1. Project Management COMP3001

1. Project Management COMP3001

Project Management, A Definition

Project management is defined by British Standard 6079-1: 2000 as:

‘Planning, monitoring and control of all aspects of a project and the motivation of all those involved in it to achieve the project objectives on time and to the specified cost, quality and performance’.

An alternative is the controlled implementation of defined change. Project management is generally regarded as the most efficient way of introducing change. It achieves this by:

·  Defining what has to accomplished;

·  Developing a plan, and working through the plan to ensure that objectives are achieved;

·  Using appropriate tool and techniques to plan, monitor and maintain progress;

·  Employing skilled project management staff including the project manager[1].

Project, a definition

Similarly BS 6079-1: 2002 defines a project as:

‘Unique process, consisting of a set of co-ordinated and controlled activities, with a start and finish dates, undertaken to achieve an objective conforming to specific requirements, including the constraints of time, cost and resources’.

Historic context

Many of the project management tools in current use including precedence diagrams, critical chain analysis, PERT (project evaluation and review technique), work breakdown structures earned value and configuration management were largely developed by the US defence sector during the 50’s and 60’s.

The earliest research on project management tended to be on success factors, and the first study in the UK was by Peter Morris considering these at the different stages in the life-cycle he had selected formation, build-up, execution and close-out.

Many pioneers in the 80’s and 90’s took a fresh look at requirements capture and analysis of business need[2] so that today the analysis of objectives is better aligned to the client’s need. Testing and risk, in current methodologies have been addressed earlier, either by being considered at an earlier stage in the life-cycle or through the introduction of iterative and incremental approaches.

Interestingly it is these new methodologies in information systems and software development that have created new dilemmas to solve, including how to assess the amount of progress and predicting return in value of the progress to date.

The issue of tailoring and alignment led to the assessment and development of a new sector of development approaches[3]. Currently there is a concerted effort to adapt highly defined processes both in project management (eg PRINCE 2) [4] and in software development such as the unified process to agile approaches. Also, many of the approaches for measuring metrics pioneered by the object and component community are now being accepted as best practice.

An approach that is now used throughout the world is the CMMI approach, this was pioneered by the SEI (Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon University), and this is based on stages of improvement. Although these rigorous methods are effective in improving teams to deliver better software they do have some drawbacks, one being the time overhead in establishing them and ensuring that they are followed. CMMI relies on the measurement of progress via the use of Earned Value (EV). This has created an interesting debate as whether other approaches should be taken. Certainly, for faster moving projects, taking advantage of agile approaches, that rely on measuring working software (via acceptance tests, and associated weekly progress and ‘burn-down’ charts) seems more appropriate[5].

The traditional approaches to estimating of tasks have also undergone recent revision with many consultancies now adopting updated critical chain approaches rather than the traditional network diagram approach. The traditional network approach having been predominantly used in IT by the engineering sector.

Not only have the approaches, tools and metrics been in development, but attitudes to leadership[6] and team work are developing to bring a more enlightened approach.

Much of the business re-engineering approaches[7] added new impetus that modelling was essential. Another area is that of strategic alignment, with the modelling tools and project management methods following the developments of strategic thinkers such as Johnson and Scholes[8]. They have not just made an impact on management thinking but also their models are often used as a basis in stakeholder analysis and communications. Evident is the recent revision of the professional standard book, the Body of Knowledge (BoK)[9] from the APM (Association of Project Management), which reflects these changes stressing the importance of the wider stakeholder community, and issues of governance and alignment to strategy.

Although organisations such as the APM are bringing out key aspects of project management that are generic in many of their publications, project management areas such as the development of information systems and software development are established as separate disciplines in their own right.

©Graham Collins 2007

[1] Based on APM, Project Management Pathways, edited by Stevens, M., APM, 2002

[2] Graham, I., Requirements Engineering and Rapid Development, Addison-Wesley, 1998

[3] Graham, I., Collins, G., & Henderson-Sellers, B., OPEN and RUP, JOOP July/Aug 2000

[4] OGC, Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2, Stationary Office, 2002

[5] Martin, R., Scaling Agile Methods, JAOO Conference Arhus, 2005

[6] Cantor, M., Software Leadership, Addison-Wesley, 2002

[7] Hammer, M., & Champy, J., Reengineering the Corporation, Nicholas Brealey, Revised edition 2001

[8] Johnson, G., & Scholes, K., 1993, Exploring Corporate Strategy, 3rd Edition, Prentice Hall

[9] Morris, P., Body of Knowledge 5th Edition, Association of Project Management, 2006