Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Date: 03.Feb.2014
By: Ali Al Matari
Email: alialmatari1987@gmail.com
Exam Number: 414423
Number of Characters (no spaces):131450
i
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................................. i
Figures ............................................................................................................................................................................... iii
Tables ................................................................................................................................................................................ iv
Abbreviations...................................................................................................................................................................... v
Abstract .............................................................................................................................................................................. vi
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................... 6
3. Theory........................................................................................................................................................................... 10
4.1 The Role and Relevance of Best Practices in Project Management Context .......................................................... 21
4.2 Grouping PRINCE2 and PMBoK .......................................................................................................................... 22
ii
5. Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................................... 54
6. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................... 58
References ........................................................................................................................................................................ 61
iii
Figures
Figure 1 - Current Relationship between PRINCE2, PMBoK, and Virtual Projects .......................................................... 4
Figure 9 - Overview of Managing Product Delivery process in the proposed methodology ............................................ 47
Figure 10 - Overview of Managing a Stage Boundary process in the proposed methodology ......................................... 50
Figure 11 - Overview of Closing a Project process in the proposed methodology (OGC, 2009:205) .............................. 52
Tables
Table 1 - Tools for distance communication and information exchange (Thissen et al, 2007: 30) .................................. 13
Table 2 - PMBoK Project Management Process Group and Knowledge Area Mapping (PMI 2013: 61) ........................ 20
Table 4 - Mapping Knowledge Areas Against PRINCE2 Element (Yeong, 2012:9-10) .................................................. 24
Table 5 - Mapping PMBoK Process Groups Against PRINCE2 Processes (Yeong, 2012:11) ........................................ 25
Table 7 - Responsibilities of the adopted PMBoK activities in the Starting up a Project Process .................................... 32
Table 9 - Responsibilities of the adopted PMBoK activities in the Directing a Project Process ...................................... 35
Table 11- Responsibilities of the adopted PMBoK activities in the Initiating a Project Process ...................................... 42
Table 13- Responsibilities of the adopted PMBoK activities in the Controlling a Stage Process .................................... 46
Table 14 - PMBoK activities that belongs to Managing Product Delivery process .......................................................... 48
Table 15- Responsibilities of the adopted PMBoK activities in the Managing Product Delivery Process ....................... 49
Table 16 - PMBoK activities that belongs to Managing a Stage Boundary process ......................................................... 51
Table 17- Responsibilities of the adopted PMBoK activities in the Managing a Stage Boundary Process ...................... 51
Table 19 - Comparison between the proposed methodology and Yeong (2012) in matching PMBoK Process Groups
against PRINCE2 Processes......................................................................................................................................... 54
v
Abbreviations
AU ........................................................................................................................................................... Aarhus University
IP.............................................................................................................................................................Initiating a Project
Abstract
Virtual Projects are increasingly relevant in todays business world. PRINCE2 and PMBoK are
among the most popular project management methods. The challenges for running Virtual Projects
increase due to the dispersion between project members whilst project management methods
recommend best practices and guidelines that enhance the chances of project success. Several
researchers suggest combining project management methods. This master thesis contributes in
providing an approach for combining PRINCE2 and PMBoK in a single methodology. The thesis
contributes as well in suggesting how the challenges can be addressed when Virtual Projects are run
using this methodology.
The finding is a proposed methodology that combines PRINCE2 and PMBoK. The steps for
creating this methodology are presented and the final results are shown in a process model. To
reach this process model, literature research was made to find the current issues and challenges of
Virtual Projects that should be tackled. Also, the literature research was used to check the current
suggested approaches for combing PRINCE2 and PMBoK. Then, the main components of a project
management methodology were determined before comparing and matching PRINCE2 and PMBoK
elements together. Next, the approach for combining the two methods is explained. This resulted in
a methodology proposal that utilize the best of what PRINCE2 and PMBoK offer for managing
Virtual Projects.
Keywords: Project Management, Project Management Methodology (PMM), Virtual Projects,
PRoject IN Controlled Environment (PRINCE2), Project Management Body of Knowledge
(PMBoK)
1
1. Introduction
Geographically dispersed project teams are increasingly becoming relevant in the current successful
organizations. The need of such teams is driven by many factors, which may be cited as global
competition, reengineered product life cycles, mass customization; and the increased need to
respond quickly to customers needs (Powell et al., 2004). The increased diversity of skills,
knowledge, cultures, and geographical distance between team members are among the
characteristics of Virtual Projects that gives additional load to the managerial process (Beise 2004).
Hence, the Project Management Methodology (PMM) used for running such projects gains more
prominence.
1.1 Problem
Project management is an endeavor that copes with various uncertainty factors imposed by the
environment surrounding the project in order to execute it in the best possible way. For this
purpose, PMMs are structured in order to run the endeavor in a systematic and procedural manner.
Obviously, Virtual Projects encompass additional challenges that encounter the management
process. These challenges could be represented in the excess burden incurred by the management in
running the project. For example, the uncertainty factors are intensified in the Virtual Projects as
compared to typical projects. In fact, the foundation of virtual teams is, among other factors,
stemmed by economic aspects that press the organizations to minimize the projects costs. This
pressure is two-dimensional; to achieve the economical aims of using virtual teams, and to manage
the virtual teams with the minimal cost for the process. However, additional costs are also incurred
in Virtual Projects in order to establish communication and to monitor and control the work
progress. Nevertheless, the major challenge in this form of projects is distances. The distance
perspective of the Virtual Projects includes the geographical, cultural, and organizational
discontinuities (Verburg et al., 2012).
PRINCE2 and PMBoK are two of the most popular project management frameworks. While
PMBoK takes into account some parts of the virtual concept, PRINCE2 is completely silent about
it. In fact, the fifth edition of PMI (2013) discusses virtual meetings, Virtual Project teams, and
virtual collaboration techniques. On the other hand, some project managers prefer to use a hybrid
approach of methodologies in order to get the best of what they offer. Also, many scholars
recommend following this approach to take advantage of the best of these methods such as: Project
Plus Group (2008), Yeong (2012) etc
1.3 Terminology
1.3.1 Project
Oxford English dictionary defines project as a collaborative enterprise, frequently involving
research or design that is carefully planned to achieve a particular aim (Oxford Dictionary,
2013). Projects are characterized by being temporary and unique and are established with the aim of
producing a product, service, or an outcome.
1
More details about methodology are provided in sections 3.2
3
1.3.3.1 PRINCE2
1.3.3.2 PMBoK
The three ovals A, B, and C represent PRINCE2, PMBoK, and Virtual Projects respectively. One
can notice the following:
Figure 2 symbolizes the to-be relationship between the mentioned three components:
The two ovals A and B are still represented in this figure however; oval C is twisted and is
shown in the figure as the shapes E+F.
Area F represents the Virtual Projects aspects that are out of the scope of PRINCE2 and
PMBoK and hence, out of the scope of this master thesis. In figure 2 this area is narrower
than in figure 1
The Area A+D+E+B represent the answer to the research question, and thus these are the
focus of this master thesis
The Area D represents the things in common between PRINCE2 and PMBoK that are
outside the scope of Virtual Projects, while the area E represents the things in common
between PRINCE2 and PMBoK that are within the scope of Virtual Projects
Area D is larger than Area E and this implies that the focus on Grouping PRINCE2 and
PMBoK in this master thesis is slightly more than the focus on the Virtual Projects. 2
The area of intersection between PRINCE2 and PMBoK in the figures 1 and 2, is the same
because the author cannot make an assumption at this level of the research regarding which
one of them (PRINCE2 or PMBoK) will have more components in the proposed theory3.
However, the author assumes at this level that the size of this area between the current
situation4 and the proposed theory will vary.5
2
The reason behind the amount of focus decision is mentioned in section 2.3.2
3
The clarification of why cannot the author make such an assumption at this level is pointed out to in section 2.2
4
The authors view on the current situation is pointed out to in section 2.2
5
The author assumes that the current size of intersection between PRINCE2 and PMBoK is out of the scope of this
thesis however, the amount of intersection between PRINCE2 and PMBoK in the proposed methodology is deduced in
Chapter 5
6
2. Methodology
This section contains discussion about the choices that are made to produce this master thesis. The
section starts first by presenting the authors understanding of social science then, the way the
research question is addressed. Finally, other choices that took including the delimitations,
description and sources of the data, and the validity and reliability of this master thesis are provided.
The philosophical approach that is used in this master thesis is positivistic. The purpose of doing
this research is to come out with a methodology that is replicable under the same research settings
with the intention of generalizing the findings.
Ontology: as far as the ontological debate is concerned, the authors understanding of the existence
favors the Realism position over the Nominalist position in this research and thus, the objectivist
approach to social science, which views that the world as made up of hard and tangible structures, is
used. This position impacts this thesis mainly in chapters 4, 5, and 6. Since a PMM is proposed in
this research by combining two existing theories taking into account that there is distance between
project team members then, the aim is to try to find the truth(s) about the social world.
Epistemology: it is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge
(Haisler, 2011:43). The epistemological positivism is adopted in this master thesis when trying to
explain how we do know what we know. Hence, the epistemological approach is also objectivist,
leaving the same influence on the thesis as the ontological stance. The epistemological position that
is called positivism, attempts to predict what will happen based on regularities and the causal
relationships between its constituent elements. For example, the elements of the proposed PMM are
chosen through verification of existing knowledge about PRINCE2 and PMBoK to generate a
predicted hypothesis about which the Virtual Projects more.
Based on this, the author is attempting to find the reality which exists out there. This leads to say
that the author believes that the intersection between PRINCE2 and PMBoK is an existing fact
regardless of the authors prior understanding of it.
of existing literature to broader generalizations. Therefore, the focus is on finding evidence that can
lead to tentative hypotheses. The proposed PMM should be viewed as a group of tentative
hypotheses.
The proposed PMM is created by grouping the things that PRINCE2 and PMBoK have in common.
Whereas the uncommon things, are evaluated and decisions are made based on existing theories.
Therefore, the author cannot determine the amount of contribution of PRINCE2 or PMBoK in the
proposed PMM until the mentioned decisions are made.
The development of the thesis started with the ideas that lead to the forming the research problem
mentioned in the introduction. Then the outline was created, and literature research was made.
Afterwards, the writing process in this thesis started. Writing was made sequentially starting by
Chapter 1 all the way till Chapter 6 while reviewing, when needed, what has been written before.
2.3 Delimitations
This section is about the methodological choices that are made to produce this master thesis. Like in
any research, one has to make the best choices based on the available resources. The discussion of
the next two sections would be about the general factors that shapes the delimitation, then the
research question-based factors respectively.
number of literature and studies about them and generally, there is a substantial interest by scholars
in both methods. Studies about using PRINCE2 and PMBoK together are available with some of
them showing the feasibility of combining them while others are recommending using both for
running a single project. Examples of such studies are Chin & Spowage (2010 b), Yeong (2012),
Project Plus Group (2008) etc
The data in this master thesis are conceptual. The majority of the input is based on literature
research, and therefore, a big time and effort were dedicated for the literature study. Three search
engines were used in conducting the literature research:
Aarhus University Library (library.au.dk) : the AU Library is the primary literature search
engine is used, as it gives some access privileges for the university students
Google Danmark: used as the secondary literature search engine in case specific literature
were not found using AU Library
Google Scholar: used once to get insight about the recent papers about PRINCE2, PMBoK,
and Virtual projects taking advantage of filtering by year option available on
scholar.google.dk
The search keywords were specific and fixed thus, minimal time was spent on general literature
browsing. There are two purposes for using the data. The first one is to collect knowledge that
enables comparison between PRINCE2 and PMBoK to find out what fits Virtual Projects the most.
The second purpose is to find existing literature about the combining process of PRINCE2 and
PMBoK. Conducting the literature research spanned over almost 2/3 of the thesiss development
time.
As mentioned, the writing process is sequential and the literature research was made throughout all
the stages of the master thesis from pre-writing until writing the discussion part. The evaluation of
literature is a three-step process: 6
Skim through: any paper is obtained either through reference from another paper or due to
the relevance of its title. The first process is skimming through it, to find out whether this
paper could potentially be used in this master thesis. If there is a degree of relevancy then,
6
Appendix 1 contains a list of all the academic papers that were obtained
9
the paper is saved on a hard drive, and referenced in notepad. If on the other hand, the paper
is judged not relevant then it is simply discarded.
Abstract, Introduction and Summary analysis: in the second step, the abstracts,
introductions, and summaries of the papers that are found to be relevant are deeply read and
analyzed. Having done this then, the relevancy and the potential usage of the literature in the
master thesis could be determined. The difference between the findings of this step and the
previous one is that the degree of relevancy is determined more precisely, however, only
few papers were found to be relevant in the first step and not relevant in the second step.
In depth analysis: the writing for each section starts by looking first at the list of relevant
literature that was determined in the previous step. These papers are deeply analyzed, and at
this stage, then a decision whether each paper will be used in this master thesis or not is
made.
Reliability: the reliability of this master thesis is heightened by the fact that the author takes the
positivistic stance. Other researches would reach similar, to a certain extent, results if the same
research resources and settings were used. The major reason for saying this is that there is no
empirical data. As a part of the positivistic epistemology, the outcome of this master thesis can be
verified or falsified and may also form knowledge input to another research types.
10
3. Theory
3.1 Virtual Projects
3.1.1 Characterization
Defining virtualization in the project management field can be a complex task. Definitions of virtual
teams and projects in literature lack depth (Ebrahim et al., 2009). In a study made by Raghuram et
al. (2008), they came out with the result that the field of virtual work is still robust and dynamic in a
manner that there is still a need to answer the question what is virtual. Answering this question
becomes even harder in project management context since working under distributed circumstances
is moderately a rule rather than being an exception (Raghuram et al. 2008). Moreover, answering
this question requires forming a variance measure of virtualization. The degree of geographical
dispersion within the virtual team can range from having only one member of the team located at a
different location, to having a team in which every single member is located in a separate country
(Ebrahim et al., 2009). Generally, the context of a virtual team differs among institutions and to
understand the term virtual, one can try to find commonalities in the various literatures. The
distinguishing property of a virtual team is the existence of some gaps between the team members.
A common characteristic of virtual teams visibly is the existence of geographical or temporal
separation (Ebrahim et al., 2009).
The advance in communication technology and the continued globalization lead to the increase of
virtual teams (Kirkman et al., 2002). To overcome the boundaries of space and time zones, virtual
teams utilize IT technology (Ebrahim et al., 2009). However, geographic location and time zones
are not the only genres of gaps in a virtual team. Other gaps are work settings, tasks, and relations
with other workers or managers in addition to organizational (both intra- and inter-organizational),
culture, work practice, and technology discontinuities (Verburg et al., 2012).
After this overview, the definition from Lipnack & Stamps(2000) seems to be passable according to
the thesiss delimitations. Virtual teams are groups of people who work interdependently with
shared purpose across space, time, and organization boundaries using technology to communicate
and collaborate (Lipnack & Stamps, 2000). Whilst the term Virtual Projects is defined in the
introduction of this thesis as projects that are executed by virtual teams.
3.1.2 Benefits
Overcoming the discontinuities of virtual teams provides opportunities to the organizations. It is
clearly visible in literature that overcoming the location boundary enables the organizations to
create cross functional teams that enables hiring and maintaining the best expertise (Ebrahim et al.,
2009), (Kirkman et al., 2002). The following is the authors classification of the benefits of virtual
teams provided by Kuruppuarachchi (2009: 22), Ebrahim et al (2009:2656-2658), and PMI
(2013:271):
Output level:
Financial gains through improved productivity, reduced cost, reduced travel time, etc.
Increased competitive advantages and improved customer satisfaction
Speed up product development and project management
Reducing time-to-market
Virtual projects can enhance the competitiveness of the small and medium enterprises
Communication:
One of the most frequent issues that literature points to in Virtual Projects is communication. The
other 4 categories of issues can contribute in a way or another to creating communication problems.
12
Culture
Many issues can be raised due to cultural difference between team members. A common problem
related to cultural differences is limiting them to national cultures (Svejvig & commisso, 2012).
Cultural differences can be (1) organizational cultures with different management styles, company
values etc., (2) professional cultures such as doctors and nurses, (3) functional cultures like sales
and production, and finally (4) team cultures, where teams develop their own intra- and
interorganizational subcultures (Carmel 1999: 57-79), cited in (Svejvig & Commisso 2012). Other
differences can be related to language in case the team members do not share that same mother
language. In such situations, a common language is agreed to be used and that can raise an issue in
the way words are comprehended for instance, the word tomorrow can mean the next day, the
near future, or the far future depending on the cultural background of the individuals.
Technology
The advance of technology is one of the major incentives for the viability of virtual teams and
hence they are extremely dependent on technology. Any shortage in technology can isolate the
members of the team which hinders the workflow of teams. Co-located teams are also very
dependent on technology despite the absence of geographical dispersion. Reed & Knight (2009)
concluded in there study that due to the advance in technology the same effect of technology related
problems on communication are found in both co-located and virtual teams. .
Additional challenges are added to the project management process due to the discontinuities and
distances between team members. A project manager leading a virtual team needs to accommodate
differences in the culture, working hours, time zones, local conditions, and languages (PMI,
2013:38). This is the prominent category of issues in the thesis. Examples of issues in this category
are: increased risk, more time needed for planning, additional documentation required etc
Socialization
These are the issues that are generated because of the lack of social interaction between group
members such as problems of creating trust, feelings of isolation etc...
13
Communication
Table 1 - Tools for distance communication and information exchange (Thissen et al, 2007: 30)
A successful communication is characterized by selecting the proper tool for communication and
utilizing the maximum out of its advantages. No matter what tools are used, they must be
accompanied by clear communication rules (Verburg et al., 2012). The following principles are
found in successful communication according to Haywood (1998; 18-19)
1. Standards for availability and acknowledgement are defined and respected
2. The team members replace lost context in their communication
3. The team members regularly use synchronous communication
4. Senders take responsibility for prioritizing communication
14
Culture
The variety of cultures is inevitable in Virtual Projects and can be both an asset and a liability for
organizations. However, as far the organizational culture is concerned, the culture of the successful
Virtual Projects organizations should value communication, learning, promote teamwork, and
recognize the need for diversity (Kuruppuarachchi, 2009:25)
Technology
The organizations that execute Virtual Projects should recognize and document the value and role
of technology. There is a positive correlation between the success of a project and the advance of
technology used within the organization (Kuruppuarachchi, 2009). Technologically advanced
organizations support their projects with tools, infrastructure, and training that guarantees the proper
utilization of the tools for communication and information exchange shown in table 1(Verburg et
al., 2012).
The organizational structure of successful Virtual Projects tends to be more flat rather than
hierarchical (Kuruppuarachchi, 2009). On the human resource level, such organizations provide
plans that support Virtual Projects in terms of policies, rewards, and incentive systems (Verburg et
al., 2012). Furthermore, the leadership attitude of the Project Manager in Virtual Projects is
recommended to be assertive yet not too bossy, caring, relates to members at their own levels,
and maintains a consistent attitude over the life of the project (Shachaf and Hara; 2005) cited in
(Ebrahim et al., 2009:2660).
Socialization
During the lifetime of a Virtual Project, the Project Manager should arrange both formal and
informal socialization activities and face-to-face meetings. The availability of team members who
possess good verbal and listening skills helps in achieving the goals of the socialization activities
(Kuruppuarachchi, 2009).
Pre-initiation
15
Noticeably, the literature about the early start of Virtual Projects revolves mostly around
communication. It is recommended to establish communications in the beginning of projects
(Anderson et al., 2007) including, preferably, face-to-face meetings (Svejvig & Commisso, 2012).
Also, literature prescribes creating clear roles and responsibilities of all members (Shachaf and
Hara; 2005) cited in (Ebrahim et al., 2009), and communicating them (Kuruppuarachchi, 2009).
Finally, pre-initiation stages often involve establishing and communicating the mission, success
criteria, and the framework of the project (Kuruppuarachchi, 2009).
Initiation
In this stage, it is important to account for the increased risks involved in Virtual Projects
(Kuruppuarachchi, 2009). These risks require proper planning for resources requirements and
availability. Also, it is equally important that the plans utilize the advantages of having a Virtual
Projects when dividing the work. Therefore, the Project Manager should try, as much as possible, to
apply the following strategies when dividing the work: (Oshri et al., 2011:194-196)
- Product structure: when each product module or feature is developed at a separate site
allowing sites to work on different modules in parallel
- Product customization: where one site develops the product, and another site which is close
to the customer does the customization
- Phase/process Step: globally dispersed sites engage in different phases of the project in a
sequential manner
- Minimizing requirements for cross-site communication and synchronization, through
performing activities that are tightly coupled at one single site.
- Division of work across time zones: utilizing the maximum number of the days 24 hours
The following paragraph is based on Kuruppuarachchi, (2009). Literature about monitoring and
controlling Virtual Projects suggests various actions that are important in both Virtual and Co-
located projects. The following factors should be controlled: communication, risk, quality, and the
engagement of team members. In this stage, the Project Manager is advised to give continuous
feedback to the members to keep them updated with the progress of the project. Moreover, the
adherence to the code of conduct, mismatches between policies and procedures, and scope creep
should be monitored is at this stage
Wrap-up
When the Virtual Project is closed, the lessons learned from it are extremely valuable and should be
stored and used in any future project (Kuruppuarachchi, 2009).
within it. The practiced practices for Virtual Projects listed below are based on (Svejvig &
Commisso, 2012:10-11)
- Communication:
o Since virtual communication takes longer time that face-to-face communication,
some team individuals tend to compile their inquiries, try to solve the issues
themselves, or to accept lower quality response from a co-located college.
o In other teams, a formal communication plan might be found that includes who
should be informed about what and when. This becomes extremely relevant for
teams working across different time zones.
o At the project startup of some projects, face-to-face workshops are made in order to
emphasize the importance of continues communication and to overcome the
challenge for establishing the communication and making the first contact
o Usage of instant messaging directly after video conversations, to ensure that both
communication partners have understood each others, which might not always be the
case due to language and cultural differences.
o Favoring video conferences and avoiding voice-based communication because video
conferencing can be accompanied by the use of body language, figures, and
drawings. This practice might occur in reality in an attempt to dilute the impact of
the differences in both language skills and accents.
- Culture
o Cultural training and seminars to minimize the gap between the teams because of
their cultural difference. However, this training can be very stereotypical, whereas
learning about culture takes a long time and cannot be learned by a one-day seminar
that takes place once per year
o Team culture, which involves the bringing up the mentality of us against them
when the team is facing any problem
- Technology
o Favoring video conferencing is a current trend
o The existence of a gap between the availability and usability of technology i.e. not
utilizing the full capabilities of the available communication technology
o Whenever it is possible, people would definitely prepare to hold a face-to-face
meeting instead of a video conference.
- Project process and management:
o Not acknowledging the difference between co-locational and virtual collaboration by
the organization
o Project managers can be notified too late about the project problems as it is more
challenging to manage information across distance
o Appointing a liaison officer (formally or informally)
o Project managers may prioritize regular travel to meet other team members
o Temporary relocation of both project managers and team members.
- Socialization
o Bringing team members in one location before project kick-off
o Prioritizing informal activities so that the team members become acquainted with
each other in informal settings
17
The ultimate goal of a PMM is to facilitate achieving the goals of the project efficiently and
effectively. The PMM should clarify the goals and scope of the project (Chin & Spowage, 2012)
and provide the Project Manager and Team Manager with advice and recommendations that guides
towards achieving these goals (ITS Project Management Group, 2012). The guidance should
facilitate the identification of risks and opportunities when planning prior to the start of the project
(ITS Project Management Group, 2012), (Chin & Spowage, 2012). Having assisted in planning, the
PMM should also provide means for tracking and evaluating current progress of work against the
predefined plans (ITS Project Management Group, 2012) and expectedly, should also provide
guidelines about taking corrective actions in case any issue is raised.
Furthermore, a PMM should include a Project Board to oversee and monitor the project progression
(Chin & Spowage, 2012). This leads to deduce that a PMM should recognize definite levels of
management. Project Management is considered as one level of management whereas at least two
other levels should exist in a methodology that are: Project Board and Team Management.
Besides, a PMM should facilitate communication between project stakeholders through providing a
common language between them. The term language in this context is used with both its literal
meaning and a figurative meaning that symbolizes the project management language. Subsequently,
a PMM should facilitate and improve communication by ensuring that everyone is talking the same
language in terms of practices, documentation, responsibilities, etc (Clarke, 2000), (ITS Project
Management Group, 2012).
Second to last, a PMM should be characterized by being scalable, adaptable, flexible, and accessible
(Chin & Spowage 2010 a), (Chin & Spowage 2012), (ITS Project Management Group, 2012). This
is usually secured through guidelines for tailoring within the methodology such as the tailoring
principle of PRINCE2. Lastly, a PMM should promote organizational learning process (Chin &
Spowage, 2012) through guidelines that leverage on both the best practices and lessons learned
from past experiences (Chin & Spowage 2010 a), (ITS Project Management Group, 2012)
Figure 3 represents the main structure of PRINCE2. PRINCE2 is a generic PMM that is composed
of seven Principles, seven Themes, and seven Processes. The principles are aspects of the project
that PRINCE2 stress on applying them, and if any is not applied then the project is not being run
using PRINCE2 (OGC, 2009). On the other hand, Themes are linked aspects of the project that
should be addressed continually. PRINCE2 prescribes that Themes should be tailored to fit the
project (OGC, 2009). Finally, the Processes are a set of activities that are required to direct,
manage and deliver a project (Murray, 2009:5)
On the other hand, PMBoK is guideline, as the title of PMI (2013) indicates, that offers a set of
generally accepted best practices. PMBoK is a guide rather than a specific methodology. One can
use different methodologies and tools (e.g., agile, waterfall, PRINCE2) to implement the project
19
management framework (PMI, 2013:2). The step between the PMBOK guide and a methodology
is determining what should be done by whom, when and how (Weaver, 2012)7.
PMBoK consists of three main elements that are: Project Management Process Groups, Knowledge
Areas, and Project Management Processes. The relationship between these three elements is shown
in table 2.
7
Weaver, Patrick is a member of PMI since 1986
20
Table 2 - PMBoK Project Management Process Group and Knowledge Area Mapping (PMI 2013: 61)
In few words, PMBoK contains 47 Project Management Processes that are grouped into the five
Project Management Process Groups. In same time, these 47 Project Management Processes are
also grouped into the 10 Knowledge Areas of PMBoK. Table 2 shows the cross-intersection
between the Process Groups and the Knowledge Areas. These three elements are investigated in the
next chapter.
21
PMI (2013) states that good practice means there is general agreement that the application of
project management processes has been shown to enhance the chances of success over a wide
range of projects (PMI, 2013:48). Even though PMBoK is not a methodology yet, the knowledge
that this standard contains has immerged from the recognized good practices of project
management. For example, the processes and tools and techniques of PMBoK are best practices
(Thuesen et. al 2013).
While best practices are extremely valuable input for the development of methodologies, PMBoK
and PRINCE2 are considered to be two of the standards that were developed using best practices as
source of information (Chin & Spowage 2010 a). PRINCE2 embodies established best practices in
its components. For example, the 7 principles of PRINCE2 are actually good practices that
determine whether the project is running using PRINCE2 or not (OGC, 2009).
To wrap things up, project management standards are developed by practitioners that are familiar
with project management practices which are presented in frameworks such as PMBoK and
PRINCE2. In project management context, where the managers have to deal with uncertainties and
ambiguities, not all the best practices should be used in all the projects. Both PMBoK and
PRINCE2 point out that these best practices should be tailored for every project by evaluating what
is needed without overlooking that a methodology, whether PRINCE2 or a customized one based
on PMBoK guide, should provide guidelines which leverage on best practices (Chin & Spowage
2012).
22
OGC (2009) states that PRINCE2 is a generic method for effective project management. Generic in
this context means that it is applicable to all types of projects regardless of their scale, location,
nature, or complexity. The seventh principle of PRINCE2, tailoring, is needed due to the
customizability of PRINCE2. This principle is about thinking how to apply the method and then
using it with a lightness of touch (OGC, 2009:215). McHugh & Hogan (2010) made a study about
the rationale of adopting PRINCE2 and PMBoK in Ireland. This study revealed based on a
comparison between two organizations applying PMBoK and PRINCE2 respectively that the latter
did not face problems in customizing the methodology to fit small projects while the first one did.
The degree of generalizability of this finding can be questioned and the limitations of the study are
already mentioned in the paper however, this finding can be used as an inspiration to use PRINCE2
as a starting point and tailoring it according to PMBoK guidelines since Virtual Projects are
relevant to small and large projects.
However, the fundamental difference between PRNICE2 and PMBoK that leads the author to start
from PRINCE2 is that PRINCE2 is a PMM while PMBoK is not (section 3.3). There are various
implications that can be drawn out from this difference. PMBoK provides general guidelines for
managing a project and it has a better approach than PRINCE2 in explaining each of the knowledge
areas (Wideman, 2002). This might explain the proclamation of the Project Plus Group (2008) that
PMBoK becomes more relevant, compared to PRINCE2, as the level of maturity of the organization
increases. The higher the level of project management maturity, the larger the span of benefits from
learning and interpreting PMBoK becomes. Conversely, PRINCE2 is more effective than PMBoK
in providing guidelines for managing a specific project (Wideman, 2002) as more detailed
specifications are needed in projects running with lower maturity Project Management. The author
does not agree 100% with this relationship between the maturity of project management and the
PRINCE2 vs PMBoK relevance since PRINCE2 can be extremely relevant to projects running in
highly mature organizations. However, the author assures that PRINCE2 is superior in putting the
guidelines into context. This can be depicted right from the start of the project as PRINCE2
recommends a project Start Up process that details what should be done as soon as an idea or a need
for a project is available (AIPM, 2002) while there is no counterpart for this process in PMBoK.
Then with the progress of the project, the context of the activities of PRINCE2 is still stronger.
According to the author, the context of all activities within a process and the context of the
processes themselves are extremely precise in PRINCE2 which is reflected in a comprehensive and
comprehendible process model. On the other hand no process model for PMBoK is provided by
PMI (2013). The author even claims that the contexts of some activities in the PMBoK are peculiar
ex. Planning Scope Management is done after approving the Project Charter or that acquiring
project management team members takes place after the initiation of the project.
A research by Chin & Spowage (2010 b) shows that the only missing element of PRINCE2 as
compared to the leading best practices guidelines is a comprehensive discussion about knowledge
areas. Since PRINCE2 is a tailoring-friendly pragmatic methodology that provides How To
23
approach (Siegelaub, 2009) (Project Plus Group, 2008) (Yeong, 2012), then it can be complemented
by the knowledge areas of PMBoK that elaborates on the competencies of a successful project
manager (Chin and Spowage, 2010 b).
4.2.2.1 PMBoK Knowledge Areas with PRINCE2 Themes, Principles and Processes
Siegelaub (2009) states that PRINCE2 Themes roughly map against the Knowledge Areas, this idea
is supported by Yeong (2012) who mentions that even though they are not exactly matched yet,
they are similar. According to PRINCE2, the Themes are the aspects of the project that should be
addressed continuously through the project since they are central to the project success and are
often under-addressed by the Project Managers (Siegelaub, 2009). The strength of the themes
concept in PRINCE2 is that they link together chronologically. In addition to that, PRINCE2
assigns roles and responsibilities for each of the seven themes. On the contrary, the Knowledge
Areas neither have assigned roles and responsibilities nor linked together in a clear process model.
Yet, the Knowledge Areas are more comprehensive (Siegelaub, 2009:2) whether in the number of
pages they occupy in OGC (2009) and PMI (2013), or in terms of their constituents. Table 3 shows
how does each Knowledge Area maps against PRINCE2 Themes according to Siegelaub (2009).
Siegelaub (2009) used PMI (2008), the fourth version of PMBoK guide, which did not include the
Stakeholder Knowledge Area. Stakeholder Knowledge Area is not covered by the Themes. The
Knowledge Areas represent a complete set of concepts, terms, and activities that make up a
professional field, project management field, or area of specialization (PMI, 2013:60). Based on
this, the Knowledge Areas can be mapped against other PRINCE2 elements:
Table 4 shows another way for understanding the Knowledge Areas as compared to PRINCE2.
Knowledge Areas receive the major focus in the PMBoK and this could be induced from its title
Body of Knowledge.
Both PRINCE2 and PMBoK talk about Processes which are consistent with one another (Chin &
Spowage, 2010b). PRINCE2 focus on the complete life cycle of the projects represented through
the processes that are viewed as critical areas for project success (Chin & Spowage, 2010b),
(Yeong, 2012). The table below shows how these processes can be matched together.
This is one proposed approach of matching the Processes together by Yeong (2012) however; a
different approach is used in the proposed methodology and is discussed in Chapter 5. Table 5 is
used in this context to support the statement by Chin & Spowage (2010b) regarding the consistency
of the processes.
The following paragraph reflects on the findings in this section, 4.2.2. The Themes concept in
PRINCE2 is similar to the Knowledge Areas of PMBoK. Also, the processes of PRINCE2 and
PMBoK are consistent despite the differences between them. The Knowledge Areas of PMBoK are
composed of project management processes. On the other hand, the Process Groups are composed
of project management processes as well. This leads to concluding that, using PRINCE2s
language, the themes in PMBoK are perfectly integrated within the processes. From a different
perspective, each Process of PRINCE2 contains a list of activities, while each Process Group of
PMBoK contains Project Management Processes and thus, the author claims that the PRINCE2
activities are equivalent to PMBoK Project Management Processes.
PRINCE2 and PMBoK have different aims and areas of focus. PRINCE2 is a life-cycle based
methodology that provides an overall framework for managing projects (Wideman, 2002; Bell,
2009). On the other hand, PMBoK has focus on teaching the skills and competencies in each of its
Knowledge Areas (Wideman, 2002; Chin & Spowage 2010b). Due to this difference, PRINCE2
says what should be done but it does not cover detailed techniques of how those things can be done
(OGC, 2009). This explains why PMBoK is more comprehensive than PRINCE2 (Yeong, 2012;
Chin & Spowage 2010b).
The largest two Knowledge Areas that are not covered by PRINCE2 are Procurements and
Stakeholders. PRINCE2 considers the Procurements as Specialist Aspects that can be used
together with PRINCE2. While PMBoK covers Procurement in its pre-assignment, negotiations,
decisions, source solicitations, contracts, and administrative closure (AIPM, 2002; Chin &
Spowage, 2010b; Yeong, 2012). As for Stakeholders, PRINCE2 regards that this activity is carried
at the Program Level which is outside the scope of PRINCE28.
Communication is a topic that is strongly addressed by both PRINCE2 and PMBoK due to its
significance in Project Management context. However, it is essential to differentiate between the
approaches of PRINCE2 and PMBoK before proposing the hybrid methodology because of the
additional importance that communication gains in Virtual Projects. PRINCE2 covers
communication in the Initiating a Project Process through preparing the communication
management strategy which is a product that has an available template. The PMBoK covers
Communication through a whole Knowledge Area that is composed of three Project Management
Processes that are active over three different Process Groups (table 2). The Communications in
PMBoK are planned, managed and controlled. Moreover, PMBoK provides more detailed tools and
techniques than PRINCE2 (Bell, 2009). These details includes: Communication Requirements
Analysis, Communication Technology, Communication Models, and Communication Methods
(PMI, 2013:291-295).
Another example of areas covered by both but PMBoK is obviously stronger is Human Resource
Management. The author, Yeong (2012), Chin & Spowage (2010 b), Bell (2009), and AIPM (2002)
all agree about this point. The reason for this mindset about PMBoK is that PRINCE2 do not
provide guidelines about the detailed techniques of Human Resources Management that do not have
a specific PRINCE2 approach whereas PMBoK is particularly strong in such areas. Examples of the
detailed techniques elaborated by PMBoK: organizational charts, performance appraisal, conflict
management, etc
In the same vein, Quality is another area that is stronger in PMBoK. PMBoK has a stronger focus
on delivering quality (Yeong, 2012) and this can be depicted in the PMBoK tools and techniques
that are not covered by PRINCE2.
8
The OGC has a different publication called Managing Successful Programmes, referred to in OGC (2009) while
discussing the Stakeholders Engagement as a part of the Organization Theme, which covers Stakeholders Engagement .
27
Cost is yet another area that PMBoK address in a more detailed manner. PRINCE2 discusses costs
as a part of the Plans theme, while PMBoK allocates a complete Area of Knowledge for it. Within
the Cost Area of Knowledge, PMBoK extensively provides tools and techniques in this domain to
the extent that they form a prime selling point for PMI training (Bell; 2009).
The two Knowledge Areas of Time and Risk are no different than Cost, Quality, Human Resources,
and Communication Areas of Knowledge discussed above i.e. they are covered by PRINCE2 but
PMBoK can complement PRINCE2 by providing detailed tools and techniques for carrying on
Time and Risk Management.
In conclusion, PMBoK areas that can support the PRINCE2 processes are divided into two
categories. The first category is related to the parts covered by PMBoK where PRINCE2 considers
them out of its scope such as Procurements. Whereas the second category, is related to the parts
where PMBoK has a stronger focus than PRINCE2 such as communications.
The framework of PRINCE2 is used in the proposed methodology as discussed in section 4.2.1.
PRINCE2 offers a complete project life cycle based on processes. Six out of the seven processes
runs in a life cycle based form while the remaining one, Directing a Project, is a continuous process
supporting other processes. Turner (2000) defines in McHugh & Hogan (2010:638) a methodology
as a structured approach for delivering a project, and consists of a set of processes, with each
process having clearly defined resources and activities. Since PRINCE2 focus on Processes (Chin
& Spowage, 2010b) and PRINCE2 processes are composed of clearly defined activities then, it is
plausible to focus on processes in the proposed methodology. This approach is supported by the
following results of sections 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.2:
Even though the Processes of PRINCE2 and PMBoK are consistent yet, they are different in some
aspects even in their number. Many scholars who tried create a PMM whether by combining
existing methodologies or creating one that fits into a certain case have come up with a
methodology that is based on five processes that are congruent, to a high degree, with PMBoK
processes (Charvat, 2003; Pitagorsky, 2003, Wideman, 2006, Yeong, 2012, Chin & Spowage
2010a, Chin & Spowage 2010b, ITS Project Management Group 2012, Abbasi & Al-Maharmah
2000). Based on this it seems reasonable to use PMBoK Process Groups when attempting to
combine PRINCE2 and PMBoK. However, the delimitations of this master thesis are the main
reason for adopting PRINCE2 Processes and not PMBoK Process Groups. In PRINCE2, the names
and number of processes cannot be tailored and if one of them is removed then, the project cannot
be considered being managed using PRINCE2. PMBoK on the other hand, does not provide rules
and restrictions for tailoring. And since the aim of this master thesis is to propose a
PRINCE2/PMBoK hybrid methodology, and not to propose a new methodology based on both then,
the PRINCE2 processes are adopted in the proposed methodology.
28
PRINCE2 processes are composed of 4 parts: aim, purpose, context, and activities. The aim,
purpose, and most importantly the context are adopted the way they are in PRINCE2. Whereas the
activities of the proposed methodology are discussed next:
Based on all what is discussed earlier in Chapter 4, the approach of combining PRINCE2 and
PMBoK is done through two steps: first, each PMBoK Project Management Process is viewed as an
activity and compared against the seven processes of PRINCE2 to find out which process it belongs
to taking into consideration first and foremost the Virtual nature of the Projects that the
methodology is oriented to. Then, it takes into consideration both the Process Group and the Area of
Knowledge that it belongs to. This step results in mapping the 47 Project Management Processes
into the seven activities of PRINCE2. The outcome is shown in the seven tables: 6, 8, 10, 12, 14,
16, and 18.
The second step is to compare the Project Management Processes with the Activities for each
Process: any activity that does not have a similar Project Management Process is adopted in the
proposed methodology and vice versa. Similar activities are then compared, and one of them is
chosen according to: first, which one fits Virtual Projects more and second, which one is found to
be stronger according to the literature research. The outcome is shown in the six tables: 7, 9, 11, 13,
15, and 17.
As for the products of the activities, the products and their roles that exist in PRINCE2 are adopted
due to: their assigned responsibilities, the availability of templates, and that PRINCE2 is stronger
than PMBoK in documentation (Chin & Spowage, 2010b).
The four management levels of PRINCE2 are adopted, these levels are: Corporate Management,
Project Board, Project Management, and Team (Delivery) Management. This hierarchy is favored
by the author over the approach used in PMBoK. In PMBoK, various managerial levels and
positions are defined however, it does not recognize the team manager when teaching the Areas of
Knowledge and at the same time, it refers most of the time to the levels of management above the
Project Management as Project Sponsor.
Despite the careful design of Themes in PRINCE2 yet, the approach used by PMBoK is preferred
by the author. As shown earlier, PMBoK imbeds the Themes within its Processes. The proposed
methodology contains an attempt to imbed what PRINCE2 regards as Themes within its processes.
This attempt would still make the Project genuinely managed using PRINCE2 because all the seven
Themes are applied and they are tailored up.
29
The final requirement of a PMM to be considered as PRINCE2 is the principles. The seven
principles of PRINCE2 are adopted and should be applied. Any project being run while at least one
of the seven principles is not applied is neither using PRINCE2 nor the proposed methodology.
Section 4.3 contains 7 subsections with each representing a process bearing its name from
PRINCE2. Each subsection starts with a very brief introduction about the purpose of the process,
then 5 sub-subsections that are:
1. Overview: an image showing the overview of the process in the proposed methodology. The
base for creating the overview depends slightly on the overview of each process in OGC
(2009) and then modified to fit the proposed methodology. The overview contains all the
activities corresponding to the process in the adopted methodology. The keys to the
overviews are shown in figure 4
2. Incorporating PRINCE2 and PMBoK activities: it starts with a table showing the authors
choice in matching PMBoK Project Management Processes (PMBoK Activities) to the
PRINCE2 processes. Then, the activities that are adopted in the new methodology from both
PRINCE2 and PMBoK are identified
3. Products and responsibilities: starts with a table showing each PMBoK adopted activity, the
product(s) of each activity, and the responsible(s) for producing or updating each activity.
4. Tackled issues and challenges: contains issues and challenges of Virtual Projects that are
found during literature research and are tackled in the process of the proposed methodology
Last but not least, all the information about PRINCE2 and PMBoK in this section are, unless
otherwise mentioned, produced by the author who got the knowledge about them from OGC(2009)
and PMI(2013). Therefore, the bibliography of the following section includes OGC(2009) and
PMI(2013).
The following figure represents an overview of the Starting up a Project (SU) process in the
proposed methodology.
In the above figure: PMBoK Activities Plan Human Resource Management and Acquire Project
Team replaces PRINCE2 Activity: Design and Appoint Project Management Team, while a
third PMBoK Activity Identify Stakeholders is added to the SU process of the proposed
methodology. The activities of the SU and their products are discussed in the next two sections.
Table 6 shows the PMBoK Activities that can be matched with the SU process.
31
In PRINCE2, the life cycle of the project starts with grouping the prerequisites of a project into
context in order to ensure that only viable projects are allowed to be initiated. Whereas PMBoK
provides a generic projects life cycle that starts with a starting phase, followed by Organizing and
Preparing phase while determining the number of phases and their naming convention is left to the
management. The processes that are intended to define a new project are grouped in the process
group: Initiating a Project which is composed of two sequential PMBoK Activities that are:
Developing Project Charter then, Identifying Stakeholders. According to PMBoK, a project is
officially started when the project charter is approved and that is the only prerequisite for starting a
project. The PMBoK Activities that will be added to the SU process should be carefully selected
since PRINCE2 aims with this process to do the minimum possible effort that enables the Project
Board to take a decision whether to initiate the project or not.
PMBoKs Project Charter overlaps with the Project Brief document in PRINCE2. In fact, it is
mentioned in the OGCs manual that PMBoKs Project Charter is equivalent to Project Brief in
PRINCE2 (OGC 2009: 231). PRINCE2 has a bigger focus on the pre-project initiation phase than
PMBoK and as mentioned earlier, PRINCE2 is heavier in documentation. Hence, one would
generally tend to outweigh PRINCE2 whenever there is antagonism between PRINCE2 and
PMBoK regarding documentation.
The similarity between these two documents is palpable as both contain information about the
objective, scope, and the participants in the project. However, here are some differences that are
worth mentioning:
Yet, a decision regarding which document to use cannot be made at this level because both are the
basis for creating other managerial products later. The Project Brief is used in creating the Project
Initiation Document in the Initiating stage, whereas the Project Charter is used in developing the
Project Management Plan. The author favors Project Initiation Document over Project Management
Plan (see section 4.3.3.3) and therefore the Project Brief is a product of the SU process while
Developing Project Charter is omitted.
Identifying Stakeholders is, on the other hand, one of the Project Stakeholders Management
Knowledge Area processes which is adopted in the proposed methodology. PMBoK recommends
that Identifying Stakeholders should be done as early as possible in the project while the author
32
recommends that the output of this activity should be present with the Project Board when the
request for initiation is sent.
Moreover, PRINCE2 considers Appointing the Project Management Team as one of the Activities
of the SU Process. Unpredictably, PMBoK regards this as one of the activities that should be done
after the initiation of the project and even precedent by Plan Human Resource Management. In this
regards, acquiring a Virtual Team may be problematic owing to any of the five categories of Virtual
Projects issues (section 3.1.3) to the extent that the viability of the project may become under
question. The author recommends thereupon, that acquiring the team members should be done in
the SU process as dictated by PRINCE2. The recommended actions of this activity are very akin in
PRINCE2 and PMBoK however; the data flow of the latter is adopted because of (1) the superiority
of the Project Human Resource Management Area of Knowledge and (2) the fact that Virtual
Teams are recognized at this level by PMBoK as a possible form of teams.
To wrap up, the proposed SU process comprises all the PRINCE2 activities except Design and
appoint the project management team in addition to the following PMBoK Activities: Identify
Stakeholders, Plan Human Resource Management, and Acquire Project Team.
In the above table, assigning the responsibility of producing Stakeholder Register is done after the
responsibilities for the whole Project Stakeholder Management Area of Knowledge are assigned
(section 4.3.2.3). Also, Appointed Project Management Team is an equivalent PRINCE2 product to
PMBoKs Project Staff Assignment and thats why PRINCE2 products name is shown in the
above table.
The interaction between this process and Virtual Projects is minimal because the project starts after
this stage and the effect of the distances between the team members cannot be seen at this level.
However, appointing the Project Manager and the Project Team are among the fundamental factors
33
in shaping the future of the project work. In this connection, PRINCE2 offers some general
recommendations that are related to learning from previous lessons and creating Project Managers
role description. PMBoK on the other hand, can be used to start addressing the issues that might be
raised in Virtual Projects right from this level where they recommend Identifying Stakeholders very
early in the project. Having the stakeholders identified paves the way for identifying their needs,
interests, expectations, influence on the project etcThese information can be used as inputs for
several activities recommended by both PMBoK and PRINCE2 that minimizes the potential issues
of the Virtual Project especially the issues that are related to technology, culture, and socialization.
Virtual Projects are heavily dependent on technology where any technological shortage hinders the
work of the project. In the SU process, the Project Approach is selected and the Project Brief is
assembled. In this activity, the technological requirements are set by the Project Manager and then
approved by the Project Board before the project starts. This serves in minimizing the technological
problems (Kuruppuarachchi, 2009) and shortages (Reed & Knight, 2009). This activity is preceded
by Capturing Previous Lessons where both can be used to determine the complexity of the required
technology. Determining the complexity of the needed technology is one of the challenges of
Virtual Projects (Ebrahim et al., 2009).
The recommendations of the PMBoK activity Plan Human Resource Management, determine the
roles, skills, responsibilities, etc.., are used as an input to the Activity Acquire Project Team in
order to overcome the difficulty of team selection and determining the proper number of members
due to the geographical and organizational separation (Ebrahim et al., 2009) (Kuruppuarachchi,
2009).
Communication is another issue of Virtual Projects that is addressed in the SU process. The
PMBoK activity Identify Stakeholders involves having meetings between the stakeholders
including the Project Team. Establishing the communication at a very early stage can help in
detecting the members that are psychologically not fit for Virtual Projects (Kuruppuarachchi, 2009)
and (Ebrahim et al., 2009).
Finally, several activities in this process aims to determine the required amount, frequency, and
level of documentation as some members might underestimate the importance of documentation in
Virtual Projects (Kuruppuarachchi, 2009).
The following figure represents an overview of the DP process in the proposed methodology.
34
Figure6 contains all the activities of its counterpart overview in PRINCE2 in addition to four
activities adopted from PMBoK. The clarifications of these decisions are provided next.
As displayed earlier, the DP process is not represented clearly in PMBoKs Process Groups because
the Project Board level of management doesnt exist explicitly in PMBoK. This is an area of
strength of PRINCE2 as compared to PMBoK (Chin &Spowage 2010b). Thus, one would not
expect many commonalities or complementary activities between PRINCE2 and PMBoK at this
process. Table 8 shows the authors suggestion of PMBoK Activities that can be matched with the
DP process.
The author believes that the five activities specified by PRINCE2 are very essential and should be
performed within this process in the proposed methodology. Four of these activities happen at
discrete instances while the fifth activity, giving ad hoc direction, is a continuous activity
throughout the project. In order to complement this process, four PMBoK project management
processes are added (table 9).
The aim of Manage Stakeholder Engagement activity is to realize the needs and expectations of the
stakeholders in order to ensure the proper level of their engagement through increasing their support
and minimizing their resistance to the project. PMBoK generally do not define the roles and
responsibilities, but for this particular process, it is mentioned in different parts of the PMI(2013)
guide that the Project Manager is responsible for engaging the stakeholders (PMI, 2013:404).
Correspondingly, the aim of Control Stakeholder Engagement is to adjust the strategies and plans
for engaging stakeholders throughout the progress of the project. Also it ensures that the activities
of engaging the stakeholders are run in effective and efficient way as the environment around the
project might possibly change. However, the activities of (DP) process occur at the Project Board
level of management. Manage Communications, on the other hand, is one of the PMBoK activities
that belongs to the Project Communication Area of Knowledge. Although PRINCE2 and PMBoK
have variance in the approach for communication yet, both cover communication in a sensible level.
PRINCE2 does not assign communication activities at the DP process to the Project Board. The
illustrations of these decisions are presented next.
As shown in the above table, the four added activities from PMBoK require updating
documentation from the Project Board which is not common in PRINCE2. However, this is the
consequence of assigning the Project Stakeholder Knowledge Area to the PRINCE2 DP process.
When conducting Virtual Projects, the engagement of stakeholders gains even more importance. It
would be of a great benefit for the Virtual Project if the engagement of the team members was an
activity performed by an authority that is not into the day to day management of the project as they
can see the whole picture from different perspectives and dimensions. Such activity would be
needed all along the projects life. Based on this, the author suggests supplementing the DP process
with Project Stakeholder Knowledge Area. In this process, the Project Board should exercise
overall control upon the project thus; there is a need to control the issues that might face the Project
Manager with his virtual team. Additionally, it is clearly mentioned in the PMBoK guide that the
Project Manager can call up for project sponsors assist as needed to ensure the engagement of the
stakeholders (PMI, 2013:406).
One can argue that some of the tools and techniques of Manage Stakeholders Engagement activity
are Project Manager oriented; namely interpersonal skills and management skills (PMI
2013:407-8). While the first is about problem solving and trust building, the latter aims towards
illuminating the goals, encouraging goals achievement, and promoting for change. Indeed, these are
skills of a Project Manager, and they are covered by other activities in PRINCE2 in the processes:
Managing a Product Delivery and Controlling a Stage. Making the Project Board use such tools and
techniques at this level is an attempt by the author to lessen as much challenges and issues of the
Virtual Projects mentioned in section 3.1.3 as possible by giving support to the Project Manager
through the Board. This attempt finds its way through utilizing the following responsibilities of the
Project Board as indicated by PRINCE2 (OGC, 2009:269-70-71)
One can also argue that PRINCE2 deems stakeholder engagement as an activity that is done at the
program level (OGC 2009:41). The answer for that is that PRINCE2 delineates stakeholders as
individuals or groups that are not part of the Project Management Team while in PMBoK, the
Project Team is considered among stakeholders (PMI 2013: 30). In any case, the disparity in the
role of stakeholder engagement between PMBoK and PRINCE2 gives a room for examination to
find out if this activity should be done at a level that is as high as corporate level, or as low as
project management level. The author is hereby proposing a hypothesis that this activity should be
delegated to the Project Board.
The reason for placing the Manage Communications Activity in the DP process is that, Manage
Communications is the activity that enables effective and efficient communications flow between
the stakeholders of the project (PMI2013:297). In PRINCE2, the Project Board is responsible for
managing the communication between the project management team and stakeholders external to
the team (OGC 2009:269). Additionally, PRINCE2 prescribes that one of the roles of the Project
Board is ensuring effective communication both within the project team and with external
stakeholders (OGC 2009: 34). Thus, communicating with all stakeholders is within the scope of
the Project Board.
37
The Control activities Control Stakeholder Engagement and Control Communication are
assigned at the DP process for two reasons. First, the responsibilities of the Project Board in
PRINCE2 are assigned only in the DP process (Siegelaub 2009). Second, the Project Board
exercises overall control in the project at the DP process level (OGC 2009). Therefore, the author
recommends in the proposed methodology that all the control activities that are assigned to the
Project Board should be done at the DP process level, whereas those assigned to the Project
Manager should be done at the Controlling a Stage process.
All in all, the Project Board can assist the Project Manager of a Virtual Project by using the
authority they have to provide their leadership and conflict resolution competencies for such
projects that require special handling.
In this process PRINCE2 supports Virtual Project through several areas. First, this process starts
with project authorization request. To grant this authorization, PRINCE2 recommends confirming
that the green light can be given to the initiation stage when, among other things, the board can
confirm that the project team is appointed, the members understand their roles, and reporting and
control mechanism are in place. Second, the authorization of the project, stage, or exception is
provided by PRINCE2 with a set of best practices that, generally, intents to control the risks, set
tolerances, and to make certain that the proper resources are committed to the project. Next, the ad
hoc support given by the project board can be crucial in the Virtual Projects especially when the
project board is providing guidance to the project manager. Finally, the activity authorize project
closure guarantees the achievement of one of the principles of PRINCE2 which is learning from
experience. Each of the mentioned PRINCE2 activities are provided with recommendations that
help in overcoming some of the Virtual Projects challenges especially those related to project
process and management. Furthermore, the activities adopted from PMBoK tackle more challenges
of Virtual Projects that are related to technology, communication, and even socialization.
The support of the Project Board is needed for implementation and resolving problems in Virtual
Projects because they are subject to some factors that can cause invisible and complex problems
such as mistrust, conflicts, and power struggles (Kuruppuarachchi, 2009) , (Ebrahim et al., 2009).
Virtual projects require managing across different time zones, cultures, and languages and hence,
one of the huge issues of Virtual Projects is that it requires careful planning for team integration and
communication (Kuruppuarachchi, 2009). These tasks are given to the Project Board in the
proposed methodology. The problems caused by the resistance to the nature of the team, that is
common in Virtual Projects (Kuruppuarachchi, 2009), can be decreased when managing the teams
integration. In addition to that, managing communication at this level helps in developing
conceptual understanding of the problems, which can be problematic in Virtual Projects (Ebrahim et
al., 2009), through Managing and Controlling Communication PMBoK activities. These activities
aim, among other things, to minimize the probability of having inadequate communication between
the project stakeholders which is an issue for both Virtual and Co-located teams.
38
Figure 7 shows an overview of the IP Process where all of its activities are done at the Project Level
of Management.
In the above figure, four activities are adopted from PRINCE2 while the rest are adopted from
PMBoK. Among all the processes of the proposed methodology, the largest presence of PMBoK in
one process is in the IP.
The result of matching all PMBoK activities with PRINCE2 IP Process is shown in the below table.
Noticeably, the number of activities is high because the Planning Process Group in PMBoK, which
is comprised of more than half (24) of the PMBoK activities, is directly matched to the IP
Processes.
Table 10 shows the PMBoK activities that can be matched to Initiating a Project process of
PRINCE2 that includes 8 activities. The comparison between the 8 PRINCE2 activities with the
processes mentioned in the table reveals that 6 out of the 8 activities are covered by PMBoK.
Therefore, the grouping approach for the IP process, for most of the activities, is comprised of
differentiation between the PRINCE2 activities and the activities mentioned in the table 10, to
choose one of them exclusively.
As displayed earlier, literature comparing PRINCE2 and PMBoK indicates that PMBoK is stronger
or more comprehensive when it comes to risk management, quality assurance, and communication
40
strategy (Bell 2009, Yeong 2012, Chin & Spowage 2010 b, Project Plus Group 2008, Siegelaub
2009). Whereas PRINCE2 offers broader perspective on the business aspects of the project
especially business case - based decision making, configuration management and documentation
(Bell 2009, Yeong 2012, Siegelaub 2009). Moreover, the knowledge areas are more comprehensive
than the themes which are roughly matched with each other and thus, the Knowledge Areas are
favored in the proposed methodology especially Cost and Time Management Areas of Knowledge
versus the theme Plans.
Based on the previous paragraph, the PRINCE2 Project Initiation Document product is favored over
PMBoKs product Project Management Plan, and this was the reason for preferring project brief
over project charter in the SU Process. Having said that, the PRINCE2 activities that are adopted in
this proposed methodology are: Prepare Configuration Management Strategy, Set up Project
Controls, Create the Project Plan, Refine Business Case, and Assemble PID. While the PMBoK
activities that are offset by PRINCE2 activities are: Develop Project Management Plan, Plan Scope
Management, and Define Scope.
On the other hand, three of the PRINCE2 activities: Prepare Risk Management Strategy, Prepare
Quality Management Strategy, and Prepare Communication Plan are replaced by the following
PMBoK activities: Plan Quality Management, Plan Risk Management, Identify Risks, Perform
Qualitative Risk Analysis, Perform Quantitative Risk Analysis, Plan Risk Responses, and Plan
Communications Management.
Going back to table 10, the activity Collect Requirement is a part of the Project Scope Management
Area of Knowledge and according to both the rationale used in this thesis and to theory (Siegelaub
2009) should be omitted in the proposed methodology. Yet, a close look at this activity reveals that
the requirements of all who are considered by PMBoK as Stakeholders are to be collected. Since
PMBoKs view about stakeholders is adapted in the proposed methodology, then the Collect
Requirements would be a relevant activity at the IP process that complements the stakeholders
engagement procedure in the proposed methodology. In the same vein, Plan Stakeholder
Management is also adopted and hereby, all the Project Stakeholder Management Area of
Knowledge is discussed and adopted in the proposed methodology.
Work Breakdown Structure, is a common between PRINCE2 and PMBoK which their aggregation
is considered synergistic (Yeong 2012). For this particular activity, the author prefers combining the
two activities from PRINCE2 and PMBoK rather than viewing them as mutually exclusive
activities and thence adopting only one of them. The context of this activity is based on PRINCE2
as a part of creating the Project Plan activity whereas the tools and techniques are adopted as-is
from the PMI (2013:128-31).
Finally, the Plan Procurement Management activity is also adopted from PMBoK since
procurement is not within the scope by PRINCE2 however, it is recommended by PRINCE2 that
the procurement can be part of the initiation stage (OGC2009:226)
The following table shows the activities adopted from PMBoK in the IP process, their products, and
the responsibilities of each:
41
Project Board(R)
Perform Qualitative Risk Register Project Manager(U)
Risk Analysis
Perform Quantitative Risk Register Project Manager(U)
Risk Analysis Risk Management Plan Project Manager(U)
Project Board(R)
Plan Risk Responses Risk Register Project Manager(U)
Risk Management Plan Project Manager(U)
Project Board(R)
Plan Procurement Procurement Management Project Manager(P)
Management Plan(PMI 2013:366) Project Board(A)
Procurement Statement of Project Manager(P)
Work(PMI 2013:367)
Procurement Documents(PMI Project Manager(P)
2013:368) Team Manager(R)
Source Selection Criteria(PMI Project Manager(P)
2013:368) Project Board(A)
Make-or-Buy Decisions(PMI Project Manager(P)
2013:370)
Issue Register Project Manager(U)
Plan Stakeholder Stakeholder Management Project Board (P)
Management Plan(PMI 2013:403)
Table 11- Responsibilities of the adopted PMBoK activities in the Initiating a Project Process
In keeping with PRINCE2 guidelines, the major player in this process is the Project Manager. The
Project Manager is responsible for creating or approving the prime products of each PRINCE2
activity as well as the proposed methodology activities except for Plan Stakeholder Management. In
accordance to the classification made in the previous processes, the Project Board is held
responsible to activities that are related to stakeholders management. Planning stakeholder
management is the process of providing action plans for engaging the stakeholders effectively (PMI
2013). This is done through identifying how will they affect the project and how will the project
affect them. Such identification seems to be very harmonious with the idea presented previously
regarding the intervention of project board with the management of stakeholders. Additionally,
Stakeholder management is about creation and maintenance of relationships between the project
team and stakeholders (PMI, 2013:400). No room for doubt is left regarding the responsibility of
plan Stakeholder Engagement as it is explicitly congruent to one of the roles of the project board in
PRINCE2 as prescribed in (OGC, 2009:33, 34). The planning of stakeholder management takes
data as input whether from the PID or Stakeholder Register. In this vein, the author recommends a
that the output of Collect Requirements should be used as an input to planning stakeholder
management in addition to the existing data flow available in PMI(2013:111). Using the same
arguments about the management of stakeholders, the Project Board is responsible for developing
the Communication Plan. According to PMBoK, the Communication Plan the process of
developing an appropriate approach and plan for project communications based on stakeholders
information needs and requirements, and available organizational assets (PMI2013:289).
43
The nature of the project affects directly the activities of the IP process. That is, initiating a Virtual
Project is different than initiating a co-located project in many aspects. The guidelines offered by
PRINCE2 at the IP Process support Virtual Projects in: first, preparing essential baseline products
that gain additional importance in geographically dispersed projects such as Communication
Management Strategy, Risk Plan, etc Second, PRINCE2 recommends best practices that focus on
placing the plans within the business context through its business case approach. On the other hand,
PMBoK provides detailed tools and techniques for development of plans. Many of these techniques
are useful in Virtual Project context. Based on this, the IP Process in the proposed methodology
supports the Virtual Projects through: first, providing detailed tools and techniques for planning and
second, keeping these tools within the business scope of the organization.
Communication Management Strategy is produced at this process that dilutes the effect of the
following Communication-related Virtual Projects issues: ineffective communication, special
communication skills (Kuruppuarachchi, 2009), and the additional challenge to the explicit transfer
of knowledge (Reed & Knight, 2009).
Technology related issues are also addressed at this process. These issues include additional costs of
distant offices (Kuruppuarachchi, 2009) and challenges of determining the proper technology to be
used (Ebrahim et al., 2009). Moreover, several issues related to the Project Process and
Management are tackled in this process. During planning, the rewarding systems, the things to be
reinforced in formal processes, and the sequence of activities are determined. Also, the negative
effect of some Cultural issues is minimized and even reversed in this process through providing best
practices for scheduling and for planning stakeholders engagement who belong to a diversity of
cultures.
The CS process in the proposed methodology consists of five PMBoK activities and five PRINCE2
activities.
The first stage in the CS process starts after the IP process is totally completed. In the IP process,
the foundation for starting a project is established and therefore, the control approach is already
tackled and therefore, all the activities of this process can be thought of as the implementation of the
strategies that are set in the IP.
Control Scope
Control Schedule
Control Costs
Control Quality
Control Risks
Control Procurements
Perform Integrated Change
Table 12 - PMBoK activities that belongs to Controlling a Stage process
Table 12 shows the PMBoK project management processes that are matched to CS process. Control
is one of the common processes between PRINCE2 and PMBoK which makes matching the
activities from both guidelines in this process relatively evident. The approach followed by the
author in finding the activities for this process is different than the previous processes due to the
type of relation between the activities of the CS and IS processes. Judging whether the PMBoK
activities are adopted in the proposed methodology or not is based on the adopted activities in the IS
process. Whilst the PRINCE2 activities in the proposed methodology are: all the existing activities
which do not overlap with the selected PMBoK activities. Having identified the criteria for activity
selection, it is obvious that Scope Control and Perform Integrated Change Control are not adopted
in the proposed methodology since PRINCE2 approach for change and scope are favored over
PMBoKs approach. Likewise, the approach of PMBoK in controlling the following is favored over
PRINCE2: Schedule, Costs, Quality, Risks, and Procurement.
Having adopted the activities for this process from PMBoK, the corresponding PRINCE2 activities
that are replaced in the proposed methodology can be deduced. The activities that PRINCE2
classify as Issues are replaced by PMBoK. Therefore, the proposed methodology does not contain
the following activities: Capture and examine issues and risks, escalate issues and risks, and
take corrective action.
Since the activities of the CS process are planned in advance in the IP process then, one can deduce
that almost no new products are to be created in this process.
A closer look at each of the adopted controlling activity from PMBoK reveals similarity in the name
of the outputs produced. Work performance information is a collection of documents produced
during the project life intended to generate decisions, actions, or awareness (PMI 2013:93).
PMBoK does not offer templates for these documents but rather a suggested list of items that these
documents can contain. On the other hand, all the control activities can generate what PMBoK calls
Change Request. The concept Issue is used in PRINCE2 and the proposed methodology instead
of Change Request. Each control activity that results in a variation from the planned tolerances
triggers issue rising. The issues are dealt with according to PRINCE2 classification i.e. request for
change, off-specification, and problem/concern.
In the CS process, the work of the team is allocated, received, monitored, and controlled. Therefore,
this process is significantly affected when the nature of the project is Virtual. Virtual Projects can
benefit from PRINCE2 in keeping the authorized worked package within the planned scope and
ensuring that tolerances are not violated. Virtual Projects can also utilize the various controlling
techniques provided by PMBoK.
Communication might not be performed according to the plans set and this can be sometimes due to
technology resource limitations (Kuruppuarachchi, 2009) or to variety of practices (Ebrahim et al.,
2009). These Communication, Technology, and Culture related issues are discovered when
monitoring and controlling the project work. However the main category of issues that is tackled by
this process is the Project Process and Management. According to Kuruppuarachchi (2009), quality
control, supervision, and monitoring become more difficult in Virtual Projects. The assessment and
recognition of performance also becomes more difficult (Kirkman et al., 2002). These issues are
within the scope of the CS process that provides several advices on how to avoid them.
47
The MP Process interacts only with the CS process in the proposed methodology as well as in
PRINCE2 are shown in figure 9
The four activities from PMBoK that are adopted in the MP process do not interact with the CS
process. The decisions that lead to this overview are discussed next.
Matching the PMBoK Project Management Processes with the MP process would have been much
easier if PMBoK assigns roles and responsibilities but anyhow, the table below shows the matching
as suggested by the author.
Based on the work done in matching the activities of PRINCE2 and PMBoK that are related to the
IP process, Direct and Manage Project Work is not adopted in the proposed methodology. Also,
since PMBoKs approach for managing quality is favored and since PRINCE2 do not cover
procurements then Perform Quality Assurance, and Conduct Procurements are adopted. As for
the two remaining PMBoK Project Management Processes, Developing and Managing Project
Team, these are not covered by PRINCE2 yet the benefit of such activities especially in a Virtual
environment is not arguable. However, the decision to place these activities under MP process is
arguable. The author is aware that the aim and purpose of the MP process as prescribed by
PRINCE2 do not cover the process of improving competences of the team members or appraising
the performance of the team but at the same time both activities should be adopted. The approach
used to find the proper process for these activities is comparing them against the purpose of each
process and then choosing the most relevant. A first look reveals that both are totally irrelevant to
all processes except the CS and MP. Both CS and MP processes are iterative however; CS is
repeated for each stage while MP is repeated with each work package. This means that the
frequency of MP is more than CS and that is desired in the Virtual Teams. Yet, this is not a decisive
factor. CS views Managing Product Delivery views the project from the Team Manager's
perspective, while the Controlling a Stage process views it from the Project Manager's perspective
(OGC 2009:185). Therefore the choice for assigning any activity to the MP Process instead of CS
process depends on who is responsible for executing them.
PRINCE2 activities of the MP process do not overlap with the selected activities from PMBoK.
Therefore, the following activities are also a part of the MP process: Accept a Work Package,
Execute a Work Package, and "Deliver a Work Package.
The author argues that since (1)PMBoK does not assign roles and responsibilities, and (2)PMBoK
does not recognize the Team Manager level of management, and (3)uses Project Manager instead
of it and since PRINCE2 and the proposed methodology, on the contrary, recognizes the Team
49
Manager level of management then assigning activities from PMBoK to PRINCE2 MP process is
not straight forward. Consequently, the approach followed by the author is to compare the activities
with the role of a Team Manager as identified earlier to see the relevance of these activities to his
roles.
The major player in this process is the Team Manager. Provided next, the characteristics of each
activity which make it germane to the role of Team Manager:
First, Perform Quality Assurance is an execution process that aims at implementing the planned
quality plan. Ensuring quality of the products is one of the responsibilities of the Team Manager
(see section 4.6.2). Second, the activities of Developing and Managing Project Team aim at
increasing the competences of the team in order to enhance and optimize the project performance
which is in the core of a Team Managers responsibilities (OGC 2009).
The MP process is one of the most concerned processes with Virtual Projects since it controls the
link between the Project Manager and the Project Team. Virtual Projects can use PRINCE2 to get
recommendation of best practices for work packages that ensures proper cooperation between the
Project and the Team Manager. The collaboration between these two levels of management is
ensured by PRINCE2 through guidelines for proper communication between them which first,
creates common understanding for the specifications and tolerances of the work packages and
second, facilitates capturing and addressing possible issues. Virtual Projects can, on the other hand,
use PMBoK to apply tools and techniques that deals with development of the project team.
Based on this, the Communication Virtual Project issue declared by Reed & Knight (2009), i.e.
insufficient knowledge transfer is tackled in this process. Moreover, the process helps in bypassing
the following Cultural issues: self-motivation and self-judgment demand from team members
(Kuruppuarachchi, 2009), balancing interpersonal skills of the members (Kirkman et al., 2002), and
the variety of thought process among team members (Ebrahim et al., 2009). Furthermore, the
recommendations in this process for managing the interaction between the Project and Team
Managers help in overcoming the struggle with creating synergy (Kirkman et al., 2002). In addition
to this Project Process and Management related issue, other issues belonging to this category are
50
also addressed at this process such as: recognizing the workload, measuring progress, and
developing skills of team members (Kuruppuarachchi, 2009). Finally, the recommendations of this
process that are picked from PRINCE2 and PMBoK resolve some socialization related problems
such as feelings of detachment and isolation. (Kirkman et al., 2002)
Figure 10 shows an overview of the SB process in the proposed methodology. This overview is
very similar to PRINCE2s overview of its SB process.
51
The concept of managing by phase is used PMBoK, yet the phases/stages are neither covered by
PMBoK Process Groups nor by the Knowledge Areas. Therefore, the PMBoK Project Management
Processes are matched to the SB process based on the practices they contain instead of the Process
Group of the Knowledge Area it belongs to.
The above table shows three PMBoK Project Management Processes that are relevant to the SB
process. From table 16, the Activity of Validating Scope should not be adopted in the proposed
methodology since Scope Management approach of PRINCE2 is adopted. Whereas Close
Procurements should be adopted since procurement is adopted as-is from PMBoK. As for Close
Project or Phase, this activity is mandatory in both PMBoK and PRINCE2 however, PRINCE2
describes the best practices of this activity in two different processes (SB and Closing a Project).
For this reason, the closing activities, whether closing a Project or a Stage/Phase) are adapted from
PRINCE2.
Close Procurements is an activity that documents the completion of each procurement which in
projects that are managed by stages closes the procurement(s) applicable to that phase of the
project. Unresolved claims may be subject to litigation after closure. (PMI2013: 387)
The deeds of the SB Process are not remarkably altered when the project being managed is Virtual.
However, PRINCE2 provide some guidelines that can be useful in Virtual Project context such as
things to be reviewed (which plans, team performance, risk register, issues raised etc), and what
is essential to be documented in this stage. PMBoK on the contrary, is particularly week in this
process and does not provide evident support for managing Virtual Projects. Examples of issues that
are tackled in this process: loss of clear vision of the objectives and different working habits
(Kuruppuarachchi, 2009).
52
Figure 11 - Overview of Closing a Project process in the proposed methodology (OGC, 2009:205)
The following overview is taken from PRINCE2 which implies that the CP is the only process in
the proposed methodology that has no trace of PMBoK.
PMBoK covers this stage with the Project Management Process discussed earlier Close Project or
a Phase. The underlying difference between PMBoK and PRINCE2 is that the latter dedicated a
whole Process for closing while closing in PMBoK is dealt with as an activity. In a Virtual Project,
there is a higher probability for a premature closure of the project. Also, the evaluation of the
project and lessons learned gain more importance in the Virtual Projects if compared to co-located
53
projects. Therefore, the closing of a project in the proposed methodology follows the PRINCE2
approach in closing the project.
CP process does not differ in its features between projects with co-located or geographically
isolated teams. All what can be used by PRINCE2 and PMBoK are the guidelines that are related to
learning from the experience which forms a priceless input for any possible future Virtual Project in
the organization.
54
5. Discussion
This master thesis poses two research questions and answers them through a proposed combination
of PRINCE2 and PMBoK in a way that fits the Virtual Projects. This proposition, presented in
sections 4.2.6 and 4.3, attempts to tackle various issues and challenges that might face a Virtual
Team. Also, section 4.3 is consolidated with recommendations from both the literature research and
the authors view point. The following chapter reflects on the topics just mentioned in this
paragraph discussing how the proposed methodology can be compared with other existing
researches, and the key decisions made in combining PRINCE2 and PMBoK.
In answering the first research question (how can PRINCE2 and PMBoK be combined), literature
research is conducted in order to find existing efforts in this regards. The representative literature
research reveals the existence of comparisons and elements matching between PRINCE2 and
PMBoK and shows up the lack of a comprehensive methodology for combining them. One of the
contributions of this master thesis is proposing an approach for creating and documenting a hybrid-
methodology. In developing this approach, the author matches the Project Management Processes
of PMBoK with PRINCE2 Processes. Yeong (2012) proposes a different approach which is based
on matching each PMBoK Process Group with PRINCE2 processes. To compare the results of
these two approaches, Tables can be twisted to create a table on par with the approach of Yeong
(2012).
As presented earlier, the Project Management Processes are categorized into Process Groups in
PMBOK. The first and second columns in the table below are produced by replacing the PMBoK
Project Management Process with its corresponding PMBoK Process Group and categorizing the
result according to PMBoK Process Groups. While the third column is taken from table 5 which is
made by Yeong (2012:11)
Table 19 shows the matching of each PMBoK Process Group with PRINCE2 processes for the
proposed methodology and Yeong (2012). Among all PMBoK Process Groups, only the Closing
Process Group has the same correspondence with PRINCE2 processes in both approaches. Before
discussing the differences in the rest of the Process Groups, two general causes for them should not
be neglected: first, Yeong (2012) is based on PMI (2008) while the proposed methodology is based
on PMI (2013). Second, the proposed methodology takes into consideration the virtual nature of the
projects while the approach of Yeong (2012) is generic. Other causes for the differences between
Yeong (2012) and the proposed methodology for each PMBoK Process Group are discussed below.
The Initiating Process Group is related to Directing a Project Process by Yeong (2012). The Project
Management Processes of the Initiating Process Group, Identify Stakeholders and Develop Project
Charter, are the same in PMI (2013: 61) and PMI (2008:43). Knowing that Yeong (2012) does not
argue for the matching choices, the author believes that Directing a Project Process is placed in this
position as a result of adopting the PMBoK context. On the contrary, the author outweighs
PRINCE2 context for processes and activities and argues for this in section 4.2.1.1. Another
consequence of adopting the context of activities from PRINCE2 is making the PMBoK Project
Management Process: Plan Human Resource Management and activity of the Staring up a Project
Process. This explains the difference between Yeong (2012) and the proposed methodology in
relating the Planning Process Group to PRINCE2 processes.
A third consequence of adopting the context of activities from PRINCE2 is setting Acquire Project
Team as an activity of the Starting Up a Project Process which is one cause of the difference in the
Executing Process Group. Directing a Project Process in the proposed methodology is related to
Executing Process Group due to the roles of the Project Board suggested by the author in managing
both Communications and Stakeholder Engagement. On the contrary, Yeong (2012) reckons that
Managing a Stage Boundary Process is related to the Executing Process Group. The author
propounds that although it is difficult to guess the justification of this decision by Yeong (2012) yet,
a possible cause of this decision might be a PMBoK Project Management Process that exists only in
PMI (2008) called Distribute Information which is performed throughout the entire project life
cycle and in all management processes (PMI, 2008:258)
Yeong (2012) relates Managing Product Delivery Process to the Monitoring and Controlling
Process Group. The author could not find a reasonable justification for this decision especially that
Yeong (2012) declares that Managing Product Delivery Process is about placing formal
requirements on accepting, executing and delivering project work (Yeong, 2012:4). Whereas the
author deems that using this declaration, Managing Product Delivery Process and all of its activities
are totally within the scope of the Executing Process Group and is out of the scope of the
Monitoring and Controlling Process Group.
From a different aspect, PRINCE2 is heavy on documentation (Wideman, 2002) and it is sometimes
criticized for this. In the light of the research done in this master thesis, the author confides that
PMBoK can be even heavier on documentation. Each process activity in PRINCE2 creates,
modifies, and/or issues a definite number of documents which have templates provided by the
OGC. The problem with the documentation of PRINCE2 according to Wideman (2002) is the
unclear sequence of the governing documents, i.e. baseline documents. However, the problems with
PMBoK documentation, according to the author, are (1) unavailability of templates and (2) the
existence of loose documents. The absence of templates can lead to underrating or overrating the
56
content of the documentation product causing them to either contain insufficient information or to
be heavier than it should be. Whereas the term loose documents in this perspective is used to
denote the output documents of PMBoKs Project Management Processes that have indefinite
number and content. Examples of these documents from PMI (2013) are Project Documents and
Organizational Process Assets. Both are groups of documentation that are composed of a
suggested list of documents that is not limited. PMBoK widely recommends updating these groups
suggesting boundless list of documents to be updated. Like most of the components of PMBoK,
these groups are subject to tailoring without any specified roles and responsibilities which is quite
the reverse of PRINCE2. Consequently, the documentation approach of PRINCE2 is more
pragmatic than the PMBoKs approach due to its defined number, templates, and responsibilities.
The proposed methodology combines the documentation drawbacks of PRINCE2 and PMBoK. The
approach used in the proposed methodology favors the PRINCE2 documents over their comparable
PMBoK documents. However, the documents of the adopted PMBoK Project Management
Processes that have no similar documents in PRINCE2 are adopted in this methodology. Hence, the
documentation in the proposed methodology is heavier than in PRINCE2 and inherits the same
problems from PMBoK.
Moreover, the aim of combining PRINCE2 and PMBoK is to suggest a methodology that combines
the best of both in managing Virtual Projects. From this angle, the proposed methodology adopts
the four level of management of PRINCE2. The roles and responsibilities of three levels are
modified in the proposed methodology to support the managing process of the Virtual Projects.
First, the responsibilities of the Project Board are extended to include six activities from PMBoK.
These activities are related to the Communication and Stakeholders Areas of Knowledge. For
executing these activities, the Project Board in the proposed methodology is active in the SU, DP,
and IP processes unlike in PRINCE2 where it is active only in the DP process. These decisions are
viewed as hypotheses that should be tested for viability. However, the aim of assigning the
responsibilities of these Areas of Knowledge to the Project Board is to give an additional dimension
for managing the Virtual Projects taking into consideration that both Communication and
Stakeholders gain additional importance in the geographically dispersed teams.
Second, the proposed methodology adopts PMBoK activities that are proven by literature to be
stronger than its competitors in PRINCE2. Examples of these activities are those related to Cost,
Quality, and Risk Knowledge Areas. From this aspect, these activities provide the Project Manager
with stronger and more comprehensive tools in managing yet other areas in the project that are
augmented in the Virtual Projects.
Third, the Team Management level is also supported by adopted PMBoK activities. One of the
Knowledge Ares of PMBoK is Team. PMBoK gives common best practices for managing and
developing teams. These best practices are adopted and assigned to the Team Manager in the
proposed methodology.
Another point to notice is that the majority of roles and responsibilities of PMBoK activities are
assigned to Project Manager. This result is foreseeable since PMBoK views the Project Manager as
the link between the strategy and the team (PMI 2013:17) who is ultimately responsible for
achieving the project objectives. As a result, PMBoK sets focus on the competencies that the
Project Manager should acquire to manage a project successfully (Chin & Spowage, 2010b).
Now that the methodology is proposed, the topic mentioned in the introduction of this master thesis
regarding the size of intersection between PRINCE2 and PMBoK in the proposed methodology can
be deduced. The number of activities adopted from PMBoK is greater than those adopted from
PRINCE2. Yet PMBoK can only be traced in the activities and their corresponding products in the
proposed methodology. Meanwhile, PRINCE2 can be traced in the processes, management levels,
as well as some activities and their corresponding products. The author herby claims that generally,
the majority of elements adopted from PRINCE2 are not tailor-friendly contrarily to the adopted
PMBoK elements that are more subject to tailoring. Having said that, one can conclude that in the
proposed methodology:
There is a positive correlation between the size of the project and the size of PMBoK traces
The size of PRINCE2 traces is, to a certain extent, the fixed regardless of the size of the
project.
The support and input of the various divisions within the organization is needed to ensure a
successful adoption of the methodology (McHugh and Hogan, 2010:643)
Applying this methodology requires involving people and convincing them with its advantages.
This is reinforced by the findings of McHugh & Hogan (2010) who concluded that the support and
input of the various divisions within the organization is needed to ensure a successful adoption of
the methodology (McHugh & Hogan, 2010:643). Getting the support and inputs from various
divisions and stakeholders requires a strong change management because if people can see that
using a structured project management methodology to manage change delivers significant
benefits, then they will be more inclined to use that methodology(Clarke 2000: 142). The proposed
methodology assigns the management of stakeholders to the Project Board in order to utilize its
authorities to facilitate the process of accepting the proposed methodology.
Having discussed the issues regarding current stance of the proposed methodologies, it seems
reasonable to end the discussion by a couple of issues with future perspective. Second to last, all the
components of the proposed methodology should be subject to further examining and testing.
Further testing would, expectedly, reveal errors and suggest improvements in combining PRINCE2
and PMBoK. Lastly, the study should be totally revised when any new version of PRINCE2 or
PMBoK is published. This claim by the author is supported by the fact that both Yeong (2012:11)
and Project Plus Group (2008:3) contain a table that maps the processes of PMBoK against
PRINCE2 where different versions of PRINCE2 are used and the results are poles apart.
58
6. Conclusion
As presented in the introduction, Virtual Projects are becoming more relevant in our business world.
There are several benefits and challenges associated with Virtual Projects. On the other hand,
PRINCE2 and PMBoK are considered among the most popular project management guidelines.
Several researchers suggest using a combined approach of PRINCE2 and PMBoK. This drew the
attention of the author to ask: how could they be combined in a single methodology that utilizes the
best of both worlds to run Virtual Projects?
The author exploits the following factors in order to find a potential answer for this question
Figure 12 shows the complete Process Model of the proposed methodology. Reflecting on the
Process Model, one can conclude that the framework of the proposed methodology is close to
PRINCE2 whereas PMBoK can be strongly depicted in the activities of the processes. Moreover,
each process tackles, using guidelines from both PRINCE2 and PMBoK, issues and challenges of
60
Virtual Projects. Furthermore, Virtual Projects can utilize the best practices recommended by
proposed methodology on three levels of management i.e. Direction, Management, and Delivery.
61
References
1. Abbasi, Ghaleb Y. and Al-Maharmah, Hisham A., 2000. Project management practice by
the public sector in a developing country. International Journal of Project Management
2. AIPM (Australian Institute of Project Management), 2002. A comparison of PRINCE2
against PMBOK. From www.aipm.com.au
3. Anderson, A .H., R. Mcewan, J. Bal and J. Carletta, 2007. Virtual team meetings: An
analysis of communication and context. Computers in Human Behavior, 23: 2558-2580
4. Anthony Yeong 2012, The Marriage Proposal of PRINCE2 and PMBoK
5. Beise, Catherine M. (2004): IT Project Management and Virtual Teams
6. Bell, Derek (2009), Comparing the Differences and Complementary features of PRINCE2
and the PMI PMBoK Guide
7. Carmel, E. (1999). Global Software Teams: Collaborating across Borders and Time Zones.
8. Clarke, Angela (2000). A practical use of key success factors to improve the effectiveness of
project management.
9. Cristian Thuesen, Charlotte Aaris Boas, Michael V. Thorslund, Franois Marmier, Sara
Grex, Sren Lybecker 2013, Mapping Best and Emerging Practices of Project Management
10. Charvat, J. (2003). Project management methodologies: selecting, implementing and
supporting methodologies and processes for projects: John Wiley & Sons.
11. Chin, C. M. M. & Spowage, A. C. (2010 a). Defining & classifying project management
methodologies. PM World Today, XII (V).
12. Chin, C. M. M. & Spowage, A. C. (2010 b). Reviewing leading project management
practices. PM World Today, XII (XI).
13. Dub, L. & Robey, D. (2008). Surviving the paradoxes of virtual teamwork. In Info Systems
J (2008) 19, 330
14. Ebrahim, N.A., S. Ahmed, and Z. Taha (2009). Virtual teams: a literature review. Australian
Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 3 (3), 2653-2669.
15. Haisler, Peter (2011), How to Write a Good Research Paper
16. Haywood, Martha (1998), Managing Virtual Teams, Practical Techniques for High-
Technology Project Magers, Artech House
17. ITS Project Management Group 2012, ITS Project Management Methodology, Version 2.1
18. Kirkman, Bradley L & Rosen, Benson & Tesluk, Paul E. & Gibson, Christina B &
McPherson, Simon O., (2004). Five challenges to virtual team success: Lessons from Sabre,
Inc. In: Academy of Management Executive, 2002. Vol. 16, No. 3
19. Kuruppuarachchi, Palitha R. (2009) Virtual Team Concepts in Projects: A Case Study. In:
Project Management Journal, Vol. 40, No. 2, 1933
20. Lipnack, J. & Stamps, J. (2000). Virtual teams: People working across boundaries with
technology.
21. McHugh, Orla & Hogan, Mairead (2010), Investigating the rationale for adopting an
internationally-recognized project management methodology in Ireland: The view of project
manager
22. Munkvold, B.E. and I. Zigurs, 2007. Process and technology challenges in swift-starting
virtual teams.
23. Murray, A. (2011). PRINCE2 in one thousand words.
24. OGC 2009, Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2
25. Oshri, Ilan; Kotlarsky, Julia & Willcocks, Leslie. (2011). Chapter 9, Managing Global
Distribution Teams p.190-204
62