and therefore suggests using 50% probable activity times to shorten the total ... because the Japanese used less of everything (time, resources and money) and.
PMINZ National Conference 2013 __________________________________________________________________________________________
Influence of theory and metaphor in Project Management Approaches Modern organizations use projects to transform their strategy into reality. There are several approaches to project management, each developed based on different theories and metaphors. This paper provides an overview of the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), Lean Project Management (LPM) and Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM). The focus of the paper is to highlight the importance of theories and metaphors of each approach. Metaphors influence the perception of reality, while theories guide the way to respond to the perceived reality. Together they form epistemological assumptions an approach. Such assumptions were gathered and formed a basis of comparison between these approaches. It is argued that applicability of an approach depends upon the soundness of its assumptions which may be true or false based on each project’s characteristics. This paper contributes to the development of an explicit understanding of the epistemological differences in perceiving projects and therefore proposing solutions in project management. Given the fundamental differences that projects exhibit, such understanding can provide implications about the applicability of a specific approach to a particular type of project. Furthermore, it sheds light on the limitation and possibilities of combining methods across approaches. By appreciating how an approach and its solutions are linked to a specific metaphor, which is in agreement with a favoured view of reality, researchers can become more aware of the nature of those solutions and therefore can integrate or select them more wisely. Keywords: project management, PMBOK, CCPM, Lean, theory, metaphor.
Introduction One of the most important organisational developments in recent years has been the significant growth in project work across different sectors and industries. Since the introduction of project management in 1960, many tools and techniques have been developed to improve the management of projects. In 1996 a collection of available techniques in project management was published as the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) (Project Management Institute Standards Committee, 1996). Despite much improvement and many advanced techniques that have emerged within project management, there are many reports on project failure (Shenhar & Dvir, 2008). Some scholars propose fundamental reform in the way projects are defined and perceived rather than improving the same methods (Cicmil, Williams, Thomas, & Hodgson, 2006). Such a perception has led to the invention of new approaches towards project management. Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM) and Lean Project Management (LPM) are two examples of new approaches. Each approach attempts to address issues in project management from a new perspective. Such perspectives are formed using different theories and metaphors. Metaphors are used to simplify the complexity of a real situation by highlighting a few characteristics and creating a favoured perception of reality. Morgan (1980) argues that metaphors are not representative of reality; instead they are tools to understand and deal with reality. The partial truth, which metaphors stand on, is the source of inspiration. In fact the emphasis on what characteristics are favoured will influence the understanding of the problem and therefore the nature of the solution. The attempt in this paper is to acknowledge the implicit and explicit assumptions in various project management approaches and investigate the nature of their influence on the type of solutions each approach proposes thus contribute to the conceptual understanding of various approaches and their epistemological grounds.
An overview of three approaches towards project management According to Pollack (2007) project management literature is dominated by the machine metaphor, which is the traditional manufacturing metaphor. This is because projects are generally seen as an instrument of achieving predetermined ends. However, with increasing uncertainty about what those ends are it becomes harder to relate to the machine metaphor. This has been addressed by introducing new approaches to project management, which have been followed by arguments on which approach is superior and why. More recently, these arguments are evolving towards the contextual applicability of these methods. Among several available approaches PMBOK as an example of traditional project management, and LPM and CCPM as examples of new approaches will be discussed in light of their theories and metaphors. The attempt is to contribute to the development of an explicit understanding of the fundamental differences in perceiving projects and proposing solutions in Project Management. Such understanding can provide implications about the applicability of those
PMINZ National Conference 2013 __________________________________________________________________________________________ approaches to the appropriate context as well as the limitation and possibilities in combining methods across approaches. In addition to comprehending contextual applicability, the link between approaches and their metaphors, will aid researchers to integrate them more wisely. Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) The basic metaphorical implication of PMBOK comes from its name: “Body of knowledge” which deliberately tries to include every possible method and technique in one single book and therefore is very comprehensive. PMBOK solutions are claimed to be applicable to most projects most of the time (Project Management Institute, 2008, p. 4), and therefore the same claim applies to the assumptions based on which the solutions are proposed. PMBOK consist of five basic process groups and nine knowledge areas. Each process is described in term of Inputs (documents, plans, designs, etc.), Tools and Techniques (mechanisms applied to inputs), and Outputs (documents, products, etc.). Perhaps this structure is metaphorically influenced by the word ‘body’. Many parts which are interconnected can be grouped in different ways. Just as the body can have vein, skeleton, and nerves which are co-located but are different in nature, knowledge areas can be used concurrently but represent different aspects. One can think of integration management as the brain of the whole system where everything is integrated and functions as one. Throughout the book there is an emphasis on process and procedure. Each process works as a cell with inputs from various places, just as a cell that receives oxygen, vitamins, and glucose, and its functions are regulated by various measures. In PMBOK Tasks are considered as discrete entities and the durations, costs, and start and finish dates are precisely defined. The structure implies that sensing, planning, and acting can be split into discrete, sequential and linear tasks. The structure of the book also demonstrates the influence of transformation theory of production in which every process is viewed as an input-output system. Transformation theory also promotes the idea that in order to manage the whole project successfully we need to manage its parts successfully, which results in decomposition of activities (Koskela & Howell, 2002). Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) clearly supports decomposition. Such a theory implies that the project / process can be isolated into sub-processes and successful completion of sub-processes will lead to the overall success of the project. A large part of the book is assigned to planning (Koskela & Howell, 2002). The approach in planning is deterministic and reductionist (Fitsilis, 2008) with an emphasis on detailed planning and following the original plan throughout the project (Cicmil et al., 2006). This implies that the future is predictable based on a high degree of stability, certainty and logicality. Interestingly even risk management uses the same approach of detailed planning to deal with uncertainty. The use of statistical information in predicting the future requires a level of repetition that allows such predictions. However, in many projects the estimates are based on intuition rather than valid statistical information. Furthermore, the execution processes are based on job despatching theory in manufacturing. Although job dispatching theory consists of deciding and communicating the assignment to the job station, in project management the first part falls within planning and therefore the execution is reduced to mere communication (Koskela & Howell, 2002). This implies an assumption that giving instructions is sufficient to ensure that the task will be accomplished. Likewise, controlling processes are based conceptually on a cybernetic model of management control (thermostat model) with the assumption that there is a standard of performance which can be measured. The variance can be used for corrective actions in order to reach the desired standard. This is also the same concept as a feedback control model (Koskela & Howell, 2002). In many projects such measures can be misleading. It is crucial before assessing a solution, to confirm its assumptions are applicable in the required context. Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM) The Critical Chain concept was introduced as an application of Theory of Constraints (TOC) to project management (Goldratt, 1997). Perhaps the dominant metaphor in TOC is system. A project is defined as a system. The temporary nature of projects has driven the attention of CCPM scholars to the duration as the ultimate measure of performance. This is apparent in several arguments made by CCPM scholars who justify the emphasis on schedule and argue that it also influences the cost and scope (Leach, 2000). This implies that all the above scholars assumed that there is a fixed cost associated with every project and faster completion of the project reduces such a cost. They also assume that faster completion of a project prevents changes, whereas in many contexts changes influenced by external factors and faster completion will only make it more costly. TOC not only influences CCPM by its system metaphor but also by its core assumption that any purposeful system confronts constraints, which would otherwise mean unlimited increase in output (Goldratt, 2006). The common theme in TOC solutions is driving the focus to a so-called core cause that results in problems in an existing system. In developing CCPM such analysis targeted Critical Path and ‘Failure to manage uncertainty’ was diagnosed as the core cause and the leading problem of project failure (Leach, 1999).
PMINZ National Conference 2013 __________________________________________________________________________________________ Critical Chain itself is also a metaphor. The word ‘chain’ implies the existence of sequential links, which are each representative of tasks in the project. The links of the chain demonstrate that tasks are viewed as discrete yet connected entities, which implies the decomposition theory similar to PMBOK. However, it also implies a single function which is not discrete; all links together work as a chain. The single function is further highlighted using ‘relay race’ metaphor. The attempt is to move the focus from individual task to the whole project. It could be argued the reason that CCPM does not support measures such as PMBOK’s earned value is the chain metaphor that suggests a chain is not as strong as the sum of its links, but rather as its weakest link. Furthermore, statistical concepts underpinning CCPM such as common cause variation and statistical law of aggregation assume statistics of past performance provide valid information. Another metaphor used in CCPM is buffer. CCPM assumes duration estimations are inflated in several layers and therefore suggests using 50% probable activity times to shorten the total duration. As in cybernetic metaphor described by Morgan (1980), buffer management emphasises the pattern of information and tries to stabilize the project by responding to negative feedback, which are buffer consumption. Such negative feedback is also further emphasised by using ‘traffic signal’ as a metaphor of controlling the flow of the project. What differentiates CCPM from PMBOK is not the existence of standard of performance, but rather how it should be measured and monitored. Such perspective has diminished the start- and finished-date concept; instead every activity will commence as soon as the previous activity is completed (Leach, 2004). Lean Project Management (LPM) It is widely agreed that LPM is based on the Toyota Product System (TPS) methodology. Krafcik (1988) used the term ‘Lean’ when he compared American, European and Japanese motor vehicle firms. The word Lean itself is a metaphor which was chosen because the Japanese used less of everything (time, resources and money) and produced vehicles with fewer defects and greater variety than their competitors. Continuous improvement as one of the features of Lean production (Mascitelli, 2002) resembles some of the characteristics of the organism metaphor with an open-systems approach as defined by Morgan (1980) in organization theory. In particular, the focus is on endurance within the context of a wider environment. However, an organism represents a centralized system and does not represent multifunctional substances. Perhaps adaptation of Lean into project management is marked by the last planner method (Koskela et al., 2010). It promotes a clear set of objectives for the delivery process and concurrent design of product and process. With a backwards scheduling, it focuses on the work that adds value for the client. It does not include details of the whole plan because such details in early stages do not add any value. Instead the last planner uses a ‘lookahead window’, which is a metaphor that implies a limitation on predicting the future. The aim is to have tasks completed as promised. This measure of predictability is Percentage Promised Completed on time (PPC). The last planner promotes a shift from controlling and motivating to engaging in planning, preparing, and navigating with those people performing the work (Mascitelli, 2002) and therefore, the thermostat theory loses its meaning in the Lean context. Another metaphor generally used in Lean is the word ‘flow’ which resembles the progressive movement of a liquid in one direction. It implies that LPM recognizes the task may not be discrete. Whereas Lean production is highly reliant on statistical information which is readily available in manufacturing, the last planner does not propose using the same approach in a context with high uncertainty; rather it focuses on the core idea, which lies in the word ‘Lean’ as a metaphor. It is acknowledged that detailed planning for the distant future in an uncertain context will not contribute to the final product. Last planner is a good example of applying a concept in a new context and finding a solution rather than trying to apply an existing solution in a new context irrespective of its applicability. As opposed to CCPM and PMBOK that proposed models to accommodate resource dependency and scarce resources, LPM emphasises a multidisciplinary workforce, which reduces the adverse effect of such dependency altogether (Koskela et al., 2010).
Conclusion The above discussion demonstrates the influence of the metaphors such as ‘body of knowledge’ to the comprehensiveness of PMBOK and ‘machine’ and ‘thermostat’ to the discrete nature of the solutions that are provided by PMBOK. Both CCPM and PMBOK assume that the future is statistically predictable. While CCPM treats tasks, as discrete entities associated with links of one chain, LPM with its ‘flow’ and ‘lookahead window’ metaphors recognizes a fuzzy definition of tasks. Each approach with its metaphor and theories perceive project differently. Comparing a project with ‘production’, ‘system’, ‘machine’, or ‘organism’ will create a completely different framework based on which techniques are proposed. Each of these metaphors highlights some characteristics of projects while overlooking many other characteristics of projects. Furthermore, projects themselves exhibit different characteristics. Recent research findings highlight the importance of project characteristics in the choice of management approach. Furthermore, studies on project
PMINZ National Conference 2013 __________________________________________________________________________________________ success demonstrate that how the project success is defined, measured and achieved can differ from one project to another depending on the context in which they are executed (Shenhar & Dvir, 2008). Therefore, it could be argued that the applicability of a project management technique in a particular type of project depends upon the soundness of assumptions based on which the approach is built. Despite the fundamental differences that these three approaches demonstrate, some authors try to combine these models together. PMBOK has included Critical Chain as a scheduling method without taking into account the fundamental role of buffer management and behavioural issues. Furthermore, Kendall et al. (2001) suggest incorporating CCPM and PMBOK and have shown how to organize the CCPM concepts around the knowledge areas of PMBOK. Their approach neglects the basic doctrine of CCPM, which is to bring about focus. Leach (2006) uses CCPM concepts in his book Lean Project Management: Eight Principles for Success. However, his approach is mostly based on CCPM and less relevant to the current literature of LPM. This leaves the reader with a question in mind; why did he decide to call his book Lean Project Management in the first place? This is not to argue that it is unwise to combine these approaches. In fact new developments in the ‘Last planner’, such as increased emphasis on buffer management as well as the addition of learning to CCPM, demonstrate more recent versions are Leaning towards each other (Koskela et al., 2010). It is very important to understand that the integration of models is not the assembly of techniques to arrive at best practice. It is the logic that should be understood and applied. The approaches should be seen in their totality and from the perspective of how they arrive at proposing certain techniques, so that one can make improvements and modifications without jeopardising the essence of the approach. Some aspects of applicably are obvious and can be easily understood. For examples, ‘last planner’ does not address the multi-project environment (Koskela et al., 2010). Therefore, projects which are constrained largely by the influence of other projects in the same portfolio would not benefit much from last planner. Projects with unclear scope, where defining a chain of activity is not possible at the early stages, do not gain much from CCPM. Similarly, in some projects, where no value is actually earned until the completion, the deterministic nature of PMBOK can be misleading. Acknowledgement of implicit assumptions that underpins theories and metaphors not only contributes to contextual applicability of methods but also provides a logical ground to develop methodical ways of integrating of approaches or their related techniques. The essence of an approach lies in its assumptions, metaphors, and theories. In order to bring the best of each approach, future research studies on integration should ensure their proposed model does not jeopardize the essence of each approach.
References Cicmil, S., Williams, T., Thomas, J., & Hodgson, D. (2006). Rethinking Project Management: Researching the actuality of projects. International Journal of Project Management, 24(8), 675–686. Fitsilis, P. (2008). Comparing PMBOK and Agile Project Management software development processes. In T. Sobh (Ed.), Advances in Computer and Information Sciences and Engineering (pp. 378–383). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Goldratt, E. M. (1997). Critical chain. Great Barrington, MA.: North River Press. Goldratt, E. M. (2006). Beyond the goal. Prince Frederick, Md.: Recorded Books. Kendall, G. I., Pitagorsky, G., & Hulett, D. (2001). Integrating Critical Chain and the PMBOK® Guide. International Institute for Learning, Inc. Koskela, L. J., & Howell, G. (2002, June). The underlying theory of project management is obsolete. Proceedings of the PMI Research Conference. Koskela, L. J., Stratton, R., & Koskenvesa, A. (2010). Last planner and critical chain in construction management: comparative analysis. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (pp. 538–547). Krafcik, J. F. (1988). Triumph Of The Lean Production System. Sloan Management Review, 30(1), 41. Leach, L. P. (2000). Critical chain project management. Boston, MA.: Artech House. Leach, L. P. (2006). Lean Project Management: Eight Principles For Success (1St Edition.). BookSurge Publishing. Mascitelli, R. (2002). Building a project-driven enterprise how to slash waste and boost profits through lean project management. Northridge, CA: Technology Perspectives Morgan, G. (1980). Paradigms, Metaphors, and Puzzle Solving in Organization Theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(4), 605–622. Project Management Institute. (2008). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide). Newtown Square, Pa.: Project Management Institute, Inc. Project Management Institute (1996). A guide to the project management body of knowledge. Upper Darby, PA: Project Management Institute. Shenhar, A., & Dvir, D. (2008). Project Management Research - The Challenge and Opportunity. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 36(2), 112–121.
