Academic Writing

Masters Degree
International Project Management
(Building, Real State and Infrastructure)

Project Management 2.0-Is There really need for Modern

Management methods in Construction?

Submitted by:

Javier Escobar
Student Matriculation No. 810524

Lecturer:

Dr. Selim Tugra Demir

University of Applied Sciences Stuttgart

Submission Date:

22/12/2015

Word Count:

1438

-1 -

Table of Content
1.

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 2

2.

Literature Review ............................................................................................................. 2

2.1

Issues of Construction Project Management ................................................... 2

2.2

Project Management 2.0 ......................................................................................... 3

2.3

Change of Philosophy............................................................................................. 4

2.4

Limits of Project Management 2.0 ....................................................................... 6

3.

Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 6

4.

Mindmap ............................................................................................................................. 7

5.

References ......................................................................................................................... 8

-2 -

1. Introduction

Construction industry plays an important role in almost any economy (Bertelsen and
Koskela, 2005). Paradoxically, the industry is characterized by a series of issues like
low quality, time delays, cost overruns and poor safety conditions (Koskela, 2000;
Bertelsen and Koskela, 2005; Tezel and Nielsen, 2013). Hence, the need of improving
the performance in the industry is urgent (Koskela and Howell, 2002; Bertelsen and
Koskela, 2005).
In this new globalized market the pressure of competition forces the industry to improve
its performance (Tezel and Nielsen, 2013), specially with projects with high complexity
and uncertainty where traditional project management methodologies might have
difficulties to deliver (Tripathi and Goyal, 2014).
The aim of this essay is to discuss the need of modern management methods in
construction. First, an understanding of some of the possible causes of the current
issues in the industry, according to the existing literature, will be presented. After, Project
Management 2.0 [PM 2.0] as a new method will be introduced along with some of the
benefits of this particular modern approach in construction projects. Finally, the author
aims to discuss some of the main differences between modern approaches with
traditional project management and its consequences on the industry.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Issues of Construction Project Management

Historically, construction industry has been plagued by several problems (Koskela, 2000;
Koskela and Howell, 2002; Bertelsen, 2003; AlSehaimi and Koskela, 2008; Tezel &
Nielsen, 2013). Hence, extensive research has been conducted by different authors
identifying planning and managerial issues as the main cause (AlSehaimi and Koskela,
2008).
As Alshehaimi and Kosela (2008) point out, most of these studies are mainly
explanatory, provide non-practical recommendations, and fail to propose the tools and
means to facilitate such improvements. In order to achieve a practical solution, is
necessary to investigate the underlying causes of the problem (ibid.).

-3 Koskela and Howell (2002) state that the origin of the issues in the industry is that the
underlying theory of project management is deficient and not clearly defined. Hence, a
change of paradigm based in new theories is necessary to really recognize the reality
and complexity of projects (ibid.). The authors argue that traditional assumptions of
construction management are based on an understanding of construction from a
transformation point of view of production; however, a holistic theory of construction
should include in addition the flow view and the value generation view of production
(Koskela, 2000).
In a similar way, Bertelsen and Koskela (2005) state that the underlying understanding
of the construction process is not complete. Traditionally, projects managers assume
that projects can be treated as an ordered, simple and predictable phenomenon ignoring
in the process the dynamics of external factor inherent to every project (ibid.). However,
project management must be able to perceive the project as a complex, unpredictable
and non-linear system (Bertelsen, 2003).
Furthermore, Turner and Mller (2003) suggest that the definition of projects must be
reconsidered. In addition to the classical functional definition, every project has to be
seen as a temporary organization (ibid.). With this new definition, social relations and
human aspects become the primary instrument of project management and suggest that
the use of social theories on the study of project management might be more appropriate
(Floricel, et al., 2014).
On the other hand, there is a school of thought that argues that traditional research that
focus on finding principles and models is rarely translated in substantial tools for
practitioners (Blomquist, et al., 2010). Proponents of this approach argue that both
practical and theoretical advances can result of studying the concrete actions of project
participants, situated in their individual, social and temporal context (ibid.).

2.2 Project Management 2.0

In modern constructions projects the number of participating stakeholders is constantly

increasing and consequently new project management standards are gradually moving
towards methods where cooperation and collaboration has a central role (Khknen,
2013).
Effective communication is, among the factors that influence the success of a project,
the most crucial of all. (Project Management Institute, 2013). Recently, new forms of

-4 communication, like Web 2.0,

is allowing people to interact in new ways and

communicating more closely than in the past (Kerzner, 2015). This new tools have had
a big impact on society and business, including the construction industry where the way
of managing projects is changing (Levitt, 2011; Khknen, 2013).
Project Management 2.0 [PM 2.0] can be defined as the evolution of project
management practices enabled by the use of Web 2.0 technologies that allow distributed
collaboration and open communication among all stakeholders to better share
information and empower teams to get things done (Andres, 2013).
This enhanced collaboration approach translates into improved alignment among
stakeholders assuring that everyone is connected to a common set of goals and actions
as well as increased productivity by the reduction of resources spent on organizing
(Nicoletti, 2008). Furthermore, this approach ensures that the right information is
available at the right time to the right team member (Nicoletti, 2008; Levitt, 2011;
Kerzner, 2015).

2.3 Change of Philosophy

Project management had its roots in the aerospace, defense and construction industry
on the decade of 1970s (Levitt, 2011; Kerzner, 2015). This method was developed with
the objective of bring order and discipline to a big group of participants involved in a joint
endeavour (Levitt, 2011). Project management works with the basic assumption that
planners can develop detailed plans that will remain valid for the entire duration of the
project (ibid.).
Project management is deeply rooted in hard and rational paradigms (Koskela and
Howell, 2002; Bertelsen, 2003; Bertelsen and Koskela, 2005; Pollak, 2007; Floricel, et
al., 2014). However, according to Pollack (2007) there is a growing acceptance in the
field towards the use of the soft paradigm in project management. This implies deep
differences in how project management is understood and applied in practice (ibid.). The
relationship between both paradigms and how they interact with project management is
described in figure 1.

-5 -

Figure 1. Interrelationship between the attributes of the hard and soft paradigms. (Pollack, 2007, p. 266)

The centralized planning and hierarchical structure of traditional project management

makes the method rigid and unable to adapt to changes, making this approach
unappropriated for projects with uncertain conditions (Tripathi and Goyal, 2014). On the
other hand, PM 2.0 works with self-organized teams where change is embraced and
continuous modifications are welcome in order to maximize the value deliver to the client
(ibid.).
Moreover, traditional methodology follow the top-down approach for decision-making
achieving less transparency in the project (Andres, 2013) and thus not taking advantage
of the creativity and competences of the members of the team (Tripathi and Goyal,
2014). In contrast, PM 2.0 uses highly motivated and experience employees that are
empowered and encouraged to find innovative solutions (ibid.), as the whole
organization is responsible for the success or failure of the project and not only the
project manager (Nicoletti, 2008).
In accordance with the discussed before, many new methods like Lean construction and
Last Planner (Ballard and Tommelein, 2012), Agile Project Management (Tripathi and
Goyal, 2014) or Integrated Project Delivery (Levitt, 2011; Khknen, 2013), are already

-6 implementing concepts of collaboration of PM 2.0 with the objective of increase the

performance of the industry.

2.4 Limits of Project Management 2.0

Although PM 2.0 has already prove itself successful in small projects, there is who
argues that is not effective for large projects (Kerzner, 2015). Additionally, according to
Levitt (2011) there are some projects where its scope needs to be rigorously controlled
to avoid risk to the public. In projects like this, the flexible and uncontrolled environment
of PM 2.0 might be undesired.
Furthermore, Ballard and Tommelein (2012) state that traditional project management
might still be the most appropriate choice when the grade of certainty and predictability
of the project is high.

3. Conclusion

This essay has considered PM 2.0 as alternative to improve the performance of the
construction industry. This new style of managing takes advantage of new tools and
technologies to improve the productivity of the entire organization through collaboration
y enhanced social dynamics. PM 2.0 is based in the soft paradigm instead of the hard
paradigm in which traditional project management is usually based.
This change of philosophy on the field is result of the recent performance of the industry,
especially in bigger and more complex projects where traditional approaches have
proved being inadequate. The issues of the industry have been studied extensively by
several researchers identifying recurrently project management as the main reason
making the need of change inevitable.
Although the real value of this new style of management is yet to be proven, change is
already in motion and promises to increase considerable the productivity of the industry.

-7 4. Mindmap

-8 5. References

AlSehaimi, A. and Koskela, L. (2008) What can be Learned from Studies on Delay in
Construction?. In: Tzortzopoulos, P. and Kagioglou, M., Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction, 16th. Manchester, UK, 16-18 Jul 2008. pp.
95-106.
Andres, F. (2013) Social Project Management @ Research and Innovation. Hokkaido :
Sanwa-Printing CO.
Ballard, G. and Tommelein, I. (2012) Lean Management methods for complex projects.
Engineering Project Organization Journal , 2 (1-2), pp. 85-96.
Bertelsen, S. and Koskela, L. (2005) Approaches to Managing Complexity in Project
Production. In: Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction,
13th. Sydney, Austrialia, 19-21 Jul 2005. pp. 65-71.
Bertelsen, S. (2003) Complexity-A New Way of Understanding Construction. In: Annual
Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, 11th. Virginia, USA. pp.
11-23.
Blomquist, T., Hllgren, M., Nilsson, A. and Sderholm, A. (2010) Project-as-Practice:
In Search of Project Management Research That Matters. Project Management
Journal, 41(1), pp. 5-16.
Floricel, S., Bonneau, C., Aubry, M. and Sergi, V. (2014) Extending project
management research: Insights from social theories. International Journal of Project
Management, Issue 32, pp. 1091-1107.
Howell, G. A. (1999) What is Lean Construction-1999?. In: Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction, 7th. Berkley, USA, 26-28 Jul 1999.
Khknen, K. (2013) Project management for Construction: towards methods and tools
meeting demands of modern construction operations. Ricerche e progetti per il
territorio, la citt e larchitettura, 4(Special Issue 2), pp. 9-16.
Kerzner, H. R. (2015) Project Management 2.0. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Koskela, L. (2000) An exploration towards a Production theory and its Application to
construction. PhD Dissertation, Helsinki University of Technology.
Koskela, L. and Howell, G. (2002) The Underlying theory of project management is
obsolete. In: The PMI Research Conference. Seattle, USA, Jun 2002. pp. 293-302.

-9 Levitt, R. E. (2011) Towards Project Management 2.0. The Engineering Project

Organization Journal, 1(3), pp. 197-210.
Nicoletti, B. (2008) Project Management 2.0. In: IPMA Congress. Rome, Italy, 10-12
Oct 2008.
Pollak, J., 2007. The Changing Paradigms of Project Management. International
Journal of Project Management, 25(3), pp. 266-274.
Project Management Institute (2013) PMIs Pulse of the Profesion In-Depth Report:
The Essential Role of Communications. Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute.
Tezel, A. and Nielsen, Y. (2013) Lean Construction Conformance among Construction
Contractors in Turkey. Journal of Management in Engineering, 29 (3), pp. 236-250.
Tripathi, V. and Goyal, A. K. (2014) Changing Roles and Responsabilities from
Traditional project management to Agile project management. International Journal on
Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication, 2(5), pp. 1005-1009.
Turner, J. R. and Mller, R. (2003) On the nature of the project as a temporary
organization. International Journal of Project management, 21(1), pp. 1-8.