Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9

International Journal of Project Management 20 (2002) 315–323

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Project process interactions


M. Abdomerovic *, G. Blakemore
Luckett & Farley, 737 South Third Street, Louisville, KY 40202-2100, USA

Received 8 September 1999; received in revised form 19 January 2000; accepted 24 January 2001

Abstract
Project includes processes that create project product and processes that organize work necessary to create project product. These
processes are known as product-oriented processes and project management processes. The processes interact throughout the pro-
ject life-cycle. In the initial project definition the problem of process interactions does not emerge. However, when detail actions of a
project are analyzed, the process interactions are revealed in their entire complexity. There are several reasons why project process
interactions need to be defined, e.g. need to make clear roles, responsibilities, and reporting relations, need to understand problem
area. This paper analyzes a problem of project process interactions. The study was developed in two steps: first to analyze process
variables and their interactions and a second based on the first, to see how it helps understanding of the project process interactions.
The results of the study contribute to the clarification of the project process interactions and illustrate the benefits achieved on c/a
$200 million worth of construction projects. # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Project process; Knowledge area process; Process variables; Process variable interactions

1. Introduction process variables refer to same work product at its


control level. It means that work product and its control
This paper analyzes process variables (product-orien- level is a nucleus of knowledge area process variables
ted processes and project management processes) and and their interactions or knowledge area process inter-
their interactions (development of work products). The actions. Implicit, knowledge area process interactions
study is based on assumptions that understanding pro- for work product and its control level are in the same
cess variables and their interactions may be the key time project process interactions for that work product
factor in understanding project process interactions. and its control level. However, it took a while to
Process variables and their interactions result from dif- understand that definition of the project process inter-
ferent knowledge area process variables and their inter- actions can be easily achieved if we define project man-
actions. The paper discusses how we can relate different agement processes and product-oriented processes for
knowledge area by understanding interactions between work products and their control levels. Therefore, the
knowledge area process variables. Once knowledge area control level where project management processes and
process variables and their interactions are defined then product-oriented processes were defined is the level of
project process variables and their interactions are knowledge area process interactions and implicit project
defined as well and planning, implementing and con- process interactions.
trolling of project can be achieved. By analyzing the nature of process variables and their
During analysis of project processes it was observed interactions we noticed that process variables (project
that each process is represented by process variables: a management processes and product-oriented processes)
project process by project process variables and a might be related one to one. This immediately pointed
knowledge area process by knowledge area process out formal approach for definition of process interac-
variables. If project process for a work product contains tions: whenever any process variable is defined we have
more knowledge area processes then all knowledge area to look for definition of other variables. If product-
oriented processes are defined for work products and
their control levels, then search has to be directed
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-502-585-4181; fax: +1-502-587-
0488.
toward definition of project management processes for
E-mail addresses: mabdomerovic@luckett- farley.com (M. Abdo- the same work products and their control levels. If pro-
merovic), gblakemore@luckett- farley.com (G. Blakemore). ject management processes are defined for work products
0263-7863/02/$22.00 # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.
PII: S0263-7863(01)00014-X
316 M. Abdomerovic, G. Blakemore / International Journal of Project Management 20 (2002) 315–323

and their control levels then search has to be directed relations within individual processes. This part also
toward definition of product-oriented processes for the describes how to proceed from specific control require-
same work products and their control levels. ments to a definition of process and associated inputs
Although the authors of this paper could not locate and outputs to satisfy requirements. Finally, in the third
direct historical perspective to these assumptions we part a discussion of two examples point to the possible
noticed that project process interactions is an important application of this study. This part also shows how
topic of project body of knowledge. Most analyzed matching the processes of knowledge areas for work
papers describe relationship between different domains products and their control levels could be an approach
of project processes. Some papers recognize work pro- to better understanding of project process interactions.
duct as a nucleus of knowledge area processes, however,
the papers do not recognize process variables and a type
of relations between process variables. 2. It is neither possible to think about processes in
Misunderstanding the meaning of project processes is absence of product nor to think about process interac-
not news. Giammalvo et al. [6] noted that ‘‘It was our tions in absence of processes
experience that while everyone claimed to know and
understand the as is process, when measurement started To understand project process interactions, we must
to be made it became apparent that everyone’s inter- understand project process variables and their interac-
pretation of that process was different’’ (p. 28). Project tions at the premeditated level of control. To approach
management is a new discipline and effort to define this problem, it is necessary to remember the character-
relations between work products and project processes istics associated with some terms we are using in this
is at the beginning as well. Wideman [7] states that paper. These terms are: project, work products, pro-
‘‘Drawing a clear distinction between scope and work duct-oriented processes and project management pro-
and developing a better understanding of each, is yet cesses. All term definitions use a work product for
another example of the evolving nature of project man- explanation of term, therefore, work product could be a
agement body of knowledge’’ (p. II-9). The PMBOK cornerstone of process and process interactions.
Guide [1] ties-in control level with work products and ‘‘Products are all items, material, data, software, sup-
some project processes. It is suggested that project plan plies, systems, assemblies, subassemblies or portion of
should include ‘‘Work breakdown structure (WBS) to thereof which are produced, purchased, developed or
the level at which control will be exercised’’ and ‘‘Cost otherwise used by customer’’ ([2] p. 194), e.g. Change
estimates, scheduled start dates, and responsibility Order process. If there is no evidence of a product, there
assignments to the level of the WBS at which control are not processes related to product.
will be exercised’’ (p. 42). Strain and Preece [11] descri- A project ‘‘is a temporary endeavor undertaken to create
bed how human factor can be integrated with technical (develop) a unique product or service’’ ([1] p. 4), e.g.
and management activities. They focus on the end user development of the Change Order process. If there is no
and the integrity of constraints, activities, data sets and evidence of a project product or service, there is not a project.
processes in relation to end user, (p. 290). ‘‘Product-oriented processes are concerned with spe-
This study put a work product in the center of pro- cifying and creating the project product’’ ([1] p. 27), or
cess. As a result of this thought and directly or indir- specifying and creating the features and functions of a
ectly related studies, we approached to a definition of project product, e.g. specification of technical work that
process as ‘‘a planned series of actions or operations are to be included in Change Orders process and crea-
which advances a material or procedure from one stage tion of Change Order process. If there is no evidence of
of completion to another’’ ([2] p.187). Therefore, in the the project product, there are not product-oriented pro-
root of the procedure is a work product as a cohesive cesses. Product oriented processes involve:
factor for people employed on work product, related
Design documentation given in:
knowledge areas, their process variables and variables
Construction/installation/description documents,
interactions. The end results of the procedure are pro-
usually given in graphics form for project pro-
ject process interactions. Finally, the analysis of exam-
duct, as a primary means of communicating with
ples lead us to a conclusion: by defining project process
a procuring organization,
interactions we can improve understanding of project
Specification documents for project product,
and thus effect project time, cost and quality.
which depict in words the requirements for mate-
This paper is presented in three parts. At the begin-
rial, construction systems, equipment, standards
ning the paper reminds on some project process terms,
and workmanship necessary to procure what
their direct sources, nature and relations between terms.
design professionals have drawn and/or described.
This part also describes how to capture the distinction
Implementation of design documentation to create
for discrete processes within project process. In the sec-
project product.
ond part the paper goes a step deeper and explains
M. Abdomerovic, G. Blakemore / International Journal of Project Management 20 (2002) 315–323 317

‘‘Project management processes are concerned with For example, the step Subsystem Requirements for
describing (specifying) and organizing the work of the Change Order System consists of:
project’’ ([1] p. 27), or specifying and organizing the
Project management processes, which may include:
management work that must be done to deliver a pro-
e.g. Activity definition, which result in the activity list
ject product, e.g. specification of activities and their
necessary to accomplish work products. A typical
attributes to develop Change Order process. If there is
contract obligation that relates to a Change Order
no evidence of the work of the project, there are not pro-
process has: a list of work products given by scope
ject management processes. Project management pro-
statement or scope definition (e.g. Request for
cesses involve:
information — RFI, Change Order Request — COR,
Specification of management work (mostly given in Proposed Change Orders — PCO, Change Order—
the planning processes) and organization of manage- CO, Field Order — FO) and activity list for each pro-
ment work (mostly given in executing and controlling duct given by activity definition (e.g. Initiating, Track-
processes) to create project product. ing, Documenting, Reviewing, Approving, Filing).
A short-term project organization, which exists from Product oriented processes, which include: Specifica-
project initialization to project completion. tions of technical works to be done for work products
A dynamic form of project organization, which is and creation of the work products. A typical contract
changing according to the dynamic level of effort in obligation that relates to a Change Order process has:
different project phases. a specification of technical work for work products
Interdisciplinary teamwork of all project experts, (e.g. Specification of data and forms for CO) and
which generally come to the project from many dif- accomplishment of activities that create deliverable or
ferent areas and with different backgrounds, needs work products (e.g. Design of CO documents).
and expectations.
By detail analysis of the project management pro-
Analysis of described terms (project, work products, cesses and the product-oriented processes for each step
product-oriented processes and project management of the process design template and for work products
processes) indicated that it is neither possible to think within the step we can identify different knowledge
about process in absence of work product nor to think areas. In the next step we can identify activities and
about process interactions in absence of project man- activity attributes, e.g., roles and responsibilities for
agement processes and product-oriented processes. associated inputs and outputs. Consequently, as a result
Project can have many processes. To capture the dis- of the procedure, we reach a better understanding of a
tinction within project process it is necessary to exercise project process. This is shown in Chart 2.
a ‘‘structured approach . . . to identify and understand
what an organization (project) does’’ ([3] p. 113). There
are many structured tools and techniques that can help 3. Project process variables are related one to one
in this analysis. One of those is a process design tem-
plate, given in Chart 1 and used in this study. Besides When a company works on a new service there is no
that, some other supporting techniques have been used process for this service or the process is not proven yet.
to simplify thinking in terms of process [8]. In such a case the company usually relies on existing
The process design template is the structured tool that managers with deep knowledge about the new service. A
can be used gradually to develop new process for a process for service assumed by a manager and doc-
company’s product or service. The template has seven umentation about the process is usually very personal
steps: System Analysis, Subsystems Requirements, New and can not be used by another person. Such an
System Structure, Programming/Construction, Func- approach limits the understanding of project processes,
tions of the Systems, System Implementation and Using because persons with special skills are rare, and persons
a System. Each step within the template has three parts: with average characteristics do not understand global
inputs to process, process itself and outputs from definition of the processes. During work on a specific
process. contractual obligation, the project team is faced with
Inputs to process and outputs from process are the frequent conflict resolution activities. Many conflicts
process products. For example, the step Subsystem arise because actions are grouped in the global processes
Requirements has the Change Requirements as input that could not be properly analyzed and accomplished.
and the New System Specification as an output. Each The need for process explanation was primarily
process within the step consists of process variables; observed in the processes associated with new services.
project management processes and product-oriented The problem within the new services was a more con-
processes. In order to capture the integration between sumption of resources than initially estimated, overruns
product-oriented processes and project management of a schedule and conflicts over the responsibilities. It
processes, we must link their discrete inputs and outputs. was realized that we must open a door for ongoing
318 M. Abdomerovic, G. Blakemore / International Journal of Project Management 20 (2002) 315–323

Chart 1. Luckett & Farley, Inc. Program Management Department Project L004.

changes within the processes to improve the existing project knowledge areas, processes and participants, the
conditions and development of the services. ‘‘If it’s initial project definitions most likely have to be chan-
broke, fix it, ain’t broke, improve it . . . but never leave it ged. Williams [10] noted that ‘‘project complexity might
alone’’ ([9] p. 65). Such a move in the company culture be considered to be increasing, in particular the
leads to continuous improvement of definitions for increasing complexity of product being developed’’ (p.
processes. 269). At the level of project deliverables, the initial pro-
At the very beginning of a project, the initial project ject definition looks clear and understood. However,
definitions, e.g. the project roles (who does what), the during the implementation phase a number of project
responsibilities (who decides what), the work products knowledge areas, processes and participants increase.
(what and how work products are to be developed), When project process becomes more complex we must
seems to be clear and understood. However, when a have detail procedures to handle the project at different
project is being developed and requires a wide range of work product levels.
M. Abdomerovic, G. Blakemore / International Journal of Project Management 20 (2002) 315–323 319

Chart 2. Luckett & Farley, Inc. Program Management Department Project L004.

If the company is developing thinking in terms of 4. Identify associated inputs for project management
processes, then detail control requirements will surface processes at this level, e.g. document identifying
at the beginning of the project. This will help to analyze who decides what and who does what to approve
detail project definitions early on. All the time during Change Order.
the analysis we are answering what are associated out- 5. Identify associated output products related to
puts, processes and inputs for the work products and product-oriented processes for this level, e.g. data
their control levels? To answer these questions we must: and form necessary to approve Change Order.
6. Identify associated product-oriented processes for
1. Identify the level of detail for control of the work output products at this level, e.g. specifying data
product, e.g. within CO processes control must be to be included with Change Order and creating
exercised at the level of document approval. Change Order Form.
2. Identify associated output products related to 7. Identify associated inputs for product-oriented
project management processes at this level, e.g. processes at this level, e.g. Data Requirements by
Approving Change Order. manager with authority that approve Change
3. Identify associated project management processes Order.
for output products at this level, e.g. organizing
If we perform the procedure for each work product
flow of Change Order documents to approve
related to control requirements, we could get a clear
Change Order.
definition of products, activities and activity attributes,
320 M. Abdomerovic, G. Blakemore / International Journal of Project Management 20 (2002) 315–323

e.g. roles and responsibilities, to study the reasons for process interactions is solved in the construction indus-
observed results. Documenting and understanding con- try. We find out that our assumption might be right and
trol requirements increases the chance that a company a key factor in project planning, implementing and
will meet its contractual requirements. controlling might be definition of interactions between
The most valuable experience of this study, illustrated knowledge area variables. Anderson et al. [5] show that
by this example, was confirmation that a work product, ‘‘A major challenge of successful (construction project)
project management processes and product-oriented implementation is how to effectively integrate construc-
processes are related one to one. If there is no work tion knowledge and experience into various phases of a
product, there is nothing to be said about process inter- project development process’’, ([5] p. 5).
actions. That means there is neither product oriented- At the very beginning of the construction process for
processes nor project management processes. Regardless a $200 million project, we recorded that contractors
of product level (project, deliverable, work package, or were not achieving target time schedule. Analysis of
work product), each product has project management schedule development process has shown that the sche-
processes and product-oriented processes. As a result of dule control process requires more detail level than was
this experience we can: initially planned. The results of this analysis also indi-
cated that construction process did not have metrics on
1. Analyze project knowledge area interactions at the
the same level of details required by the schedule control
particular control level of a project.
process. Ambiguity of data sets within project process
2. Analyze project process interactions at the parti-
was removed using characteristics of process interac-
cular control level of a project.
tions. We were able to determine: the work products for
3. Analyze project definitions, e.g. roles, responsi-
required level of schedule control process, correspond-
bilities, reporting relations at the particular control
ing project management processes and their outputs/
level of a project.
inputs, corresponding product-oriented processes and
their outputs/inputs. In the next periods all facilities
received required schedule control tool and the con-
4. The level where project process variables were defined is tractors had been educated in how to maintain interac-
the lowest level of the project control processes tions between project processes. The new schedule
processes had been stabilized by the September 15,
The practice of our company started in 1853. The 1998. The improvement of schedule processes stopped
prevailing company culture was shaped by architectural/ the negative float trend and gave the owner a long per-
engineering product-oriented processes. Recently the iod of stability regarding project completion date. Chart
company has started implementation of a quality man- 3 shows summary results for the project completion
agement system based on the ISO 9001: 1994(E) pro- date trend.
cesses. New services that the company is adopting have After time schedule processes were stabilized, we
strong project characteristics and force the company found that the CO processes were showing an unusual
management to re-think the project management pro- trend; the number of CO was increasing from period to
cesses. Beside that the company also has a need to period. And the average processing time for one CO
understanding interactions between the product-orien- was more than 3 months, Chart 4. This situation asked
ted processes and project management processes. for immediate analysis of CO process interactions in
During implementation of a project, a project man- order to reduce CO processing time. The results of this
ager is usually asked to ‘‘control project performances analysis indicated that the CO processes had many work
and act efficiently and effectively as problem appears’’ products, processes and process interactions, which
([4] p. 575). To make this work we were directed to were not operated at the same level. The CO work pro-
understand project process variables for required con- ducts (RFI, COR, PCO, CO, FO) pass through Initiat-
trol levels. A practical aspect of this study proved that ing, Reviewing, Approving processes. These products
the first step in analysis of existing processes was to were not shown on the same level of detail to allow
understand what work products should be controlled. handling of numerous products by numerous adminis-
Answering to this question will lead to a specification of trative staff dealing with Tracking, Documenting and
control levels for work products. The specification of Filing processes. Ambiguity of data sets within project
work products and their control levels directs identifi- process was removed using characteristics of process
cation of corresponding knowledge areas and knowl- interactions. We were able to determine: the work pro-
edge area processes that deliver the work products. As a ducts for required level of CO control processes, corre-
result of such an analysis, we reach an understanding of sponding project management processes and their outputs/
project process. inputs, corresponding product-oriented processes and
To understand project process in relation to a specific their outputs/inputs. In the next periods the CO pro-
work product we were also looking closely how project cesses were refined and stabilized by the February 19,
M. Abdomerovic, G. Blakemore / International Journal of Project Management 20 (2002) 315–323 321

Chart 3. Luckett & Farley, Inc. Program Management Department Project L004.

Chart 4. Luckett & Farley, Inc. Program Management Department Project L004.

1999. The improvement in CO processes decreased the Improvement of project management processes is a
long processing time for CO and average processing never-ending task. Experience proves that well orga-
time for a CO was reduced to 2 weeks. Chart 5 shows nized, smooth-running teams think in terms of processes
summary results for CO processing time. instead of in terms of product. Reengineering of the
322 M. Abdomerovic, G. Blakemore / International Journal of Project Management 20 (2002) 315–323

Chart 5. Luckett & Farley, Inc. Program Management Department Project L004, summary.

fundamental project management processes and pro- show how understanding of project processes can return
duct-oriented processes reveals project process interac- better running of ongoing processes.
tions and improved understanding of project process. When the paper was sent for a publication the key
result of the project which supported this study showed
that: 72% of work had been completed, estimated cost
5. Conclusions at completion set in July 1999 increased 1% over target
cost at completion set up in January 1997. The project
There are many factors that influence project man- was completed in April 2000 with 1.03% over target
agement. Some of the problems in project management cost.
could be understood by definition of project process
interactions. If we have defined work products and their
control levels then we have to define all knowledge Acknowledgements
areas, knowledge area variables and their interactions
for those work products and their control levels. As a This paper draws on experience gained while
result we will discover project process interactions and employed at Luckett & Farley. The opinions expressed
we should be able to define what influences project in the paper are those of the authors and do not neces-
results. Implicit, discovering the factors, which influence sarily reflect those of Atria Communities, Inc., or
the project results, will lead to improvement of the Luckett & Farley. We wish to thank IJPM Editor Pro-
existing processes. That is the reason why a company fessor J. Rodney Turner and two anonymous referees
plan must have supporting detail for process reengi- for their comments upon an earlier version of this
neering. As the project management profession is evol- paper.
ving, project managers could get a role to tell something
more specific about migration from product-oriented
thinking to processes-oriented thinking. In that case, a
References
design of project process interactions can serve as a
standard project process reengineering tool. A process
reengineering and generic processes development should [1] PMBOK Guide. The guide to the project management body of
knowledge. Upper Darby, PA: Project Management Institute,
be ongoing work undertaken by individuals with special Standard Committee, 1996.
skills in order to be understood and operated by num- [2] Cleland DI, Kerzner H. A Project management dictionary of
bers of project participants. The examples in this study terms. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1985.
M. Abdomerovic, G. Blakemore / International Journal of Project Management 20 (2002) 315–323 323

[3] LeRoy Ward J. Project management terms. Arlington, VA: ESI [8] Hill GK. Success charting. South Natick, MA: Tomlin Inc,
International, 1997. 1998.
[4] Kerzner H. Project management for executives. New York: Van [9] Shuster D, editor. Shuster’s laws on management and teaming,
Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1987. Lecture given at Kentuckiana PMI Chapter, June 15, 1999.
[5] Anderson S, Fisher DJ, Gupta VK. Total constructability man- [10] Williams TM. The need for new paradigms for complex pro-
agement: a proces-oriented framework. Sylva, NC: Project Man- jects. International Journal of Project Management, Elsevier
agement Journal, Project Management Institute, 1995. Science and International Project Management Association
[6] Giammalvo PD, Firman D, Dwiyani E. Implementation of con- 1999;17(5).
tinuous processes improvement program using data from cpm [11] Strain JD, Preece DA. Project management and integration of
schedules. Sylva, NC: Project Management Journal, Project human factors in military system procurement. International
Management Institute, 1996. Journal of Project Management, Elsevier Science and Interna-
[7] Wideman RM. A framework for project and program manage- tional Project Management Association 1999;17(5).
ment integration. Sylva, NC: Project Management Institute, 1999.

Вам также может понравиться