Methodologies

Fundamentally to implementing a usable project management methodology and optimizing the efficiency in the output are the tools used during each phase of the methodology lifecycle. Furthermore, strictly adhering to the methodology lifecycle and managing the core processes during the execution of the methodology will greatly increase the success rate (Kerzner, 2010). Moreover a critical success factor for any methodology is the commitment and support of senior management and leadership. The methodology outlines the discipline for the individual methodology initiative or the organizational development strategy. KPI’s are tangible performance indicators that during each lifecycle phase and at each milestone review is a measure of overall performance; and the lessons learned during each phase can be implemented into the next lifecycle phase. And thus, improving core processes and performance throughout the methodologies lifecycle and improving the objective delivery success. Methodologies tools need to be flexible to be able to adapt to improving performance and the different types of situations, such as negative & positive risks and objective issues.

The methodology should be developed as to achieve the objectives in the shortest possible time and in addition meeting the constraint criteria. What improves the chances of the methodology succeeding? First and foremost having the sponsor/client and team believing in and committed to the project management methodology. Secondly the gates and/or milestone reviews once passed through cap a completed phase, and no further change to past phases is plausible (Kerzner, 2010). This is particularly relevant when passing through the define and design gate that caps the design and scope. Design changes are the leading inhibiting factor that overruns projects in terms of costs and time (Olawale & Sun, 2010). This derives at the fundamental importance of the review stages and agreeing decisions to move to the next phase or revert back to the previous phase based on review comments. In theory this leads me to believe that the critical gates in a methodology lifecycle are Define and Planning, PMBOK (2008) combines these two in the project management methodology in the planning process see Fig 1.0. Note PMBOK methodologies can be used in multi phased objectives; the methodology is a sequential cycle of process during each phase. (PMBOK, 2008).

The Stage Gate methodology designed in this article for Oil & Gas and civil infrastructure projects is more robust and apt and focuses on stringent decision making practices before proceeding to the next phase. By separating the FEL & design FEED into the Define phase improves the efficiency of Planning phase Fig 1.1. Most scholars will agree the Planning phase is the most critical to any initiative; and by removing the design process from the planning phase increases the plans integrity, having assumed the Define phase is capped, thus scope and design will not change (Zwikael, 2009). Olawale & Sun (2010) offers a framework for mitigating measures for ‘design changes, risks and uncertainties, inaccurate evaluation of project time duration, complexity of works and non-performance of subcontractors. This framework is an adaptable checklist and platform for managing design during the Define phase.

The efficiency of each sequential methodology process enhances the next phase and increases the success of the sequential phase. Hence efficiency during the Appraisal phase will greatly improve the design and deliverables during the Define phase, and thus the Plan, Execution and the Operating phases. Each phase can be designed with process tools for increasing the credibility and completing the phase. The process tools can be scaled, streamlined, added or removed to meet the initiatives objectives and situation, i.e. Value Management may not be needed for all initiatives, however Stakeholder Management should be used for all initiatives. Furthermore integration improves initiative performance and the methodology phases, however owner and contractor relationships and project integration is not always apparent, and lessons have yet to be learned. Literature suggests integration is more efficient in delivering initiatives (Baiden, Price & Dainty, 2006).

Fig 1.0 PMBOK

Fig 1.1 Stage Gate

Davies, Gann & Douglas (2009) article discusses the T5 project and suggests integration as the key success factor followed by the lessons learned from various other industry projects and every international airport project undertaken in the past 15 years. BAA conducted a two year analysis of project success and failures and designed a strategy and methodology that would implement the best practices used on other projects and avoids the pitfalls made by others, the combination of benchmarking was an award winning success, however there was a failing between the transitions from project to operations (Brady & Davies, 2010). In addition the integration was a shared risk ownership policy, a standardization of processes, a win-win T5 agreement and efficient communications (Davies, Gann & Douglas, 2009). T5 selected and combined methodology tools and successful process that greatly improved productivity, safety and quality performances, efficiency and effectiveness of the design and execution processes. Moreover the philosophy of relationships and behaviors was a determining factor see Fig 2.0.

In conclusion – there is no one recipe for a successful methodology, however a common “want to” attitude and organizational culture working towards a common goal, implementing the methodology and making the improvements along the way, using standardized initiative processes and the core successful  project management processes will improve the possibilities of a successful delivery.  

   

Fig 2.0 T5 Integrated Management Model

References:

Baiden, B.K., Price, A.D.F. & Dainty, A.R.J. (2006) ‘The extent of team integration within construction projects’, International Journal of Project Management, 24 (1), pp.13-23, ScienceDirect [Online]. Available from: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.05.001 (Accessed: 31 May 2013).

Brady, T. & Davies, A. (2010) ‘From hero to hubris – reconsidering the project management of Heathrow’s Terminal 5’, International Journal of Project Management, 28 (2), pp.151-157,

Davies, A., Gann, D. & Douglas, T. (2009) ‘Innovation in megaprojects: systems integration at London Heathrow Terminal 5’, California Management Review, 51 (2), pp.101-125, [Online]. Available from:
http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edswss&AN=000264295600005&site=eds-live&scope=site (Accessed: 31 May 2013).

Kerzner, H. (2010) Project management best practices: achieving global excellence. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Olawale, Y.A. & Sun, M. (2010) ‘Cost and time control of construction projects: inhibiting factors and mitigating measures in practice’, Construction Management and Economics, 28 (5), pp.509-526, Informaworld [Online]. Available from: http://www.informaworld.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/smpp/content~content=a923093339~db=all (Accessed: 31 May 2013).

Project Management Institute. (2008) A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide). 4th ed. Newton Square (PA): Author.

Zwikael, O. (2009) ‘Critical planning processes in construction projects’, Construction Innovation, 9 (4), pp.372-387, Emerald [Online]. Available from: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/10.1108/14714170910995921 (Accessed: 31 May 2013).