Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Paulo Yazigi Sabbag, PMP, Assistant director, Executive Education, Getulio Vargas Foundation,
Brazil
Introduction
For project managers, the PMbok Guide Project Management body of knowledge (1996) represents a complete and
consistent approach to cope with whatever project in whatever application field, from the ones that involve construction,
systems or product/services development and implementation, through the performing of strategic initiatives.
Is this methodology universal, so whatever company in whatever country could adopt it? Is it adoption the same in
whatever project, from the complex and challenging ones to the simple and almost repetitive ones? The PMbok Guide was
built as a merge of diffuse best practices, mainly in USA. But have all the proposed issues the same importance for
whatever project and environment?
Ibbs and Kwak (1997) study on project management maturity suggested that engineering/construction firms scored
highest in the following PMbok areas: scope, time, communications, risk and procurement, while high-tech manufacturing
firms scored highest in cost, quality and procurement and information technology firms scored highest in human resources
and communications.
I assume that different applications of that methodology could result not only in different emphasis, but even different
effectiveness according with project nature and characteristics. A lack of risk management could damage some of
objectives: time, cost or quality. A lack of either planning or tracking progress could postpone time goals. A lack of
communication or people management could cause conflicts with unpredictable results. Imperfect organizational design
so as decision issues could cause the same. This assumption could be supported by Couillard findings (Couillard, 1995).
Therefore, the recognition of the real nature of the project could allow a suitable application of both managerial
instruments and methods. In this way, we can also match cross-cultural differences. Above all, this understanding allow us
to develop strategies that convert the project management into a more successful one. Some examples will be provided.
To do this, this work intends to develop a project classification model in addition to PMbok Guide. In order to understand
the real nature of a project, we can figure some project drivers and, by measuring them, we could emphasize or develop
more sophisticated managerial tools and techniques.
Classifying projects can be very useful and do not damage the PMbok Guide universality. Quite the opposite, it can make
this approach more consistent, since it respects projects differences. I believe that fostering appropriateness will enhance
PMbok practices.
and Laufer (1995) and Shenhar (1996) offer a three-dimension model based on technological uncertainty, complexity and
pace (time frame). In their opinion, these three drivers of the project nature compose the dimension of project risk in a
contingent approach.
However, if uncertainty could mean inability to predict future outcomes, as these authors pointed, it derives not only
from lack of technological domain but also from: managerial mastery, scale of change and from the changing
environment.
I prefer to address all these issues to the project uniqueness, which includes:
Lack of technology
Lack of management competence
Scale of change
Government acts, political, economic or labor issues
Climate, force majeure
Competitors efforts
Competition between projects
The pace dimension is related to the most urgent or win-or-win projects, when any delay could mean failure. But there
is a balance between projects objectives: time, cost (which include expected benefits) and quality (which includes
performance). Above all, they are interrelated. Williams (1995) mention that in the very beginning of a project, only
schedule matters; during ongoing implementation, tracking costs prevails, but after the start-up only the performance goal
is remembered. What about when time, cost and quality have the same importance? Very strict objectives as well as scarce
resources are more difficult to accomplish, or in other words, more uncertainty was concerned with that project.
Extending Shenhar et al factor, I prefer to name the rigidity of goals as project strictness, which includes in brief:
Almost unfeasible schedule, budget or specifications
Win-or-win projects
Inflexible needs of stakeholders
Scarce resources: money, people, machinery
The last dimension, complexity, could arise from systemic projects, which shows multiples (variety) and interconnected
activities. Biezus et al (1986) defines complexity as the overlapping zone between the main execution factors in a project:
conception (design), procurement and execution, as shown in Exhibit 1. More overlapping means more need for
communication, planning, control and for coordination.
In a systemic approach, the activities are interdependent, so as the performers, thus the performing system and
organizational structure. If there are in addition many different stakeholders, with opposite needs and expectations, the
uncertainty related to a successful management could be increased. If we have many different sites to execute the project,
showing different cultures, more uncertainty could be added.
Thus, we can say that complexity derives from:
A multidisciplinary project
Opposition between stakeholders interests
A great amount of activities (complex scope)
A lot of dependencies between activities
A great amount of performers
A fast track implementation strategy (overlapped tasks)
A complex and non-focused organization
A geographical spread execution
A cross-cultural project.
[Insert exhibit 1 here]
Shenhar et al address that the effect of the three dimensions rests on the amount of risks and contingencies. I prefer to
name it uncertainty, which comprises the unknown, the unpredictable, the risky and the messy. In other words, uncertainty
contents quantifiable risks and many other components which claims for a contingent approach. This assumption, though
common, is not adopted by Raftery (1994) who uses risk and uncertainty as interchangeable terms, whose only difference
is a matter of degree of personal knowledge about future events. Thus, in favor of the most comprehensive term, I will
address it to uncertainty.
Uniqueness axis:
Adopt a more standardized version (pre-tested), ASAP, for instance
Create temporary redundancy on both old and new systems, but causing the same tradeoff related to complexity
Contract an experienced consultant in this kind of project, but with a tradeoff concerning complexity and goal
strictness
Complexity axis, which seems the most difficult driver to reduce in such a sophisticated system:
Develop effective and efficient decision support and stakeholders communication processes
Simplify the functions, the transactions or systems processes
Develop the temporary ad hoc team, in order to improve communication, proactiveness and co-operation
Improve IT skills by training, in order to reduce cultural resistance, promote on-the-job training and coaching
Adopting some of these strategies, we could shrink the cube, perhaps to a low both strictness and uniqueness but high
complexity (sees exhibit 3 below), in a more successful management, but what else could we do?
[Insert exhibit 3 here]
Even when mitigation strategies do not work, the project manager could use this classification model as a way to
emphasize or develop managerial tools. In this case, the coordination process is expected to be a central process, so as
people change management, risk management and project scope management could assume great relevance. Because of
the shared execution, contract management could be very important. Project time, cost and quality management remains
important as usual, but mainly as a way to optimize and facilitate the others processes. We can infer that in this context,
more than precaution, a workaround and a good situational/contingent approach could be helpful.
When adopted some of these strategies, the resulting uncertainty cube could show: low strictness but high complexity and
remaining uniqueness, as shown on exhibit 4. How could they cope successfully this project?
[Insert exhibit 4 here]
Project risk, human resource as well as communication management assumes strategic relevance. By managing risks they
could cope with the remaining uncertainty. By people management they could not only assess people to the new functions
but also strive with attitudes, knowledge sharing and multicultural issues. Dealing with a new composition of stakeholders
is a big challenge and could be promoted by a sharp communication management. On the other project processes, it could
be highlighted both project scope and integration management which enable the control of changes and the consolidation
of procedures, policies and structures in order to align all of their key business elements.
References
Biezus, Ladi; Rocha, Antonio J.O.; Prspero, Flavio C. (1986) O papel do planejamento e do controle fsico-financeiro na
implantao de empreendimentos. Brazil, revista RAE - EAESP/FGV, 26, Abr/Jun: 13-28.
Couillard, Jean (1995). The role of project risk in determining project management approach. USA, Project Management
Journal, December : 3-15.
Ibbs, C. William and Kwak, Young-Hoon (1997). The benefits of project management: financial and organizational
rewards to corporations. Upper Darby , PA, Project Management Institute.
Lord, Alexander (1993). Implementing strategy through project management. UK, Long Range Planning, 26, 1: 76-85.
Project Management Institute, Standards Committee (1996). A guide to Project Management body of knowledge (PMbok
Guide). Upper Darby, PA.
Raftery, John (1994). Risk analysis in Project Management. UK, E & FN Spon.
Shenhar, Aaron J. (1996). Project Management theory: the road to better practice. USA, Project Management Institute
1996 Annual Seminar/symposium proceedings.
Shenhar, Aaron J. and Laufer, Alexander (1995). Integrating Product and Project Management: a new synergistic
approach. USA, Engineering Management Journal, 7, 3, September : 11-15.
Williams, Terry (1995). A classified bibliography of recent research relating to project risk management. UK, European
Journal of Operational Research, 85, August: 18-38.