SECOND EDITION

By Johnny D. Morgan, PhD

General Dynamics Information Technology

Virginia, USA

ABSTRACT

The goal of project management is the timely delivery of capabilities that provides value-add to the customer. This paper identifies a series of warning signs of Information Technology (IT) projects under stress and their potential effects on technical quality. It describes how agile software development practices can reduce the causes of these stresses. It then examines the Manifesto for Agile Software Development and how its implementation in six key areas could also result in a reduction in technical quality and provides recommendations for Project Managers to follow to maintain technical quality while executing agile software development practices.

Key Words: Manifesto for Agile Software Development, Technical Debt, Tailoring, Customer Definition, Architecture Communications, Documentation, Self Organizing Teams

This paper is based on empirical observations, current literature, limited trails, and engineering and project management experiences.

INTRODUCTION

The goal of project management is the timely delivery of capabilities that provides value-add to the customer. In 1994, the Standish Group published their first report that measured the delivery of successful projects. In their initial report, they surveyed 365 companies and represented 8380 IT applications. “The Standish Group research shows a staggering 30.1% of projects will be cancelled before they are completed….On the success side, the average is only 16.2% for software projects that are completed on-time and on budget.” They further assessed that 52.7% of IT projects will be completed but will be challenged by being over-budget, over the time estimate and will offer fewer functions than originally specified. The study also concluded that the probability of project success goes down as the size and complexity of the project increases.     (The CHAOS report.1994)

As reported by Alan Zucker in 2016,

“Over the past two decades, there has been very little change in the (Standish) headline results. On average:

• 29% of projects “succeed” in delivering the desired functionality, on time and on budget
• 48% of projects are “challenged” and do not meet scope, time or budget expectations
• 23% of projects “fail” and are cancelled

While there is some year-to-year variability in these scores, the trend line is essentially flat. In other words, we are no better at delivering a project today than we were 20 years ago. However, when you dive into the data, there are some bright spots and markers for improvement:

• Smaller is better
• People are the primary drivers of project success or failure
• Agile projects are far more likely to succeed.” (Zucker, 2016)

Empirical observations by the author of approximately 150 projects over a period of 20 years indicate that troubled projects proceed through a progressive set of warning signs until the project either delivers a capability or is cancelled.

More…

To read entire paper, click here

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

About the Author

Johnny D. Morgan, PhD

Virginia, USA

Dr. Johnny Morgan has 37 years of systems engineering and program management experience. While serving in the United States Navy and then employed with IBM, Lockheed Martin and currently General Dynamics, he has assisted numerous Department of Defense and Intelligence Community customers in the management and execution for their information technology portfolios.   Supplementing his experience, he has received a Bachelor’s degree in Computer and Information Sciences from the University of Florida, a Master’s degree in Systems Management from the University of Southern California, and a Doctorate degree in System Engineering from the George Washington University.   Dr. Morgan has also earned numerous industry certifications including the Project Management Institute’s Project Management Professional and the International Council on Systems Engineering Expert System Engineering Professional certifications. Dr. Morgan can be contacted at [email protected]

SECOND EDITION

by Susan Hostetter and Sherri Norris

U.S. Census Bureau

Washington, DC, USA

Executive Summary

This paper continues the work of developing a maturity model for portfolio management we first presented at the 2016 UMD Project Management Symposium. In this paper, we will present:

• Discussion of how we created the scorecard and evaluated the maturity model
• Feedback from professionals involved with portfolio management processes across the U.S Census Bureau
• Our Implementation Scorecard, a tool designed to measure and rate the maturity of portfolio management programs against the model
• An updated maturity model

Important topics that emerged from the development of this scorecard and review of different portfolio management programs are:

• A maturity model should not understate the process development phase.
• Portfolio management programs come in a variety of structures and usually manage more than one type of investment.
• Successful movement across the maturity levels is dependent on several universal factors outside the maturity model.
• Ongoing portfolio management programs will experience positive and negative changes in maturity over time.

Introduction

We introduced a maturity model in the paper, Evaluating and Building Portfolio Management Maturity that we created to be a tool for assessing portfolio management programs in an “apples to apples” format. In this paper, we discuss the scorecard we created for use by portfolio management professionals to assess the performance of their programs against the model and our evaluation of the maturity model and scorecard against a variety of portfolio management programs.

Scorecard Development and Evaluation Participants

In the first paper, we included a list of questions for each portfolio management characteristic section. These questions did a good job framing the scope of each characteristic but proved to function poorly as questions on a scorecard. We found that answering the mostly yes/no questions to be burdensome and did not provide results that allowed us to place a response into a single maturity level. Our solution was to convert the questions into a list of conditional statements, organize them by characteristic and add an instruction for the respondent to select all statements that applied to their portfolio management governance program.

Our next step was to find portfolio management professionals to complete our scorecard and evaluate the maturity model. Since 2012, the Census Bureau has made portfolio management a strategic priority across the enterprise with a few program areas ahead of the enterprise push. This meant that programs have been functioning with varied success for at least 4 years with a few running over 6 years. We interviewed 13 people from eight different governance programs with experience varying from 2 months to over 6 years. We were fortunate to interview people who have seen their programs evolve and change with leadership turnover as well as people who have participated in more than one governance program. Most of our participants managed portfolio management processes from a program management office but some were program managers whom had driven the development of a board or were participating as a board member during its development. We also had broad representation of differing portfolio types and functions and were involved in the following areas:

• The enterprise level governing board and development efforts.
• Directorate level programs over hundreds of investments.
• Division level boards over smaller focused portfolios.
• A program-level board over large, multiyear, multi-billion dollar investments.

They represented differing governance structures and control over funds and their governing responsibilities included IT projects, operations work, reimbursable work, research projects, large enterprise initiatives, and contracts.

Evaluation of Maturity Model and Scorecard

We selected participants for our evaluation with the intent of getting knowledgeable portfolio management professionals from a variety of areas to fill out the scorecard and provide feedback on the maturity model. We planned a debriefing interview of the participants for after they completed the scorecard to help us evaluate our materials and maturity model. We developed participant instructions, materials, and a script to standardize the debriefing interview. For each scorecard section, we asked if they found the statement relevant, if they could see themselves in the statement and if anything was missing. For the model, we asked for feedback on the maturity levels and the characteristics we included in the model.

More…

To read entire paper, click here

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

About the Authors

Susan Hostetter

Washington, DC, USA

Susan Hostetter, PMP, is a project management professional with over twenty years’ experience with Federal Statistical programs. Ms. Hostetter has been instrumental in standing up and managing risk management, project management, portfolio management, strategic planning, and performance management processes for large survey and Census programs. She has a Master’s Degree in Management with a Project Management emphasis from the University of Maryland’s University College, a Master’s Certificate in Program Management from George Washington University and a Bachelor’s Degree in Business Administration from Mary Baldwin University. Susan can be reached at [email protected]

Sherri Norris

Washington, DC, USA

Sherri Norris is a project management and statistical professional with over twenty years of public policy, project management and operations experience. Ms. Norris has coordinated and implemented schedule, requirements, performance management, and governance processes for survey and Census Programs. She has a Public Policy Master’s Degree in Justice: Law and Society from American University, a Master’s Certificate in Program Management from George Washington University and a Bachelor’s Degree in Criminal Justice from University of Delaware. Sherri can be reached at [email protected]

Challenges and Paradoxes

SECOND EDITION

By Alina Kozarkiewicz and Agnieszka Kabalska

AGH University of Science and Technology

Cracow, Poland

Abstract

Nowadays, the importance of creativity for social and economic development, including the development of individuals, organizations as well as sectors or regions, is taken for granted. So called creative industries (e.g. media, advertisement, video-games), seem to play more and more important role in the development of the economy (Banks at al., 2002; Seidel, 2011). What is to be underlined, all these creative industries are project-oriented as projects are the main way of carrying on the activities of enterprises (Simon, 2006; DeFillipi et al., 2007). Moreover, in traditional project-oriented industries, such as construction or IT, the growing expectations as to the novelty and originality of products and management processes seem to increase the interests in creativity of employees and teams (Dawson & Andriopoulos, 2014).

The aim of this paper is to discuss the significance of the creativity in contemporary project management and to indicate the challenges and paradoxes rising from creative ideas and actions. On the basis of literature review the main attributes of creative projects will be demonstrated. In the next part, the most important pressures, challenges and paradoxes of creative project will be presented and discussed.

Key words: project management, creativity, paradoxes

JEL code: M10

Introduction

Although the creativity of an individual or an organization has started to attract attention of the scientists in the beginning of the twentieth century, it seems to be accurate to underline that recently in the management research this interest has been developed into are markable phenomenon. Inquiries on creativity, typical for philosophy or psychology, have become the domain of the researchers in the field of management, and consequently, in a vast number of papers, creativity is demonstrated and analyzed as a source of the growth and success of contemporary enterprises, a key for improving the work environment, and as the basis of R&D and innovativeness (Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Amabile, 1996; Dawson & Andriopoulos, 2014). Moreover, it is noted that creative sectors, such as fashion, advertising, media or computer games, influence in more and more important way the economy of many countries (Banks et al., 2002; Seidel, 2011; Florida, 2005). Their share in the gross domestic product of many European countries grows constantly, resulting in the efforts of many governments to offer the conditions supporting the development of such industries. However, it should be emphasized that a huge diversity in the scope of research on creativity could be observed ‒ the levels of concern include individual and organizational creativity, the creative projects and teams, as well as creative classes, cities, regions or sectors.

Unquestionably, project management does not remain indifferent to the matter of creativity: its significance, sources or paradoxes (Kozarkiewicz, 2016). A project ‒ by its definition ‒ consists in creating the unique product or service. Thus, it results in the lack of the routine and repetitiveness, but in the search of new, original ideas instead. The creative sectors are project-oriented, they carry out their activities through projects. What is equally important, in traditional project industries, such as construction industry, more and more expectations appear in relation to the originality and the innovation, both with the reference to applied technologies or offered products, as well as management processes. It might be stated, consequently, that the management of creative projects constitutes nowadays a meaningful and current research topic.

This article should be regarded as a voice in the discussion described above. The aim of this paper is to make a contribution to the knowledge on creative project by exploiting simultaneously pressures, challenges and paradoxes related to the peculiarity of managing such projects. The paper is structured as follows. After a brief introduction, in the first part of the paper, the characteristics of creative projects are delineated concisely. Thereafter, on the basis of existing literature, the results of the analysis of diverse contingencies, especially the pressures for managers, are demonstrated. These pressures, for example new technological solutions or customers’ expectations, might be considered as the drivers of creativity. Some other pressures, for example the expectations as to the financial effectiveness of the project, however, could also form barriers for creativity in projects. In the next section of the paper, the analysis of creative projects is focused around the concept of the paradox. The research investigates the primary categories of paradoxes of creative projects resulting from the ambiguous expectations towards the product, the management process, or the team composition. As research reveals, in creative projects paradoxes concerning exacting choices between art and business, product functionality or design, schedule or innovation, raise a substantial question not only for the practice of project management, but also for the scientific research focused on description and understanding the phenomenon of creativity.

What should be outlined in the introduction to this paper, the diversity of creative projects frames the complexity of issues connected with managing of such projects. Thus, the description and discussion require some simplifications, synthesis or even brachylogy. In this paper, the systematizing assumption was made deliberately‒seven most important pressures, challenges and paradoxes were identified.

Creative projects and their categories

Indisputably, when defining the concept of creative project it would be impossible to omit even short discussion about the understanding of the term ‘creativity’ and delineating the contexts of some definitions…

More…

To read entire paper, click here

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

About the Authors

Alina Kozarkiewicz

Cracow, POLAND

Alina Kozarkiewicz awarded her master in management and doctoral degree in management from the AGH-University of Science and Technology, the Faculty of Management in Cracow, Poland. Next, in the year 2013 she awarded her habilitation (post-doctoral degree required in Polish academic system) from the University of Economics in Katowice. Since her graduation she has been working for the AGH-University of Science and Technology in Cracow holding the positions of teaching assistant, assistant professor and, at present, associate professor. She has been co-operating with numerous Polish universities, e.g. Warsaw School of Economics, University of Economics in Katowice, and Medical University in Warsaw. She visited and co-operated with many European universities, e.g. Umea University in Sweden, Dundee University in the UK or Arcada University in Helsinki, as well as University of Maryland, the USA. Her main interests include project management, innovation management and strategic management. She is an author or co-author of six books on project management and project management accounting (all in Polish) and of over hundred scientific papers. She presented her work at numerous conferences in Poland and abroad. Alina Kozarkiewicz can be contacted at [email protected]

Agnieszka Kabalska

Cracow, POLAND

Agnieszka Kabalska is a PhD candidate with a specialization in strategic management at AGH Faculty of Management. She has gained her M.Sc. in mining geology at AGH Faculty of Geology, Geophysics and Environmental Protection. Her scientific interests are focused on value configuration in business models, especially in Polish health resort enterprises. In parallel with scientific work, Agnieszka is professionally involved in the creation and implementation of industrial projects, which are primarily focused on cooperation between the academic and business environment – primarily on creating and implementing innovative ideas and technological solutions for business practice. She also works on market research projects for companies from various industries. Agnieszka is an author and co-author of scientific papers about the subject matter of business models and project management (strategic and creative projects). Agnieszka can be contacted at [email protected]

Complicated Collaboration or Improbable Panacea

SECOND EDITION

By William A. Moylan, PhD, PMP

and

Nadia Arafah, ABD

College of Technology, Eastern Michigan University

Ypsilanti, Michigan

Abstract

Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) is different from traditional construction project delivery methods. IPD requires early involvement of key parties with sharing of decision-making, control and project risks. Removing the associated liability encourages the parties to focus on producing the best, economical design while executing the construction efficiently and effectively. In IPD, the facility owner pays for direct costs and overhead, theoretically striped of profit. The risk of losing money is minimal with the opportunity to share in net budget savings. IPD seems like a panacea; however, skeptics remain. The typical designer and constructor, both pragmatic by nature, are distrustful of unproven methods. IPD seems complicated to those not attuned to creative problem solving. IPD participants must be trusting and trustworthy, able to collaborate and cooperate, and, communicate ethically and sincerely – not common traits of the construction industry. The paper compares and contrasts these positive and negative aspects of IPD.

Introduction

Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) has been touted with both raves and reservation as a construction project delivery method. IPD boasts better buildings thanks to multiparty contracting with trustworthy partners. However, detractors warn that IPD remains as complicated as it is collaborative.

In IPD, project risks are shared equally among the multiparty contract entities and offers subsequent profit sharing from any positive budget balances. Removing the associated liability encourages the parties to focus on producing an economical design and executing the construction activity efficiently and effectively. The IPD project is organized like a business with early involvement of key players with shared team decision-making and control. Orientation [onboarding] is critical because IPD’s approach, process and vocabulary are different from the normal project delivery methods. In IPD, the facility owner pays all contract signatories’ direct costs and overhead, theoretically striped of profit. The team of designers and contractors contribute to a profit pool, based on a target price. The risk of losing money is minimal with the opportunity to share in the net budget savings (i.e., profit). Moreover, IPD offers opportunities for repeat business with trusted partners.

However, skeptics remain. The typical designer and constructor, both pragmatic by nature, has honed their business skills from the school of hard knocks. IPD seems complicated to those not attuned to team-based, creative problem solving. IPD participants must be technically knowledgeable with the requisite business savvy, be good at ‘playing well’ with others, and exhibit good communication skills; not the typical tool-kit of the A/E designer and construction manager.

The paper reviews the background of IPD including requirements, compares and contrasts the positive and negative aspects of IPD, and, suggests recommended practices to ensure the best brick for the buck from IPD.

Background – Constructed Facility Project Delivery

The methods and means by which the Constructor delivers the completed facility [the “how”] based on the design of the Architect / Engineer [the “what”] is important.

Construction Contractual Arrangements

In construction, the contract type will vary over the project life cycle. Typically, reimbursable contracts are used for the conceptual and design work at the beginning of the project, and fixed-price contacts are preferred for the construction work. The following factors affect the selection of the contract type for a specific work package: level of detail available, urgency of the procurement, level of competition desired, level of competition available, and, organization’s risk utility or tolerance.

The major types of construction contracts (PMI, 2008) are as follows:

More…

To read entire paper, click here

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

About the Authors

William A. Moylan, PhD

Michigan, USA

Dr. William A. Moylan, PhD, PMP, FESD, DTM is an Educator, Consultant, Trainer, Expert Witness and Practitioner in Project Management and Construction Engineering. He is an Associate Professor with Eastern Michigan University and instructs in Construction Management. Dr. Moylan has extensive professional experience in all aspects of program and project management, including over eleven years internationally with the Arabian American Oil Co, and since 1983 has been involved in implementing information technology. Dr. Moylan received his BS in Construction Engineering from Lawrence Technological University; his Masters from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, majoring in Project Management and minoring in International Business, and, his Ph.D. in Organization and Management with a specialization in Leadership from Capella University. Dr. Moylan is active in a variety of professional societies including PMI, ESD ASCE, and Toastmasters International.

Naida Arafah

Michigan, USA

Nadia Arafah is an experienced and innovative interior designer focused on sustainability. She is a faculty member at Easter Michigan University an allied member of the American Society of Interior Designers (ASID). She earned her Masters of Science degree in Interior Design from Eastern Michigan and currently working on her PhD in Technology. Her research interest is evolving about sustainable design as a way of creating healthier interior environments.

In her professional practice, Nadia works on projects of all sizes, from renovating and repurposing old buildings to simply helping clients choose the perfect paint colors for their home. Arafah also takes on select commercial projects in addition to her residential design work, and finds helping people feel comfortable and happy in their office space is always rewarding.

Interior design is not just a career for Nadia Arafah – it’s a passion. Nadia loves meeting interesting and eclectic people, and enjoys the variety of experiences a design career provides. She also works to educate her student about the importance of sustainable design approach and guides them towards learning new software to excel their designs. In her free time, you can find Nadia reading, painting, enjoying the outdoors and socializing with her friends and family.

A New Era

SECOND EDITION

Damiano Bragantini, PMP^®

and

Matteo Licciardi

Megareti SpA

Verona, Italy

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that as communication must be transparent and clear and democratic, this means know why and with whom we are communicating. Are stakeholders all equal? Do they need the same strategic communication approach?

Throughout a literature review that suggests how to identify the stakeholders and how to manage them, it is proposed a new communication oriented approach as it is established that a two-way communication approach is the business model for the future.

It is suggested to investigate relationship and agreement attributes to help the project manager in categorize the stakeholders from the point of view of communication approach. These attributes are strictly connected with communication strategy as they could be modified through the right communication approach. Also it’s suggested to share the identification phase of the stakeholders with the identification phase of the risks, in order to build risks/stakeholders matrix that should be integrated with relationship and agreement attribute for each stakeholder.

For each stakeholder should be ethical to shape the more appropriate communication approach. By using a new paradigm of the well-known rhetorical triangle, pathos, logos and overall ethos are the constraints to solve to build the right communication approach for each stakeholder.

The results of this study reveals that the application of the new attributes, relationship and agreement throughout the stakeholder shape tool, combined with the re-engineered rhetorical triangle will drive the project manager toward the right communication approach for each stakeholder and a successful communication plan.

Key words: stakeholders, communication, ethics

JEL code: O15, D8

Introduction

In literature there are many definitions on what is a stakeholder, indeed the debate is very open, sometime confuse and contested (Miles, 2012). One of the most accepted definition is by Freeman (Freeman, 1984) “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives” that is quite similar to the one we find in PMBOK “An individual, group or organization who may affect, be affected by, or perceive itself to be affected by a decision, activity or outcome of the project” (PMI, 2013).

These definitions are, indeed, very widely and without any doubt, to stay alive, the project manager needs to assign attributes to each stakeholder to manage him/her in the best way.

In literature the most used attributes to analyze and prioritize the stakeholders are:

• power,

• legitimacy

• urgency

• proximity

where (Snauwaert, 2012):

• “Power is the ability of those who possess power to bring about the outcomes they desire (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977)

• Legitimacy is a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions (Suchman, 1995, p. 574)

• Urgency is the degree to which stakeholder claims call for immediate attention (Mitchel et al., 1997)

• Proximity is the degree to which stakeholders are closely associated or relatively remote to the organization/ project (Bourne & Walker, 2006)”.

Also, there are different models for classification such as “regulator, controller, partner, passive, dependent and non-stakeholder” (Mainardes et al., 2012).

In the vision of Mitchell et al. (1997), the classification options are: dormant stakeholder, discretionary stakeholder, demanding stakeholder, dominant stakeholder, dangerous stakeholder, and dependent stakeholder.

More…

To read entire paper, click here

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

About the Authors

Damiano Bragantini

Verona, Italy

Damiano Bragantini is a Civil Engineer with more 15 years of experience in Civil Infrastructure and Information Technology experience. Currently he is working with Agsm Group, an important Italian utility in generation, distribution and supply of electricity and gas. Mr. Bragantini is also a recognized teacher at the University of Liverpool (UK) where he teaches in the online project management MSc program. Mr. Bragantini is a certified Project Management Professional (PMP) from the Project Management Institute (PMI). He has been also actively involved with PMI as a final Exposure Draft Reviewer for Project Cost Estimating Standard, Practice Standard for Earned Value and PMBOK sixth Edition and as internal reviewer of PMBOK Fifth Edition. Mr. Bragantini has also been actively involved and is still involved with the local PMI Northern Italy Chapter, where he has been a contributor to some projects. Damiano Bragantini can be contacted at [email protected]

Matteo Licciardi

Verona, Italy

Matteo Licciardi is graduated in Business & Administration at Verona University, Italy. He attended also a college year in Tampere University, Finland. He worked in Verona University, in a multinational corporation working in craftsmanship and transportation sector, and in the biggest financial institution of Verona. After these experiences, he found the opportunity of working in Agsm Group, an important Italian utility in generation, distribution and supply of electricity and gas. He frequently collaborates with IKN Italy (Institute of Knowledge & Networking), an Italian company leader in organization of professional training and development events. Matteo Licciardi can be contacted at [email protected]