THE BASIC PROBLEM OF VIEWING AND MEASURING PROJECT MANAGEMENT

If one were to benchmark (and improve) project management only, and preferably leave out the other parts of the project, how could one go by to do this? The basic problem is to figure out how to separate project management from the rest of the project, in order to be able to measure and compare this project management with project management elsewhere. In other words, it is about conceptualizing where project management belong in the total project situation, and where an effort of measuring and improvement should be focused.

If one want to evaluate and measure project management, how can this be done? One way to measure project management is simply to ask a number of people knowledgeable of the project and project management in consideration. You can ask to such a specific level you want, and sometimes this is the best thing you got. This type of measuring is subjective. However, subjective measures are just as good as objective if you have structured them and you have enough of them (Tucker, 1996).

Still, if possible, an objective way of measuring is wanted that provides a framework for which area of project management to select.

Based on ideas gotten from Westhagen (1994), Johansen et. al. (1995) and PMI (1996), Figure 2.1 below is developed to illustrate where the author of this dissertation see project management belong in relation to other project components in the total project situation.

P r o j e c t E f f e c t s E f f o r t

P r o d u c t -o r i e n t e d P r o c e s s e s

P r o j e c t M a n a g e m e n t

P r o c e s s e s

P r o j e c t R e s u l t s T h e P r o j e c t

E n v i r o n m e n t

E n v i r o n m e n t

Figure 2.1 Illustration of the relation between the project processes, project results and project effects (not drawn to scale).

The figure shows that the project consist of both project management processes and product oriented processes. Project management processes are processes concerned with describing and organizing the work of the project, whereas the product-oriented processes are processes concerned with specifying and creating the project product (PMI, 1996). Within the influence of the project environment/context and the constraints of organizational efforts or inputs like resources, these processes combined brings about the project results. The project result is the immediate results or outputs of a project at its finishing point. The project and its result thereafter brings about the project effects, which is short term and long term influence the project has on its environment.

Assuming that there exists a generally accepted set of project management processes, Figure 2.1 with its process focus could be a way of separating project management and provide a framework for what areas of project management that could be measured and compared across different projects. However, before such a conclusion or assumption is made, a further discussion on measuring project management is required.

Project management overall does not have a result by itself, but have a result in conjunction with the product oriented work. Is it then possible to measure/evaluate key figures of the project result (e.g. financial and other high level attributes), compare it with project results from other projects, and draw conclusions on how project management was performed? Probably you get some answers, but what you actually do then is to assume a correlation between project management and project results (see Figure 2.2).

S u c c e s s f u l P r o j e c t R e s u l t s

S u c c e s s f u l P r o j e c t M a n a g e m e n t Correlation

Figure 2.2. Are there a correlation between successful project management and successful Project Results?

This correlation is questionable, since the work that bring about the project results are both project management work and product oriented work. It is hard to tell what makes up the project management contribution in the combined project results.

Another factor that complicates the comparison of key figures from project results of one project to another, is that the work in every project are done within its unique project environment, e.g. political, geographical and business context. These are all factors that are outside the control of the project and project management, but they have to be dealt with and they influence the project results.

In addition, an evaluation or measure of project management performance based on the project results will be complicated by the fact that the project and both project management and product oriented work will be constrained to the effort or the input of resources from the involved organization(s). If this effort or input of resources is high (e.g. the allocation of financial resources is high), the project results are more likely to be good. If the effort is low, the performance of the project is similarly more likely to be low.

The previous chapter mentioned another argument against viewing and measuring key figures of the project result and compare these with key figures from other projects, in order to improve (project management). A number of authors (Camp, 1989; Bendell, Boulter and Kelly, 1993; Andersen and Pettersen, 1996; and Carey, 1995), have pointed out that such a measuring and comparison will not tell much either on why there is a difference in performance or how you can go by to improve. In other words, measuring key figures of the project result, will not make you able to improve. The improvement is a requirement in order to do a complete benchmarking of project management.

A paper by Munns and Bjeirmi (1996) that discusses the difference between project success and project management success, brings another dimension to the problem of measuring key figures of the project result or not. Their paper illustrate quite well the difference in the scope of project management compared to the rest of the project.

Munns and Bjeirmi state that there are projects where the project results have been perceived to be a disaster, but the project management have been perceived to be good.

Conversely, there are projects where the results have been perceived good, but the project management have been perceived to be a disaster. In other words, the perception of how well project management was, can be the opposite of what the perception of how well the project result was.

Munns and Bjeirmi claim this to be so due to the different scope of project management success and scope of project success (see Figure 2.3).

1 2 3 4 5 6

S c o p e o f P ro je c t S u c e ss (P h a se 1 -6 ) S c o p e o f P M s u c c e s s

( P h a se 2 -4 )

C o n c e p tio n P la n n in g P ro d u c tio n H a n d o v e r U tiliz a tio n C lo se d o w n

Figure 2.3. Scope of Project Management success and Scope of Project Success (Munns and Bjeirmi, 1996)

The figure shows that project management that is in function (or has its scope of success) in the planning, production and hand-over phases of a project has a limited power to influence the whole project with its scope of success from the beginning of the conception phase to the end of the close down phase. Munns and Bjeirmi states:

... one must always bear in mind that successful project management techniques will contribute to the achievement of the projects, but project management will not stop a project from failing to succeed. The right project will succeed almost without the success of project management, but successful project management could enhance its success.

The immediate though after reading Munns and Bjeirmi’s research results could be to ask: why bother with project management when it has such a limited scope in the project? It is therefore important to focus on the last part of the quoting, i.e. that successful project management will enhance the success of the project.

In sum, the arguments against measuring the project results only in order to measure project management were many. Such a measuring is not recommended, which may be obvious to many researchers. However, this has not been clear to all researchers.

Jakobsen (1993a and b) wrote a master thesis on what he called “Benchmarking of Project Management Performance in North Sea Oil and gas Field development Projects”. In his objective section, he wrote:

“... the project management performance will be measured by measuring the performance of the project. A successful project indicates that the project management has also been successful.”

Based on the argumentation above, the author disagrees with this statement or assumption in Jakobsen’s work. The success of a project do not necessary equals successful project management.

Well, if measuring the project results only was not the answer in order to evaluate and improve project management, what other options are there? It looks like one has to bring the problem one step down. One possibility would be to break the project into different phases and look at the performance for each phase. More complete information of the project is then gained. However, you would then consider the performance of both project management and product oriented work. Project Management or the contribution of project management that is the focus of this discussion and dissertation, would not be separated from the product oriented work of the project. In addition, measuring key figures of phases will give information on phase performance when compared to key figures from phases of other projects, but again, it will not give much information on why there is a difference and how to improve.

It is probably not possible to measure project management completely alone, because it is interrelated with the rest of the project. Figure 2.1 illustrates this interrelation.

However, the point is to separate it as much as possible. The believed best approach in order to measure and evaluate project management with the objective of comparing these measures elsewhere and find ways to improve, i.e. to do a benchmarking, is to look directly on specific project management processes. One can evaluate and measure the project management process in question and compare it with same or similar project management process elsewhere. Different measures on e.g. the effectiveness and efficiency of this process can be gathered that tells you something about performance, why there is a difference, and how to improve. The metrics part of this dissertation, part 2, has a further discussion on measures and metrics.

What influence do the specific project management process have on the project result?

In order to move down to the process level of project management, a decision or assumption has to be decided upon with regard to this question. With reference to earlier discussion in this dissertation section and Munns and Bjeirmi’s discussion on project management’s influence on the project result, the following assumption, that probably holds true is made:

Relative to their performance, project management processes will have an improving or worsening impact on the project result (see Figure 2.4).

I m p a c t o n P r o j e c t R e s u l t s

P r o j e c t M a n a g e m e n t P r o c e s s P e r f o r m a n c e i m p r o v e

w o r s e n

g o o d b a d

Figure 2.4 Assumed relation between Project management Processes and the Project Results.

The figure tries to illustrate that good performed project management processes improves or makes the project results better. Likewise, bad performed project management processes have a negative impact on or makes the project results worse.

When the project management process performance is quite in between good and bad, the likely effect this process have on the project result is quite neutral.