Welcome to the June PMWJ

Welcome to the June 2016 Edition of the PM World Journal

David Pells
Managing Editor

Addison, Texas, USA


Welcome to the June 2016 edition of the PM World Journal (PMWJ). This 47th edition of the Journal contains 30 original articles, papers and other works by 44 different authors representing 14 different countries. News articles about projects and project management around the world are also included. We think the international content of the PMWJ sets it apart; we hope you agree. Since the primary mission of the journal is to support the global sharing of knowledge, please share this month’s edition with others in your network, wherever they may be.

This month in the Journal

This is another full edition with some excellent and interesting contributions from around the world. We start with a Letter to the Editor from UAE where a reader takes issue with a paper in the May PMWJ.

This edition contains a record 10 Featured Papers by authors in nine countries. Dr. Lev Virine, Michael Trumper and Eugenia Virine in Canada have authored another highly interesting (and entertaining) paper titled “What to do about risk.” If you think you’ve read all there is to know about risk, you might want to reconsider and read this paper. Emils Pulmanis in Riga has authored another paper titled “Project Management Application in the Port Development Project in Latvia.” Emils is fast becoming an expert on project management in development; this paper reflects his increasing knowledge and experience. Isaac Abuya in Kenya is back with another important paper with relevance for project managers in his country and many others, titled “Project Fraud: Conceptualization, Determinants and Schemes.” Many of us have seen some of these schemes on real projects.

Amna Shahid, Saif ul Amin and Asiya Sohail in Pakistan have contributed a paper titled “An Investigation into the Relationship between Horizontal Violence and Project Success: Emotional Intelligence Mediating Role.” Samuel Omojola Oludare and Olugboyega Oluseye in Nigeria are the authors of “Quality management practices among construction firms in Lagos State, Nigeria.” Abid Tabassum in Canada has authored a similar paper, “Life Cycle Cost Analysis and Cost Savings for Road Projects.” While many readers may not see the relevance of these papers for their projects, we provide an important publishing vehicle for project management experts, researchers and practitioners everywhere to share their work. If it helps someone somewhere, we think these works are well worth publishing.

The other four featured papers this month are by authors who are well known to PMWJ readers. Alan Stretton has authored another important work titled “Some consequences of having two co-existing paradigms of project management.” If you are interested in the big picture, the global project management profession, read Alan’s latest contribution. Paul Giammalvo in Indonesia has authored an interesting research paper titled “Project Planner/Scheduler Defined – A Key Word Analysis of Current Job Descriptions as the Basis for Exam and Competency Scoring Models.” This turns out to be useful information, for both employers and professionals. Walt Lipke, earned value and earned schedule expert in the USA, has authored “The Probability of Project Recovery.” So you think your project can recover from cost overruns and schedule slips; probably not! O. Chima Okereke, PhD (Nigeria/UK) has authored another important paper to help his country titled “Developing and Implementing a national strategic change management framework towards the eradication of corruption in Nigeria.”

Series authors David Hillson (UK), Ann Pilkington (UK), and Darrel Hubbard and Dennis Bolles (USA) are back with good new articles in their respective series – risk, communications and enterprise PMOs. Prof Darren Dalcher (UK) has authored another interesting introductory article for Martin Hopkinson’s Advances in Project Management series article, both offering new perspectives on business cases, benefits and value. Martin takes us all back to school with a reminder that net present value analysis really works. Series articles are by global experts so please read these important new contributions this month.


To read entire paper, click here


About the Author


Managing Editor, PMWJ



David L. Pells
is Managing Editor of the PM World Journal, a global eJournal for program and project management, and Executive Director of the PM World Library. He has been an active professional leader in the United States since the 1980s, serving on the board of directors of the Project Management Institute (PMI®) twice. He was founder and chair of the Global Project Management Forum (1995-2000), an annual meeting of leaders of PM associations from around the world. David was awarded PMI’s Person of the Year award in 1998 and Fellow Award, PMI’s highest honor, in 1999. He is also an Honorary Fellow of the Association for Project Management (APM) in the UK; Project Management Associates (PMA – India); and Russian Project Management Association SOVNET. From June 2006 until March 2012, he was the managing editor of the globally acclaimed PM World Today eJournal.

David has more than 35 years of project management related experience on a variety of programs and projects, including engineering, construction, defense, energy, transit, high technology and nuclear security, and project sizes ranging from several thousand to ten billion dollars. His experience has been in both government and private sectors. He occasionally provides high level advisory support for major programs and global organizations. David has published widely, spoken at conferences and events worldwide, and can be contacted at [email protected].

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


Effective Succession Planning


pmwj47-Jun2016-Albrecht-BOOKBook Title:   Effective Succession Planning: Ensuring Effective Leadership Continuity and Building Talent from Within
Author: William J. Rothwell
Publisher: American Management Association
List Price:   $69.95        Format: Hardback
Publication Date:  2016    
ISBN: 978-0-8144-4915-8
Reviewer:     Dale J. Albrecht, MBA, SPHR, SCP
Review Date: June/2016



Succession planning is a critical business topic that can and should be understood from all levels and functions within an organization. People are the lifeblood of our organizations, and they are critical to successful project management just as they are critical to every business function. Effective succession planning addresses an organization’s need for people-continuity much like effective risk management addresses an organization’s need for business-continuity. The 5th edition of Effective Succession Planning by William J. Rothwell (2016) takes a broad and exhaustive approach to the subject.

Overview of Book’s Structure

The book is organized across the lifecycle of succession planning. It builds from establishing a fundamental understanding of succession planning to defining and implement effective organizational processes. The author then takes the reader further through the maturation process by articulating an approach to assessing the organization, and then he closes the succession lifecycle by focusing on development. The book is thick, but don’t let that scare you. It’s filled with plenty of examples, worksheets, and tools that can be easily applied on the job.

Part I of the book firmly establishes the fundamentals of succession planning. It takes the reader through the establishment of foundational knowledge in language that’s easy to understand and digest. This part of the book is complete with ample vignettes which make comprehending the information very easy.

Part II of the book, in the author’s words “lays the foundation” for succession planning and management. This section of the book contains three chapters that define a process/approach for how to establish succession planning in an organization. You’ll find plenty of advice and guidance on how to build a case for succession planning and how to start and refine a succession planning program.

Part III of the book consists of two chapters that focus exclusively on assessing an organization. The assessments that the author reviews and discusses address the organization and individuals. It is very practically organized into assessing current needs and then assessing future needs.

Part IV of the book is the longest section, and it addresses people development along with various aspects of the on-going operation of a succession planning program. This part of the book is especially useful to practitioners (those who will be stewards of the process) of succession planning.


The four part structure of the book enables a broader audience to find the book useful and educational. If you’re a line manager who would like to understand the basics of succession planning and its value to the business, reading parts I and II would be sufficient. If you’re in a role where you are launching and establishing a succession planning practice, part III will be especially useful. And, if you’re pushing toward succession planning maturity and increased effectiveness, part IV will guide you along the way.


To read entire Book Review, click here


About the Reviewer

Dale J. Albrecht

North Texas, USA



Dale J. Albrecht
is the Human Capital Leader for Rent-A-Center based in Plano, Texas. He is also an Adjunct Professor for Texas Woman’s University in Denton, Texas, and is a doctoral candidate at the Swiss Management Center in Zug Switzerland.

Dale has fulfilled roles in Human Resources Leadership, Education, Leadership Development, Change Management, Performance Consulting, Organizational Design & Effectiveness, Project Management, Engineering, and Technical Support. Prior to working in the field of Human Resources, he started his career in the US Air Force in Satellite Communications. After he left active duty, he worked as an Electronics Communications Field Engineer for a Department of Defense communications contractor. Then he worked as a Technical Project Supervisor for Motorola, Inc. While at Motorola for 15 years his career evolved away from technical roles into people-centered roles in varying human resources capacities. Dale has industry experience in Military, Department of Defense, Telecommunications, Retail, Medical Devices, Manufacturing, and Construction.

Dale is pursuing a Doctoral Degree in Business Administration from the Swiss Management Center in Zug Switzerland. He has a Master’s in Business Administration from Columbia Southern University, with a focus in Human Resource Management. He has a Bachelor’s of Science Degree in Workforce Education & Development from Southern Illinois University, where he graduated Summa Cum Laude and a member of the Golden Key National Honor Society. He holds a certificate in Organizational Development from DePaul University.   In addition to these he is a certified Senior Professional in Human Resources, a SHRM-Senior Certified Professional, a Six Sigma Master Black Belt, and holds a certificate in Project Planning, Analysis and Control from George Washington University.

Email address: [email protected]


Editor’s note: This book review was the result of a partnership between the publisher, PM World and the PMI Dallas Chapter. Authors and publishers provide the books to PM World; books are delivered to the PMI Dallas Chapter, where they are offered free to PMI members to review; book reviews are published in the PM World Journal and PM World Library. PMI Dallas Chapter members can keep the books as well as claim PDUs for PMP recertification when their reviews are published. Chapter members are generally mid-career professionals, the audience for most project management books.

If you are an author or publisher of a project management-related book, and would like the book reviewed through this program, please contact [email protected].


Project Management Report from Istanbul


AfterDynamics 2016 International Project Management Congress”, the speakers explain their points of view

By İpek Sahra Özgüler

Istanbul, Turkey



pmwj47-Jun2016-Ozguler-DYNAMICS2016 LOGO 

After “Dynamics 2016 International Project Management Congress, the speakers explain their points of view


BUGRAHAN SIRIN, Country Dırector, HPP Internatıonal Archıtects:

As an architectural firm, the ultimate output of our production process, which we call design or planning, is a set of blueprints which later leads to the realisation of a built product. Since we have to presume and estimate the situations on paper years or months ago before even the physical activity starts, we highly depend on assumptions and decision processes which we can base our gestures. That process of decision making, which in Turkey in most cases directly relate to a hand full of people at the client side, directly effects the quality of the product. That process has to be managed by professionals who understands the essentials of all parties. This is where we, as architects experience the role of project management tool at most beneficial.

In Dinamikler 2016 conference in Istanbul, Ms.Akin has invited us and two other main parties of a particular real estate development project onto the stage. We, as the architects, the client as the initiator and the general contractor firm as the realisation partner have presented their unique experiences focusing on this built product of AND office building. It was especially very interesting to see how each individual presented the same topic with completely different vocabulary and intonation. It was influential and refreshing. Being closed in your own circle of creativity, once you may loose the connection to that very needed partners you desperately have to cooperate in order to realise your plans.

Both Dinamikler 2016 conference and Ms.Akin as the host of the closing session has proved to remind us a basic virtue; the magical tool of communication.


DENIZ SARAL, PhD, Professor of Business, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, OKAN University:


I looked up this topic recently on PMI’s website and came across two major articles; one by Rita Mulcahy (RMC Project Management, Inc.) and another by Cynthia K. West, PhD (VP, Project Insight). They suggest a long list of culprit factors ranging from senior management meddling (they have no business in interfering in our project!), failure to understand the impact of changes (this very unfamiliar subject in management), lack of project visibility (does anybody know what we are doing here?), unclear project objectives (oh, so that’s what you meant!) to project team not involved in planning (how did this come about?) and too much focus on charts for control (Gantt Charts, PERT/CPM Network Diagrams shall tell the truth, nothing but the truth, as long as the project is alive!). In addition, PMI says only 26% of attempted projects succeed!


To read entire report, click here


About the Author

İpek Sahra Özgüler

Istanbul, Turkey



İpek Sahra Özgüler
graduated from the Istanbul University with the Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Engineering and from Middle East Technical University with an MSc degree in Software Management. She became a certified PMP in January, 2012 and a certified SCRUM Master in 2014. She works as international correspondent at PMWJ. Before joining PMWJ, she worked for global multinational companies and leading local companies such as Coca Cola, Deloitte, Turkcell Superonline,Havelsan and TAV IT. Over the years, she has gained extensive experience in managing various medium and large scale projects, programs and portfolios.

Her article named “When I Decided to Develop Multi Processing Project Manager’s System” was published in the book “A Day in the Life of a Project Manager”. She has published several articles in the PM World Journal and one in PMI’s PM Network magazine. Ipek is actively involved in sailing, writing and discovering new cultures. She can be contacted at [email protected].



Horizontal Violence and Project Success


An Investigation into the Relationship between Horizontal Violence and Project Success: Emotional Intelligence Mediating Role

By Amna Shahid, Saif ul Amin and Asiya Sohail

KP and Punjab, Pakistan



Purpose: Current study examines the quantitative relationship of horizontal violence, and emotional intelligence with project Success. The project’s success can be measured efficiency and effectiveness of employees, how well they perform their tasks in order to achieve organizational goals.

Methodology: This model is empirically tested using data collected from bank employees working in Gujranwala Division, Punjab, Pakistan. The target population consisted of 633 bank branches in 20 public and private banks and the sample is calculated as 240 branches.

Finding: Outcomes showed a significant relationship with emotional intelligence, and horizontal violence with project success. Research results also showed that emotional intelligence has a partial mediating effect relationship between the horizontal violence and the success of the project. According to the conclusions of the research study, horizontal violence negatively affects the success of the project.

Practical Implication: The discoveries can consequently help project manager to understand and consider the emotional intelligence and behaviors in project management sector. The current study also helps upcoming research in this new discipline of project management.

Keywords: Emotional Intelligence, Project Success, organizational climate, Horizontal Violence, banking employees.


The aim of the research is to investigate the link between the perception of the experts of project management that are exposed to the threat, and project success in a project environment. The threat in this context can be defined as expectations of imminent change in the state less favorable than the status quo. It can be environment, arising either from natural causes or from a macro-political factors that affect the individual, by the way, or it may be expedient, aimed at individuals either to compel their behavior or out of malice. If in the context of the workplace, the threat is purposeful, with the intention of shaping behavior, there is an implicit assumption that improved project success will result.

If organizational behavior and related factors that influence the subjective experience of project management professionals that are involved in a particular project actually affect their contribution to its results, then the knowledge of the nature and interactions between these factors can potentially have a direct positive influence on the victory and success story of the project through the adoption of appropriate management behavior.

Emotional intelligence is the aptitude to identify the importance of feelings and their interactions, and therefore resolve difficulties on their origin. Years at that time there was a mounting interest in the theory of emotional intelligence. Goleman (1995) did a lot of contributions and exploration of this theme. The business institution also displayed a collective attention to emotional intelligence, which is seeking substitutions to build new and improve competitive compensations in their ground of action.

Goleman (1998), studying with emotional intelligence, establishing a context of emotional intelligence, which indicates how the potential of entities to obtain the skills of self-awareness, self-management, social awareness and relationship management translates into on-the -job success. Emotional intelligence plays an important role in the success of executives in the workplace in order to develop a positive working attitude, behavior and results, including better performance in the workplace (Carmeli, 2003). Leaders with high emotional intelligence skills are just as satisfied with their work (Nowack, 2006). Individuals with high emotional intelligence experience continuous positive moods and feelings that generate higher level of satisfaction and well-being in comparison with individuals who suffer from anger, depression and frustration (Derman 1999; Carmeli, 2003).

Problem statement

Up to the best knowledge of the researchers, Emotional Intelligence has not been studied as an intermediary between the relations of organizational climate and horizontal violence with the success of the project, respectively. However, in limited studies it was found that in which it was studied the relationship between organizational climate and project success. Current study links this theoretical difference by examining the association horizontal violence as a predictor of Emotional intelligence and its impact on the project Success. The banking sector of Pakistan is one of the leading players in the financial sector and plays an important role in the development of the country. In comparison with the last few decades, new banks are appearing every day and thus increase competition among banks, which leads existing banks to rethink their existing strategies, policies, systems, structures, means etc.

Purpose and objective of the study

The purpose behind this study is to include information towards the key parts of Project Success i.e., Horizontal Violence, Emotional Intelligence and Organizational Climate. The primary purpose behind the study is as follows:


To read entire article, click here


About the Authors

Amna Shahid

Gujranwala, Punjab, Pakistan.


Amna Shahid
is currently a teacher in Govt. sector Gujranwala, Pakistan. She completed MS in Project Management from COMSATS, Institute of Information Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan. Amna is interested in such research areas as emotional intelligence, project management, software integration, interdisciplinary/experimental approaches to teaching ESP, education, and new technologies.


Saif ul Amin

Nowshear, KP, Pakistan.


Saif ul Amin
is a project management specialist and research scholar who works in the public sector of Pakistan. Saif graduated from the COMSATS, Institute of Information Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan with the MS degree in Project Management. He has been interested in conducting researches in project performance, project human resource management, leadership style and behaviors, new technologies, project team performance, engagement and team building. Feedback for improvement is always welcome at [email protected]


Asiya Sohail

Islamabad, Punjab, Pakistan.



Asiya Sohail
is a lecturer in the Management Sciences department at COMSATS, Institute of Information Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan. She has a rich and extensive classroom teaching multiyear experience with supportive and interactive teaching style. She is also attached with the Faculty of Higher Studies (FHS). She is a course instructor and also a member of defense Committee for the evaluation of M.Phil. and Ph.D. theses. Her interests are reading, writing research methodology, quantitative and qualitative techniques, and any form of expressive art. Contact [email protected]



On the PM Process paper by Lottfy in May PMWJ


17 May 2016

Unfortunately, this featured paper Progressive Elaboration of Project Management Processes By Essam Mohamed Lotffy, PMP, CCP (UAE) does not distinguish between the PMBOK® Guide Process Groups and the Project Phases —- unfortunately too many PMP’s do not know that the process groups are not project phases, even though it is mentioned in more than one place in the PMBOK® Guide.


By Munir Ajam



Program Management Improvement Team for NNSA


Program Management Improvement Team: A Best Practice Based Approach to Process Improvement and Program Governance at the National Nuclear Security Administration

By Wayne Abba, Russell Archibald, Michael Haase, David Pells, Miles Shepherd, Marc Zocher

USA, Mexico and UK



The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semi-autonomous agency within the U.S. Department of Energy, applies technical capabilities to global nuclear security challenges. NNSA’s strategic goals are to maintain and enhance the safety, security, reliability and performance of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile without nuclear testing; work to reduce global danger from weapons of mass destruction; provide the U.S. Navy with safe and effective nuclear propulsion; and respond to nuclear and radiological emergencies in the U.S. and abroad. NNSA’s Office of Safety, Infrastructure and Operations (NA-50) plans, directs and oversees the maintenance, operation and modernization of infrastructure and facilities at eight NNSA sites. With an annual budget of approximately $1.5 billion, NA-50 plans, funds, directs and oversees many projects ranging in size and complexity each year.

In September 2015, NA-50 established a Program Management Improvement Team (PMIT) to enhance program, portfolio and project performance through the identification, development and sharing of best practices and to help ensure the achievement of cost-effective, timely, measurable and quality results in support of the NNSA mission. The PMIT is comprised of a small cadre of private industry program management experts who meet with NA-50 federal program managers quarterly to discuss and share successful leading-edge program management practices. This paper will describe the purpose, activities and results to date of the NNSA’s PMIT.


The NNSA enterprise consists of more than 6,000 facilities located at eight sites in seven states. The primary NNSA sites are:

  • Kansas City National Security Campus (Missouri)
  • Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (California)
  • Los Alamos National Laboratory (New Mexico)
  • Nevada National Security Site (Nevada)
  • Pantex Plant (Texas)
  • Sandia National Laboratories (New Mexico)
  • Savannah River Site (South Carolina)
  • Y-12 National Security Complex(Tennessee)

The$12.9 billion FY 2017 President’s budget request for the NNSA represents an increase of $360 million, about 3 percent over the FY 2016 appropriations level. With an annual budget of approximately $1.5 billion, NA-50 is responsible for enabling safe operations, ensuring effective infrastructure and providing enterprise services to NNSA programs and national laboratories, plants and sites to meet the 21st Century needs of the NNSA Nuclear Security Enterprise now and in the future.


NA-50 plans, directs and oversees the maintenance, operation and modernization of infrastructure and facilities that comprise a complex enterprise. With over $50 billion in real property assets, 41,000 employees, 36 million square feet of buildings including 400 nuclear facilities and 2,000 miles of roads on 2,160 square miles of land, the scope of NNSA infrastructure is vast. This enormous effort requires the planning and execution of hundreds of projects within a smaller number of programs, all managed within portfolios of facilities. These facilities include production, fabrication, testing, and secure transportation and storage of nuclear/radioactive materials and equipment, plus very advanced laboratory, computing and communications facilities.

NNSA has the complex challenge of safely operating and modernizing the nuclear security enterprise, a challenge made more difficult as NNSA’s infrastructure is failing at an increasing frequency due to its age and condition. Half of NNSA’s facilities are over 40 years old, 30 percent date to the Manhattan Project era of 70 years ago, and 12 percent are excess to current needs. Nearly two-thirds of NNSA’s aging and brittle infrastructure is less than adequate to meet mission needs. Deferred maintenance is at an all-time high of $3.67 billion, posing an increasingly unacceptable risk to the safety of workers, the public and the environment. NNSA’s capability to achieve programmatic goals obviously depends upon safe and reliable infrastructure.


To read entire paper, click here


Editor’s note: Second Editions are previously published papers that have continued relevance in today’s project management world, or which were originally published in conference proceedings or in a language other than English. Original publication acknowledged; authors retain copyright. This paper was originally presented at the 3rd annual University of Maryland Project Management Symposium in College Park, Maryland, USA in May 2016. It is republished here with the permission of the authors and conference organizers.

About the Authors

Wayne F. Abba

Abba Consulting
Virginia, USA


Wayne Abba
is an independent consultant specializing in acquisition and program management. His clients include US and foreign government agencies and contractors. He also is a part-time Research Analyst at the Center for Naval Analyses, where he co-authored a 2009 study on using the Rayleigh mathematical model for Earned Value Management planning and analysis. From 1999 to 2004, Wayne was the Vice President for Integrated Management Services with Dekker, Ltd., a provider of software solutions and consulting for project management.

For seventeen years before retiring in 1999, Wayne was the senior program analyst for contract performance management in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition & Technology). He was awarded the Secretary of Defense Medal for Meritorious Civilian Service in 1993, 1997 and 1999 for leadership in the acceptance of effectively integrated technical, schedule and cost performance management principles throughout the Department of Defense, the federal government, commercial enterprise, and in the governments and industries of friendly foreign countries. He served on the joint government-industry Integrated Program Management Initiative team that received the Department’s David Packard Award for Excellence in Acquisition.

Wayne has served on numerous Earned Value and Project Management review teams, and has helped industrial clients prepare for such reviews. His US government work included reviews of Army, Air Force and Navy contractors. He also served on an Australian Department of Defense team that reviewed BAE in UK for the Hawk Lead-In Fighter Trainer program. He performs peer reviews on projects for the National Science Foundation and is an independent program management advisor for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).

Wayne is a contributing author of the US Government Accountability Office’s “Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Developing and Managing Capital Program Costs,” issued in March 2009, and its companion “Schedule Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Project Schedules,” issued in May 2012. He co-authored EVM content in the Project Management Institute’s PMBOK® Guide 4th Edition. He is one of the world’s foremost experts on EVM and related topics. He serves on the editorial board of CrossTalk (the Journal of Defense Software Engineering), on the Graduate School Japan board of directors, and served from 2004-2014 on the governing board of the National Defense Industrial Association’s Integrated Program Management Division.

Wayne holds a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of the State of New York and a Master of Public Administration degree from The American University. In 1999 his contributions to the advancement of public and private sector project management were recognized by the Project Management Institute’s Distinguished Contribution Award and by the Government of Canada. In 2005 he was awarded an honorary fellowship by India’s Centre for Excellence in Project Management. He is current president of the College of Performance Management, CPM. He can be contacted at [email protected]


Russell D. Archibald

Archibald Associates
San Miguel de Allende, Mexico


Now 92, with careers spanning more than 70 years, Russ Archibald has had broad international experiences in piloting and designing aircraft and corporate engineering, operations, program and project management. His three project management related careers have been Military/Aerospace (19 years), Corporate Engineer & Executive (17 years), and Management Consultant (33 years to date). Russ has consulted to a wide variety of large and small organizations in 16 countries and he has resided in the USA, France, Mexico, Venezuela, Panama Canal Zone, and Peru with Marion, his wife of 70 years. For the past 23 years they have resided in San Miguel de Allende, Guanajuato, Mexico.

Russ is founding member number 6 of the Project Management Institute/PMI, which today has 470,000 members in 205 countries and territories. He presented the first paper, Planning, Scheduling and Controlling the Efforts of Knowledge Workers, at the formation meeting of PMI in 1969, and was President of the PMI Southern California Chapter in 1991-2, founding member of the PMI Mexico City Chapter in 1996, and in 2006 was awarded the PMI Jim O’Brien Lifetime Achievement Award. A PMI Fellow and Certified Project Management Professional, he co-authored with Prof. Dr. Jean-Pierre Debourse the 2011 PMI research report Project Managers as Senior Executives. He was also a founding member in 1970 and is an Honorary Fellow of the Association of Project Management (APM/IPMA-UK).

Russ is co-author with his grandson Shane Archibald of Leading and Managing Innovation-What Every Executive Team Must Know about Project, Program & Portfolio Management (2nd edition CRC Press 2015, 1st edition 2013 also published in Italian, Portuguese and Spanish); author of Managing High Technology Programs and Projects (3rd edition Wiley 2003, also published in Italian, Russian, and Chinese), and co-author of Network Based Management Information Systems (PERT/CPM) (Wiley 1967). He has contributed chapters to 15 books edited by others, and presented 88 papers at many PMI, IPMA and other conferences in many countries. He holds BS (U. of Missouri 1948) and MS (U. of Texas 1956) degrees in Mechanical Engineering. Russ was awarded an honorary Ph.D. in Strategy, Program, and Project Management from the Ecole Superieure de Commerce de Lille in Lille, France in 2005. See russarchibald.com. Russ can be contacted at [email protected]


Michael Haase

M-Con Strategic Solutions, LLC
Washington, DC, USA



Michael Haase
has over 21 years of experience in Program Management and Strategic Planning. Mr. Haase currently serves as the manager for headquarters support contracts with the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Office of Global Material Security and the Office of Infrastructure and Operations. Mr. Haase has provided program management and policy support to DOE/NNSA programs for the past 21 years focusing on strategic planning, program management, policy analysis and development, budgeting, and communications planning.   Mr. Haase is currently President of M-Con Strategic Solutions providing program management consulting services to government clients in the area of program management, strategic planning, and project management support including the U.S. Department of Energy. He is leading program management process improvement efforts for the Office of Radiological Security including development of project work plans for over 40 projects; strategic planning, branding, and outreach efforts; and review and update of program management and policy guidelines. Mr. Haase served on an independent project review team that assessed the Office of Global Material Security program management processes and made recommendations to increase efficiencies and integration across the program. Mr. Haase also provided communications planning and strategic planning support to the NNSA Office of Nuclear Materials Integration and program management support to the NNSA Office of Infrastructure and Operations.

Mr. Haase has previously provided program management support to the Office of Global Threat Reduction, which included development of security strategies to enhance the security of nuclear and radiological materials including coordination of response strategies, interactions with local law enforcement, response training program development, and coordination of table top exercises. He served as Vice President of Aquila Technologies where he directed Washington DC-based government and commercial consulting/ technology programs and served as program manager for initiatives with NNSA for program management and technical support in the area of weapons of mass destruction security including remote monitoring technology solutions. Mr. Haase also has experience serving as a Program Manager for Mele Associates, Canberra Industries, and Booz Allen Hamilton.

Mr. Haase also has experience as a federal manager for U.S. Department of Energy nonproliferation program from 1993-2000. Mr. Haase served as a Division Director for the Office of International Material Protection and Cooperation where he managed a $65M U.S. nonproliferation program aimed at securing weapons-grade nuclear material at 20 civilian and military nuclear sites in Russia. Prior to that he was a Foreign Affairs Specialist for the

Russia/Newly Independent States Nuclear Material Security Task Force and Office of International Safeguards where he initiated and coordinated national security projects in Russia, Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, and Uzbekistan including implementation of nuclear security, control and accounting system projects at over 20 nuclear facilities. Mr. Haase holds a Master of Public Policy from Georgetown University. He can be contacted at [email protected]


David L. Pells

PM World Services, Inc.
Addison, Texas, USA



David Pells
is the President of PM World Services, Inc., a program/project management (P/PM) services firm based in Texas and of PM World, Inc., a project management information services and publishing firm. He has over 35 years of P/PM-related experience in a wide variety of industries, programs and projects, including engineering, construction, energy, transit, defense, security and high technology, and project sizes ranging from thousands to many billions of dollars. David is a Fellow and past member of the Board of Directors of the Project Management Institute (PMI®). He was founder and Chair of the Global Project Management Forum (1995-2000) and the American Project Management Forum (1996-1998). Mr. Pells was awarded PMI’s Person-of-the-Year Award in 1998 and highest award, the PMI Fellow Award, in 1999. He is an Honorary Fellow of the Association for Project Management (UK), Project Management Associates (India), and Russian Project Management Association. Mr. Pells has a BA in business administration from the University of Washington and an MBA from Idaho State University, USA. He lives in Addison, Texas, USA.

Career highlights include: Executive Advisor for multi-billion $, multi-national Global Threat Reduction Initiative for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), US Department of Energy (DOE); Senior advisor to Sandia National Lab, Los Alamos National Lab, Savannah River National Lab and Oak Ridge National Lab on nuclear security and other programs; Executive advisor on multi-billion $ transit programs in Dallas and Seattle; Member of mobilization team & first manager of project management systems for Superconducting Super Collider (green-field, 10-year, $10B+ project for US DOE); Program manager, project management process improvements, and advisor on several of DOE’s largest projects at Idaho National Laboratory (INL); Project controls engineer on large international construction projects; Program controls on two major projects for US Department of Defense; Project controls & project management support for design/construction of nuclear reactor, environmental restoration program, Space Nuclear Reactor Project, New Production Reactor Program, low-level radioactive waste storage program for DOE at INL; executive advisor for multi-billion $ nuclear power plant project in Finland; and currently a program management advisor for NNSA. David is also managing editor of the PM World Journal and managing director of the PM World Library. He can be contacted at [email protected] or [email protected]


Miles Shepherd

Miles Shepherd Projects Ltd
Salisbury, England, UK



Miles Shepherd
has more than 30 years’ experience in project and program management gained in Government and international environments in the fields of defense, information technology, nuclear engineering, transport, standards development and quality management. He has taken leadership roles in projects for the UK Government, British Armed Services, Taiwanese Armed Services and the European Commission. His expertise has been developed on a variety of programs including decommissioning of nuclear reactors in the UK and Eastern Europe. He has undertaken assignments in rail safety and business development projects, a collaborative project for the European Commission to strengthen Governmental accreditation capabilities in Eastern European countries, and the development of post graduate project management education in USA, UK, Taiwan, Greece and Romania.

He holds significant posts with the Association for Project Management (Vice President, and is a past Chairman) and the International Project Management Association (past Chairman of Council and Past President). He was awarded the President’s Medal by the Association for Project Management for his contribution to the global project management community, particularly raising capabilities in developing countries. Since 1990, Miles has been a speaker at international project management conferences and meetings in Austria, Belgium, Canada, China, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Russia, Slovakia, Sweden, Ukraine United States of America and the United Kingdom.

He has extensive experience in the development of National and International Standards. Currently Chairman of the British Standards Institute Committee on Project Management, he is also Chair of the ISO Committee responsible for the development of project, program and portfolio management standards.

Miles was an Associate Lecturer and research supervisor for the Open University for 15 years and currently supports post graduate students at the University of Manchester and University College London. He has served as a Visiting Fellow at Bournemouth University, and Honorary Senior Research Fellow at University College, London and is a teaching fellow at 5 other universities in UK and Europe. He is a Board Member for PMI’s Global Accreditation Center for academic programs. Mr. Shepherd is managing director for MS Projects, Ltd., providing executive PM consulting, quality management, auditing and academic development work; he is an ISO qualified Lead Auditor and acts as Director for Europe, Middle East and Africa for Business Development Institute International. Miles has a BS in Management Systems, Post Graduate Certificates in IT Strategy and Project Management as well as various government and industry certifications. Miles can be contacted at [email protected]


Zocher, PMP

Bay Forge, LLC
Bainbridge Island, WA, USA



Marc Zocher
is a Program Manager at Bay Forge, LLC where he provides program support for nuclear facility operations, serves as technical peer review team member for Hanford Waste Treatment Plant, and provides subject matter expertise for Environmental Restoration Programs and Facilities at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Mr. Zocher has over 30 years of professional experience managing engineering, environmental, nuclear and IT projects. He has served as a ‘Q’-cleared scientist/manager supporting the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) at four national laboratories and two DOE/NNSA Headquarters assignments in Germantown, MD and Washington, DC. Mr. Zocher has 26 years’ experience in policy, procedure, conduct of operations, audits and assessments, some of which includes work and organizational breakdown structure development. He is a Certified Project Management Professional (PMP) since 1994. Mr. Zocher served as a Project Manager for the NNSA Office of Global Threat Reduction G2 IT Project, winner of the Project Management Institute’s Distinguished Project Award in 2010. Mr. Zocher has a B.S. in Geology, New Mexico State University (1984) and Graduated from the University of California, Artificial Intelligence and Robotics Program, Los Alamos National Laboratory. He is currently a program management advisor for NNSA.

Mr. Zocher has over 1,000 classroom hours as an instructor in project management at three universities and for the Project Management Institutes PMP preparation course. He was a contributing author to Hazardous Waste Cost Control (Marcel Dekker, 1993) and was a founding member, NNSA Project Management Improvement Team. Previously, from 2007-2012 Mr. Zocher supported the Global Threat Reduction Initiative (NA-21) providing support as the lead developer of scope, schedule, and budgets for domestic and foreign partner reactor conversion projects, HEU removal projects and domestic protection NA-21 projects. He also was responsible for three revisions of the NA-21 GTRI Program Management Plan and the Strategic Plan and was Responsible for major project efforts including the development and deployment of the initial G2 software platform (> $2M) in use by NA-21 and the development of NA-21 Program Management Plan for this worldwide effort.

Mr. Zocher has also been President of Morphic Corporation where he was an executive manager for a $7 million, 20 employee engineering and project management services company working under contract to Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Argonne National Laboratory, and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to support the areas of policy development, remediation alternative engineering, business process modeling, nuclear cleanup and waste management, and environmental restoration. Marc can be contacted at [email protected]


The Five Stages of Grief

(aka Setting Up an Enterprise Project Portfolio Management Organization)


Amanda Arriaga and Jessica Iselt Ballew

Texas Department of Public Safety

Austin, TX, USA



If you or someone you love has experienced a loss or a tragedy, you might be familiar with the five stages of grief.  What no one may have told you is that professional organizations facing a major change also experience these phases.  In this paper, the authors will share with you their experience implementing the Enterprise Project Management Office (EPMO) at the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS). This office was created in order to manage the strategic execution cycle at the department and ensure that priorities and the most valuable initiatives were accomplished.

The authors will explain what you really need to know and what to expect when establishing an enterprise level organization that is responsible for the strategic execution cycle.  They will provide valuable insight into the hurdles and roadblocks that might be encountered, along with strategies for overcoming them.  They will also discuss the critical need for buy-in and what to expect when that isn’t achieved at the right time, by the right people. The authors will focus on the integral role that people play in change and execution, and will provide valuable insight into techniques that might be used to minimize conflict and increase collaboration.


In 1969, Swiss psychiatrist Elisabeth Kubler–Ross studied terminally ill patients and released a book, On Death and Dyingi, which outlined the five stages of grief. The five stages are: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance.

Traditionally, the five stages of grief are discussed in context of a personal loss or tragedy. However, more recently, the concepts have been applied to organizations as they undergo major change.

In December of 2011, the director of the DPS established the EPMO to ensure that all of the department’s priority projects were completed efficiently and effectively, and to ensure he had visibility into the process along the way. While this directive was clear to the EPMO leadership, it was potentially less than clear to the stakeholders who would soon be impacted by this major change.


The EPMO was created and was charged with not only standing up the organization, but also communicating the need for the organization to their stakeholders. As part of this initial communication, EPMO leadership had to explain the director’s intent to seek a more effective means of planning and prioritization at the enterprise level. This reality resulted in some initial denial from stakeholders.

There were two groups of thought experiencing this denial. Some business areas “wanted it all” and didn’t see a need to identify dependencies or prioritize efforts. Some support areas believed they could “do it all” and wanted to provide service for every new innovative idea. However, this line of thought was the underlying cause of the problem with resource allocation that requires the need for prioritization.

Despite the communication efforts across the agency to highlight the purpose of this new organization, several areas continued to attempt to initiate projects on their own. It was clear that a strong communication campaign would be necessary to manage stakeholder expectations and to gain buy-in for the new organization by demonstrating how it would benefit both the agency and the individual business units. Along with creating a customized communication plan based upon each stakeholder group, EPMO leadership also developed a milestone diagram as the foundation for a communication tool to have conversations with leadership.


To read entire paper, click here


Editor’s note: Second Editions are previously published papers that have continued relevance in today’s project management world, or which were originally published in conference proceedings or in a language other than English. Original publication acknowledged; authors retain copyright. This paper was originally presented at the 3rd annual University of Maryland Project Management Symposium in College Park, Maryland, USA in May 2016. It is republished here with the permission of the authors and conference organizers.

About the Authors

pmwj40-Nov2015-Arriaga-PHOTO ARRIAGA
Amanda Arriaga

Austin, Texas, USA



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


pmwj40-Nov2015-Arriaga-PHOTO BALLEW
Jessica Iselt Ballew

Austin, Texas, USA




Jessica Iselt Ballew is the Deputy Assistant Director for Policy and Planning at the Department of Public Safety.  She is co-chair of the Texas Association of State Systems for Computing and Communication (TASSCC) Special Interest Group in Project Management. Jessica has a B.S. in Communications through Arizona State University.  She has over 18 years of experience in information technology and development. The past few years of her career have been primarily focused on business architecture, processes, and solutions and management of enterprise projects and contracting. Jessica can be contacted at [email protected]



Sustainable Implementation of New Technologies

Sustainable Implementation of New Technologies: A Valuation Method for Healthcare Supply Chains


Alexander Mark Ehms

New York, USA



The external environment in which most business exists is volatile, ambiguous, and ever-evolving. In the wake of the e-commerce evolution, health care services are adapting to provide online prescription refills, in addition to sharing patient information using database software and cloud computing. Sustainability is a key component and critical measure to consider when implementing change and taking on new projects. Long term sustainability is contingent on supply chain networks (SCN) working in cooperation to produce sustainable economic, social, and environmental outputs. In order for these networks to have successful interrelationships, valuation methods must be used to select projects that produce sustainable solutions. This paper reviews the pertinence of web based technologies to the healthcare industry in order to facilitate sustainable operations, while addressing methods of evaluation for selection of new technologies. The findings conclude that measuring sustainability is relatively subjective and that sustainability might best be managed as a “risk.”

Keywords: sustainability, value, healthcare, corporate social responsibility, sustainability performance management, risk management, supply chain, IT, software engineering, quality management

Glossary of Acronyms

  • AHP: analytical hierarchy process
  • GNH: gross national happiness
  • GRI: global reporting initiative
  • GSA: general services administration
  • HIPAA: Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
  • PPP: public/private partnerships
  • PV: present economic value
  • SCN: supply chain networks
  • SROI: social return on investment
  • VfM: value for money


Like most industries, healthcare providers rely on customers in order to continue operations. In our lifetime, we have witnessed advances in modern technology that would have at one time seemed to be the dreamed up concoctions of a science fiction novel. We have also witnessed the rise and fall of many companies, whose failure to implement change had far reaching consequences. “Eastman Kodak is a picture-perfect example. It built one of the first digital cameras in 1975.” (18) For many reasons, some perhaps well justified, the company was slow to change the once highly successful business model. “The development of smartphones that double as cameras, has battered Kodak’s old film- and camera-making business almost to death.”(18)

With patients and/or caregivers who are progressively becoming more tech savvy, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and medical device manufacturers must tailor their services appropriately. Healthcare services such as nonprofit hospitals have seen a downward trend in terms of revenue growth over the past several years. “Total operating margins have remained negative from federal fiscal year (FFY) 2000 to midway through FFY07, according to the data, although the trend has improved slightly in recent years. That means hospitals are losing money on their core business of providing patient care.”(14) Admissions are falling due to increases in insurance rates and the availability of alternatives such as immediate care facilities, and telemedicine. For healthcare organizations, this means realignment of the firm’s fundamental strategic management plan; goals, objectives, and the strategy of the business operations, including maintaining visibility in a market where alternatives are numerous.

Healthcare facilities share a SCN with private manufacturing, distribution, and logistic firms. Meaning that healthcare supply chains house public/private partnerships (PPP). “A typical PPP example would be a hospital building financed and constructed by a private developer and then leased to the hospital authority. The private developer then acts as landlord, providing housekeeping and other non-medical services while the hospital itself provides medical services.” (2) Because of this relationship, the social/environmental outputs of long term sustainability might not necessarily align with maximizing the present economic value (PV) of the SCN. The concern is insuring that the SCN is selecting the best whole life outcome. This requires that “patient advocacy organizations, clinicians, medical clinics, health care policymakers at the Federal, State, and local levels, purchasers, payers, and both public and private insurers” (3) involved understand the importance of sustainable operations.


To read entire article, click here


Editor’s note: Second Editions are previously published papers that have continued relevance in today’s project management world, or which were originally published in conference proceedings or in a language other than English. Original publication acknowledged; authors retain copyright. This paper was originally presented at the 3rd annual University of Maryland Project Management Symposium in College Park, Maryland, USA in May 2016. It is republished here with the permission of the authors and conference organizers.

About the Author

Alexander Ehms

Buffalo, NY, USA





Alexander Ehms recently received his Master’s degree in Supply Chain and Operations Management from the University at Buffalo (The State University of New York) in Buffalo, New York, USA. Alexander holds a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Business and Associates of Science in Business Management, and has completed a four year university level certification program in Business/Environmental Sustainability. During five years of professional experience, Alexander has held titles such as supervisor, workforce coordinator, and Marketing Analyst. He can be contacted at [email protected]



The Design Thinking Approach to Projects


Eva Dijksterhuis,
HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht

Gilbert Silvius,
LOI University of Applied Sciences

The Netherlands



Project success is one of the most studied topics in project management. Notwithstanding this vast literature base, project results continue to disappoint stakeholders. Turner and Cochrane (1993) argued that the traditional measure of success, completing the project on time and within budget, is based on the assumption that in projects both the goals and the method of achieving them are well understood at the start of the project. For some projects however, the objectives and/or the methods are not clearly defined. These projects, so-called type-4 projects, are only successful if they achieve a unitary, beneficial change with value for users.

A domain that has great experience in dealing with these type of problems, where only the aspired end value is known, not the goals and methods, is Design Thinking. In project management literature, however, little mention is made of Design Thinking. The aim of this paper is to contribute to the missing link between project management and Design Thinking and to give project managers insight in the application of Design Thinking in their approach to projects

The paper reports a conceptual analysis of the concept of Design Thinking and its application in Project Management. The research question of this study was formulated as: How does the Design Thinking approach to project management differ from the Rational Analytic approach? Based on a study of the literature, the study developed a conceptual framework of the differences between the Rational Analytic approach and the Design Thinking approach to projects.

Keywords: Project management, Success, Design thinking, Agile.

JEL code: M1


Project success is one of the most researched topics in project management (Joslin & Müller, 2015). Research focuses on identifying critical factors for success (Cooke-Davies, 2002) or on the definition of success (Joslin & Müller, 2015). In these studies, different criteria for success are used. Most early research on project success seems to emphasize the three traditional dimensions (Silvius & Schipper, 2015): (within) time, (within) budget and (within) specification, also known as the known ‘iron triangle’ of time, budget and quality, “despite the fact that this method is currently subject to widespread criticism” (Bakker et al., 2010). More recently, Turner and Zolin (2012) expand project performance factors beyond the standard consideration of time, cost, and quality, and suggest inclusion of measures of user appreciation. Aspects of sustainability can also be introduced into the definition of project success (Silvius & Schipper, 2015). Project success, both the determination and the achievement, is a widely discussed subject. Literature seems to agree on one thing: whether a project is considered a success depends on the perspective taken to judge it (Koops et al., 2015). In spite of these well-known research results and despite column-miles of words that have been written about project management, project results continue to disappoint stakeholders (Cooke-Davies, 2002).

Some research focuses on the definition of projects and it’s relation to project success. Turner and Cochrane (1993) propose a new definition of projects. They argue that traditional definitions of projects are based on the assumption that in projects both the goals and the method of achieving them are well understood at the start of the project. These objectives become part of the definition of success, and the project manager is said to be successful if they deliver them on time and within budget. For some projects however, the objectives and/or the methods of achieving them are not clearly defined. These two parameters – how well defined are the goals, and how well defined are the methods – result in a 2 x 2 matrix that Turner and Cochrane have named the “goals-and-methods matrix”. What should be clear in any project is the fact that a project is only successful if it “achieves a unitary, beneficial change” (Turner & Cochrane, 1993). This beneficial change is also described as “purpose” or “value for users”.

A domain that has great experience in creating value for users is the domain of design. Designers and engineers often create products where at the start of the problem solving ONLY the aspired end value is known, NOT the goals and methods (Dorst, 2011). In research literature, the term ‘Design Thinking’ has emerged as a way of thinking which leads to transformation, evolution and innovation, to new forms of living and to new ways of managing business (Tschimmel, 2012). The term Design Thinking has been part of the collective consciousness of design researchers since Peter G. Rowe used it as the title of his 1987 book “Design Thinking” (1987). It has gained popularity and is widely seen as an exciting new paradigm for dealing with problems in sectors as far afield as IT, Business, Education and Medicine (Dorst, 2011). It has become a label for the awareness that any kind of business and organization can benefit from designers’ way of thinking and working (Tschimmel, 2012). Studying the way designers work and adopting some ‘designerly’ practices could be interesting to organizations, because designers have been dealing with open, complex problems for many years (Dorst, 2011).

Problem solving where only the aspired value is known, not the goals and methods, can be related to Type-4 projects, as described in the goals-and-methods matrix (Turner & Cochrane, 1993). Figure 1 presents this matrix.


To read entire paper, click here


Editor’s note: Second Editions are previously published papers that have continued relevance in today’s project management world, or which were originally published in conference proceedings or in a language other than English. Original publication acknowledged; authors retain copyright. This paper was originally presented at the 5th Scientific Conference on Project Management in the Baltic States, University of Latvia, April 2016. It is republished here with the permission of the author and conference organizers.

About the Authors

Eva Dijksterhuis

Utrecht, The Netherlands


Eva Dijksterhuis
(1965) is a project manager at HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht in the Netherlands (HU). With her thesis “The Design Thinking Approach to Project Management”, she hopes to earn her Master’s Degree in Project Management at the HU in May 2016.

Eva started her career as a professional music teacher, with 10 years of experience teaching music and arts education at the HU. The last 15 years she has worked as a manager and project manager, both in the higher education and the cultural sector (Rosa Ensemble). Eva can be contacted at [email protected]


Gilbert Silvius

Utrecht, The Netherlands



Dr. Gilbert Silvius  (1963) is professor of project and programme management at LOI University of Applied Sciences in the Netherlands and senior research associate at the University of Johannesburg in South Africa. He initiated and developed the first MSc in Project Management program in the Netherlands and is considered a leading expert in the field of project management. Gilbert has published over a 100 academic papers and several books. He holds a PhD degree in information sciences from Utrecht University and masters’ degrees in economics and business administration.

As a practitioner, Gilbert has over 20 years experience in organizational change and IT projects. He is principal consultant at Van Aetsveld, project and change management, and is a member of the international enable2change network of project management experts.

Gilbert can be contacted at [email protected]


The Impact of Personal Characteristics on Project Management


By Ipek Sahra Özgüler


Sertug Yilmaz




The aim of every organization is to achieve the organizational strategy. In order to achieve the organizational strategy and objectives, the organizations use project management. In the Project Management Institute’s view, the project management is defined as “the application of knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to project activities to meet the project requirements.” (PMBOK, 2013, p.5). Ten knowledge areas and five process groups are defined in the Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), published by Project Management Institute (PMI). The knowledge areas are Project Integration Management, Project Scope Management, Project Time Management, Project Cost Management, Project Quality Management, Project Human Resources Management, Project Communication Management, Project Risk Management and Project Procurement Management. The project management process groups are Initiating, Planning, Executing, Monitoring & Controlling and Closing.

Most of organizations have adopted the Project Management Institute’s approach and developed their own project management methodology and standard based on PMBOK. During developing the organizational project management standard, the organizations should consider the impact of personal characteristics. Developing and following a defined project management standard, which contains the effects of personal characteristics, increase the success rate of projects.

This paper will explain the impact of personal characteristics on project management in systematic way. In order to realize that the author will explain the fundamental concepts of this subject. After that, the systematic way will be detailed. This systematic way consists of six steps:

  • Develop an Organizational Personal Characteristic Map
  • The Impact of Personal Characteristics on Project Human Resources Management
  • The Impact of Personal Characteristics on Project Communications Management
  • The Impact of Personal Characteristics on Project Risk Management
  • The Impact of Personal Characteristics on Project Stakeholder Management
  • The Impact of Personal Characteristics on Project Procurement Management

Key words: The Impact of Personal Characteristics on Project Management  

JEL code: Z00


The main aim of establishing an organization is to make profit. Richard Lambert, who is the Director General of the Confederation of British Industry wrote in 2010 as “Business in some ways quite simple. It has clearly defined aims. The aim is to make money. So you have a measure against which to judge all subsidiary actions which add up to the overall result.” (Zsolnai, 2011, p.175) In order to make profit and survive in the competitive environment, every organization should set its own strategy. According to the PMBOK, “effective organizational strategy provides defined directions for development and growth, in addition to performance metrics for success. In order to bridge the gap between organizational strategy and successful business value realization, the use of portfolio, program, and project management techniques is essential.” (PMBOK, 2013, p.14)

To bridge the gap between organizational strategy and successful business value realizations, the organizations develop their own organizational project management standard based on industry standard such as PMBOK or Projects in Controlled Environment Version 2 (PRINCE2) or the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). During developing their own organizational project management standard and following it, the organizations should consider an important factor. Personal Characteristics. Personal is defined as “of or relating to a particular person” and characteristic is defined as “being a feature that helps to distinguish a personal or thing” in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English language (2014). However, the PMBOK mentions the characteristics of project- related (project life cycle, project), of product related and of organizational, the terminology “personal characteristics” is mentioned only once as “refers to how the project manager behaves when performing the project or related activity. Personal effectiveness encompasses attitudes, core personality characteristics, and leadership, which provides the ability to guide the project team while achieving project objectives and balancing the project constraints.” (PMBO, 2013, p.17) Taylor listed the most important personal characteristics needed by a success project manager as “flexible and adaptable, possessing and exhibiting initiative and leadership, confident and persuasive, possessing verbal fluency, able to balance technical and human components of a project, problem- solving and decision- making capability, good time manager, a sense of humor.” (Taylor, 2006, p.150)

The aim of this paper is to explain the impact of personal characteristics on project management. The paper will start by definition of fundamental concepts in order to develop a common understanding. The purpose behind developing a common understanding is to ensure that the readers understand the main topic, and numerous details related to the main topic. What is a project? What is project management? What is project management process? What is a team? How could we define communications? What is a risk? Who is a stakeholder? Which type of stakeholder is existed? What is personal characteristics? Afterwards, the authors will suggest a systematic way for considering the impact of personal characteristics on project management based on PMBOK. The systematic way consists of six steps:


To read entire paper, click here


Editor’s note: Second Editions are previously published papers that have continued relevance in today’s project management world, or which were originally published in conference proceedings or in a language other than English. Original publication acknowledged; authors retain copyright. This paper was originally presented at the 5th Scientific Conference on Project Management in the Baltic States, University of Latvia, April 2016. It is republished here with the permission of the author and conference organizers.

About the Authors

Ipek Sahra Özgüler

Istanbul, Turkey



Ipek Sahra Özgüler, a project portfolio manager in TAV IT PMO, has more than 10 years’ experience in various areas such as portfolio management, program management, project management, software management, business analysis. She has managed a wide-variety of projects across manufacturing, defence, FMCG (Cola Cola), telecommunication, audit (Deloitte), ICT and aviation sectors and gained broader insights.  In addition, she is a contributing writer of the book “A Day In The Life of A Project Manager” which was authored and edited by Frank Saladis and managed by Elaine Jackson in 2013. Her story explained when she decided to develop a multiprocessor project manager’s system.  She holds master degree in Software Management from Middle East Technical University and Bachelor’s Degree from Istanbul University.  Ipek is a certified project manager (PMP) and Professsional Scrum Master I (PSM I).  She can be contacted at [email protected].


yilmag photo
Sertug Yilmaz

Istanbul, Turkey



Sertug Yılmaz, PMP is working as a project manager in Istanbul. He has specialized in the field of project and portfolio management. He studied Management Information Systems in Turkey and has more than 9 years of project related work and leadership experience. He has served in various positions in the IT services of airports in Turkey, most recently as project manager of the TAV Information Technologies. His professional background includes major projects in aviation systems, IT Infrastructure and Construction IT infrastructure.  He lives close to Istanbul and can be contacted via [email protected].


The Adoption and Evolution of Agile Practices


By Marco Sampietro

SDA Bocconi School of Management

Milan, Italy



Traditional software product development models are characterised by a predictive approach derived from physical engineering processes. Recent developments in the software scenario have proved these plan-driven models to be inadequate, especially in high risk and rapidly changing environments. Agile methodologies were therefore developed as an answer to these issues. Due to their intrinsic agility, they have confirmed they are capable of adapting to the further changes that have occurred since they were first introduced: methodologies have been altered and tailored to address all the shortcomings found during their introduction. The aim of this research is to detect the dominant agile practices and adoption strategies, which transcend the original ones belonging to a certain model and may be affected by internal and external characteristics. A survey-based analysis was conducted in order to find out which practices are the most used. 194 valid questionnaires were returned. Factor and cluster analyses made it possible to relate the practices to several environmental characteristics with the purpose of seeking a significant relationship between them. The results of the study showed that most companies prefer to adopt practices related to the general management of the development process, to the detriment of practices associated with coding and testing techniques. Team members’ opinions turned out to be the only internal factor responsible for the introduction or abandonment of the practices. As for the external variables, the size of the team and the proximity of the team members were proven to significantly affect the adoption strategy.

Key words: agile project management, agile methods, agile practices, SCRUM, Kanban, XP, Lean development

JEL code: M54


It all started in February 2001 with four values posted on a website. The cornerstones of the “Manifesto for Agile Software Development” (AgileAlliance, 2001) were nothing more than four sentences, which however represented an authentic breakthrough for Project Management. In fact, the authors of the Manifesto aimed to put together a group of characteristics whose underlying values could be traced back to a unique, revolutionary way of defining a system development model.

They had already created several software development methodologies (SDMs) and, after having identified the core values, they decided to write a short but nonetheless inspiring list of guidelines, which should be followed by any Agile practitioner. Indeed, “rather than focusing on their differences and the competitive advantage of their own methodologies, 17 creators and supporters of the lightweight methodologies gathered (…) to discuss their common interests and philosophies, coining the term Agile software development” (Williams, 2012, p. 71-72). That is to say, the authors created a mind-set, a framework with general advice, which could be freely interpreted and applied in heterogeneous environments. Furthermore, the Manifesto was completed by twelve principles, which, again, could be employed regardless of the particular SDM chosen for the project.

Agile is based on Values, Principles and Practices. “Agile values are the philosophy behind Agile methods, which are further defined and supported by the Agile principles and Agile practices” (Kong, Kendall, & Kendall, 2012).

Each specific project undertaken by a particular team of a certain company might be characterised by the use of a certain set of practices, i.e. “concrete activities and practical techniques that are used to develop and manage software projects in a manner consistent with the Agile principles” (Sidky, Arthur, & Bohner, 2007).

Research questions and methodology

The importance of Agile Software Development Models (SDM) has decreased in recent years as Agile practitioners noticed that applying SDMs as they are did not generate the expected outcomes. Over the years Agile SDMs have been customised by many companies in order to find the best fit with their organisational characteristics. It is therefore necessary to focus on the practices more than on the SDMs. In addition, it would be interesting to identify the drivers that determine the adoption of certain practices. To date, however, there are no studies that address these topics.


To read entire paper, click here


Editor’s note: Second Editions are previously published papers that have continued relevance in today’s project management world, or which were originally published in conference proceedings or in a language other than English. Original publication acknowledged; authors retain copyright. This paper was originally presented at the 5th Scientific Conference on Project Management in the Baltic States, University of Latvia, April 2016. It is republished here with the permission of the author and conference organizers.

About the Author

160504 - Sampietro 150x

Milan, Italy



Marco Sampietro obtained a Ph.D. at the University of Bremen, Germany. Since 2000 he has been a professor at SDA Bocconi School of Management, Milan, Italy. SDA Bocconi School of Management is ranked among the top Business Schools in the world (Financial Times, Forbes, Bloomberg, and The Economist rankings). He is a Core Faculty Member at SDA Bocconi School of Management and teaches Project Management on the MBA – Master of Business Administration, and GEMBA – Global Executive Master of Business Administration programs. He is Faculty Member at MISB – Mumbai International School of Business, the Indian subsidiary of Bocconi University, and Visiting Professor at IHU – International Hellenic University, Greece. He is also a Contract Professor at Bocconi University and Milano Fashion Institute for the Project Management courses.

He was a speaker at the NASA Project Management Challenge 2007, 2008, and 2011, in the USA, and a speaker at the PMI Global European Congress, Italy, 2010.

He is a Member of the Steering Committee of IPMA-Italy.

He is co-author and/or editor of 10 books on project management and 7 books on IT management. Among them: Empowering Project Teams. Using Project Followership to Improve Performance. CRC Press, 2014. Finally, he is the author of award-winning case studies and papers.

Dr. Sampietro can be contacted at: [email protected]


Project Management Report from Spain


PMI EMEA Congress 2016 in Barcelona; Interview with New PMI Madrid Chapter President Claudia Alcelay

By Alfonso Bucero

International Correspondent & Editorial Advisor

Madrid, Spain


PMI EMEA Congress 2016 in Barcelona

Last May 9th, 10th and 11th, the PMI EMEA Congress was celebrated in Barcelona. There were more than six hundred attendees coming from Europe, Africa and Middle East. Spain had several representatives and volunteers coming from PMI Madrid and Barcelona Chapters.


Alfonso Bucero, David Hillson, Mercedes Martinez and Carlos Pampliega


Alfonso Bucero with Elisabet Duocastella and a PMI Barcelona Chapter volunteer

During the Congress we had the opportunity to meet with some colleagues, volunteers, and friends from the PMI family.

Some pictures taken during the Congress in Barcelona. We can see at the pictures Dr. Thomas Juli, Congress presenter, with Alfonso Bucero and Randall L. Englund; Alfonso with Carlos Pampliega in the central picture and finally a picture from the PMI EMEA Congress Closing session where the city of Rome was announced as the new host city for the PMI EMEA Congress 2017.

Interview with new PMI Madrid Chapter President Claudia Alcelay

  • Claudia, what is your opinion about Project Management in Spain, regarding project management implementation, use and maturity?

During the last decades, Project Management had advanced in Spanish companies, incorporating project management to the daily basis and looking for excellence and quality parameters. At industries like Civil Engineering, Information technology, Chemistry, etc, the increase of demand of project managers is undeniable with the particularity, for example, that for civil work firms more than 80% is coming from abroad, what requires high level qualified professionals, with previous experience, who speaks several languages and with a master degree.

Together with this market requirement, during the last years, Project Management is penetrating transversally in Spanish organizations, beyond the technical areas, where project management has been applied traditionally in a natural way. A more and more frequent scenario is that professionals from sales, marketing, quality or logistics are understanding what is a project and they are supporting it in a daily basis. This integral concept about project management is permeating all organization profiles. Furthermore, we can say that beyond its traditional link with technical industries, Project Management is advancing in other areas like sports, public administration or NGOs.

On the other hand, smaller companies are starting to understand that Management efficiency and results maximization are reinforced through the application of project management processes. Then, smoothly, and with a different degree of implementation, they are starting to introduce project management procedures.

But, where I can see more evolution is at Management level and their awareness of having a great and difficult challenge, being strategic directors in a continuous changing environment. To be informed, knowing experiences, sharing it, learning, … I believe that we are being more and more collaborative, now we are not fear about incorporating new management and new methodologies. We make mistakes and learn from it and in the process we add value to our organizations. We are in a very interesting moment in the profession in Spain.


To read entire report, click here for (English) or (Spanish)


About the Author

Alfonso Bucero

Contributing Editor
International Correspondent – Spain



Alfonso Bucero, MSc, PMP, PMI-RMP, PfMP, PMI Fellow, is an International Correspondent and Contributing Editor for the PM World Journal in Madrid, Spain. Mr. Bucero is also founder and Managing Partner of BUCERO PM Consulting. Alfonso was the founder, sponsor and president of the PMI Barcelona Chapter until April 2005, and belongs to PMI’s LIAG (Leadership Institute Advisory Group). He was the past President of the PMI Madrid Spain Chapter, and now nominated as a PMI EMEA Region 8 Component Mentor. Alfonso has a Computer Science Engineering degree from Universidad Politécnica in Madrid and is studying for his Ph.D. in Project Management. He has 29 years of practical experience and is actively engaged in advancing the PM profession in Spain and throughout Europe. He received the PMI Distinguished Contribution Award on October 9th, 2010 and the PMI Fellow Award on October 22nd 2011. Mr. Bucero can be contacted at [email protected].

To see other works by Alfonso Bucero, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at http://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/alfonso-bucero/



Metrics to Gauge Agile Scrum Adoption


By Brian Vanderjack, PMP, MBA, CSM


Harry Doscher, PMP

United States


Recently, in our experience with some of the best Agile Coaches and Scrum Masters, we have identified some of the most effective ways to measure the level of employment of Agile Scrum principles. The assumption is that if the teams are delivering well on these effective measures, the more business value the teams would be adding. This article will outline some of the top key indicators that some of our experts identified as useful indicators as to the effective use of scrum. The idea is if they look good to us, they might be something you would like to explore as a way to measure effective use of Scrum in your environment. The assumption is that these will be used in an environment where software is being developed to sell a service or product.

With respect to business value we feel that the best way to measure the level of contentment of the Product Owner (PO) after deployments is to survey the PO and possibly other client-stakeholders. We see the most important question on the survey as being, “Is the software working the way that you expect it to?” A good score would indicate that the Product Owner and team are communicating well. A lower score would likely be caused by poor communication between the Product Owner and the team. Ways to improve communication are:

  • Insist that the Product Owner take an active role if they have a tendency to miss key meetings and ceremonies.
  • Suggest the use of a Product Owner Delegate (POD) if the Product Owner is unable to fulfill the commitment to actively participate in Scrum Ceremonies
  • If the issue is that the market space is changing so frequently that project scope is not stable, then the Product Owner will need to have even more contact with the development community and indicate the changes to the application that are needed.

Another, more automated way to do this is to track and trend the priority numbers, as assigned by the Product Owner, of User Stories getting completed. The lower the average number of priorities assigned to User Stories (priority 1 is the highest priority), the more successful the team is in terms of giving the PO what he/she asked for. Previous iterations can be used to compare to in order to understand if the team is improving.


To read entire article, click here


About the Authors

pmwj39-Oct2015-Vanderjack-PHOTO1 BRIAN
Brian Vanderjack

Illinois, USA




Brian Vanderjack
, PMP, CSM, MBA is an Agile Coach and Sr. Scrum Master for AT&T; he also has 15 years’ experience as a project manager. He is an award winning Scrum Master, winner of AT&T’s excellence in Project Management Award, and winner of Adjunct Teacher of the Year at University of Phoenix. He has also won over a dozen awards for public speaking. He has spoken at many venues including University of Chicago, Northwestern University, Abbott Labs, IBM, Microsoft, PMI, AT&T, etc. His book, the Agile Edge was published this last September by Business Expert Press. He has also had many articles published on Agile and Project Management. Brian hails from Chicago, Illinois where he lives with his two sons, wife, and a Soft Haired Wheaton Terrier named Finely. He is easy to reach at [email protected].


Harry Doscher



Mr. Harry Doscher
, PMP, is a graduate of Michigan State University College of Engineering, Harry Doscher has over four decades experience in software development and project management in the fields of aviation, telecommunications, and information technology. Harry has authored articles on software development and has presented at domestic and international conferences. He is currently a member of the Agile Center of Excellence at AT&T and holds a Project Management Professional certification from the Project Management Institute.



Megatrends: “Projectification” – The German Experience


By Ed Naughton

Dublin, Ireland


Popular conventional wisdom assumes that there is an increasing use of projects across all industries and sectors.

Although the prevalence of projects in many organizations is evident, no exact figures on the degree of Projectification, i.e. the share of project work in companies, industries or entire economies, exist.

An empirical study that systematically looked at the level of project work in the German economy provides some dramatic findings.

The aim of the research was to develop a measure that could be used independently of the industry, project type and firm size and to apply this measure to assess the share of project work in the German economy.

Based on a survey of 500 companies (including the public sector), it was found that:

  • The Share of project work to total working hours in 2013 was 35%
    • Assuming that these hours corresponds to an identical proportion of gross value added, this would equate to a sum of €877 billion
  • This share went up by nearly 20% in the last few years
  • It is expected to increase further to more than 40% by 2019

The German economy is clearly experiencing an increasing projectification which raises serious questions about how organizations respond to this trend.

For example, the increasing use of projects makes organisations less rigid, more flexible and innovative, and capable of solving complex problems. New organisational forms are characterised as more flexible but at the same time highly efficient and less dependent on hierarchical control and bureaucratic coordination.

The project landscape is also changing with 84% of the projects of the companies surveyed being internal projects. Among those internal projects, IT and marketing/sales projects are most frequently used (each at 20 %), whereas R&D/new product development projects (13 %) are applied less often.

The greatest increase in project work in the last four years (in total more than 54 %) was recorded in the public sector. Starting from a relatively low level of 11.6% in 2009, the proportion of project work in this sector increased to 17.8 % in 2013.

One consequence of this trend is the requirement to produce more highly trained and competent project managers to meet the demand of this growth and to ensure that the projects are managed as effectively as possible.


To read entire article, click here


About the Author

pmwj17-dec2013-naughton-AUTHOR IMAGE
Ed Naughton

Institute of Project Management
Dublin, Ireland



Ed Naughton, BE, C. Eng., F.I.E.I, FIPMA, IPMA-a, PMP, is the founder and Director General of the Institute of Project Management of Ireland, the leading authority on the PM profession in Ireland. On the international front, Ed was responsible for initiating cooperation agreements with both the PMI (Project Management Institute) USA and the IPMA (International Project Management Association). He is Ireland’s representative on the IPMA council of delegates, and a former Vice President-Marketing for the IPMA. He was also the first PMP registered in Ireland. Ed has researched, published and presented many articles and papers on project management and is the author of the Irish Project Management Competence Baseline. During his thirty year career, Ed has worked as a project manager and/or project management consultant on a large variety of high profile domestic and international assignments.

Ed Naughton is a graduate of University College Dublin (BE, civil), a Fellow of the Institute of Engineers of Ireland, a Chartered Engineer (Ireland), a Professional Engineer in Canada, and holds an IPMA Level A certification. He is former founder and editor of the quarterly international publication “Project Management Practice”. One of Ireland’s most respected experts on the topic of modern project management, Ed is an executive advisor to PM World in Ireland. Ed Naughton was named a Fellow of IPMA in 2013.

Ed lives in Dublin and can be contacted at [email protected].


Framework for Eradication of Corruption in Nigeria

Developing and implementing a national strategic change management framework towards the eradication of corruption in Nigeria


By O. Chima Okereke, PhD

Herefordshire, UK



On May 29th, 2016, the government of President Muhammadu Buhari was one year in office. A number of articles have been written and views expressed on the media on the performance of his administration. The focus of this paper is not on performance analysis of the government but on the mantra of change which he made the clarion call for his electioneering campaign. Whereas change was used in the campaign to highlight their intention to transform the whole country for the better, change as it affects the eradication of corruption is the priority of this paper. It is evident that the anticorruption campaign has been in the forefront of the president’s activities within the past year. It has been closely followed by the fight against Boko Haram. Eradication of corruption in the country is an inescapable task. Apart from the hardship it causes internally, it has given us a very bad press externally for the past thirty years and more.

The statement made by Prime Minister David Cameron on May 10 that “Nigeria is one of the fantastically corrupt nation” drives home the scale of the problem as perceived by outsiders. It is unhelpful arguing about whether or not he is correct because it will serve no purpose. The productive approach, in the view of this writer, should be for us Nigerians to take effective actions to resolve whatever problems we have because it should be in our interest to eradicate the cankerworm of corruption that is destroying the moral, social and economic fabric of our nation.

The contribution of this paper is therefore to turn the searchlight onto ourselves as a nation, list some cases of corruption in our current history, and to present them as manifestations of the malaise in our nation. In effect, they constitute a definition of the problem that needs to be solved. It is also the objective of this paper to make suggestions for its solution. It is hoped that some of the readers may be challenged enough to join efforts towards the eradication of corruption especially following efforts in this paper to expose and disclose some real-life cases of corruption in our recent political and socio-economic history. It does us no good to sweep the problem under the carpet. Its eradication necessitates a clear definition of its various facets, agreeing on a strategic vision of what a corruption-free nation should be, and exploring options that could be translated into nation-wide activities for the implementation of goals that will ensure the actualisation of the vision. All these comprise a strategic framework for the eradication of corruption in our nation.

A strategic framework

The comprehensive eradication of corruption in all its forms calls for the use of a strategic framework to ensure holistic and sustainable efforts that will yield the desired corruption-free nation. There should be a clear vision of what the country should become in every aspect of our national life. It is essential that there should be proper identification of corruption in the recent history and the current events of the country. The strategic planning and implementation tasks consist of activities that should move the nation from the unacceptable position to the desired envisioned status. This done, it may become feasible to explore probable options that could be considered in the drawing up of a plan and implementation steps of the programme.

Accordingly, the rest of the contents of the paper consist of the following:

  1. Problem definition
  2. Strategic options for the design of solutions
  3. Analysis of options
  4. Recommendations on a tentative solution
  5. Conclusion

1.Problem definition

It is proposed that brief historical review of the problem of corruption in Nigeria is undertaken first. To appreciate the enormity or otherwise of the problem, it becomes necessary to look back into the history of the nation and choose a point at which it could be assumed that corruption became a major problem. It may be unwise and indeed inconsequential to start designing a solution without a clear understanding of the problem. Going back to history, it is suggested to start with the administration of General Olusegun Obasanjo.


To read entire paper, click here


About the Author

Chima Okereke, PhD, PMP

Herefordshire, UK




Dr. O. Chima Okereke, Ph.D., MBA, PMP is the Managing Director and CEO of Total Technology Consultants, Ltd., a project management consulting company working in West Africa and the UK. He is a visiting professor, an industrial educator, a multidisciplinary project management professional, with over 25 years’ experience in oil and gas, steel and power generation industries. For example, On December 26th 2013, he completed an assignment as a visiting professor in project management; teaching a class of students on Master’s degree in project management in the Far Eastern Federal University, Vladivostok, Russia. In August and September 2013, he conducted an innovative, and personally developed training programme for seventy six well engineers of Shell Nigeria to enhance the efficiency of their operations using project and operations management processes. Before embarking on a career in consulting, he worked for thirteen years in industry rising to the position of a chief engineer with specialisation in industrial controls and instrumentation, electronics, electrical engineering and automation. During those 13 years, he worked on every aspect of projects of new industrial plants including design, construction and installation, commissioning, and engineering operation and maintenance in process industries. Chima sponsored and founded the potential chapter of the Project Management Institute (PMI®) in Port Harcourt, Nigeria, acting as president from 2004 to 2010.

Dr. Okereke has a Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Lagos, and a PhD and Masters in Business Administration (MBA) degree from the University of Bradford in the UK. He also has a PMP® certification from the Project Management Institute (PMI®) which he passed at first attempt. He has been a registered engineer with COREN in Nigeria since 1983. For many years, Total Technology has been a partner for Oracle Primavera Global Business Unit, a representative in Nigeria of Oracle University for training in Primavera project management courses, and a Gold Level member of Oracle Partner Network (OPN. He is a registered consultant with several UN agencies. More information can be found at http://www.totaltechnologyconsultants.org/.

Chima is the publisher of Project Management Business Digest, a blog aimed at helping organizations use project management for business success. Dr. Okereke is also an international editorial advisor for the PM World Journal and PM World Library. He can be contacted at [email protected]  or [email protected].

Project Management in the Port Development Project in Latvia


By Emīls Pūlmanis

PhD.cand., MSc.proj.mgmt.
State Audit Office (Latvia)
Development project manager

Riga, Latvia



This paper analyses a case study of performance and compliance audit in the port development project in Latvia. Author has participated in the audit process evaluating project management application in the project implemented by the Riga Freeport Authority and co-funded by the Cohesion Fund “Development of Infrastructure on Krievu Island for the Transfer of Port Activities from the City Centre”. Despite the mass media reports that the Riga Freeport Authority has successfully completed the project, only the construction phase of the project has been completed. During the following two years the stevedore activity must be transferred to the newly built port infrastructure on Krievu Island and coal handling operations must be commenced. In order to implement these activities the stevedores have to build internal infrastructure objects, to install equipment and to restructure logistics. Furthermore, in order to obtain positive opinions from the responsible institutions on the completion of the project and attainment of the defined objectives, by March 2019 it must be proved that the project objective has been reached and the benefits must be presented. The project was initiated in 2006 when the Riga Freeport Authority made a decision on using degraded Krievu Island territories for port activities and commenced the planning estimating that the construction phase of the project would be completed by the end of 2012. In accordance with the initial plans, active cargo handling should be currently taking place in the new port territories on Krievu Island. However, the implementation of the project has been delayed by almost three years (detailed project implementation timeline see as annex 1), as we see it – due to ineffective solutions to project management issues and untimely, poor communication with the parties involved in the project, such as stevedores, builders, credit institutions etc.


The implementers of the project have a lot to do in order to be able to be eligible for the full amount of the European Union co-funding intended for the planning period of 2007 – 2013, which amounts to 77.2 million euro, but we already see several factors which constitute a significant risk of corrections in the European Union co-funding. Firstly, during the development process of the project its objectives have been narrowed by cancelling complete removal of port operations from Andrejsala and Eksportosta territories. Secondly, during the project significant changes in its technical documentation have been made by changing the technical solutions and scale of the construction work. Thirdly, in implementing the project the Riga Freeport Authority has failed to provide for complete conformity with the regulatory enactments, such as deficiencies in the formation of the project team, outsourcing for tasks which should be executed by the employees themselves.

Over the last two years the Riga Freeport Authority has worked on problems arise during the previous period due to faulty project management, however the measures taken by the Authority have not been sufficient for prevention or reduction of all the risks. We conducted this performance audit for the purposes of facilitating the progress of other projects co-funded by the European Union, which are important for the State and its inhabitants with special attention paid to the strengthening of project management institutions in the public administration. We thank all the employees of the Riga Freeport Authority, the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Finance, the builder’s representatives, experts and others which we asked during the audit to provide their opinions or information, which helped to gain understanding on the implementation of the project.

Meanwhile the Freeport of Riga is an important part of global and regional cargo transport chain as well as of the Baltic Sea region passenger traffic network. Being an integral part of the city of Riga, the port is fully aware of its social and environmental responsibility, so one of the main principles of the Port operation is high efficiency and quality of services provided.


To read entire paper, click here


About the Author

Emils Pulmanis

Riga, Latvia





Emils Pulmanis is a member of the board of the Professional Association of Project Managers in Latvia and development project manager at State Audit Office of the Republic of Latvia. He has gained a BSc. in engineer economics, a professional master’s degree in project management (MSc.proj.mgmt) and currently is a PhD candidate with a specialization in project management. He has elaborated and directed a number of domestic and foreign financial instruments co-financed projects. He was a National coordinator for a European Commission-funded program – the European Union’s financial instruments PHARE program in Latvia. Over the past seven years he has worked in the public administration project control and monitoring field. He was a financial instrument expert for the Ministry of Welfare and the European Economic Area and Norwegian Financial Mechanism implementation authority as well as an expert for the Swiss – Latvian cooperation program as a NGO grant scheme project evaluation expert. He has gained international and professional project management experience in Germany, the United States and Taiwan. In addition to his professional work, he is also a lecturer at the University of Latvia for the professional master study program in Project management. He has authored more than 25 scientific publications and is actively involved in social activities as a member of various NGO’s.

Emils can be contacted at [email protected].

To view other works by Emils Pulmanis, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at http://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/emils-pulmanis/


What to do about Risk


By Lev Virine, Ph.D., P.Eng.; Michael Trumper; Eugenia Virine, PMP

Intaver Institute Inc.

Calgary, Alberta, Canada


In this article, we are going to learn how to deal with risk. You may be familiar with the PMBOK® Guide which describes a formalized approach to risk management. We are going to use a slightly different approach and focus on how choice engineering can be used for managing project risk. We will discuss a few simple techniques that you can use that will improve your ability to handle risk during the course of your projects.

Make It Simple

A couple of years ago we participated in a risk management conference for the aerospace industry. One of the presentations was titled “Risk Management for Human Space Exploration” and drew an especially large crowd. There were a couple of hundred engineers, researchers and students who gathered to learn about how to manage space exploration risk from a representative of one the largest aerospace organizations. However, topics did not cover risks associated with hostile aliens, deadly space debris, or black holes, instead attendees were presented with descriptions of the multiple regulations, procedures, directives, rules, and other documents which regulate risk management in these organizations. It was mind boggling to see how many documents are created by one particular organization for what is really quite a narrow subject. It probably took at least a dozen man years to write them. Merely showing an extremely compressed version of these documents caused mass lethargy in the audience. In fact, the presenter himself almost seemed to take on the persona of a hypnotist, droning on and on, seemingly intent on putting the crowd in a trance. It may well have happened for after the presentation ended and the lights snapped on, it was as if the hypnotist has snapped his fingers to bring his subject out of hypnosis. People wandered out of the presentation with a slightly mystified look, unable to recall many details of the past hour. This is really not the effect you are going for when you discuss risk processes.

In reality, risk management processes should be relatively simple, especially when you are trying to establish them. To help simplify the processes, choice engineering should be the main foundation of your risk management processes. Along these lines, you should first look to establish a few unobtrusive procedures which will steer people towards make better judgment regarding risk.

Consider these three issues:

  1. What events might occur during your project and what would be the impact of these?
  2. What is the probability that they will occur?
  3. What can we do either to minimize or take advantage of these events?

Many problems occur in the projects because, for one reason or another, people fail to ask these questions. When something happens during a project and causes a major problem and you asked why it happened, most project managers, if they were honest, would answer “We just did not think about it.”

Risk management guidelines, procedures, and regulations often hide the most important thing about risk management: it is a thinking exercise. So start with these three questions. Later on, when you are more confident, you can begin asking a few more questions, such as what triggered or caused this risk, what is the cost of the risk if it occurs, and so on. The process constitutes qualitative risk analysis. If you wanted to perform a more detailed statistical risk analysis based on your project schedule, we refer to this as quantitative risk analysis. If you are interested in finding out more about this, it is covered in detail our book “Project Decisions: The Art and Science) (Virine and Trumper, 2007).

To answer these questions, you should create a list of the risks with their probabilities (answer to question 1) and their impacts (answer to question 2). For example, before sending James Bond out to stop an evil mastermind from sabotaging the world’s economy, we suspect that his managers would ask him to complete a quick risk list that they had put together as part of their risk engineering process.


To read entire paper, click here


About the Authors

pmwj37-Aug2015-Virines-PHOTO LEV
Lev Virine, PhD

Intaver Institute
Alberta, Canada



Lev D. Virine
, Ph.D. has more than 25 years of experience as a structural engineer, software developer, and project manager. He has been involved in major projects performed by Fortune 500 companies and government agencies to establish effective decision analysis and risk management processes as well as to conduct risk analyses of complex projects. Lev’s current research interests include the application of decision analysis and risk management to project management. He writes and speaks around the world on the decision analysis process, the psychology of judgment and decision-making and risk management. Lev can be contacted at [email protected]

To view other works by Lev Virine, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at http://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/lev-virine-phd/ 


pmwj19-feb2014-virine-AUTHOR2 TRUMPER
Michael Trumper

Intaver Institute
Alberta, Canada



Michael Trumper
has over 20 years’ experience in communications, software design, and project risk and management. Michael is a partner at Intaver Institute Inc., a vendor of project risk management and analysis software. Michael has authored papers on quantitative methods in project estimation and risk analysis. He is a co-author of two books on project risk management and decision analysis. He has developed and delivered project risk analysis and management solutions to clients that include NASA, DOE, and Lockheed Martin.

To view other works by Michael Trumper, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at http://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/michael-trumper/


Eugenia Virine, PMP

Alberta, Canada



Eugenia Virine
, PMP, is a senior manager for revenue development at Greyhound Canada. Over the past 12 years Eugenia has managed many complex projects in the areas of transportation and information technology. Her current research interests include project risk and decision analysis, project performance management, and project metrics. Eugenia holds B. Comm. degree from University of Calgary.

To view other works by Eugenia Virine, visit her author showcase in the PM World Library at http://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/eugenia-virine-pmp/


Some consequences of having two co-existing paradigms of project management


By Alan Stretton

Sydney, Australia



I recently completed a series of four articles in this journal under the broad heading of “Series on project management’s contributions to achieving broader ends” (Stretton 2016b,c,d,e).

The main theme of this series was advocating that project management look beyond the project as an end in itself (with its traditional “execution-only” focus on project outputs), towards broader contributions and value-adding in both post-execution and pre-execution phases. The findings of this series are summarised in the following figure.

Click here for PDF to see Figure 1: Potential (and sometimes actual) areas for extended project management contributions in pre-execution and post-execution phases of a broader project life cycle

The execution-only perspective is illustrated by the box surrounding text box 7. Project Execution. This represents what I will call the “traditional” paradigm of project management.

The broader representation includes not only involvement in pre-execution and post-execution activities for individual projects, but also involvement in organisational strategic planning. Any and all combinations of these, added to Project Execution, will be described as representing an “emergent” paradigm of project management.


The current situation in project management is that both the traditional and emergent paradigms are widely represented in the literature, and in practice.

The co-existence of these two paradigms is recognised by many in project management, but evidently not by all. Some consequences of this co-existence have also been recognised, but many have not been discussed in detail. This article is concerned with exploring a few such consequential problems and opportunities. These include:

  • Some adverse effects which the traditional paradigm has on the emergent paradigm in relation to awareness and promotion of the latter;
  • A “blame the project manager” dilemma which suggests a defensive strategy of increasing project management involvement in project initiation activities;
  • An opportunity to take over the often ungoverned spaces of project initiation before a less qualified avocation does so (plus adding value in the process);
  • A discipline-or-profession-related consequence for project management

But first we look a little more closely at the nature of each of these two paradigms.

The traditional paradigm

In a recent article in this journal, Dalcher 2016 had the following to say about the traditional definition of a project, and how project management is perceived under the traditional paradigm.

The traditional definition of a project implies a temporal arrangement concerned with actualising a planned and defined objective. Indeed, project management is regarded as an execution discipline concerned with realising plans.

In other words, the traditional paradigm essentially involves what many have called an execution-only perception of the scope of project management. This traditional paradigm is still very much alive and well in the project management literature, and in practice. In the literature, it is perhaps most notably represented by PMI’s PMBOK Guide (PMI 2013), which we will be discussing again shortly.

The emergent paradigm

Other project management people have a broader paradigm for the discipline. Peter Morris has been describing this for over two decades as ‘the management of projects’ (e.g. Morris 1994) which he summarises (in Morris 2013:281) as

…one where the project organisation is the unit of analysis, where context, the front end, technology, people and the commercial basis of the project’s development and delivery are included, as well as the traditional control topics.

As is evident from many previous articles I have published in this journal, I am well and truly a follower of this emergent paradigm. This is largely because this paradigm encompasses what we actually did in the project-based organisations in which I worked for some forty years (before venturing into academe) – particularly in Civil & Civic, where we were normally heavily involved in pre-project-execution activities, and often in post-delivery activities as well.

Consequences arise from the co-existence of these two paradigms

Many writers who evidently embrace the emergent paradigm acknowledge this co-existence, and have discussed it in some detail (e.g. Morris 1994, 2013). However, it would appear that many followers of the traditional paradigm do not acknowledge the existence of the emergent paradigm, in spite of its having been in place for over half a century.


To read entire paper, click here


About the Author

Alan Stretton, PhD

Faculty Corps, University of Management
and Technology, Arlington, VA (USA)
Life Fellow, AIPM (Australia)



Alan Stretton
is one of the pioneers of modern project management. He is currently a member of the Faculty Corps for the University of Management & Technology (UMT), USA. In 2006 he retired from a position as Adjunct Professor of Project Management in the Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building at the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS), Australia, which he joined in 1988 to develop and deliver a Master of Project Management program.   Prior to joining UTS, Mr. Stretton worked in the building and construction industries in Australia, New Zealand and the USA for some 38 years, which included the project management of construction, R&D, introduction of information and control systems, internal management education programs and organizational change projects. He has degrees in Civil Engineering (BE, Tasmania) and Mathematics (MA, Oxford), and an honorary PhD in strategy, programme and project management (ESC, Lille, France). Alan was Chairman of the Standards (PMBOK) Committee of the Project Management Institute (PMI®) from late 1989 to early 1992. He held a similar position with the Australian Institute of Project Management (AIPM), and was elected a Life Fellow of AIPM in 1996. He was a member of the Core Working Group in the development of the Australian National Competency Standards for Project Management. He has published over 160 professional articles and papers. Alan can be contacted at [email protected].

To see more works by Alan Stretton, visit his author showcase in the PM World Library at http://pmworldlibrary.net/authors/alan-stretton/.


Quality management practices among construction firms in Lagos State, Nigeria


By Samuel Omojola Oludare and Olugboyega Oluseye

Obafemi Awolowo University

Ile-Ife, Nigeria



Quality management is an important management system to be considered by construction firms in order to improve the level of their performance. It is required for a construction firm that seeks to sustain itself in the current construction market which is highly challenging and competitive. The construction industries in the developing countries have been struggling with quality issues for many years; while the construction firms have been wasting resources as a result of faulty construction. Therefore, this study examined quality management practices by construction firms in Nigeria, assess the impact of quality management practices on the construction firms and determine factors affecting quality management practices in construction firms. Fifty construction firms with registration category of A, B, C and D were surveyed for the study and the data elicited were analyzed using Frequency distribution and percentage, relative importance index (RII) and analytical hierarchy process (AHP). The study found that quality management systems are being practised among construction firms but not in a standardized manner as the firms indicated different quantity management systems. The opportunity to get continued work from clients was found as the most significant impact of quality management practices on construction firms. The study concluded that no standard quality management system existed among the construction firms and that construction firms lack the resources and training to manage quality and are being affected by the corruption climate in Nigeria.

Keywords: quality management, quality management systems, quality management practices.

1.0 Introduction

Construction industry has been widely criticized for its low quality of delivery of construction projects (Marasini and Quinnell, 2010; Hoonakker et al., 2010). Ashokkumar (2014) and Al-Ani and Al-Adhmani (2011) concluded that construction firms need to adopt quality management in order to solve quality problems and meet the demands of the clients. ISO 8402 (1994) describes quality as the degree of excellence in a competitive sense. Ashokkumar (2014) noted that the quality of construction projects is determined by quality management. According to Hoonakker et al. (2010), quality management is important for the delivery of a project with zero defects. Also, Tan and Abdul-Rahman (2011) opined that quality management is required for a construction firm that seeks to sustain itself in the current construction market which is highly challenging and competitive. Quality management practice can help minimize material wastage, cost overrun and delay (Ashokkumar, 2014) and can be used to address client’s requirements (Hoonakker et al., 2010). Al-Ani and Al-Adhmani (2011) argued that quality management is an important management system to be considered by construction firms in order to improve the level of their performance; yet construction firms are not practicing quality management.

Delgado-Hernandez and Aspinwall (2008) noted that quality management practices has helped the construction firms in UK to enjoy more business from clients, increase their market shares and improve their customer satisfaction levels. As compared to construction firms in the developed countries, the level of quality construction in the developing countries is low and the construction firms in the developing countries are slow in adopting quality management practices (Adusa-Poku, 2014). Ashokkumar (2014) stated that the construction industry in India has been struggling with quality issues for many years and the construction firms have been wasting resources as a result of faulty construction. In Nigeria, little is known about quality management practices among the construction firms. Hence, this study intends to examine quality management practices by construction firms in Nigeria, assess the impact of quality management practices on the construction firms and determine factors affecting quality management practices in construction firms.


To read entire article, click here


About the Authors

pmwj47-Jun2016-Oludare-OMOJOLA PHOTO
Samuel Oludare Omojola

Ile-Ife, Nigeria



Mr. Samuel Oludare Omojola
is a Lecturer I in the Department of Building at Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria. His research interest lies in the development of maintenance strategies for industrial buildings, deterioration patterns and constructability enhancement strategies. His published papers on project management and maintenance management strategies have appeared in many peer reviewed journals. Mr. Omojola can be contacted at [email protected]


pmwj47-Jun2016-Oludare-OLUSEYE PHOTO
Olugboyega Oluseye

Ile-Ife, Nigeria


Mr. Oluseye Olugboyega
graduated from the Department of Building at Obafemi Awolowo, Ile-ife, Nigeria. He is currently a Graduate Assistant in the same department and presently pursuing a Master’s Degree in Construction Management. Mr Olugboyega can be contacted at [email protected] and [email protected]



Life Cycle Cost Analysis and Cost Savings for Road Projects


By Abid Tabassum

Ontario, Canada



According to Project Management Institute (PMI); for a successful construction project there are four salient ingredients; Cost, Time, Quality and Environment [6]. This paper will cover a proposal to show that, use of a comparatively new road construction material (Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP)) has all the four benefits as mentioned by PMI. It will compare the Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) for two options of; Option A – conventional Hot Mix Asphalt (or HMA) and Option B – HMA with 20% RAP. LCCA is carried out for 40 years with comparison provided between two options provided at the end of LCCA section. The LCCA is then followed by a case study for a mid-sized municipality based on actual data collected from a municipality in Ontario, Canada. The environmental benefits of use of RAP are also presented in later section of this paper. Results are summed up in terms of cost effectiveness, environmental benefits, time and quality.


Roads are constructed using two major expensive components; aggregates and asphalt. According to a study over 90 million tonnes of asphalt is recycled every year in North America [5]. For being more cost effective; asphalt recycling/reclaiming is increasing every year [5]. Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) is a cost effective reclaimed product. RAP is an asphalt pavement that is recycled, it is the product of milling and removal of asphalt from roadways and or plant wastes [1].

This paper will look into comparison between road construction with conventional HMA and HMA with 20% RAP. The cost effectiveness of enhanced usage of RAP will be determined through the following methods:

  1. Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) for both a conventional Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) and HMA with 20% RAP.
  2. Determining cost effectiveness of RAP option through a case study for a mid sized municipality

Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)

LCCA is the process by which the economic viability of two or more competing projects is determined and compared utilizing its initial cost estimate and all other costs that will be borne by the organization and user through-out its life time. For road projects there are two types of cost, agency cost and user cost. For this paper we will use only agency costs. User cost such as increased delay costs and changes in accident costs as a result of future maintenance actions are extremely difficult to predict and beyond scope of this paper. There are several steps in LCCA methodology, as given below:

  1. Determine alternative designs
  2. Determine timing of activity
  3. Agency cost estimate
  4. Determine life cycle cost and analyze

There are many methods of comparing life cycle costs. The mostly used is Net Present Worth Method (NPW), the internal rate of return (IRR), the Benefit Cost Ratio (B/C), and Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost Method (EUAC). The most often used methods among these are NPW and IRR methods. The NPW method is the sum of the initial costs and future costs. Present or initial costs are considered in year zero and taken as it is while the future costs are discounted through an appropriate rate of return. The lower value of NPW for a project; more desirable it is. Since it shows that over the life cycle; lower costs will be incurred. Since NPW is the most widely used method for pavement LCCA, this paper will take into consideration the NPW method.


To read entire article, click here


About the Author

Abid Tabassum, M.Eng., PMP, CCP

Ontario, Canada



Abid Tabassum
holds a Bachelor’s degree and two master’s degrees in Civil Engineering (specializing in construction and project management). He has worked in the project/ construction management as well in the project controls field for over 20 years in Oil & Gas, Infrastructure, Power and Energy. Abid holds Project Management Professional designation through PMI (USA) and is a Certified Cost Professional (CCP) through AACE International.

Mr. Tabassum can be contacted at [email protected]