involved. The accuracy range of the ballpark estimates has a range of -25% to +75%.
  1. Preliminary estimates – Preliminary estimates are performed immediately after completion of Business Requirements. Those estimates heavily depend on the team’s familiarity with similar projects, business, and technology with no high risks present. A high level WBS should be used to do this type of estimating. Preliminary estimates are used to establish the preliminary project budget and are often used to establish initial project funding. The accuracy range of preliminary estimates never exceeds -10% to +25%.
  1. Accurate estimates. – Accurate or definitive estimates are prepared from a well-defined detailed data and WBS, using techniques described below. This type of estimate is done just before the project plan package is created or updated. The estimate may not cover the entire project, but only the well-defined next stage of the project plan. It is not usually possible to do accurate estimates for the entire project, because the lack of detailed information for the required activities in the distant future. The best accuracy that can ever be achieved has a range of –5% to +10%.

Note: In some organizations, where delivery managers with no real project management experience are constantly under pressure from senior management, the PM may face demands for accuracy of estimates better than -5% to +10% or even +– 0%. Since this is an unrealistic and unachievable accuracy, project managers are forced to use tricks to match real cost to estimates. Since the project scope changes are inherent in all projects, one of those tricks is overestimating or underestimating scope changes to keep the visibility of the overall project cost within the required accuracy of estimates in accordance with managers’ demands. Another trick is using reserve activities for each group of tasks, which are adjusted as necessary to match costs to estimates. In fact, most managers are aware of this, but due to demands from senior management or temptations to report excellent achievements to the CEO, they keep of this practice ’under wraps’. We assert that these tricks provide no real benefits whatsoever and in fact threaten the project, and even may cost the project manager his/her job.

More…

To read entire article (click here)

 

Editor’s note: This series of articles is based on the book Project Workflow Management: A Business Process Approach by Dan Epstein and Rich Maltzman, published by J Ross Publishing in 2014. The book describes the PM Workflow® framework, a step-by-step approach using project management methods, practical techniques, examples, tools, templates, checklists and tips.  The book teaches readers how to manage a project “hands-on” from scratch, including what to do, when and how to do it up to delivering a completed and tested product or service to a client.

How to cite this article: Epstein, D. (2018). Project Estimating Process, Series on Project Workflow Management; PM World Journal, Volume VII, Issue X – October. Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/pmwj76-Nov2018-Epstein-estimating-process-series-article.pdf

 



About the Author


Dan Epstein

New York, USA

 

 

 

Dan Epstein combines over 25 years of experience in the project management field and the best practices area, working for several major Canadian and U.S. corporations, as well as 4 years teaching university students project management and several software engineering subjects. He received a master’s degree in electrical engineering from the LITMO University in Leningrad (today St. Petersburg, Russia), was certified as a Professional Engineer in 1983 by the Canadian Association of Professional Engineers – Ontario, and earned a master’s certificate in project management from George Washington University in 2000 and the Project Management Professional (PMP®) certification from the Project Management Institute (PMI®) in 2001.

Throughout his career, Dan managed multiple complex interdependent projects and programs, traveling extensively worldwide. He possesses multi-industry business analysis, process reengineering, best practices, professional training development and technical background in a wide array of technologies. In 2004 Dan was a keynote speaker and educator at the PMI-sponsored International Project Management Symposium in Central Asia. He published several articles and gave published interviews on several occasions. In the summer of 2008 he published “Methodology for Project Managers Education” in a university journal. His book, Project Workflow Management – The Business Process Approach, written in cooperation with Rich Maltzman, was published in 2014 by J. Ross Publishing.

Dan first started development of the Project Management Workflow in 2003, and it was used in a project management training course. Later this early version of the methodology was used for teaching project management classes at universities in the 2003–2005 school years. Later on, working in the best practices area, the author entertained the idea of presenting project management as a single multithreaded business workflow. In 2007–2008 the idea was further refined when teaching the project management class at a university.

Dan is an author of many publications in professional magazines, speaker at the international presentations, a guest at podcasts, etc. The Project Management Institute’s (PMI) assessment of his book says: “Contains a holistic learning environment so that after finishing the book and assignments, new project managers or students will possess enough knowledge to confidently manage small to medium projects”. The full list of his publications and appearances can be found at the website www.pm-workflow.com in the Publications tab.

Dan can be contacted at [email protected].

To see other works by Dan Epstein, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at https://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/dan-epstein/

 

 

Scope Change Control Process

 

Project Workflow Management

SERIES ARTICLE

By Dan Epstein

New York, USA

 



Note:
 This article is based on the book Project Workflow Management: A Business Process Approach by Dan Epstein and Rich Maltzman, published by J Ross Publishing in 2014. The book describes PM Workflow® framework, the step-by-step workflow guiding approach using project management methods, practical techniques, examples, tools, templates, checklists and tips, teaching readers the detailed and necessary knowledge required to manage project “hands-on” from scratch, instructing what to do, when to do and how to do it up to delivering the completed and tested product or service to your client.

The project workflow framework is the result of Dan’s research into the subject, having the following objectives:

1. Create the virtually error-free project management environment to ensure significant reduction of project costs
2. Reduce demands for highly qualified project managers using
the step-by-step workflow guiding approach.

While PM Workflow® is the continuous multi-threaded process, where all PM processes are integrated together, this article will attempt to describe the Scope Change Control group of processes as a stand-alone group of processes that can be used independently outside of PM Workflow® framework. It will be difficult in this article not to venture into processes outside of scope change processes, such as planning, quality, communications and other management processes, so they will be just mentioned. However, to get full benefit and the error free project management environment, the complete implementation of PM Workflow® is required.

In order to understand how PM Workflow® ensures this environment, I strongly recommend reading my article Project Workflow Framework – An Error Free Project Management Environment. in the PMI affiliated projectmanagement.com (https://www.projectmanagement.com/articles/330037/Project-Workflow-Framework–An-Error-Free-Project-Management-Environment)

The article above provides the overview and explanation of how the project workflow framework works and achieves the established objectives.

For more information, please visit my website www.pm-workflow.com


Scope Change Control (P7)

Purpose

The project scope, as opposed to the product scope, is the work required to deliver the solution to the client. The product scope is the scope of the business solution, described in the Business Requirements Document. Any change in business requirements is a product scope change, which will lead to the change in the required project work. Usually, the project scope change term is used for business requirements changes.

The purpose of the Project Scope Change Control process (P7) is to manage changes to business requirements and design and their effects on the project. The P7 process is also used when changes are required in the project cost and schedule due to the project’s poor performance. The Project Scope Change Control process ensures that:

  • Changes are identified, analyzed, approved, planned and implemented.
  • Project stakeholders are fully aware of all changes
  • All Scope Change Requests are documented and the approved changes are entered into the project plan

The Scope Change Control process is activated when the request to issue a new Scope Change Request (SCR) is initiated by any of the following:

  • Client’s team member
  • Delivery team member
  • Any stakeholder
  • Issue Management process
  • Legally mandated requests

In order to get scope change analyzed, planned and implemented, the Scope Change Control process interacts with other processes in all project process groups (frames).

Scope Change Control Process

The Scope Change Control process describes the interaction details between the delivery and client teams at the time when a project scope change is required.

It happens too often that clients directly request the delivery team members to implement scope changes, rather than following the scope change process. This is especially true, but no less insidious, when the scope changes are small. If team members accept it for implementation, the consequences of such requests – also called collectively “scope creep” – may be very grave and may cause one or more of the following problems:

  • Undocumented changes that could have significant technical, business, safety, environmental, social, and/or legal implications.
  • The scope change is implemented without the scope change requirements analysis.
  • The cost of implementing the change is not covered by the existing budget.
  • The implementation of the change is not incorporated in the project plan. Due to project dependencies many other project activities may slip the schedule or require extra work as a consequence of the changes. Even if the change takes only a few hours to implement, there may be many other project tasks delayed hours each. This delay may easily cascade and be multiplied several times in the overall effort to incorporate the change, causing significant overall project slippage. The later in the project cycle the change is requested, the greater the cost and the greater the overall impact to the project.
  • If the impact of the scope change on other tasks and projects is not thoroughly investigated, this may affect not only the project, but the steady-state operation of the organization.

Therefore, the Project Scope Change process must be strictly followed by both the client and delivery team members. This must be made very clear to everybody. Rules for the enforcement of the Scope Change Process must be included in the Statement of Work. Also, the delivery team members must be specifically instructed not to accept new change requests or modifications from anybody except project manager or specifically authorized personnel.

Considering that some clients and delivery team members may find it difficult to follow the change request process flow chart at Figure 10-1, the following description attempts to resolve this potential issue. This description should be included in the Statement of Work. The process comprises the following steps:

More…

To read entire article (click here)

 

Editor’s note: This series of articles is based on the book Project Workflow Management: A Business Process Approach by Dan Epstein and Rich Maltzman, published by J Ross Publishing in 2014. The book describes the PM Workflow® framework, a step-by-step approach using project management methods, practical techniques, examples, tools, templates, checklists and tips.  The book teaches readers how to manage a project “hands-on” from scratch, including what to do, when and how to do it up to delivering a completed and tested product or service to a client.

How to cite this article: Epstein, D. (2018). Scope Change Control Process, Series on Project Workflow Management; PM World Journal, Volume VII, Issue X – October. Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/pmwj75-Oct2018-Epstein-scope-change-control-process-series-article.pdf

 



About the Author


Dan Epstein

New York, USA

 

 

 

Dan Epstein combines over 25 years of experience in the project management field and the best practices area, working for several major Canadian and U.S. corporations, as well as 4 years teaching university students project management and several software engineering subjects. He received a master’s degree in electrical engineering from the LITMO University in Leningrad (today St. Petersburg, Russia), was certified as a Professional Engineer in 1983 by the Canadian Association of Professional Engineers – Ontario, and earned a master’s certificate in project management from George Washington University in 2000 and the Project Management Professional (PMP®) certification from the Project Management Institute (PMI®) in 2001.

Throughout his career, Dan managed multiple complex interdependent projects and programs, traveling extensively worldwide. He possesses multi-industry business analysis, process reengineering, best practices, professional training development and technical background in a wide array of technologies. In 2004 Dan was a keynote speaker and educator at the PMI-sponsored International Project Management Symposium in Central Asia. He published several articles and gave published interviews on several occasions. In the summer of 2008 he published “Methodology for Project Managers Education” in a university journal. His book, Project Workflow Management – The Business Process Approach, written in cooperation with Rich Maltzman, was published in 2014 by J. Ross Publishing.

Dan first started development of the Project Management Workflow in 2003, and it was used in a project management training course. Later this early version of the methodology was used for teaching project management classes at universities in the 2003–2005 school years. Later on, working in the best practices area, the author entertained the idea of presenting project management as a single multithreaded business workflow. In 2007–2008 the idea was further refined when teaching the project management class at a university.

Dan is an author of many publications in professional magazines, speaker at the international presentations, a guest at podcasts, etc. The Project Management Institute’s (PMI) assessment of his book says: “Contains a holistic learning environment so that after finishing the book and assignments, new project managers or students will possess enough knowledge to confidently manage small to medium projects”. The full list of his publications and appearances can be found at the website www.pm-workflow.com in the Publications tab.

Dan can be contacted at [email protected].

To see other works by Dan Epstein, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at https://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/dan-epstein/

 

 

Projects as Profit Centers

Must We Go Back to Square One Again?

 

Project Business Management

SERIES ARTICLE

By Oliver F. Lehmann

Munich, Germany

 



Summary

The growing percentage of project managers in customer projects over those in internal projects is a strong reason for practitioners to follow the demand for professionals and change inside the profession.

However, they should  be aware that this change brings a number of new challenges upon them for which they may not be sufficiently prepared.

 

Jack Miller[1] had been an internal project manager for more than 15 years.

He had introduced hardware and software in the company, in which he was employed. He developed new products and services and brought major change to the organization. Being on time, on budget and delivering what was expected were among the criteria against which he was measured. Others were organizational disruptions—the projects were essentially cost centers, the profit was made by others in the company—and how well or poorly the projects integrated themselves into the functional organization.

Image 1: Project managers in internal projects (cost centers) and customer projects (profit centers) have different core tasks.

Mao Zedong once famously said, “A revolutionary must move among the people as a fish swims in the water”, and Jack, considering a project manager a kind of disruptive guerrilla, moved inside his organization with confidence and success. He furthermore changed this organization: Over the years, it had turned into a modern, effective, and highly efficient operational powerhouse, and this was to a major part owed to his work. He considered himself a man of success.

Then he had to change his job. In his next company, he was again project manager, but was assigned with managing contractual projects. The company made money by performing projects for customers, and Jack was tasked with doing one of them. For some customers, the company provided resources that had to be integrated with the customer’s own resources. In others, the customer actually farmed out  the entire project to a contractor. In some projects, his new company was just the only contractor. In others, it was part of complex Project Supply Networks (PSNs) that no one fully overlooked, understood, and managed. These PSNs were continuously changing, and a company that was a subcontractor today could later turn into the role of a prime contractor, and vice versa.

Jack took over a complete project performed directly for a customer.

Jack felt well prepared for the new project. He had enjoyed a good qualification in project management, was even certified, and had many years of experience. It came as a shock for him, that he found out that he was not well qualified for them at all. He faced many new and unexpected problems, among them:

  • The unknown customer organization: Jack’s success so far was built on his great understanding of the company and its structures. He had been employed there for years and was familiar with the people involved. He had observed their interests, desires and fears and was aware of friendships but also hostilities among employees and how these led to good and bad decisions. When he needed support, he knew where to find it. He securely navigated in the complex system of trust and distrust that any organization is.In the customer organization, to whose project he was assigned, he had no such knowledge. He had to learn through trial and error the lines of direction and communications, threatened the project by trusting the wrong people and lost time and opportunities by distrusting people, who would have been worthy of his trust. He failed to see the build-up of resistance by customer employees as much as he failed to utilize support that would have been at hand for him.

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

Editor’s note: This series of articles is by Oliver Lehmann, author of the book “Project Business Management” (ISBN 9781138197503), published by Auerbach / Taylor & Francis in 2018.  See author profile below.

How to cite this article: Lehmann, O. (2018). Projects as Profit Centers—Must We Go Back to Square One Again? Series on Project Business Management; PM World Journal, Volume VII, Issue X – October.  Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/pmwj75-Oct2018-Lehmann-Projects-as-Profit-Centers-series-article.pdf

 


 
About the Author


Oliver F. Lehmann

Munich, Germany

 

 


Oliver F. Lehmann
, MSc., PMP, is a project management author, consultant, speaker and teacher. He studied Linguistics, Literature and History at the University of Stuttgart and Project Management at the University of Liverpool, UK, where he holds a Master of Science Degree. Oliver has trained thousands of project managers in Europe, USA and Asia in methodological project management with a focus on certification preparation. In addition, he is a visiting lecturer at the Technical University of Munich.

He has been a member and volunteer at PMI, the Project Management Institute, since 1998, and served five years as the President of the PMI Southern Germany Chapter until April 2018. Between 2004 and 2006, he contributed to PMI’s PM Network magazine, for which he provided a monthly editorial on page 1 called “Launch”, analyzing troubled projects around the world.

Oliver believes in three driving forces for personal improvement in project management: formal learning, experience and observations. He resides in Munich, Bavaria, Germany and can be contacted at [email protected].

Oliver Lehmann is the author of “Situational Project Management: The Dynamics of Success and Failure” (ISBN 9781498722612), published by Auerbach / Taylor & Francis in 2016, andProject Business Management” (ISBN 9781138197503), published by Auerbach / Taylor & Francis in 2018.

To view other works by Oliver Lehmann, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at https://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/oliver-f-lehmann/

 

[1] This is the case story of a seminar attendee before he attended one of my classes. The name is changed.

 

Human Centered Management

A Systemic Interrelation

 

Advances in Project Management Series

SERIES ARTICLE

By Dr. Roland Bardy

Mannheim, Germany

 



Management and leadership have been defined in terms of objectives, tasks, traits, behaviour, motivation, interaction patterns, role relationships or occupation of an administrative position. Most definitions reflect the assumption that it involves a process whereby intentional influence is exerted over people to guide, structure and facilitate activities and relations in a group or organization. The eminent management scholar Gary Yukl has said that true leadership only occurs when people are motivated to do what is ethical and beneficial for an organization – but he admits that leaders will more often than not attempt to merely gain personal benefits at the expense of their followers, and that, despite good intentions, the actions of a leader are sometimes more detrimental than beneficial for the followers (Yukl 2010, p. 23).

This raises the question of whether there is a divisive difference between leadership and management – with the obvious conclusion that there is an overlap between the two. The overlap will be wider or narrower depending on the person who executes the position. One definition which shows this best is by viewing management as an authority relationship directed at delivering a specific routine, with leadership being a multidirectional influence with the mutual purpose of accomplishing real change (Rost 1991).

But, as has been pointed out by Bowie and Werhane (2005), there is an additional issue that comes into view when looking at who manages a manager. A manager typically works for another, and even top managers serve as agents, for the stockholders of a business or for the elected officers in a public administration entity. This interrelation has a systemic aspect, as it is not just those connections that are intertwined but there is a definite intertwinement as well between the various perspectives that integrate management – and, since it is all about the nexus between humans, we should talk about human centered management.

The ideas explored in this article are based on a new book “Rethinking Leadership: A Human Centered Approach to Management Ethics” (Bardy, 2018) which lays a foundation for what may be called a framework for delineating human centered management. The book proposes that human centered management is determined by a systemic connection between various perspectives. Intertwining management and the human centered paradigm is much more than just a two-way relationship. It is a systemic approach that combines ethics, social relations, economic effects, and institutional conceptions. It is necessary then to embrace all these interrelations in order to validate the analysis. Systemic interconnectedness is an entity in itself, and it is to be studied on its own (Jiliberto 2004). So, in order to attain a characterization of human centered management, the systemic view combines the ethical, social, economic, and institutional perspectives.

The four perspectives influence each other within a systemic interrelation as illustrated in Exhibit 1, and this sequence of mutual effects and feedbacks is a system of its own.

More…

To read entire article, click here

 

Editor’s note: The Advances in Project Management series includes articles by authors of program and project management books published by Routledge worldwide. Information about Routledge project management books can be found here.

How to cite this paper: Bardy, R. (2018). Human Centered Management: A Systemic Interrelation, PM World Journal, Volume VII, Issue X – October. Available online at https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/pmwj75-Oct2018-Bardy-human-centered-management-article.pdf

 



About the Author


Dr. Roland Bardy

Mannheim, Germany

 

 


Dr. Roland Bardy
is owner of BardyConsult in Mannheim, Germany, where he mainly engages in management education, and he serves as Executive Professor of General Management and Leadership at Florida Gulf Coast University. Born in Vienna, Austria, in 1942, he received his M.B.A. degree there in 1969, and his Ph.D. degree (in econometrics) from Heidelberg University, Germany, in 1974. He worked in Finance and Administration of BASF SE, the German multinational chemicals manufacturer, for about thirty years until 1999.  Then he took up teaching and consulting at Goizueta Business School, Emory University, at Fachhochschule Worms (Germany) and in various Swiss and Austrian MBA-programs. His areas are accounting, supply chain management, leadership and business ethics. He promotes the philosophy and implementation of responsible development, accountability and sustainability through, among others, the Wittenberg Center for Global Ethics (www.wcge.org). Residing both in Mannheim, Germany, and in Naples, Florida, Roland Bardy is privileged to experience both U.S. and European developments in business and academia. He has published, in English and in German, on management accounting, leadership and business ethics.

Roland Bardy is the author of the book Rethinking Leadership: A Human Centered Approach to Management Ethics, published by Routledge in April 2018.  To learn about the book click here.