msc project management(thesis)
TRANSCRIPT
ROBERT GORDON UNIVERSITY
ABERDEEN
ABERDEEN BUSINESS SCHOOL
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PERFORMANCE BASELINE MATURITY FROM
A CONTROL-BASED PERSPECTIVE
Author: Manuel Angel Gonzalez Suarez ID Number: 1117655 Tutor: Langes Supramaniam Report Word Count: 11,867
A project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Msc in Project Management at The Robert Gordon University
Aberdeen, September 2012
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
2
DECLARATION STATEMENT
I, Manuel Ángel González Suárez, declare that this research report is my own work
except as indicated in the references and acknowledgements. It is submitted in
partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MSc Project Management in
the Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen. It has not been submitted before for any
degree or examination in this or any other university.
Manuel Ángel González Suárez
Signed at Aberdeen
On the 27th day of September 2012
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
3
ABSTRACT
This Research Project is focused on the Performance Baseline (PB) and concretely
on the assessment of maturity of the baseline across the PLC, analysing the
elements influencing this maturity and trying to find the way to improve PB
suitability within each project phase in relation to the size, complexity and type of
project.
Initial Literature Review was oriented to obtain relevant information to clearly
define the PB concept, as well as its main components. Then, once it was clarified
the meaning of the term “maturity” in relation to the PB, and outlined the main
elements affecting to the maturity of the performance baseline, a further analysis of
relevant information was undertaken to be able to obtain some initial conclusions to
underpin further research (See Chapter 1). Thus, it was noticed that the Front End
Loading (FEL) of the project is the timing when the PB is developed and therefore
processes undertaken within this stage are essential for the development of a
suitable PB. Furthermore, it was also concluded that Management and Control
frameworks that govern these early stages of the project are major contributors to
the proper progress of the PB maturity. In this regard, several models associated to
different public and private organism have been taken in account in order to
undertake this research project, but finally only a small group of them have been
selected as desirable collaborators for this research, basing on the criteria that have
ruled the research process (See Chapter 2). These selected models have been
analysed and their main features have been briefly defined and further compared to
be able to create a conceptual framework which will create the basis underpinning
this project.
Moreover, it has also been designed a Primary Research which should provide the
relevant data sets allowing to develop appropriate answers to the research
questions (See Chapter 3). Accordingly it was designed a research strategy which
will indicate the way that data will be obtained and analysed. This strategy was
created taken in account several previous researches undertaken in relation with
this area, but also the main characteristics of this particular topic.
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
4
Finally, as a result of this Primary Research, it is expected to be able to extract
relevant conclusions which make possible to link the maturity of the PB to some of
the main features and processes involved in these management and control
models. Thus, obtaining valuable findings it will be able to outline a theoretical
framework, from a management and control perspective, containing the main
features that would help to maximize the suitability of the PB maturity across the
PLC.
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research project would not have been possible without the support of many
people who have provided guidance and support throughout my MSc and this
Individual Project. The author wishes to express his gratitude to:
Mr. Langes Supramaniam (MSc Course Leader and Individual Project Supervisor)
(For making me a better researcher)
Ms. Sheonagh Rowley (Lecturer)
(For her patience, supervision and important feedback)
My Close Friends and Family
(For always being there)
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
6
ACRONYMS
AGR Assurance Gate Review ANAO Australian National Audit Office APM Association for Project Management BC Business Case CD Critical Decision CERF Civil Engineering Research Foundation CII Construction Industry Institute DOE Department of Energy (USA) EPP Early Project Planning EVM Earned Value Management FED Front-End Development FEED Front End Engineering and Design FEL Front-End Loading FMG Financial Management Guidance (Australia) IAPPM International Association of Project and Program Management IPA Independent Project Analysis IPR Independent Project Review KPI Key Performance Indicator NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration OGC Office of Government Commerce(UK) PB Performance Baseline PDRI Project Definition Rating Index PDRI Project Definition Rating Index PIM Probability Impact Matrix PLC Project Life Cycle PM Project Manager PMI Project Management Institute PMP Project Management Plan PP Project Plan PPP Pre Project Planning PRES Primary Research Execution Stage PRP Phases Review Process PT Project Team QA Quality Assurance RPS Research Proposal Stage SOW Scope of Work TBS Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat TPC Total Project Cost TRA Technology Readiness Assessment WBS Work Breakdown Structure
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
7
CONTENTS:
1. INITIAL RESEARCH PLAN ....................................................................... 16
1.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 16
1.2. RATIONALE .................................................................................. 17
1.2.1. Personal ................................................................................. 17
1.2.2. Business ................................................................................. 18
1.2.3. Academic Rationale .................................................................. 18
1.3. PROBLEM STATEMENT ................................................................... 19
1.4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS .................................................................. 22
1.5. PROBLEM DEFINITION ................................................................... 22
1.5.1. AIM ....................................................................................... 22
1.5.2. Objectives .............................................................................. 22
1.5.3. Scope .................................................................................... 23
1.5.4. Deliverables ............................................................................ 24
1.5.5. Risk Analysis ........................................................................... 24
1.5.6. CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS .................................................... 26
1.5.7. SUCCESS CRITERIA ................................................................. 26
1.5.8. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ............................................... 26
1.5.9. ASSUMPTIONS ........................................................................ 27
1.5.10. CONSTRAINTS ......................................................................... 27
1.5.11. CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................... 27
1.6. RESEARCH PROJECT SCHEDULE ...................................................... 28
1.7. RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS ............................................................ 29
1.8. INITIAL LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................... 30
1.8.1. Introduction ............................................................................ 30
1.8.2. PB Development ...................................................................... 31
1.8.3. The Front End Loading .............................................................. 33
1.8.4. PB Maturity ............................................................................. 35
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
8
1.8.5. PB Management and Control...................................................... 37
1.8.6. Gate Reviews Models ................................................................ 38
1.9. INITIAL METHODOLOGY ................................................................. 41
1.10. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................ 42
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................. 44
2.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 44
2.2. LITERATURE REVIEW PROCESS ....................................................... 44
2.3. SEARCH PLAN ............................................................................... 46
2.3.1. Search parameters ................................................................... 46
2.3.2. Mapping the literature .............................................................. 47
2.3.3. Sources of information ............................................................. 48
2.4. FRONT END MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL APPROACHES .................... 49
2.4.1. Sources Selection .................................................................... 49
2.5. MODELS BRIEF DESCRIPTION ......................................................... 51
2.5.1. The Royal Norwegian Ministry of Finance QA Scheme .................... 51
2.5.2. OGC Gateway Process (Office of Government Commerce) .............. 53
2.5.3. DFA Gateway Review Process (Australia) ..................................... 55
2.5.4. CII (Construction Industry Institute) ........................................... 56
2.5.5. U.S Department of Energy (D.O.E) ............................................. 58
2.5.6. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) ................................ 60
2.6. MODELS COMPARISON................................................................... 62
2.6.1. OGC/ TBS/ DFA ....................................................................... 62
2.6.2. DOE / CII ............................................................................... 63
2.6.3. Norway / OGC ......................................................................... 65
2.6.4. DOE/Norway ........................................................................... 66
2.6.5. Models Comparison Matrix ........................................................ 67
2.7. LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARY ...................................................... 68
3. METHODOLOGY AND METHOD APPROACHES ............................................. 71
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
9
3.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 71
3.2. RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY ................................................................ 72
3.3. RESEARCH APPROACHES ................................................................ 73
3.3.1. Quantitative/Qualitative ............................................................ 73
3.3.2. Deductive/Inductive ................................................................. 74
3.4. RESEARCH PURPOSE ..................................................................... 74
3.5. RESEARCH STRATEGY .................................................................... 76
3.6. SAMPLING AND PILOTING .............................................................. 80
3.6.1. Determining Sample Design ...................................................... 80
3.6.2. Target Population .................................................................... 81
3.6.3. Sampling Frame ...................................................................... 81
3.6.4. Sampling Techniques ............................................................... 81
3.6.5. Sample Size ............................................................................ 83
3.6.6. Execute the Sampling Process ................................................... 84
3.6.7. Piloting ................................................................................... 86
3.7. QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN ............................................................... 86
3.8. IDENTIFY DATA SETS .................................................................... 89
3.9. DATA ANALYSIS APPROACHES ........................................................ 91
3.9.1. Analysing Results .................................................................... 91
3.10. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY .......................................................... 93
3.11. VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY ............................................................ 94
4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATIONS..................................................... 96
4.1. CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................. 96
4.1.1. Research Project Development .................................................. 96
4.1.2. Research Project Review/Findings .............................................. 97
4.2. LESSONS LEARNED ....................................................................... 98
4.3. RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 98
5. REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 100
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
10
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................... 107
7. APPENDICES ...................................................................................... 110
7.1. APPENDIX 1: RESEARCH PROJECT RISK ......................................... 111
7.1.1. Identifying Risks .................................................................... 111
7.1.2. Risk Analysis ......................................................................... 112
7.1.3. Probability-Impact Matrix ........................................................ 113
7.1.4. Risk Evaluation ...................................................................... 115
7.1.5. Risk Response Development .................................................... 116
7.2. APPENDIX 2: SELECTION CRITERIA WEIGHTING SYSTEM ................. 117
7.3. APPENDIX 3: INFORMATION ACCESIBILITY ..................................... 118
7.4. APPENDIX 4: CHANGES LOG ......................................................... 119
7.5. APPENDIX 5: RELATED RESEARCH PROJECTS .................................. 120
7.6. APPENDIX 6: GANTT CHART ......................................................... 126
7.7. APPENDIX 7: RESEARCH PROJECT FLOW CHART .............................. 127
7.8. APPENDIX 8: DATA SET CAPTURING PROCESS ................................ 128
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
11
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Project Control .............................................................................. 16
Figure 2: Research Project PLC ..................................................................... 17
Figure 3: Immature PB: Effects & Consequences ............................................. 19
Figure 4: Uncertainty Evolution ..................................................................... 20
Figure 5: PB Development ............................................................................ 20
Figure 6: Decision Making Process ................................................................. 21
Figure 7: Research Project Scope .................................................................. 23
Figure 8: Research Project Schedule .............................................................. 28
Figure 9: PB Development ............................................................................ 30
Figure 10: PB Components ........................................................................... 31
Figure 11: PB Maturity-Building Process (1) .................................................... 31
Figure 12: APM PLC Models .......................................................................... 32
Figure 13: PB Progress ................................................................................ 32
Figure 14: Front End Loading ........................................................................ 33
Figure 15: Evolution of Project Uncertainty ..................................................... 34
Figure 16: PB Development .......................................................................... 35
Figure 17: PB Maturity-Building Process (2) .................................................... 35
Figure 18: PB Maturity-Building Process (3) .................................................... 36
Figure 19: PB Maturity-Building Process (4) .................................................... 37
Figure 20: Project Definition Methods & Tools ................................................. 37
Figure 21: PB Maturity-Building Process (5) .................................................... 38
Figure 22: Project Reviews ........................................................................... 39
Figure 23: Gate Review Process .................................................................... 39
Figure 24: Initial Methodology ...................................................................... 41
Figure 25: Primary Research Structure ........................................................... 41
Figure 26: Literature Review Process ............................................................. 45
Figure 27: Data Sources .............................................................................. 46
Figure 28: Literature mapping ...................................................................... 47
Figure 29: Norwegian Quality Assurance Framework ........................................ 51
Figure 30: Gateway Reviews (Norwegian QA Framework) ................................. 51
Figure 31: Norwegian QA Scheme Outline ...................................................... 52
Figure 32: UK OGC Gateway Process ............................................................. 53
Figure 33: OGC Gateway Model Outline .......................................................... 54
Figure 34: DFA Model Outline ....................................................................... 55
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
12
Figure 35: Front End Planning Process ........................................................... 56
Figure 36: CII Model Outline ......................................................................... 57
Figure 37: US DOE CD Stages ....................................................................... 58
Figure 38: DOE Model Outline ....................................................................... 58
Figure 39: TBS Model Outline ....................................................................... 60
Figure 40: Comparison OGC/DFA/TBS ............................................................ 62
Figure 41: Comparison DOE/CII .................................................................... 64
Figure 42: Comparison OGC/ ........................................................................ 65
Figure 43: Comparison DOE/CII .................................................................... 66
Figure 44: Conceptual Framework ................................................................. 69
Figure 45: ResearchPyramid ......................................................................... 71
Figure 46: Research Philosophy .................................................................... 72
Figure 47: Research Strategy ....................................................................... 77
Figure 48: Case Studies Selection (Preliminary Questionnaire) .......................... 78
Figure 49: Detailed Questionnaire ................................................................. 78
Figure 50: Additional Information Gathering ................................................... 79
Figure 51: Sample interpretation ................................................................... 80
Figure 52: Sampling Design Process .............................................................. 80
Figure 53: Sampling Techniques ................................................................... 82
Figure 54: Sampling Techniques Utilised ........................................................ 83
Figure 55: Measurement Stages .................................................................... 86
Figure 56: PB Progress Measurement ............................................................. 87
Figure 57: Questionnaire Parameters Proposal ................................................ 88
Figure 58: Gathering Data Sets ..................................................................... 90
Figure 59: Cost Baseline Maturity-Comparative Analysis (1) .............................. 92
Figure 60: Cost Baseline Maturity-Comparative Analysis (2) .............................. 92
Figure 61: Cost Baseline Maturity-Comparative Analysis (3) .............................. 92
Figure 62: Risk Assessment Process ............................................................ 111
Figure 63: Risk Analysis ............................................................................. 112
Figure 64: Probability Impact Matrix ............................................................ 113
Figure 65: Project Gantt Chart .................................................................... 126
Figure 66: Data Set Capturing Process ......................................................... 128
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
13
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Project Deliverables ........................................................................ 24
Table 2: Identified Risks .............................................................................. 25
Table 3: Risk Assessment ............................................................................. 25
Table 4: Risk Assessment Matrix ................................................................... 25
Table 5: Research Project Duration ................................................................ 28
Table 6: Resource Requirements ................................................................... 29
Table 7: PB Progress ................................................................................... 33
Table 8: Search Parameters ......................................................................... 46
Table 9: Sources of Information .................................................................... 48
Table 10: Selection Criteria .......................................................................... 49
Table 11: Selection Matrix ............................................................................ 50
Table 12: Norwegian QA Scheme Features ..................................................... 52
Table 13: OGC Gateway Model Features ......................................................... 54
Table 14: Gate Reviews Focus ...................................................................... 55
Table 15: DFA Model Features ...................................................................... 56
Table 16: CII Model Features ........................................................................ 57
Table 17: DOE Model Features ...................................................................... 59
Table 18: TBS Gate Reviews Focus ................................................................ 60
Table 19: TBS Model Features ....................................................................... 61
Table 20: Models Comparison Matrix .............................................................. 67
Table 21: Comparison of Research Philosophies ............................................... 73
Table 22: Quantitative vs Qualitative ............................................................. 74
Table 23: Deduction vs Induction .................................................................. 74
Table 24: Research Purposes ........................................................................ 75
Table 25: Research Strategies ...................................................................... 77
Table 26: Sampling Techniques ..................................................................... 82
Table 27: Sample Size ................................................................................. 83
Table 28: Request for Collaboration (Preliminary Questionnaire) ........................ 84
Table 29: Preliminary Questionnaire Matrix ..................................................... 85
Table 30: Sampling Process Criteria ............................................................... 85
Table 31: Data Sets .................................................................................... 89
Table 32: Organisation Results ..................................................................... 89
Table 33: Comparison Matrix ........................................................................ 90
Table 34: Descriptive Statistic Methods .......................................................... 91
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
14
Table 35: Risk Identification Techniques ....................................................... 111
Table 36: Identified Risks ........................................................................... 112
Table 37: Probability Scale ......................................................................... 113
Table 38: Impact Scale .............................................................................. 113
Table 39: P-I Matrix .................................................................................. 114
Table 40: Risk Scale .................................................................................. 114
Table 41: Prioritisation Matrix ..................................................................... 114
Table 42: Risk Evaluation ........................................................................... 115
Table 43: Risk Evaluation Matrix ................................................................. 115
Table 44: Mitigation Strategy ...................................................................... 116
Table 45: Criteria Sources .......................................................................... 117
Table 46: Weight Calculation ...................................................................... 117
Table 47: Changes Log .............................................................................. 119
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
15
CHAPTER 1PROJECT RESEARCH PLAN
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
16
1. INITIAL RESEARCH PLAN
1.1. INTRODUCTION
The significance of the Performance Baseline (PB) has been extensively analysed in
the literature for many years. This notoriety is given because it is a key element to
be able to determine whether a project is running over budget, over schedule or
whether the scope of work has suffered changes (APM, 2006; PMI, 2008; Kerzner,
2009; Clements and Gido, 2009). However, despite all the project management
methodologies available, having a mature PB against to compare the evolution of
project remains a challenge faced by many public and private organizations (CII,
2012; DOE, 2008b).
Before proceeding any further, it is appropriate to state what is meant by PB
maturity within the context of this research project. Thus, in this study, the
maturity level of a PB can be defined as the proximity between the desired end
product and initially agreed schedule and cost and the real values required to finish
a project (U.S DOE, 2011e).
This report is a project management research proposal titled “Performance Baseline
Maturity from a control-based Perspective”. This document will assess some of the
most important management and control models attempting to find which are the
main characteristics that drive to an improvement in the maturity of the PB, and as
a result to be able to outline a theoretical framework maximising its suitability
across the PLC.
Figure 1: Project Control (Source APM 2010)
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
17
On the other hand, despite this research project is focused on the processes
associated to the PB development, several project management areas will also be
included within the search plan to be further analysed. Thus, Governance, Change
Management, Planning, and Monitoring and Control processes will be part of the
literature review regarding to the main topic.
Finally, it is also important to note that the approach adopted for undertaking this
project has followed the traditional APM Project Life Cycle model as shown in Figure
2.
Figure 2: Research Project PLC
(Source: Author)
1.2. RATIONALE
The main reasons for undertaking this research project have been divided into
three different categories:
1.2.1. Personal
At the moment of thinking about this research project, Author‘s aim was to apply
some of the recently acquired project management knowledge to the common
issues I was used to deal with during my professional career. Regarding this, one of
my favourite areas and source of several professional discussions has always been
the improvement of the effective control of the projects. Nevertheless, this is a
hugely broad area and further refining was necessary to define the concrete and
specific topic area where the research project would focus. In this sense, the topic
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
18
selected is the final result of an evolutive process underpinned by an exhaustive
review of the literature.
1.2.2. Business
It is well known that the PB is a key element directly related to the effectiveness of
the decision making processes that govern the evolution of the project (Klakegg,
2012), and also an essential component for controlling the implementation of the
project (Lester, 2006; APM, 2010; DOE, 2011c)
This research project should be able to obtain interesting results regarding to the
relationship between the existing frameworks utilised for managing and controlling
projects and the resulting maturity of the PB across the PLC.
1.2.3. Academic Rationale
From an academic point of view, the principal reason for undertaking this research
project was to put some light on the planning processes which take place on the
early stages of projects, and concretely analyze the PB creation and development
processes regarding to be able to understand its importance and they way to
improve PB maturity.
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
19
1.3. PROBLEM STATEMENT
It is commonly accepted that the PB is an essential component for managing
projects. The main reason for this consideration is that the PB is the value or
condition against which all future measurements will be compared, and any lack of
reliability will affect dramatically to the project performance measurement (APM,
2006; Tenrox, 2012; PMI, 2008). It is also clear that there are many possible
reasons for project failures, but a highly developed baseline should contribute to
minimise cost overruns and schedule delays as well as to minimise changes in
scope of the project during the implementation phase (DOE, 2011; Meier, 2009;
Williams et al., 2012).
Figure 3: Immature PB: Effects & Consequences
(Source: Author)
On the other hand, it is also commonly accepted the PB development is an iterative
process that starts in the early stages of the project and continues all along the
PLC. Therefore, the level of maturity of the PB will increase at the same time that
project definition grows (APM, 2006; PMI, 2008; DOE, 2011e).
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
20
Figure 4: Uncertainty Evolution
(Source: Author)
However, it is noticeable that even nowadays, the approach of most of the PM
organizations, bodies of knowledge and private contractors is majorly oriented to
improve the performance of projects during the implementation phase, and few of
them pay reasonable attention to the early stages of the project (Loedre, et al.,
2003). For this reason, the progress of the PB during the front end loading of
projects remains as a question that has not been properly addressed (Jergeas,
2008; Palmer, Gibson and Bingham, 2010; Gibson and Bosfield, 2012).
Figure 5: PB Development
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
21
(Source: Author)
Nonetheless, despite these attitudes, the level of maturity of the PB is not only
important during the implementation phase of projects, thus during the pre-
implementation stages, maturity of the PB will influence dramatically the decision
making processes (See Figure 6) which conclude whether a project must continue
to the next stage, be stopped or redefined (Williams and Samset, 2010).
Figure 6: Decision Making Process
In this sense, it must be considered that significant differences in the level of
maturity of the PB between the stages preceding the execution phase could indicate
that some of the decisions have been taken under an unsuitable level of
uncertainty. Additionally, it is also clear that in order to avoid wasting of project
scarce resources, the level of maturity of the PB should be directly related to the
criticality of the project, its size and complexity (NASA, 2010).
Regarding all these issues, it has been noticed that during the last decade several
organisms have developed frameworks for managing and controlling projects.
However, these frameworks have been created basing on their concrete necessities,
and also on the type and the size of the projects that they undertake. Additionally,
these organizations claim the suitability of their frameworks underpinning their
opinions on the assessment of the level of project delay, cost overruns and lack of
accomplishment of requirements (DOE, 2011d; CII, 2012; ANAO, 2012).
Nevertheless, few of them take in account the PB maturity as a factor to control
during the whole PLC and not just during the implementation phase. Thus huge
deviations between the PB derived from the BC and the final used to control
performance during the implementation is in most cases a questions that is not
addressed.
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
22
For all these reasons, this research project will focus on the existing management
and control frameworks and will try to assess their suitability from a PB maturity
perspective. Thus, after selecting some of the most representative, they will be
compared and used as the basis to develop a theoretical framework with the
objective of ensure proper PB across the PLC.
1.4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
How can be minimized the deviation between the PB frozen before project
implementation and the final data sets of the project?
How can we ensure that the level of maturity of the PB is suitable all along the
PLC?
Which are the elements that can be measured in order to calculate the level of
maturity of the PB at each stage of the project?
Why data sets used to decide whether or not to go ahead with the next project
stage of the project are often not totally accurate?
How minimize the gap between the estimations used to develop the Business
Case and those used to develop the PMP?
Which are the processes and tools that can help us to improve the PB maturity
from a control-based perspective?
1.5. PROBLEM DEFINITION
1.5.1. AIM
Investigate how the different perspectives for monitoring and controlling
(reviewing) the project contribute to the development of the performance baseline,
comparing results and obtaining conclusions to make possible the development of a
theoretical framework which facilitates obtaining a mature enough PB progress
across the project life cycle.
1.5.2. Objectives
The main objectives of this research project are:
1. Examine the concept, development processes and quality assurance
methodologies of the Performance Baseline in large capital projects.
2. Critically evaluate and compare the different models utilised for managing and
controlling major public investments.
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
23
3. Establish the relationship between the Independent Project Reviews undertaken
during the FEL of the project and the performance baseline robustness.
4. Obtain the necessary information for the further development of a theoretical
framework which make possible to obtain a mature enough PB evolution across
the PLC.
5. To synthesise the findings of the study making appropriate recommendations.
1.5.3. Scope
The scope of this research project includes:
Building of a detailed project research proposal.
Undertake a literature review (including critical appraisal of literature) relevant
to the research project objectives.
Design and justification of a suitable primary research methodology.
Assessment of relevant findings and appropriate conclusions
This document is just a research proposal and its scope does not include the
primary research. However, this research project will include:
Complete implementation of the primary research methodology within the
specified context.
Development of questionnaires to gather information from the selected sources.
Data analysis and comparison of the research findings.
Development of a suitable theoretical framework for managing and controlling
the proper progress of the PB.
Figure 7: Research Project Scope
(Source: Author)
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
24
1.5.4. Deliverables
The main deliverables of this Research Project have been included in Table 1.
RESEARCH PROJECT DELIVERABLES
RESEARCH PROJECT LIFECYCLE
DELIVERABLES EXPECTED
DATE
RESEARCH PROPOSAL STAGE (RPS)
CONCEPT
Chapter 1: Project Research Plan Full Project Definition Initial Literature Review Research Questions Risk Management Plan Research Schedule / Resources and
Costs
5th July 2012
DEFINITION
Chapter 2: Literature Review FEL and Project Success Literature
Analysis Synthesis and Relation to Research Area Conceptual Framework
11th Aug 2012
IMPLEMENTATION
Chapter 3: Research Methodology Research Approach Data Collection Technique Sampling Approach Data Analysis Method
5th Sep 2012
Chapter 4: Conclusions Synthesis of Research Findings Lessons Learned
25th Sep 2012
HANDOVER & CLOSEOUT Project Proposal Report Submission Chapter 1 – 4 Reference and Appendices
28th Sep 2012
PRIMARY RESEARCH EXECUTION STAGE (PRES)
OPERATIONS Primary Research Outputs 8th Dec 2012
Initial Data Analysis Results 25th Dec 2012
CLOSEOUT Initial Data Synthesis and Conclusions Jan 25st 2013
Research Project Final Report Jan 29th 2013 Table 1: Project Deliverables
1.5.5. Risk Analysis
The main purpose of undertaking a risk assessment has been to recognize and
assess potential and unforeseen issues that might occur when the Project is
implemented. The assessment of the different perceived risks has been undertaken
based on estimated probability, impact and level of controllability of the event. See
a summary of results in Tables 2, 3 and 4. (See further details of this process in
Appendix 1)
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
25
RISK ID STAGE TITLE DESCRIPTION
ID-1 PRES Lack of collaboration Unwillingness of research population to participate in study.
ID-2 RPS/PRES IT failure Data loss/corruption.
ID-3 RPS/PRES Lack of quality Project going off track and not meeting academic requirements.
ID-4 RPS/PRES Cost overruns Funding issues / cost escalations.
ID-5 PRES Analysis issues Research results prove inconclusive.
ID-6 RPS/PRES Lack of organization Referencing issues and information overload.
ID-7 RPS/PRES Project Delays Not meeting research deadlines.
ID-8 RPS Lack of information Unavailability of literature and related academic resources.
ID-9 PRES Methods failure Inappropriate techniques for data collection.
ID-10 PRES Time People just do not respond in time for you to achieve project done on time.
ID-11 PRES Confidentiality Issues associated to the ensuring of the confidentiality of the information provided by the collaborating organisms.
Table 2: Identified Risks
RISK ID TITLE QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
Prob. Imp. Overall Risk
ID-1 Lack of collaboration 0,7 0,8 0,56 Catastrophic
ID-2 IT failure 0,3 0,2 0,06 Medium
ID-3 Lack of quality 0,3 0,4 0,12 Medium
ID-4 Cost overruns 0,5 0,05 0,025 Low
ID-5 Analysis issues 0,5 0,05 0,025 Low
ID-6 Lack of organization 0,3 0,1 0,03 Low
ID-7 Project Delays 0,1 0,4 0,04 Medium
ID-8 Lack of information 0,5 0,2 0,1 Medium
ID-9 Methods failure 0,05 0,5 0,025 Low
ID-10 Time 0,1 0,4 0,04 Medium
ID-11 Confidentiality 0,3 0,4 0,12 Medium Table 3: Risk Assessment
PR
OB
AB
ILIT
Y 0,9
Almost certain
0,7 Likely ID-1
0,5 Possible ID-4, ID-5, ID-9 ID-8
0,3 Unlikely ID-6 ID-2 ID-3, ID-11
0,1 Rare ID-7, ID-10
Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic 0,05 0,1 0,2 0,4 0,8 IMPACT
Table 4: Risk Assessment Matrix
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
26
1.5.6. CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
The success of this Research Project is dependent on:
Research Proposal Stage (RPS):
Effective communication and collaboration between the researcher and the
project internal contributors.
Appropriate research project design with well defined relationships between the
research aim and objectives, the literature review, the research methodology
and its subsequent implementation.
Primary Research Execution Stage (PRES):
Access to relevant data sets and project-related information to support this
research aim and objectives.
Effective communication and collaboration between the researcher and the
external contributors to the project (collaborating organisations).
1.5.7. SUCCESS CRITERIA
This Research Project success will be judged on:
Research Proposal Stage (RPS):
Submission by 28th September 2012.
Exam Board approval and award of module credit points.
Primary Research Execution Stage (PRES):
Finish this phase on time and within budget as defined in the research proposal.
Robust primary research findings, effective analysis and clear synthesis following
adequately the research methods.
Subsequent development of a theoretical framework based on research findings.
1.5.8. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Research Proposal Stage (RPS):
Number of references included.
Number of sources utilized.
Grade awarded by the Exam Board evaluating the proposal.
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
27
Primary Research Execution Stage (PRES):
% of responses obtained between the organisations selected to be part of this
research project.
%of fulfillment of the questionnaires (data provided/data solicitated).
Average number of case studies per organisation.
1.5.9. ASSUMPTIONS
Research Proposal Stage (RPS):
Secondary information utilised in this research project is reliable and based on solid research methodologies.
Primary Research Execution Stage (PRES):
Organisms selected will collaborate to provide necessary information.
Primary data obtained from the selected sources are accurate.
Organism selected will manage to find the range of projects needed to
undertake the study.
1.5.10. CONSTRAINTS
Research Proposal Stage (RPS):
Project supervisor cannot be proactively involved in project.
Primary Research Execution Stage (PRES):
Confidentiality of the projects data set avoiding a proper primary research data
collection.
Availability of significant data sets allowing to extract relevant conclusions.
Lack of homogeneity of the sample frame affecting to the validity and reliability
of the results.
1.5.11. CONSIDERATIONS
The variety of approaches for managing and controlling projects utilised by
different organisations.
The significant amount of major investments failing in their originally planned
budget and schedule.
The complexity associated to the definition of parameters which can be
representative of the PB maturity concept.
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
28
1.6. RESEARCH PROJECT SCHEDULE
The Research Proposal Stage (RPS) of this Research Project started in May 2012
and will take 4½ months with final submission on September 28th 2012.
Figure 8: Research Project Schedule
The total duration of the project has been estimated on 189 days (See Table 5 and
Figure 8)
TASK NAME DURATION
(Days)
RESEARCH PROJECT (Total) 189
PROJECT INITIATION 49
RPS (97 days)
Project Kick Off 7
Project Research Plan 42
PROJECT PLANNING 48
Literature Review 22
Research Methodology 16
Conclusions and Recommendations 10
PROJECT EXECUTION 60
PRES (92 days)
Data Collection 30
Data Analysis 30
PROJECT CLOSEUT 32
Synthesise Data and Draft Development 25
Review (external/internal) 7
Project Final Report - Table 5: Research Project Duration
A detailed Gantt chart of this Research Project has been included in Appendix 6.
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
29
1.7. RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
The necessary resources to undertake this project have been detailed in Table 6.
According to this, the budget has been estimated in £14,890.
RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS AND COSTS
RP
S
(R
ES
EA
RC
H P
RO
PO
SA
L S
TA
GE
)
LABOUR Units Cost Total
Researcher : Responsible for the entire study from initiation to closeout including: Project Proposal/Planning (200 h)
200 hours £15 £3,000
Module coordinator: Outlines the module structure, sets project requirements, delivers lectures and deals with all extraneous issues.
30 hours £20 £600
Project advisor: Guides the student, gives feedback on progress and holds a number of research tutorials.
20 hours £35 £700
MATERIALS Units Cost Total
Laptop with appropriate software 1 £1,000 £1,000
Additional books, magazines & online resources Multiple £200 £200
Transportation Multiple £300 £300
Access to RGU and associated services: Academic resources/databases World wide web/email account RGU CAQDAS software (cost based on tuition fee for module)
1/4th £9,500 £2,375
PR
ES
(P
RIM
AR
Y R
ES
EA
RC
H E
XE
CU
TIO
N S
TA
GE
) LABOUR Units Cost Total
Researcher: Responsible for the entire study from initiation to closeout including: Data Collection/Analysis (100 h) Conclusions elaboration (50 h)
150 hours £15 £2,250
Project advisor: Guides the student, gives feedback on progress and holds a number of research tutorials.
30 hours £35 £1050
MATERIALS Units Cost Total
Additional books, magazines & online resources Multiple £500 £500
Printing and binding final report Multiple £40 £40
Transportation and Communications Multiple £500 £500
Access to RGU and associated services: Academic resources/databases World wide web/email account RGU CAQDAS software (cost based on tuition fee for module)
1/4th £9,500 £2,375
TOTAL PROJECT COST £14,890Table 6: Resource Requirements
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
30
1.8. INITIAL LITERATURE REVIEW
1.8.1. Introduction
An initial review of the literature regarding to the PB concept shows that despite the
term “baseline” is commonly utilised within the project management jargon there
are some ambiguities about what concretely it does implicate (APM, 2006; IAPPM,
2006; PMI, 2008). Thus, the APM refers briefly to the baseline concept as the
reference to measure the deviations from the time, cost, scope and quality agreed
objectives (APM, 2006). Additionally, the PMI (2008) gives major details and
considers three different categories included within the baseline concept.
Accordingly, the scope baseline is “the approved detailed project scope statement
and its associated WBS” (PMI, 2008). The cost baseline is a “time-phased budget
that is used as a basis against which to measure, monitor, and control overall cost
performance on the project” (PMI, 2008). And finally, the schedule baseline is a
“specific version of the project schedule developed from the schedule network
analysis…accepted and approved by the project management team…with baseline
start dates and baseline finish dates” (PMI, 2008).
Figure 9: PB Development
(Source: Author)
Therefore, it can be concluded that the PB will be the combination of all three
mentioned baselines. Furthermore, the development of the PB will include building
INTERACTIO
NS
INTE
RACTIONS
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
31
a WBS and establishing the key relationships between scope, schedule, costs and
the management of these (IAPPM, 2006; DOE, 2011c, 2011d; Tenrox, 2012).
Figure 10: PB Components
1.8.2. PB Development
Other key element related to the assessment of the PB maturity is to determine
which are the stages where the PB development processes take place. Thus, it
would be possible to assess which are the core components affecting to its
robustness.
Figure 11: PB Maturity-Building Process (1)
In this regard, the main project management associations state that the PB is
established in the project plan (PP), and that it will be periodically updated through
change management processes (APM, 2006; PMI, 2008; IPMA, 2008). Thereby,
taking as a reference the APM PLC model (APM, 2010), the Mobilisation phase is
recognised to be the project stage when the project will be definitely baselined (PB
is frozen), previously to the implementation phase where PB will be utilised for
monitoring and controlling the project (See Figures 12 and 13).
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
32
Figure 12: APM PLC Models
Source: APM, “Introduction to Project Control” (2010)
However, PB Development is not a process focused on a concrete project stage, but
a continuous and iterative process throughout the PLC which begins at the earliest
phases of it. In this regard, the PB matures as more data and analysis provide more
detailed definition and level of detail. (DOE, 2011c; Alleman, 2012)
Figure 13: PB Progress (Source: Author)
FIN
AL
DA
TA
S
ET
S
BU
SIN
ES
S
CA
SE
PM
P
PB
F
RO
ZE
N
PB
MA
TU
RIT
Y
ST
RA
TE
GIC
B
C
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
33
This progress of the PB across the initial project stages is clearly reflected on the
DOE Performance Baseline Guide (2011), which details the evolution of the different
components of the PB across the PLC (See Table 7).
PB COMPONENT
PROJECT LIFECYCLE PHASES
Initiation Definition Execution Transition/ Closeout
Technical Baseline
Preliminary functions and requirements from pre- conceptual design
Preliminary design requirements baseline
Final design requirements,
configuration baseline
As-built configuration
baseline
Schedule Baseline
Order of magnitude project duration
and forecast need date
Preliminary schedule and milestones
Complete schedule hierarchy
Actual completion date
Cost Baseline Order of magnitude cost
estimate Preliminary cost
estimates Final TPC estimate
Actual project costs
Table 7: PB Progress (Source DOE 2008)
1.8.3. The Front End Loading
The project stages where the PB development takes place are commonly known as
the Front End of the project (Merrow, 2011).
Figure 14: Front End Loading
(Source: Author)
Thereupon, to be able to assess which are the key elements that contribute to the
development of a mature performance baseline, this research project will pay
special attention to the processes undertaken for managing and controlling the
project during this period, as well as to the tools utilised for that purpose.
After analyzing reputed literature sources, it has been noticed that despite this
concept has been known from the earliest days of the project management
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
34
discipline, the FEL remains as an ambiguous concept which is called in a number
different ways depending on the authors, and also on the type of industry (Morris,
2011). Thus, all these names refer to the same o very similar reality:
FEP (Front-end planning)
FEL (Front-end loading)
FEED (Front-end engineering design)
PPP (Pre-project planning)
EPP (Early project planning)
This wide variety of approaches used to reflect the same concept may be indicative
that this concept has not been adequately addressed in the different project
management bodies of knowledge. However, this lack of a clear understanding by
the main project management associations has not affected to his significance in
terms of the utility of adding information during these initial stages when
uncertainty is highest and the project concept is conceived (George, Bell and Back,
2008). Thereby, this utility may be also traduced in terms of decision-maker’s
flexibility and cost of making amendments (Willians, Samset and Sunnevag, 2009).
This is illustrated in Figure 15.
Figure 15: Evolution of Project Uncertainty
(Source: Willians, Samset and Sunnevag 2009)
Regarding this, several studies and literature refers to the FEL as a key element to
improve project performance (Yun, Suk, Dai and Mulva, 2012; Gibson and Bosfield,
2012; CERF, 2004). Thus, inadequate front-end planning has been considered one
of the most significant contract and project management issue identified by the U.S
Department of Energy (DOE, 2008b, 2011d). Moreover, the Construction Industry
Institute (CII) includes this project phase within the key elements to improve
project performance (CII, 2012). Finally, others authors like Kerzner (2009) and
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
35
Willians, Sunnevag and Samset (2009), mention the “quality front end planning” as
a critical success factor for mega projects.
1.8.4. PB Maturity
Researchers have identified in previous studies that PB development will be affected
by several elements: people involved in the development process, baselining
processes, tools and method utilised for project definition (DOE, 2011c; 2011d;
2011e; Flydjer, 2007; Alleman, 2012).
Figure 16: PB Development
In this connection, it is out of discussion that capabilities and experience of people
involved in the early stages of the project will affect to the development of the PB.
Figure 17: PB Maturity-Building Process (2)
Thereby, several studies undertaken by the U.S DOE include the lack of personnel
with the appropriate skills as root cause for not completing the front end planning
to an appropriate level before establishing the performance baseline (DOE, 2011b;
2011d). Also Steven Meier, in a study undertaken in 2008, including more than 30
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
36
US Department of Defence billionaire projects; pointed to inexperience workforce as
a key element for the development of unrealistic baselines which contribute to
generate project failure. In the same way, Flyvbjerg (2007) concluded that some of
the major reasons for inaccuracy of project baseline data in large infrastructure
projects were due to political pressures, overoptimism and cognitive biases.
On the other hand, it has also been found that Baselining Processes are other key
element affecting to the creation and progress of the PB across the PLC.
Accordingly, these iterative processes should define how to build the
technical/scope baseline, the schedule baseline and the cost baseline as well as
reflect the relationships between the different components which constitute the PB
(DOE, 2011c; Alleman, 2012).
Figure 18: PB Maturity-Building Process (3)
In this sense, it has been noted that these processes, despite not being
standardized, have been widely investigated by contractors and have been shared
and adopted informally by project management organizations (DOE, 2011c).
Finally, other factor affecting to the development of the PB is the level of definition
of the project in each one of the project stages. In this sense, Project Definition
tools and methods utilised by project teams during the early stages of the project
will be responsible of the evolution in the definition of the project scope, and
therefore it will affect to the levels of project uncertainty in the different stages
which are directly related to the PB construction.
CO
NT
EX
T
WIT
HIN
PL
C
SCHEDULE
BASELINE
SCOPE
BASELINECOST
BASELINE
KPI
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
37
Figure 19: PB Maturity-Building Process (4)
These tools and methods for project definition are extensively reported in literature
and the may be divided into three main categories: Systems Engineering,
Alternatives Analysis and Front End Planning. (DOE, 2011c)
Figure 20: Project Definition Methods & Tools
It has been observed that abundant research about the significance of these
elements has been undertaken in the last years (Gruhl, 1992; Honour, 2004;
Jergeas, 2008). Thus, several tools for: cost-benefit analysis, lifecycle cost analysis,
benchmarking, functional analysis, gap analysis, requirements definition, etc, have
been created and tailored for being utilised into different industries and type of
projects.
1.8.5. PB Management and Control
The initial conclusion that was extracted after this initial review of the literature is
that there are several elements affecting to the PB, and that the relative
importance of each one in terms of influence over the maturity of the PB is
complicated to measure, due to the high level of interaction and the knock on
effects between all them. Nevertheless, it has been noted that the key element to
ensure a suitable maturity of the PB across the different stages of the PLC is not
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
38
only related to the development of the baseline, and in this sense less attention has
been put on the question of how the management and control frameworks utilised
during these early stages of the project may affect to the PB. In others words, how
can we know that a PB built upon all those tools and methodologies fits for purpose.
Figure 21: PB Maturity-Building Process (5)
In this regard, the answer should be obtained from the analysis of those
management and control models which drive the progress of the PB across the PLC.
Thereby, analysis of the literature shows that traditionally the focus of the main
project management associations and authors has be put on the implementation
phase of the project, and little contribution has been made related to the control
processes during the initial phases of the project (APM, 2010; PMI, 2010; Kerzner,
2009)
However, several public organisms and some private associations have put their
attention on the fact that project delays and cost overruns still remain as frequent
issues affecting dramatically to the major capital investments. (DOE, 2011d; NASA,
2010; ANAO, 2012).In this way, they have contributed to the project management
knowledge through the development of frameworks which allow to improve the
control over the project with special attention to the early stages.
1.8.6. Gate Reviews Models
Literature reviewed indicates that the main control system utilized by most of the
governmental organizations and private corporations during the early stages of the
project is the Gate Reviews framework (APM, 2010; Maylor, 2010; NASA, 2010;
TBS, 2010b).
CHANGE CONTROL
CO
NT
EX
T
WIT
HIN
PL
C
SCHEDULE
BASELINE
SCOPE
BASELINECOST
BASELINE
PEOPLE
INVOLVED
PR
OJE
CT
DE
FIN
ITIO
N
ME
TH
OD
S
BASELININ
G
PROCESSES
KPI
PB MATURITY
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
39
Figure 22: Project Reviews
(Source APM 2010)
These gate reviews mark the end of project phases and their function is to check
that the project is to measure project objectives accomplishment, and determine
whether the project should move to the next stage (APM, 2010).
Figure 23: Gate Review Process
(Source: Cooper 2008)
However this system is far from being a clearly defined framework commonly
accepted by the project management community. In this regard, this concept was
initially conceived by NASA in the 1960s and called Phases Review Process (PRP),
along the years this system has been adopted by other organisms and institutions
and nowadays several versions of the gated process are pillar of the project
management systems utilized by many governments and private organizations
(Maylor, 2010).
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
40
On the other hand, regarding to the control of the progress of the PB in terms of
maturity, these models should allow to assess periodically whether the baseline is
mature enough to be a significant contributor to the decision making processes,
and therefore whether is evolving properly to become the reference during the
implementation phase (Kerzner, 2009; Samset, 2009; HM Treasury, 2011).
Nevertheless, few of them stress on the PB maturity as a factor to be specifically
controlled and consequently it is complicated to assess which is the most suitable
model from a PB maturity contribution perspective. In this regard, next chapter will
continue seeking to clarify these issues.
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
41
1.9. INITIAL METHODOLOGY
This research project is trying to address some of the issues associated to the
progress of the PB across the PLC; concretely it is going to detail the process for
constructing a theoretical framework for managing and controlling the FEL of the
project ensuring a suitable level of maturity of the PB all along the different stages
before implementation phase. For this purpose, initially it will be gathered and
reviewed information related to the topic, and based on the conclusion of this
assessment it will be chosen the methodology and methods that will be used to
carry out the primary research (See Figure 24).
Figure 24: Initial Methodology
(Source: Author)
This Primary Research will follow the structure shown in Figure 25.
Figure 25: Primary Research Structure
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
42
1.10. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Research Ethics involves a wide range of issues that may arise from the research
activities. Thereby, there are many ethical issues to be taken into serious
consideration for the development of a research project. Some of those key issues
include but are not restricted to:
Honesty and integrity
Review/Quality control process
Ethical standards
Authorship
During the elaboration of this document the Robert Gordon university Research
Ethics policy has been the valid reference, for this purpose it has been taken in
account the following RGU procedures (RGU, 2009):
Policies relating to Research and Knowledge Transfer
Research Governance Policy
Research Ethics Policy
Commercialisation Reward Sharing Policy
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
43
CHAPTER 2LITERATURE REVIEW
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
44
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. INTRODUCTION
After the initial literature review (see Chapter 1) which has introduced the problem,
this chapter will focus attention on the assessment of the existing frameworks for
managing and controlling major public investments. In this regard, after an initial
investigation on the main models utilized in Europe, North America and Australia, it
will be undertaken an option appraisal process for selecting which are the most
suitable models for being the basis of this report. After this, a descriptive analysis
of the selected models will be delivered, and afterwards a comparative analysis
between the models will detail their similarities and differences, as well as the main
strengths and weaknesses associated to each model. As a result, an initial
conclusion about which is the best option from a PB maturity perspective will be
obtained and at the same time it will be gathered information about the type of
parameters that could be used to measure the PB maturity in the context of the
primary data collection.
2.2. LITERATURE REVIEW PROCESS
The literature review can be defined as a systematic reading of previously published
and unpublished information relating to the area of investigation.
(Naoum, 2007) This review should describe, summarize, evaluate and clarify this
information, and it should also give a theoretical basis for our research (Boote &
Beile, 2005).
The basic purposes for this literature review are:
Provide a context for the research
Justify the research
Ensure the research has not been done before
Show where the research fits into the existing body of knowledge
Enable the researcher to learn from previous theory on the subject
Illustrate how the subject has been studied previously
Highlight flaws in previous research
Outline gaps in previous research
Show that the work is adding to the understanding and knowledge of the
field
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
45
Help refine, refocus or even change the topic (Boote & Beile, 2005).
Literature search and review will be an early activity for most Research Projects. In
spite of this early start, it is usually necessary to continue searching throughout the
PLC. Thus, it may be considered as an iterative method which utilizes the new
knowledge generated through the literature review to get back and refine the
process improving the final written critical literature review (Saunders, Lewis,
Thornhill and Jenkins, 2003).
Figure 26: Literature Review Process
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
46
2.3. SEARCH PLAN
The literature sources which have been used to develop a good understanding of
the topic and that have provided insight into previous research have been detailed
in Figure 27. Those sources have been divided into three categories based on the
level of detail and accessibility. Thus, primary sources are original materials,
secondary sources provide interpretation and analysis of primary sources, and
tertiary literature sources are designed either to help to locate primary and secondary
literature or to introduce a topic (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009).
Figure 27: Data Sources
(Adapted from Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill 2009)
2.3.1. Search parameters
SEARCH PARAMENTERS
Language of publication: English
Subject area: Project Management, Performance Baseline
Business sector: Public Major Investments
Geographical area: Western Europe, North America, Australia
Publication period: 2007-2012
Literature type: Books, journals, articles, thesis, reports, websites, databases, blogs
Table 8: Search Parameters
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
47
2.3.2. Mapping the literature
The identification of search terms is the most important part of planning the search
for relevant literature (Bell, 2005). Key words are the basic terms that describe the
research questions and the objectives, and will be used to search the tertiary
literature (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009).They can be identified using
several different techniques, thus for this research project a relevance tree has
been constructed to provide a guide to the search process (See Fig 28).
Figure 28: Literature mapping
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
48
2.3.3. Sources of information
Most of the materials utilized for the execution of this research project have been
gathered online from different websites. Table 9 includes some of the most
frequently accessed for obtaining relevant information.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
WEB SITES
PROJECT MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE www.pmi.org
APM www.apm.org.uk
CONTRUCTION www.construction-institute.org
PMI www.pmi.org
IPMA http://www.ipma.ch/
ASAPM http://asapm.org/ P. DEVEL & M. ASSOCIATION http://www.pdma.org/
DATA BASES
EMERALD www.emeraldinsight.com
SCIENCE DIREC www.sciencedirect.com
INTERNATIONAL NEWSSTAND www.newsstand.co.uk
BUSINESS SOURCE PREMIER www.ebscohost.com
ELSEVIER www.elsevier.com
ASCELIBRARY http://ascelibrary.org
DSPACE http://dspace.mit.edu
WILEY ONLINE LIBRARY http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com
TAYLOR FRANCIS ONLINE www.tandfonline.com
IEEE http://ieeexplore.ieee.org
SPRINGERLINK www.springerlink.com
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
JOURNALS
PM NETWORK ONLINE http://www.pmi.org/Knowledge-Center/Publications-PM-Network.aspx
INT. JOURNAL OF PM http://www.journals.elsevier.com/international-journal-of-project-management/
PROJECT MAGAZINE www.projectmagazine.com
PROJECT MANAGER TODAY www.pmtoday.co.uk
PM CONNECT JOURNAL http://www.pm4dev.com/resources/pm-ejournal.html
PROJECTS @ WORK MAGAZINE http://www.projectsatwork.com/ Table 9: Sources of Information
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
49
2.4. FRONT END MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL APPROACHES
The point of departure for this exhaustive literature review will be to analyse the
main perspectives for managing and controlling projects with special attention put
on the Front End control systems. The main objectives of this review will be to
extract the principal features of each model, to compare the most relevant
frameworks and to investigate how different approaches may affect to the maturity
of the PB.
2.4.1. Sources Selection
The first step to undertake this study will be to make a selection of sources based
on several criteria detailed in Table 10. For this purpose it was decided to utilise a
Multi-Weighted Scoring Model (Gray and Larsson, 2008) to calculate the relative
importance of the different public/private organisations and professional
associations which after a detailed search have been pointed as a potential
candidate to be the subject of further research in regard to the topic.
CRITERIA DESCRIPTION WEIGHT
Accessibility The organization allows information to be made available for scrutiny by other researchers.
0.2
Information Quality To have information sufficient to provide results of interest and relevance which can be applied in a general context.
0.15
Time Series Analysis
(database)
Organisations should provide comparative information over time. For the purposes of this research project, retrospective information is preferable to estimates of future costs.
0.1
Sample validity and reliability
The organisations must be able to provide a good sample for obtaining valid and reliable information.
0.1
Applicability It is measured basing on the breath of range of the projects that are managed under each organisation model.
0.2
Illustrative Material availability
The source may be able to provide some illustrative material to assist in understanding potential relationships between then FEL management and controlling frameworks and the PB maturity.
0.1
Alignment Level of alignment with this research project goals, objectives and priorities. 0.1
Capability Capabilities & Professional Standing of the Organisation. 0.05 Table 10: Selection Criteria
In this regard, the different criteria were assessed using a 1 to 10 scale of
suitability, furthermore each one has been weighted taken in account the perceived
relative importance for the decision about the suitability of the organisation for the
purpose of this research project. (See further details about the criteria selection
and weighting process in Appendix 2).
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
50
SELECTION MATRIX
OR
GA
NIS
AT
ION
S
Acc
essi
bili
ty
Info
rmat
ion
Qu
alit
y
Tim
e S
erie
s A
nal
ysis
Sam
ple
val
idit
y an
d r
elia
bili
ty
Ap
plic
abili
ty
Illu
stra
tive
Mat
eria
l ava
ilab
ility
Alig
nm
ent
Cap
abili
ty
WE
IGH
TE
D T
OT
AL
Weight
20% 15% 10% 10% 20% 10% 10% 5%
US Department of Defence 5 8 4 4 6 5 5 5 5,45
MH Treasury (UK) 5 6 5 6 3 7 6 6 5,2
The Office of Government Commerce (UK) 7 7 8 6 7 8 7 7 7,1
UK National Audit Office 6 6 7 6 5 7 6 6 6
MoD Acquisition Operating Framework (UK) 6 5 7 7 5 6 5 7 5,8
The United States Department of the Treasury 6 8 7 5 6 6 6 5 6,25
Government Accountability office (USA) 6 6 5 6 5 5 6 5 5,55
ICEC (International Cost Engineering Council) 5 6 6 7 6 6 7 5 5,95
AACE 5 6 6 5 5 6 6 6 5,5
Norwegian Quality Assurance 7 7 8 7 8 9 7 7 7,5
CII (Construction Industry Institute) 7 8 7 8 6 6 8 8 7,1
U.S Department of Energy (DOE) 9 8 7 8 6 8 8 7 7,65
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 6 6,85
DFA Gateway Review Process (Australia) 8 7 7 6 7 6 7 7 7 Table 11: Selection Matrix
Based on the results reflected in Table 11 it has been decided that the most suitable models that will be utilized for the purpose of this research project will be:
U.S Department of Energy
CII (Construction Industry Institute)
OGC (UK)
DFA (Australia)
TBS (Canada)
Norwegian Quality Assurance Scheme
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
51
2.5. MODELS BRIEF DESCRIPTION
2.5.1. The Royal Norwegian Ministry of Finance QA Scheme
The Norwegian Quality Assurance framework was initially established in year 2000
in order to ensure improved quality at entry of major public projects (€ 60 Million).
This model includes two main gateway reviews undertaken by external consultants
who follow the guidelines provided by the Norwegian government (NTNU, 2012).
Figure 29: Norwegian Quality Assurance Framework
(Source: NTNU 2012)
The analysis involves a throughout review of cost estimates, but it also includes an
assessment of project risks and uncertainties, as well as a review of the contract
type, project organization, etc (NTNU, 2012).
Figure 30: Gateway Reviews (Norwegian QA Framework)
(Source: NTNU 2012)
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
52
The aim of this model is to provide the Government with an independent analysis of
the project before the budget is approved by Parliament. This assessment should
help to justify the final decision regarding the funding of the project, and should be
utilized during implementation as a valid reference for controlling the project
performance (Klakegg, 2012; Klakegg, Williams and Magnussen, 2007).
Figure 31: Norwegian QA Scheme Outline
(Source: Author)
Main features of this model have been reflected in Table 12 below.
NORWEGIAN QUALITY ASSURANCE SCHEME
Process Owner: Norwegian Ministry of Finance
Nº of Gateways: 2
External/Internal Resources External Consultants
Control Basis Control rules established by contract
Review (assessor) roles Agreed in PE Forum
Report Format Standard QA reports defined
Coordination spheres -
Support Organisation None (Research Program)
Decision Makers: Politicians
Characteristic: Simplicity, robustness
Influence: Management of expectation
Authority Mandatory
Review Focus Control of input and methods
Life cycle Front End of the project
Review Aim Cost/risk/value Table 12: Norwegian QA Scheme Features
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
53
(Adapted from Klakegg et al 2008)
2.5.2. OGC Gateway Process (Office of Government Commerce)
This review process emerged in 1999 to cover a necessity of a common process for
the management of programmes and projects at critical stages in the life-cycle. In
this regard, the UK Office of Government Commerce (OGC) developed this
framework, underpinned by several gateway reviews (OGC, 2007).
Figure 32: UK OGC Gateway Process
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
54
(Source: OGC 2007)
This Gateway Process is undertaken by independent reviewers from outside the
project or the programme, who examine the progress and likelihood of successful
delivery.
STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT
DELIVERY STRATEGY OPERATION
OG
C (
UK
) BUSINESS JUSTIFICATION
GATEWAY REVIEW 0
GATEWAY REVIEW 1
DESIGN & BUILD
GATEWAY REVIEW 2
GATEWAY REVIEW 3
DECOMMIS.
GATEWAY REVIEW 4
GATEWAY REVIEW 5
INITIATION CONCEPT DEFINITION MOBILISATION IMPLEMENTATION CLOSEOUT
CONCEPT DEFINITIONIMPLEMENTATION
(Design&Build)HANDOVER&CLOSEOUT
TERMINATION
INITIATION PLANNING
PRELIMINARY PLANNING
DETAILED PLANNING
BASELININGRE-PLANNING
RE-BASELINING
BU
SIN
ES
S
CA
SE
PM
P
PB
F
RO
ZE
N
AP
M
OPERATIONS
PROJECT LIFE CYCLE
EXTENDED PROJECT LIFE CYCLE
PERFORMANCE BASELINE DEVELOPMENT
Initiation Review Concept Review Definition Review Mobilisation Rev. Handover Review Compl.Review Closeout Review
Figure 33: OGC Gateway Model Outline
Main features of this model have been reflected in Table 13 below.
UK OGC
Process Owner: Senior responsible owner
Nº of Gateways: 6 (4 within the Front End)
External/Internal Resources External
Control Basis Review Definitions / Guidelines
Review (assessor) roles Defined in detail
Report Format Standard review report format
Coordination Spheres Centers of Excellence
Support Organisation Permanent administrative organization
Decision Makers: Senior responsible owner
Characteristic: Complex System
Influence: Recommendations
Authority By influence
Review Focus Business Case
Review Aim Value for money Table 13: OGC Gateway Model Features
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
55
2.5.3. DFA Gateway Review Process (Australia)
Reviewing the literature, it can be stated that this model is based on the UK OGC
Gateway methodology; and that was adopted by the Australian Government in
2003.
In the same way that its British relative this model is a project assurance
methodology that involves brief, intensive reviews at up to six key stages of the
PLC. Continuing the parallelism with the OGC model, the reviews are undertaken by
external experienced peer reviewers who focus their analysis on identifying which
areas require corrective action, assessing objectives accomplishment, and providing
validation that the project is ready to progress to the next stage (DFA, 2006;
ANAO, 2012).
CRITICAL GATE
TYPE OF REVIEW FOCUS ON
Gate 0 Business Need Strategic assessment of the business need
Gate 1 Business Case BC robustness
Gate 2 Procurement Strategy Project preparedness to invite proposals
Gate 3 Investment Decision Supplier selection assessment
Gate 4 Readiness for Service Ongoing management assessment
Gate 5 Benefits Realisation Measurement objectives accomplishment Table 14: Gate Reviews Focus
BUSINESS NEEDPROCUREMENT
STRATEGYSOLUTION DELIVERY
DF
A (
Au
stra
lia)
BUSINESS CASE
GATEWAY REVIEW 0
GATEWAY REVIEW 1
COMPETITIVEPROCUR.
GATEWAY REVIEW 2
GATEWAY REVIEW 3
CLOSURE
GATEWAY REVIEW 4
GATEWAY REVIEW 5
CONTRACT MANAGEMENT
INITIATION CONCEPT DEFINITION MOBILISATION IMPLEMENTATION CLOSEOUT
CONCEPT DEFINITIONIMPLEMENTATION
(Design&Build)HANDOVER
&CLOSEOUTTERMINATION
INITIATION PLANNING
PRELIMINARY PLANNING
DETAILED PLANNING
BASELININGRE-PLANNING
RE-BASELINING
BU
SIN
ES
S
CA
SE
PM
P
PB
F
RO
ZE
N
AP
M
OPERATIONS
PROJECT LIFE CYCLE
EXTENDED PROJECT LIFE CYCLE
PERFORMANCE BASELINE DEVELOPMENT
Initiation Review Concept Review Definition Review Mobilisation Rev. Handover Review Compl.Review Closeout Review
Figure 34: DFA Model Outline
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
56
Main features of this model have been reflected in Table 15 below.
DFA GATE REVIEW MODEL
Process Owner: Senior Responsible Official
Nº of Gateways: 6 (3 within the Project Front End)
External/Internal Resources External
Control Basis GAT (Gateway Assessment Tool)
Review (assessor) roles Defined in detail
Report Format Standard review report format
Coordination Spheres Centers of Excellence
Support Organisation Gateway Unit (Dep. Of Finance and Adm.)
Decision Makers: Sponsoring Agency
Characteristic: Complex System
Influence: Recommendations
Authority By influence
Review Focus Business Case
Review Aim Improve on-time and on budget delivery Table 15: DFA Model Features
2.5.4. CII (Construction Industry Institute)
The Construction Industry Institute (CII) has been focused for more than thirty
years on the improvement of key management processes within the construction
and engineering areas (CII, 2011). Thus, it has been found that this organisation
have undertaken over the years several researches related to numerous FEL
aspects such as the phase gated process, team alignment, risk management tools
and other key factors.
Figure 35: Front End Planning Process
(Source: Best Practices Guide CII 2011)
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
57
This model proposes three different stage gates within the FEL of the project (See
Fig 36), which are controlled applying the PDRI. This tool allows project teams to
calculate the completeness of the project scope through a comprehensive scope
definition element checklist (Construction Research Congress, 2012; ASCE, 2012).
Figure 36: CII Model Outline
Main features of this model have been reflected in Table 16 below.
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY INSTITUTE (USA)
Process Owner: Project Sponsor
Nº of Gateways: 3 (both within the Project Front End)
External/Internal Resources Internal
Control Basis PDRI Alignment Thermometer
Review (assessor) roles Defined
Report Format Standard review report format
Coordination Spheres CII Academic Comittee
Support Organisation Review Board
Decision Makers: Sponsoring Company (private)
Characteristic: Score based system (checklist)
Influence: Recommendations
Authority By influence
Review Focus Scope definition, team alignment
Review Aim Risk management Table 16: CII Model Features
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
58
2.5.5. U.S Department of Energy (D.O.E)
The US DOE Critical Decision model is organized by project phases and Critical
Decisions (CD). Thus, five Critical Decisions are considered along the PLC as major
project milestones which establish the mission need, the recommended alternative,
the procurement strategy, the PB, and other essential elements required to ensure
that the project meets its objectives (DOE 2006, 2008b, 2011b).
Figure 37: US DOE CD Stages
The major emphasis of this model is put on the extent of project definition in the
conceptual design phase of the project that includes CD-1(Approval of alternative
selection and cost range). It is considered that by CD-2 (Approval of project
baseline), the project scope definition should be essentially complete.
Figure 38: DOE Model Outline
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
59
Furthermore, it is important to note that the scope of the reviews includes not only
the assessment of the level of project definition but also technological aspects
related to the project, and makes specific emphasis on the control of the PB
progress. In this regard, this model utilises several tools for reviewing the evolution
of the project from both external and internal perspectives. Thus, it can be
highlighted the Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) and the Technology
Readiness Assessment (TRA).
Main features of this model have been reflected on Table 17 below.
US DOE PDRI MODEL
Process Owner: OECM
Nº of Gateways: 5 (3 within the FEL)
External/Internal Resources External and/or Internal
Control Basis PDRI TRA
Review (assessor) roles Defined in detail
Report Format Standard review report format
Coordination Spheres Centre of Excellence
Support Organisation NNSA, EM
Decision Makers: SAE (Secretarial Acquisition Executive)
Characteristic: Multi-purpose assessment
Influence: Management of expectations
Authority Mandatory
Review Focus Technical/Scope, Management, PB
Review Aim Contract and Project Management performance improvement
Table 17: DOE Model Features
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
60
2.5.6. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS)
The review of the literature confirms that this model is based on the United
Kingdom’s OGC Gateway Process and the Province of Ontario’s IT Project
Gateway Review Process, and it has been tailored taking into account the
necessities of the Canadian government. (TBS, 2010)
The full gating model defines seven gates that might logically be present in
every project. Its actual application, however, will depend on each case basing
on size, complexity and risk associated to the project. The seven gates have
been detailed in Table 18.
CRITICAL GATE
TYPE OF REVIEW FOCUS
Gate 1 Strategic assessment and concept
Confirmation of project objectives
Gate 2 Project Approach Confirmation of how objectives will be achieved
Gate 3 Business Case Confirmation of funding and business outcomes
Gate 4 Project Charter/PMP Confirmation of resources, support, and governance
Gate 5 Detailed Project Plan Confirmation of readiness to proceed with
construction
Gate 6 Readiness to deploy Confirmation of readiness to deploy
Gate 7 Post-implementation review Gather lesson learned Table 18: TBS Gate Reviews Focus
Figure 39: TBS Model Outline
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
61
Main features of this model have been reflected in Table 19 below.
TREASURY BOARD OF CANADA SECRETARIAT (TBS)
Process Owner: Chief Information Officer Branch (CIOB) Nº of Gateways: 7 (4 within the FEL)
External/Internal Resources External
Control Basis Review Definitions / Guidelines
Review (assessor) roles Defined in detail
Report Format Standard review report format
Coordination Spheres -
Support Organisation TBS
Decision Makers: Senior responsible owner
Characteristic: Complex System
Influence: Recommendations
Authority By influence
Review Focus Business Case
Review Aim Assess whether the project is valid, viable and properly resourced.
Table 19: TBS Model Features
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
62
2.6. MODELS COMPARISON
The comparison between the different models has been undertaken in an organised
manner starting by comparing the frameworks with clear defined similarities and
continuing the process until covering the whole set of models.
2.6.1. OGC/ TBS/ DFA
It has been found that the UK Gate Review model is the common root for these
models, and consequently these frameworks are quite similar. Despite this, after an
exhaustive review of governmental guides and manuals, several differences have
also been noticed.
Figure 40: Comparison OGC/DFA/TBS
Thereby, it has been identified that there is a clear strategic management
perspective in the UK OGC model. This approach is reflected on the inclusion of an
initial review, located at a programme level, which is aimed to assess the direction
and planned outcomes of the programme (OGC, 2007a). Nevertheless, the
Australian and Canadian approaches, despite taking in account the strategic
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
63
objectives of the project, are not so focused on the programme level and prefer to
concentrate on the project context.
Continuing the analysis of the models, it has been found that the UK OGC
framework was initially developed for being used on procurement projects, and
despite it has evolved to be applied on non-procurement projects, it is clear that
this model still maintains a structure more focused on the procurement lifecycle
than in a traditional PLC (Scottish Government, 2011). The same conclusion may
be applied to the Australian version, also full of references to the procurement and
contract management stages of the project. On the contrary, the Canadian model,
despite being originally created for IT projects, uses a methodology that can be
adapted for a wide range of project types, size and complexity (TBS, 2010b).
Other element which constitutes a clear difference between these models is that
they utilise different assessment tools to decide whether the requirements to move
to the next stage have been accomplished. Thus, the focus of the different models
is oriented to particular objectives defined by each one of the agencies.
2.6.2. DOE / CII
The common feature that clearly relates both frameworks is the utilisation of the
PDRI (DOE, 2010, 2008a, 2008b; CERF, 2004; CII, 2012), initially developed by
the CII and later adapted by the DOE for being used on the type of projects that
they undertake. Furthermore, after reviewing the information obtained regarding to
these models it has been noted that both tend to a quantitative/objective approach
in terms of measurement of the evolution of the project. Thus, not only the PDRI
but others of the tools included within both methods (TRI, Alignment Thermometer)
are based on scored based systems to measure the level of accomplishment of the
established requirements (DOE, 2011a; CII, 2012).
Despite this initial similarity, there are several differences between both models.
Thus, the DOE model is a framework specifically developed for being used in major
public investments; meanwhile the CII model is oriented to the improvement of
performance in private funded mega projects.
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
64
Figure 41: Comparison DOE/CII
Other difference that is easily noticeable is that the gate reviews which are taken in
account from the CII perspective are concentrated on the FEL (Gibson, et al.,
2004); meanwhile, the DOE includes gate reviews or Critical Decisions all along the
PLC. Furthermore regarding the level of detail of both models, it can be concluded
that the DOE model is a more detailed framework where the critical decisions are
underpinned by several internal and external reviews all along the PLC (DOE,
2008a), focusing control on different objectives. Meanwhile, the CII model is more
a set of Best Practices than a real well organized model for managing and
controlling the FEL, thus it is focused on assessing the maturity of the organisation
through a weighted check list which provide a final score indicating the maturity of
the organisation. It has been found several studies undertaken by this organisation
detailing how increasing this score based on the application of best practices affects
positively to the avoiding of project failures (CII, 2012).
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
65
2.6.3. Norway / OGC
For the purpose of this research project, both frameworks have been analysed in a
wide context, trying to identify differences and exploring their strengths and
weaknesses, this have been done based on the review of the information provided
by both organisations in their Best Practices guides, and also on a comparative
study undertaken by Klakegg, Williams and Magnussen in 2007.
Figure 42: Comparison OGC/
The first difference which can be noticed is that the OGC model establishes 6 gate
reviews all along the PLC meanwhile the Norwegians model only apply two.
Furthermore, control over the project starts in the OGC model at a Programme
level, continuing later analysing how it could fit from a strategic point of view;
however the Norwegian approach is more focused initially on analysing the project
concept to decide whether go ahead (Christensen, 2009). Continuing the
comparison of these models, it has been noticed that the OGC model is a non
mandatory procedure which is used as a recommendation however the QA is
mandatory and an element used by politicians to take decision on whether or not
go ahead (HM Treasury, 2011; NTNU, 2012; Klakegg, Williams and Magnussen,
2007).
On the other hand, from a governance perspective, the OGC framework goals are
more explicit, administratively focused, and measured in terms of money. In
Norway, there are more clearly politically anchored goals, but not specifying the
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
66
expected effect of implementation (Klakegg, Williams, Magnussen and Glasspool,
2008).
Finally, in the Norwegian model, the control measures are focused on cost and risk
(moving more toward benefit and value), whereas the U.K. approach is focused on
the business case/value for money (Klakegg, Willians, Magnussen and Glasspool,
2008).
2.6.4. DOE/Norway
It has been noted few similarities between these two models, thus the DOE model
is supported by several tools to measure levels of project definition and technology
evolution across the PLC meanwhile the Norwegian framework is using only guides
to undertake the reviews. Furthermore, the reviews proposed are only external in
the European while include both external/internal in the American.
Figure 43: Comparison DOE/CII
Finally it has also been found differences on the approach utilised by both models,
thus the DOE focus reviews on a wide range of aspects to ensure that no elements
within the technical or managerial areas have been neglected before moving to the
next step, however the Norwegian QA Scheme is only oriented to ensure that
concept and cost estimations have been properly addressed before the important
decisions to be taken.
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
67
2.6.5. Models Comparison Matrix
MODELS ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES LIMITATIONS CONTEXT
DOE
Utilisation of quantitative assessment tools (PDRI; TRA) which should allow to measure and compare relevant data related to the PB progress. Combination of both internal and external reviews allowing a more complete assessment of the project. This model pays specific attention to the PB development across the PLC.
Lack of homogeneity in the processes for managing and controlling projects under this framework (depending on its size, type and complexity) could drive to increase difficulties to generalise the results obtained.
Mainly utilised in programmes containing several projects, which can make difficult to extract relevant conclusions on the PB progress on specific projects within the programme.
Major Public Investments
CII
Utilisation of quantitative assessment tools (PDRI) which should allow to measure and compare relevant data related to the PB progress.
This model is mainly oriented to increasethe probability of success of the project throughout the improvement of the maturity of the organisation.
Mainly focused on the construction industry. Major Private
Investments
OGC
Include a programme level review which could facilitate to measure progress of the PB from the very early stages of the project. Extends the reviews of the project across the PLC which should provide relevant data to measure progress of the PB during the implementation phase.
There are not specific tools to measure thePB progress
The assessment of the accomplishment of the different requirements associated to each one of the gate reviews is based on qualitative criteria. The approach for managing and controlling projects is oriented to a Procurement Life Cycle perspective.
Major Public Investments
DFA
Extends the reviews of the project across the PLC which should provide relevant data to measure progress of the PB during the implementation phase.
There are not specific tools to measure the PB progress.
The assessment of the accomplishment of the different requirements associated to each one of the gate reviews is based on qualitative criteria.
Major Public Investments
TBS
Extends the reviews of the project across the PLC which should provide relevant data to measure progress of the PB during the implementation phase.
There are not specific tools to measure the PB progress.
The assessment of the accomplishment of the different requirements associated to each one of the gate reviews is based on qualitative criteria.
Major Public Investments
Norway
Simplicity of this framework should allow to manage more easily the information related to the progress of the PB.
The model is oriented to improve the decision making processes, but does not pay specific attention to analyse the progress of the PB. There are not specific tools to measure the PB progress.
This model focuses effort only on the FEL of the project (no analysis during execution phase).
Major Public Investments
Table 20: Models Comparison Matrix
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
2.7. LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARY
After reviewing the literature related to the selected models for managing and
controlling the project, it is clear that there are several perspectives to undertake
the control of the PB during the development process which takes place in the front
end of the project. Nonetheless, at the moment of deciding which is the most
suitable model from a PB maturity perspective, or which are the tools and
processes which will drive to the development of a mature baseline, there is not a
clear answer which can be derived from the literature review.
Thus it is true that several studies have been undertaken regarding to the utility of
most of these models (ANAO, 2012; CERF, 2004; Gibson and Bosfield, 2012;
Williams et al., 2012), and reports reflect that these frameworks increase the
probability of success of the projects. However, in the most of the cases the
measurement of the level of utility of these models has been calculated only in
terms of project delays and cost overruns.
However, for the purpose of this research project, those parameters cannot be used
to evaluate how the PB evolves across the PLC under each framework influence,
thus it has to be develop a group of parameters that allow to calculate for each
model, which is the level of PB maturity at each stage gate of the project.
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
69
Figure 44: Conceptual Framework
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
70
CHAPTER 3METHODOLOGY AND METHOD
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
71
3. METHODOLOGY AND METHOD APPROACHES
3.1. INTRODUCTION
This section outlines the methodology used to conduct this research project. For
this purpose it has been undertaken a detailed literature review in relation with the
methodology and methods applicable.
“Research design is an action plan for getting from ‘here’ to ‘there’, where ‘here’
may be defined as the initial set of questions to be answered, and ‘there’ is some
set of conclusion (answers) about these questions. Between ‘here’ and ‘there’ may
be found a number of major steps, including the collection and analysis of relevant
data” (Naoum, 2007)
In this regard, It will be initially defined the philosophy adopted to undertake this
research, subsequently it will be selected the approach underpinning this work, and
after this it will be justified the research strategy adopted, and finally the method
will be detailed.
Figure 45: ResearchPyramid
(Adapted from Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2007)
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
72
3.2. RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY
“The research philosophy you adopt contains important assumptions about the way
in which you view the world. These assumptions will underpin your research
strategy and the methods you choose as part of that strategy”.
(Saunders, Lewis, Thornhill and Jenkins, 2009)
When undertaking a research project, it is important to take in account different
research paradigms and matters of ontology and epistemology. Since these
elements portray perceptions, beliefs, assumptions and the way on what reality is
understood, they can influence the manner in which the research is undertaken.
Hence, it is important to understand and define these concepts to make possible
that approaches congruent to the nature, aim and objectives of this particular
research project are adopted, and to ensure that researcher biases are minimized
(Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Jackson, 2008).
Figure 46: Research Philosophy
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
73
Regarding this, the main research paradigms have been briefly compared in Table
21.
POSITIVISM INTERPRETIVISM PRAGMATISM
ONTOLOGY (Researcher’s view of
reality)
External, objective and independent of
social actors
Socially constructed, subjective
View chosen to best answer research
question EPISTEMOLOGY
(Researcher’s view of what constitutes acceptable
knowledge)
Only observable phenomena / facts
Subjective meanings and social phenomena
Both observable phenomena and
subjective meanings
AXIOLOGY Researcher’s view of the role of values in
research
Value-free / researcher is
independent of process
Value-bound / researcher is part of
process
Values may play a role in interpretation
DATA COLLECTION (Techniques Most often
used)
Highly structured / Quantitative
In-depth / Qualitative Mixed or multiple method designs
RESEARCH APPROACH Deductive Inductive Deductive and Inductive
as appropriate Table 21: Comparison of Research Philosophies
(Adapted from Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2007)
Based on the particular aim and objectives of this research project, it will be
adopted a Positivist position. Accordingly, it is considered that only phenomena
which we can be noticed through our senses can produce the type knowledge that
this project is seeking. In this regard, this position supports the utilization of
experimentation and testing to prove hypotheses (deductive) and then generate
new theory by putting facts together to induce laws or principles (inductive)
(Greener, 2008).
3.3. RESEARCH APPROACHES
Research can be approached in the following ways:
Quantitative/Qualitative
Deductive/Inductive
3.3.1. Quantitative/Qualitative
A quantitative approach to research is usually associated with a deductive approach
to testing theory, often using number or fact and therefore a positivist model. On
the other hand, a qualitative approach is normally related to an inductive approach
to generating theory, often utilizing an interpretivist model (Zhang and Wildemuth,
2009).
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
74
QUANTITATIVE QUALITATIVE
Role of theory in research
Deductive, testing of theory Inductive, generating theory
Ontological orientation
Objectivism – social reality is external
Constructionism (subjectivism) – social phenomenon dependent on the actors
Epistemological orientation
Positivism & Natural science model
Interpretivism – role of social actors
Table 22: Quantitative vs Qualitative
For the purpose of this project research, it has been considered that the most
appropriate position will be the quantitative approach. This perspective will allow
looking at observable objective facts and figures where they might be seen to exist.
However, despite quantitative data will be the basis to obtain the main conclusions,
in some cases, it could be also necessary to take in account the perceptions of
those involved with these “facts” (Greener, 2008).
3.3.2. Deductive/Inductive
Major differences between both approaches have been included in Table 23.
DEDUCTION EMPHASISES INDUCTION EMPHASISES
Scientific principles. Moving from theory to data. The need to explain causal relationships
between variables. The collection of quantitative data The application of controls to ensure
validity of data. The operationalisation of concepts to
ensure clarity of definition. A highly structured approach researcher
independence of what is being researched. The necessity to select samples of
sufficient size in order to generalize conclusions.
Gaining an understanding of the meanings humans attach to events.
A close understanding of the research context.
The collection of qualitative data. A more flexible structure to permit changes
of research emphasis as the research progresses.
A realisation that the researcher is part of the research process.
Less concern with the need to generalise.
Table 23: Deduction vs Induction (Source: Greener 2008)
This research project will be undertaken by combination of both approaches, thus a
deductive approach would be clearly related to the use of quantitative data
meanwhile an inductive one would be linked to the development of a theory as a
result of data analysis (Saunders, Lewis, Thornhill and Jenkins, 2009).
3.4. RESEARCH PURPOSE
A classification of the most commonly utilised research purposes has been included
in Table 24.
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
75
EXPLORATORY DESCRIPTIVE ANALYTICAL PREDICTIVE Exploratory research is undertaken when few or no previous studies exist. The aim is to look for patterns, hypothesis or ideas that can be tested and will form the basis for further research. Typical research techniques would include case studies, observation and review the previous related studies and data.
Descriptive research can be used to identify and classify the elements or characteristics of the subject. Quantitative techniques are often used to collect, analyse and summarise data.
Analytical research often extends the Descriptive approach to suggest or explain why or how something is happening. An important feature of this type of research is in locating and identifying the different factors (or variables) involved.
The aim of the predictive research is to speculate intelligently on future possibilities, based on close analysis of available evidence of cause and effect.
Table 24: Research Purposes (Source: Neville, 2007)
Taking in account the Table 24 this research project can be defined as a
combination of Explanatory and Analytical categories. Thus research project looks
to establish a causal relationship between variables involved and at the same time
the study pretends to clarify why and how this relationship exists (Saunders, Lewis,
Thornhill and Jenkins, 2009).
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
76
3.5. RESEARCH STRATEGY
The set of strategies that have been initially considered to obtain the primary data
of this research project have been detailed in Table 25.
SU
RV
EY
Advantages Surveys are comparatively inexpensive Usually, it has high reliability and is easy to obtain Can be administered from remote locations with large samples
Limitations Highly dependent on people for information Data collected reflects only the questions asked due to its structured format Surveys are inflexible and require the initial study design
QU
ES
TIO
NN
AIR
E
Advantages Questionnaires are more objective than interviews because the responses are
gathered in a uniform and standardized format. It is relatively quick to collect information using questionnaire
Limitations Possibility of generating large amounts of data which can take a long time to
process and analyse.
INT
ER
VIE
W
Advantages
Unstructured Interview: Suitable for project advanced phase as they permit full exploration of ideals
and views providing the researcher with detail understanding of the problem Semi-structured Interviews: It creates a Positive rapport between researcher and respondent It provides a simple, efficient and practical process of getting data about things
that are unobservable All respondent are evaluated and asked the same questions in the same
order, hence making the method time and cost effective. Focus Group Interview: Reasonably easy to assemble and provides inexpensive and flexible form of
data collection Its open recording approach allows participants to confirm their contributions It creates rapport and ensures validity of desired outcomes through direct
interactions between researcher and participants
Limitations
Unstructured Interviews Unstructured interviews requires interviewers to have a rich set of skills The information from the respondent may be huge and too unconnected for
the researcher to analyses Semi-structured Interviews The flexibility of this methods may lessen reliability The data are difficult to analyse and compare Structural Interviews May not provides legitimate and reliable answers It not controlled, it may provide weak understanding into the topic under study Focus Group Interview Research findings may not represent the views and opinion of the larger
sections of the population if right selection of respondent is not made. Requires hard and people management skills to achieve result.
CA
SE
ST
UD
Y
Advantages
Serves as good method for the study uncommon phenomena. The data collected is normally a lot richer and of greater depth than can be
found through other experimental designs. Case studies allow a lot of detail to be collected that would not normally be
easily obtained by other research designs. Case studies can help experimenters adapt ideas and produce novel
hypotheses which can be used for later testing.
Limitations It is difficult to generalize and draw definite cause-effect conclusions. Data collection and interpretation are subject to biases. Insufficient information can lead to inappropriate results
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
77
INT
ER
NE
T R
ES
EA
RC
H
ME
TH
OD
S
Advantages
Provides access to research respondent at distant locations and who are difficult to contact.
It provides ease of having computerized data collection, which increases efficiency and reduces researcher time and effort.
Limitations
Provides greater uncertainty over the legitimacy of data and sampling issues It requires computer skills for the design, implementation, and evaluation of
the survey
OB
SE
RV
AT
ION
Advantages The researcher can observe and record events without necessary relying on
the willingness and ability of participant to the research Reduces or eliminate the biasing effect of interviewers
Limitations
It is often difficult to observe respondents attitudes, motivations, state of mind, and their buying motives and underlying principles.
It also takes time for the investigator to wait for a particular action to take place.
Table 25: Research Strategies (Source: RGU (BSM080) 2012)
It has been considered that several of these methods must be utilised to be able to
obtain relevant results from this research project (See Appendix 7 for a detailed
flow chart of the process). Hence, the basis for the research should be the Case
Studies that will be analysed to measure how PB maturity evolves. However the
way to initially select and then gather information about these Case Studies will be
through questionnaires (See Figures 48 and 49) that will be designed basing on
those parameters that literature review has revealed as directly related to the
maturity of the PB.
Figure 47: Research Strategy
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
78
Figure 48: Case Studies Selection (Preliminary Questionnaire)
Figure 49: Detailed Questionnaire
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
79
Moreover, this information that should be provided initially by the collaborating
organisms (previously contacted and engaged to the project, see Appendix 3 for
further details), could need to be completed with further analysis of key features of
those projects (Case Studies) to ensure the accuracy and validity of data. For this
reason, it is also believed that interviews (unstructured) and additional information
review (See Figure 50) may be also utilised when the complexity of some of the
projects indicates that a closer contact with the organism controlling the
performance of the project is necessary to improve the quality of the results.
Figure 50: Additional Information Gathering
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
80
3.6. SAMPLING AND PILOTING
“A Sample is a segment of the population selected to represent the population as a
whole.”(Dawson, 2002)
The main reason to use sampling is that it is virtually impossible to collect / analyze
all the data available due to constraints on time, money and often access. Thus,
sampling techniques will allow to reduce the amount of data by considering only
data from different sub-groups rather than all possible elements. On the other
hand, the sample should be representative and allow the researcher to make
accurate estimates of the thoughts and behavior of the larger population.
Figure 51: Sample interpretation
3.6.1. Determining Sample Design
Sample design covers all aspects of how the samples in surveys are specified and
selected. The sampling design process may be divided into five steps that are
shown in figure 52. These steps are closely interrelated and relevant to all aspects
of the research (ONS, 2012).
Figure 52: Sampling Design Process
(Adapted from BEE 2012)
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
81
3.6.2. Target Population
This Research Project will target originally projects with an investment level higher
than £15 Millions. The projects included within the research population will be
undertaken in three main Geographical areas: North America, Western Europe and
Australia. The reasons for this pre-selection are mainly that lower size projects are
not usually methodically and rigorously controlled and therefore obtaining relevant
information from their analysis could be challenging. On the other hand, the
preference for some regions (and countries) was due to the accuracy and rigor that
local authorities legislation infers on data provided from public and private
institutions located in those areas. Finally it also has been taken in account for
these decisions previous researches undertaken in similar areas (See Appendix 5
for further details).
3.6.3. Sampling Frame
The sampling frame is essentially the source material from which a sample is
extracted. It is a list of all those within a population who can be sampled, and may
include individuals or organisations (Särndal, Swensson, and Wretman, 2003). In
this case, it has been utilized a weighting system to select the sampling frame for
this project (See point 2.4.1).
3.6.4. Sampling Techniques
Selecting a sampling technique involves several decisions of a broader nature.
Initially, it can be distinguished two main groups of techniques: Probability
techniques and Non-Probability techniques.
Non probability sampling relies on judgment of research team whereas probability
samplings pre-specify every potential sample of given size that could be drawn
from the population (BEE, 2009). List of various non-probability and probability
sampling techniques are shown in Figure 53.
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
82
Figure 53: Sampling Techniques
SA
MP
LIN
G T
EC
HN
IQU
ES
NON PROBABILITY
Convenience Sample is chosen for ease or convenience rather than through random sampling.
Judgmental The researcher uses his/her judgement to select population members who are good prospects for accurate information.
Quota
This sample is chosen to include a certain proportion of particular variables. There is no random sampling stage (the choice of the respondent is up to the interviewer provided the profile/quota is accurate).
Snowball The researcher contacts an initial group of people relevant to the research topic, and then uses this group to contact others for the research.
PROBABILITY
Sample Random
Each element in the population has a known and equal probability of selection
Systematic
The sample is chosen by selecting a random starting point and then picking every ith element in succession from the sampling frame. The sampling interval, i, is determined by dividing the population size N by the sample size n and rounding to the nearest integer
Stratified
A two-step process in which the population is partitioned into subpopulations, or strata. The strata should be mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive in that every population element should be assigned to one and only one stratum and no population elements should be omitted. Next, elements are selected from each stratum by a random procedure, usually SRS.
Cluster
The target population is first divided into mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive subpopulations, or clusters. Then a random sample of clusters is selected, based on a probability sampling technique such as SRS.
Table 26: Sampling Techniques (Adapted from Greener 2008 and BEE 2009)
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
83
Sampling Techniques utilised in this project are both Non-Probability type.
Concretely it was used a “Judgmental” technique to select the sampling frame and
a “Quota” technique to define the Research Project Sample (See point 3.6.6).
Figure 54: Sampling Techniques Utilised
3.6.5. Sample Size
Sample size refers to the number of elements to be included in the study. Sample
size is influenced by the average size of the samples in similar studies. These
sample size have determined based on experience and can serve as rough
guidelines, particularly when non probability techniques are used (BEE, 2009).
Based on the analysis of similar studies (See Appendix 5), and taking also in
account the amount of resources available it has been considered that the sample
size should include between 5 to 10 case studies per each organisation, making a
total of 30-60 case studies that will be selected basing on the criteria that will be
detailed at point 3.6.6 (Table 30).
ORGANISATION Number of
Case Studies
Project Type
CII 5-10 Multiple U.S DOE 5-10 Multiple UK (OGC) 5-10 Multiple TBS (Canada) 5-10 Multiple DFA (Australia) 5-10 Multiple QA Scheme (Norway) 5-10 Multiple
Total 30-60 Multiple Table 27: Sample Size
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
84
3.6.6. Execute the Sampling Process
Execution of the sampling process requires detailed specifications of how the
sampling design decisions with respect to the population, sampling frame, sampling
unit, sampling techniques, and sample size to be implemented (BEE, 2009). In this
regard, a preliminary questionnaire designed to identify key features of the projects
undertaken will be sent to the previously selected organisms that are willing to
collaborate.
PROJECT TYPES
Nu
mb
er o
f p
roje
cts
man
aged
Ave
rag
e P
roje
ct B
ud
get
Ave
rag
e P
roje
ct D
ura
tio
n
Civ
il E
ng
inee
rin
g/C
on
stru
ctio
n/
Pet
roch
emic
al P
roje
cts
Man
ufa
ctu
rin
g/P
rod
uct
d
evel
op
men
t P
roje
cts
Man
agem
ent/
IT P
roje
cts
N Av.
Budget Av. Dur.
N Av.
Budget Av. Dur.
N Av.
Budget Av. Dur.
Org
anis
m
N1 BAv1 DAv1 N11 BAv11 DAv11 N12 BAv12 DAv12 N13 BAv13 DAv13
Additional Questions: Is there any specific procedure to measure the progress of the PB across the PLC of the projects?
If yes, add some details. Which are the parameters that you consider should be measured to determine which is the level of maturity of
the PB? Table 28: Request for Collaboration (Preliminary Questionnaire)
This Preliminary Questionnaire can certainly help in understanding the various
aspects of the collaborating organisations, as well as some relevant information
about the different perspectives from which PB is currently analysed within each
one of them. Hence, some of the conclusions obtained after the assessment of
these data may help to improve the design of the detailed questionnaire which will
be utilized to obtain relevant data from the selected case studies.
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
85
PROJECT TYPESO
RG
AN
ISM
Nu
mb
er o
f p
roje
cts
man
aged
Ave
rag
e P
roje
ct B
ud
get
Ave
rag
e P
roje
ct D
ura
tio
n
Civ
il E
ng
inee
rin
g/C
on
stru
ctio
n/P
etro
chem
ical
Pro
ject
s
(Typ
e 1)
Man
ufa
ctu
rin
g/P
rod
uct
d
evel
op
men
t P
roje
cts
(T
ype
2)
Man
agem
ent/
IT P
roje
cts
(Typ
e 3)
N Av. Budget Av. Dur.
N Av. Budget Av. Dur.
N Av. Budget Av. Dur.
DOE N1 BAv1 DAv1 N11 BAv11 DAv11 N12 BAv12 DAv12 N13 BAv13 DAv13 CII N2 BAv2 DAv2 N21 BAv21 DAv21 N22 BAv22 DAv22 N23 BAv23 DAv23
OGC N3 BAv3 DAv3 N31 BAv31 DAv31 N32 BAv32 DAv32 N33 BAv33 DAv33 Norway N4 BAv4 DAv4 N41 BAv41 DAv41 N42 BAv42 DAv42 N43 BAv43 DAv43
DFA N5 BAv5 DAv5 N51 BAv51 DAv51 N52 BAv52 DAv52 N53 BAv53 DAv53 TBS N6 BAv6 DAv6 N61 BAv61 DAv61 N62 BAv62 DAv62 N63 BAv63 DAv63
Table 29: Preliminary Questionnaire Matrix
On the other hand, the sample size will be designed using these data and taking in
account the criteria that have been detailed in Table 30. Those criteria seek to
create a homogeneous sample which allows to obtain relevant results which help to
build a robust framework for managing and controlling the project.
SAMPLE FEATURES
CRITERIA
Budget Range Lower Limit Min (BAv1, BAv2, BAv3, BAv4,BAv5,BAv6) Upper Limit Max (BAv1, BAv2, BAv3, BAv4,BAv5,BAv6)
Duration Range Lowe Limit Min (DAv1, DAv2, DAv3, DAv4,DAv5,DAv6) Upper Limit Max (DAv1, DAv2, DAv3, DAv4,DAv5,DAv6)
Number of projects range
Type 1 1<NT1<(ΣNi1)/6
5<(NT1+NT2+NT3)<10 Type 2 1<NT2<(ΣNi2)/6
Type 3 1<NT3<(ΣNi3)/6
Table 30: Sampling Process Criteria
Based on the analysis of the preliminary Request for Collaboration, a more detailed
questionnaire will be developed specific to the measurement and comparison of the
different PB components.
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
86
3.6.7. Piloting
A pilot study will be previously undertaken to discover any issue related to the
design of the questionnaires in terms of the degree of clarity and its validity. Two
phases will be conducted for the purpose of testing the reliability, utility, and clarity
of the questionnaires. Firstly, questionnaires design will be critiqued by other
members of the MSc Project Management Course, to obtain valuable feedback and
suggestions. Secondly, the MSc Project Management course leader will be invited to
review the pilot version of the questionnaires.
3.7. QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN
Once the Case Studies have been selected and agreed with the different
organizations, next step will be to gather relevant information about the PB
maturity under the perspective of each one of them. For this purpose, a
Questionnaire with a structure similar to Figure 57, will be sent with instructions
about how to complete it.
Measurement of the progress of the PB will be undertaken taking as reference four
main stages (See Fig 55). Thus, it will be possible to determine which has been the
evolution of the PB across each period.
Figure 55: Measurement Stages
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
87
This measurement will be undertaken for each one of the performance baseline
components (Scope Baseline, Cost Baseline and Schedule Baseline), and in this
regard different parameters may be utilized to reflect the level of maturity having
been considered the percentage of deviation from the final data set as the initially
valid reference.
Figure 56: PB Progress Measurement
Furthermore, to achieve a better homogeneity in the study a complexity index will
be added to weight the value of the results obtained in each case study basing on
the rate of expenditure of the project (See Table 30).
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
88
Figure 57: Questionnaire Parameters Proposal
This is a high level draft including some of the parameters that could be measured
through the questionnaire, but they could change depending on the answers to the
initial Request for Collaboration. The main purpose of this questionnaire is to
calculate the level of maturity (expressed on a percentage over the final data
obtained at the end of each stage) for the technical/cost/schedule baseline at each
stage of the project.
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
89
3.8. IDENTIFY DATA SETS
Tables 31 and 32 reflect the data sets that will be elaborated for each one of the
organizations.
CASE STUDY BASELINE
COMPONENTS
ST
AG
E 1
ST
AG
E 2
ST
AG
E 3
ST
AG
E 4
CO
MP
LE
XIT
Y
OR
GA
NIS
AT
ION
CASE STUDY 1 Cost Baseline CB11 CB12 CB13 CB14
CI1 Schedule Baseline ScB11 ScB12 ScB13 ScB14 Scope Baseline SB11 SB12 SB13 SB14
CASE STUDY 2 Cost Baseline CB21 CB22 CB23 CB24
CI2 Schedule Baseline ScB21 ScB22 ScB23 ScB24 Scope Baseline SB21 SB22 SB23 SB24
CASE STUDY 3 Cost Baseline CB31 CB32 CB33 CB34
CI3 Schedule Baseline ScB21 ScB22 ScB23 ScB24 Scope Baseline SB21 SB22 SB23 SB24
CASE STUDY 4 Cost Baseline CB21 CB22 CB23 CB24
CI4 Schedule Baseline ScB21 ScB22 ScB23 ScB24 Scope Baseline SB21 SB22 SB23 SB24
CASE STUDY 5 Cost Baseline CB21 CB22 CB23 CB24
CI5 Schedule Baseline ScB21 ScB22 ScB23 ScB24 Scope Baseline SB21 SB22 SB23 SB24
CASE STUDY 6 Cost Baseline CB21 CB22 CB23 CB24
CI6 Schedule Baseline ScB21 ScB22 ScB23 ScB24 Scope Baseline SB21 SB22 SB23 SB24
CASE STUDY 7 Cost Baseline CB21 CB22 CB23 CB24
CI7 Schedule Baseline ScB21 ScB22 ScB23 ScB24 Scope Baseline SB21 SB22 SB23 SB24
CASE STUDY 8 Cost Baseline CB21 CB22 CB23 CB24
CI8 Schedule Baseline ScB21 ScB22 ScB23 ScB24 Scope Baseline SB21 SB22 SB23 SB24
CASE STUDY 9 Cost Baseline CB21 CB22 CB23 CB24
CI9 Schedule Baseline ScB21 ScB22 ScB23 ScB24 Scope Baseline SB21 SB22 SB23 SB24
CASE STUDY 10 Cost Baseline CB21 CB22 CB23 CB24
CI10 Schedule Baseline ScB21 ScB22 ScB23 ScB24 Scope Baseline SB21 SB22 SB23 SB24
Table 31: Data Sets
Baseline
Components Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4
ORGANISATION Cost Baseline AvCB1 AvCB2 AvCB3 AvCB4 Schedule Baseline AvScB1 AvScB2 AvScB3 AvScB4 Scope Baseline AvSB1 AvSB2 AvSB3 AvSB4
Table 32: Organisation Results
AvCB1=(ΣCBi1 x CIi)/n AvCB2=(ΣCBi2 x CIi)/n AvCB3=(ΣCBi3 x CIi)/n AvCB4=(ΣCBi4 x CIi)/n
AvScB1=(ΣScBi1 x CIi)/n AvScB2=(ΣScBi2 x CIi)/n AvScB3=(ΣScBi3 x CIi)/n AvScB4=(ΣScBi4 x CIi)/n
AvSB1=(ΣSBi1 x CIi)/n AvSB2=(ΣSBi2 x CIi)/n AvSB3=(ΣSBi3 x CIi)/n AvSB4=(ΣSBi4 x CIi)/n
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
90
Finally the different results obtained after analyzing the different case studies will
be reflected in Table 33. This will allow to compare how the different baseline
components evolve under each management and control perspective along the PLC.
Main conclusions must be obtained analyzing this matrix.
ORGANISMS BASELINE ELEMENTS
ST
AG
E 1
ST
AG
E 2
ST
AG
E 3
ST
AG
E 4
U.S DOE
Cost Baseline AvCBi1 AvCBi2 AvCBi3 AvCBi4
Schedule Baseline AvScBi1 AvScBi2 AvScBi3 AvScBi4 Scope Baseline AvSBi1 AvSBi2 AvSBi3 AvSBi4
CII
Cost Baseline
Schedule Baseline
Scope Baseline
QA Scheme (Norway)
Cost Baseline
Schedule Baseline
Scope Baseline
OGC (UK)
Cost Baseline
Schedule Baseline
Scope Baseline
FDS (Australia)
Cost Baseline
Schedule Baseline
Scope Baseline
TBS (Canada)
Cost Baseline
Schedule Baseline
Scope Baseline Table 33: Comparison Matrix
These values will be assessed, trying to obtain relevant conclusions about how the
different management and control frameworks affect to the progress of the PB
maturity across the PLC.
Figure 58: Gathering Data Sets
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
91
3.9. DATA ANALYSIS APPROACHES
For the purpose of this Research Project it has been considered that the most
appropriate method for data analysis will be the Descriptive statistics.
“Descriptive analyses are frequently used to summarize a study sample prior to
analyzing a study’s primary hypotheses. This provides information about the overall
representativeness of the sample, as well as the information necessary for other
researchers to replicate the study, if they so desire”. (Marczyk, DeMatteo and
Festinger, 2005).
These methods will allow the researcher to describe the data and examine
relationships between variables under observation. The main methods included
within this category have been included in Table 34 below.
DE
SC
RIP
TIV
E S
TA
TIS
TIC
S
Frequency distribution When summarising large amounts of raw data it is often useful to distribute the data into categories or classes and to determine the number of individuals or cases belonging to each category.
Measures of central tendency
When you have a group of data and you wish to find the most typical value for the group, or the score which all other scores are evenly clustered around. These statistics are known as the ‘mean’, the ‘median’ and the ‘mode’.
Measurement of dispersion based on
the mean
This type of analysis can show you the degree by which numerical data tend to spread about an average value and it is called ‘variation’ or ‘dispersion’.
Standard Deviation The standard deviation is another measure of the degree in which the data is spread around the mean.
Table 34: Descriptive Statistic Methods (Source: Naoum 2007)
3.9.1. Analysing Results
There are many options to utilize the Descriptive Statistics methods to analyze the
results; figures below show some examples of how they could be applied.
ORGANISM CONCEPT DEFINITION MOBILISATION IMPLEMENTATION Average
CO
ST
BA
SE
LIN
E
DOE 80,00% 60,00% 37,00% 12,00% 47,25%
OGC 76,00% 62,00% 50,00% 42,00% 57,50%
CII 91,00% 65,00% 40,00% 12,00% 52,00%
TBS 75,00% 45,00% 42,00% 29,00% 47,75%
NORWAY 67,00% 50,00% 40,00% 19,00% 44,00%
AUS 71,00% 45,00% 36,00% 12,00% 41,00%
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
92
Figure 59: Cost Baseline Maturity-Comparative Analysis (1)
Figure 60: Cost Baseline Maturity-Comparative Analysis (2)
Figure 61: Cost Baseline Maturity-Comparative Analysis (3)
0,00%
20,00%
40,00%
60,00%
80,00%
100,00%
CONCEPT DEFINITION MOBILISATION IMPLEMENTATION
DOE OGC CII TBS NORWAY AUS
0,00%
20,00%
40,00%
60,00%
80,00%
100,00%
CONCEPT DEFINITION MOBILISATION IMPLEMENTATION
DOE OGC CII TBS NORWAY AUS
0,00%
10,00%
20,00%
30,00%
40,00%
50,00%
60,00%
AVERAGE
DOE
OGC
CII
TBS
NORWAY
AUS
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
93
3.10. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
It is assumed that this Research Project has several limitations due mainly to the
lack of research experience of the Author as well as the limitation of resources
which has driven to a research process design which is academically oriented more
than business oriented.
Furthermore, from a project research development perspective, the different
criteria utilized to evaluate the suitability of the possible data sources give a huge
importance to the possibility to access to data and to obtain collaboration from
those organisations; however it has not given so much importance to others
possible criteria as the current rate of success of the projects undertaken or other
criteria that also could be considered as relevant.
Other limitation that has been noticed is that the size of the different projects used
as Case Studies could differ enormously affecting to the validity of the results. In
this regard, during the sampling selection it will be tried to minimize those
differences but it cannot be ensured at this point whether or not it will be achieved.
Finally, focusing on the way that PB Maturity will be measured, it is clear that it will
be taken as references the final project cost, duration and requirements to be able
to rank the maturity of the PB at different stages of the project. But, it is well
known that there are several elements affecting to the execution of the project and
those elements may affect severely to the final data sets and therefore our
conclusions about the progress of the PB maturity may be wrong at some point. For
this reason, the primary research has been designed taking in account not only
quantitative data related to each project but also (when the interpretation of results
make it necessary) interviews and further analysis of project information.
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
94
3.11. VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY
“Validity refers to the degree to which a study accurately reflects or assesses the
specific concept that the researcher is attempting to measure. While reliability is
concerned with the accuracy of the actual measuring instrument or procedure,
validity is concerned with the study's success at measuring what the researchers
set out to measure”.(CSU, 2012)
The methodology and the approach proposed for undertaking this research project
seek to increase the level of validity and reliability of the work and consequently
that the research can achieve its desired objectives. In this regard, it is considered
that there are several perspectives that can be taken in relation with the PB
maturity, but it is believed that assessing which is the relation with the
management and control tools utilised during the early stages of the project is a
valid proposal that can provide significant results.
Furthermore, the approach undertaken to build the sample is also oriented to make
the results generalizable and transferable, thus several type of projects and
industries will be included within the range of data sources that have been
considered for this project.
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
95
CHAPTER 4CONCLUSIONS&RECOMMENDATIONS
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
96
4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATIONS
4.1. CONCLUSIONS
After finishing the three initial stages of this research project and previously to the
undertaken of the primary research, it has been extracted several conclusions in
relation to the level of accomplishment of the initial objectives. Thus, this chapter
will be a review assessing the validity of the proposal and its initial achievements.
4.1.1. Research Project Development
This Research Project has suffered several and significant changes from the initial
research topic idea to the final proposal. Thus, the initial topic which was
considered as an interesting research area was the Earned Value Management
(EVM) concept and its real utility within the project context; however it was
discovered (after an initial review of related information) that this was an over-
analysed area. After this, the Cost Control processes were the focus of attention
and new gathering and analysis of literature showed that this topic was too broad
to become a realizable research proposal. Finally, after receiving appropriate
support from the Research Project supervisor, it was decided to focus research on
PB maturity.
Nevertheless this is also an enormous research area, and consequently, after a
deeper analysis of the literature, the original aim and objectives suffered several
changes (See Appendix 4 further details about the main changes). Thus, the initial
research tasks were focused on the proper development of the PB to ensure it was
mature enough from a baseline development perspective. However, during the
exhaustive literature review undertaken during the elaboration of Chapter 2, it was
clear that the managing and control processes were located in an upper perspective
and therefore would be the most appropriate target to focus this research.
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
97
4.1.2. Research Project Review/Findings
Several significant findings have been obtained in relation to the initial research
questions derived from the Problem Statement:
PB Maturity Level suitability across PLC
It is clear after the work undertaken, that PB maturity level must be appropriate to
each stage of the project. Thus, it can be concluded that the maturity level will be
related to PB control and development processes and equally to the level of project
expenditure. For those reasons PB maturity must be related to the complexity, size
and type of the project to avoid waste of resources.
Parameters that can be measured in order to calculate the level of maturity
After the analysis of several, sources some of these elements have been captured
and included within the questionnaire which be part of the primary research.
Despite this, the author also envisages the possibility of including open questions
within the initial Request for Collaboration to assess which is the opinion of the
different organizations about this issue. Thus, it could be improved the quality of
the results, basing on the experience of public and private organizations previous
experiences.
How to minimize PB maturity deviations
Deviations between the PB all along the PLC are normal as far as PB Development
is an iterative process. However, it is also clear that despite initial cost schedule
and scope baseline are going to include a high percentage of undistributed
uncertainties, and effective control of the progress of the PB maturity should
contribute to minimize the difference between the PB across the PLC.
Accuracy data and decision making processes
The accuracy of the data that are used for taking the decision on whether the
project must move to the next stage are related to the level of uncertainty
surrounding to the project and in this sense management and control systems
should collaborate to reduce uncertainty assessing the level of project definition, as
well as minimizing the effects
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
98
Processes and tools that can help us to improve the PB maturity
After the critical evaluation of related information, it is clear that there are different
perspectives to achieve a suitable PB maturity, and that comparison between the
main models for managing and controlling projects should help to obtain relevant
conclusions and to be able to outline the main processes and tools that should be
part of the theoretical framework underpinning the PB maturity.
4.2. LESSONS LEARNED
After the development of this Research Project, it has been noticed that several
aspect should be improved for future works. In this regard, a clear understanding
of the research process is necessary from the early stages of the project. Thus, the
author recognizes that the initial lack of knowledge about the different processes
has affected to the development of the project in form of continuous re-work and
changes affecting to the final quality of the work. On the other hand, storage and
organisation of the information is also essential, and for future works it has been
decided to use a specifically designed data base for improving the management of
the information gathered.
Finally, this project has contributed to an improvement on the information search
skills as well as on the written communication skills.
4.3. RECOMMENDATIONS
The PB Maturity needs to be studied in a variety of project contexts to add more
validity to the topic area.
It is necessary a deeper understanding of some of the models to be able to
design a comparative process that allows obtaining more robust results.
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
99
CHAPTER 5REFERENCES
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
100
5. REFERENCES
1. ALLEMAN, G. (2012). Establishing the Performance Measurement baseline
(PMB). Available:
http://www.projectmanager.org/pdfarchives/pdd_2012/PerformanceMeasureme
ntBaseline_Glen-Alleman.pdf. Last accessed 20th July 2012.
2. ANAO (Australian National Audit Office) (2012). Gate Reviews for Defense
Capital Acquisition Projects. Canberra: ANAO.
3. APM (2006). Body of Knowledge. Buckinghamshire (UK): APM.
4. APM (2008). Introduction to Project Planning. Buckinghamshire (UK): APM.
5. APM (2010). Introduction to Project Control. Buckinghamshire (UK): APM.
6. BEE (Bureau of Energy Efficiency). (2009). Research Techniques. Available:
http://bee-dsm.in/Tools_1.aspx. Last accessed 19th July 2012.
7. BELL, J (2005). Doing your research project. Berkshire (England): McGraw-Hill
International.
8. BOOTE, D. N., & BEILE, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the
centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation.
Educational Researcher. 34 (6), 3-15.
9. CERF (Civil Engineering Research Foundation) (2004). Independent Research
Assessment of Project Management Factors Affecting Department of Energy
Project Success. USA: Civil Engineering Research Foundation.
10.CHAPMAN, C., & WARD, S. (2003). Project Risk Management: Processes,
Techniques and Insights-2nd edition. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
11.CHRISTENSEN, T (2009). The Norwegian Front-End Governance Regime of
Major Public Projects– a Theoretically Based Analysis. Trondheim: Concept-
programmet.
12.CII (Construction Industry Institute). (2012). CII Best Practices Guide:
Improving Project Performance. United States of America: Construction Industry
Institute.
13.CLEMENTS, J. and GIDO, J., 2009.Effective Project Management. 5th ed.
Canada: South-Western Cengage Learning
14.COOPER, D. F., GREY, S., RAYMOND, G., & WALKER, P. (2008). Project Risk
Management Guidelines: Managing risk in large projects and complex
procurements. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
101
15.COOPER, R. (2008). Perspective: The stage-gates idea to launch process
update, What’s new, and nexgen systems. Journal of Production Innovation
Management. 25 (1), 213-232.
16.CSU (Colorado State University). (2012). Writing Guide: Reliability and Validity.
Available: http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/research/relval/index.cfm. Last
accessed 12th July 2012.
17.DAWSON, C (2002). Practical Research Methods. New Delhi: UBS Publishers
Distributors.
18.DFA (Department of Finance and Administration). (2006). Guidance on The
Gateway Review Process. Canberra: Department of Finance and Administration.
19.DOE (U.S Department of Energy). (2006). Program and Project Management for
the Acquisition of Capital Assets. Washington, D.C.: Office of Management.
20.DOE (U.S Department of Energy). (2008a). Project Review Guide for Capital
Asset Projects. Washington, D.C.: Office of Management.
21.DOE (U.S Department of Energy). (2008b). Quality Assurance Guide for Project
Management. Washington, D.C.: Office of Management.
22.DOE (U.S Department of Energy). (2010). Project Definition Rating Index Guide
for Traditional Nuclear and Non Nuclear Construction Projects. Washington,
D.C.: Office of Management.
23.DOE (U.S Department of Energy). (2011a). Technology Readiness Assessment
Guide. Washington, D.C.: Office of Management.
24.DOE (U.S Department of Energy). (2011b). Cost Review and Estimate (ICR-ICE)
Standard Operating Procedures. Washington, D.C.: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
(DOE).
25.DOE (U.S Department of Energy). (2011c). Performance Baseline Guide.
Washington, D.C.: Office of Management.
26.DOE (U.S Department of Energy). (2011d). ROOT Cause Analysis and Corrective
Action Plan Closure Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.
27.DOE (U.S Department of Energy). (2011e). Performance Baseline Development
and Validation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.
28.DUNOVIC, I. (2010). A study of project governance frameworks for large
infrastructure projects with reflection on road transport projects. Organization,
technology and management in construction. 2 (1), 145-155.
29.EASTERBY-SMITH, THORPE and JACKSON (2008). Management Research. 3rd
ed. London (UK): SAGE Publications Ltd.
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
102
30.FLYVBJERG, B. (2007). How Optimism Bias and Strategic Misrepresentation
Undermine Implementation. Available:
http://www.concept.ntnu.no/Publikasjoner/Rapportserie/Rapport%2017%20kapi
ttelvis/Concept%2017-
3%20Optimism%20Bias%20and%20Strategic%20Misrepresentation.pdf. Last
accessed 1st August 2012.
31.FORSBERG, K., MOOZ, H., and COTTERMAN, H. (2005). Visualizing project
management. 3rd ed. Canada: John Wiley & Sons.
32.GEORGE, R., BELL, L., and BACK, W. (2008). ”Critical Activities in the Front-End
Planning Process.” J. Manage. Eng., 24(2), 66–74.
33.GIBSON, E., BOSFIELD, R. (2012). Common Barriers to Effective Front-End
Planning of Capital Projects. Available:
http://rebar.ecn.purdue.edu/crc2012/papers/pdfs/-131.pdf. Last accessed 2nd
Aug 2012.
34.GIBSON, HOOVER, FISH, HERRINGTON, ALBRECHT and TALIB. (2004). Project
Definition Rating Index (PDRI) Revisited. Available:
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=project+definition+rating+index+re
visited&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fco
nstruction-institute.org%2Fscriptcontent%2Fac2004slides%2Fgi. Last accessed
1st June 2012.
35.GRAY/LARSSON (2008). Project Management the managerial process. 4th ed.
Singapore: Mc Graw-Hill.
36.GREENER, S (2008). BUSINESS RESEARCH METHODS. UK: Ventus Publishing
ApS.
37.HM TREASURY (2011). Major Project Approval and Assurance Guidance.
London(UK): HM TREASURY.
38.HONOUR, E. (2004). Understanding the Value of Systems Engineering.
Available: http://www.incose.org/secoe/0103/ValueSE-INCOSE04.pdf. Last
accessed 2nd July 2012.
39.IAPPM (International Association of Project and Program Management). (2006).
A Guide to the Project & Program Management Body of Knowledge. USA: IAPPM.
40.IPMA (International Project Management Association) (2008). IPMA Competence
Baseline. The Netherlands: IPMA.
41.JERGEAS, G. (2008). Analysis of the Front-End Loading of Alberta Mega Oil
Sands Projects. Project Management Journal. 39 (4), 95-104.
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
103
42.KERZNER, .H, 2009. Project Management: A Systems Approach To Planning,
Scheduling, and Controlling. 10th ed. Hoboken New Jersey: John Wiley and
Sons, Inc.
43.KLAKEGG, O.J. (2012). Project assessments and decision gates as governance
tools. Available: https://aupri.athabascau.ca/node/309. Last accessed 25th July
2012.
44.KLAKEGG, WILLIAMS and MAGNUSSEN (2007). Design of Innovative
Governance Frameworks for Major Public Investment Projects; A Comparative
Study of Governance Frameworks in UK and Norway. Norway: IRNOP VIII
Project Research Conference.
45.KLAKEGG, WILLIAMS, MAGNUSSEN and GLASSPOOL. (2008). Governance
Frameworks for Public Project Development and Estimation. Project
Management Journal. 39 (Supplement), 27–42.
46.KOTHARI, C. (2004). Research methodology (Methods and Techniques). New
Delhi: New Age International Publishers.
47.LESTER, A (2006). Project Management Planning and Control. 5th ed. London:
Elsevier Science & Technology Books.
48.LOEDRE, O., OLSSON, N., TORP, O., HANSEN, O. and SAMSET, K. (2003).
Managing the Front-End of projects –A Bibliographical Guide. Available:
http://www.concept.ntnu.no/attachments/058_2003_laerde_frontend_manage
ment_of_projects_bibliographical_guide.pdf. Last accessed 6th Aug 2012.
49.MARCZYK, DEMATTEO and FESTINGER (2005). Essentials of Research Design
and Methodology. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
50.MAYLOR, H (2010). Project Management. 4th ed. Essex (England): Financial
Times Prentice Hall.
51.MEIER, S.R. (2009). Causal Inferences on the Cost Overruns and Schedule
Delays of Large-Scale U.S. Federal Defense and Intelligence Acquisition
Programs. Project Management Journal. 41 (1), 28-39.
52.MERROW, E (2011). Industrial Megaprojects. USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
53.MORRIS, P. (2011). Managing the Front-End: Back to the beginning. Project
Perspectives (IPMA). XXXIII (1), 4-8.
54.NAOUM, S.G (2007). Dissertation Research & Writing for Construction Students.
2nd ed. Oxford, UK: ELSEVIER.
55.NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) (2010). Nasa Space
Flight Program and Project Management Requirements. USA: NODIS.
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
104
56.NCDSV (National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence). (2011). Examples of
Data Collection Methods. Available:
http://www.ncdsv.org/images/Siebold_ExamplesOfDataCollectionMethods_updat
ed_11-7-2011.pdf. Last accessed 12th Aug 2012.
57.NEVILLE, C. (2007). Introduction to Research and Research Methods. Available:
http://www.bradford.ac.uk/management/media/management/els/Introduction-
to-Research-and-Research-Methods.pdf. Last accessed 24th Aug 2012.
58.NTNU. (2012). Ministry of Finance scheme for quality assurance of major public
investments . Available: http://www.concept.ntnu.no/qa-scheme. Last accessed
26th July 2012.
59.OGC (Office of Government Commerce). (2007)-a. OGC Gateway Process.
Review 0: Strategic assessment. London: Office of Government Commerce.
60.OGC (Office of Government Commerce). (2007)-b. OGC Gateway Process.
Review 1: Business Justification. London: Office of Government Commerce.
61.OGC (Office of Government Commerce). (2007)-c. OGC Gateway Process.
Review 2: Delivery Strategy. London: Office of Government Commerce.
62.OGC (Office of Government Commerce). (2007)-d. OGC Gateway Process.
Review 3: Investment Decision. London: Office of Government Commerce.
63.OGC (Office of Government Commerce). (2007)-e. OGC Gateway Process.
Review 4: Readiness for service. London: Office of Government Commerce.
64.OGC (Office of Government Commerce). (2007)-f. OGC Gateway Process.
Review 5: Operational Review and Benefits Realisation. London: Office of
Government Commerce.
65.ONS (Office for National Statistics). (2012). Sample Design and Estimation.
Available: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/general-
methodology/sample-design-and-estimation/index.html. Last accessed 17th July
2012.
66.PALMER, J.,GIBSON, E., BINGHAM, E. (2010). Front End Planning of Railway
Projects. Available: http://www.apta.com/mc/rail/previous/2010/Papers/Front-
End-Planning-of-Railway-Projects.pdf. Last accessed 18th July 2012.
67.PMI (Project Management Institute), (2008). Project Management Body of
Knowledge. 4th Ed. Newton Square, Pa.: Project Management Institute.
68.PMI (Project Management Institute), (2010). A Guide to the Project
Management Body of Knowledge. 4th ed. Pennsylvania (USA): PMI.
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
105
69.RGU (Robert Gordon University). (2009). Research Ethics Policy. Available:
http://www4.rgu.ac.uk/files/Research%20Ethics%20Policy.pdf. Last accessed
18th July 2012.
70.SAMSET, K. (2005). The Royal Norwegian Ministry of Finance Quality Assurance
Scheme for Major Investment Projects. Available:
http://www.chairegp.uqam.ca/upload/files/conferences-
publiques/norwegian_QA_Scheme.pdf. Last accessed 20th Aug 2012.
71.SARNDAL, SWENSSON and WRETMAN (2003). Model Assisted Survey Sampling .
New York: Springer.
72.SAUNDERS, LEWIS, THORNHILL (2009). Research Methods for Business
Students. 5th ed. Essex (England): Pearson Education Limited.
73.SECRETARIAT DU CONSEIL DU TRESOR (QUEBEC) (2010). Framework Policy for
the Governance of Major Public Infrastructure Projects. Canada: SECRETARIAT
DU CONSEIL DU TRESOR (QUEBEC).
74.TBS (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat). (2010a). The Independent
Reviewer’s Handbook. Canada: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.
75.TBS (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat). (2010b). A Guide to Project Gating
for IT-Enabled Projects. Canada: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.
76.TENROX. (2012). Baseline. Available: http://glossary.tenrox.com/Baseline.htm.
Last accessed 23th July 2012.
77.The Scottish Government’s Programme and Project Management Centre of
Expertise. (2011). Gateway Review. Available:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Government/ProgrammeProjectDelivery/Gat
eway-Review. Last accessed 13th July 2012.
78.WILLIAMS, KLAKEGG, WALKER, ANDERSEN, MAGNUSSEN. (2012). Identifying
and Acting on Early Warning Signs in Complex Projects. Project Management
Journal. 43 (2), 37-53.
79.WILLIAMS, T., SAMSET, K. (2010). Issues in Front-End Decision Making on
Projects. Project Management Journal. 41 (2), 38-49.
80.WILLIAMS, T., SUNNEVAG, K. and SAMSET, K (2009). Making Essential Choices
with Scant Information. UK: PALGRAVE MACMILLAN.
81.ZHANG, Y., and WILDEMUTH, B. (2009). Qualitative Analysis of Content.
Available: http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~yanz/Content_analysis.pdf. Last
accessed 9th Aug 2012.
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
106
CHAPTER 6BIBLIOGRAPHY
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
107
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. APM (Association of Project Management), 2011. Directing Change: A guide to
governance of project management. Buckinghamshire: England.
2. BRYDE, D. (2008), Perceptions of the impact of project sponsorship practices on
project success. International Journal of Project Management 26:8, 800–809.
3. CLELAND & R. GAREIS (Eds.), (2006) Global project management handbook:
Planning, organizing and controlling international projects. (2nd Ed.) New York:
McGraw-Hill.
4. CRAWFORD, L. and COOKE-DAVIES, T.J. (2007), Project Governance – The role
and capabilities of the executive sponsor. Paper in proceedings 21st IPMA World
Congress 2007. Cracow.
5. GARLAND, R. (2009). Project Governance: A Practical Guide to Effective Project
Decision Making. London and Philadelphia, Kogan Page Limited.
6. GRAY/LARSON (2008). Project Management (The Managerial Process). 2nd ed.
Singapore: Mc Graw Hill. 45-67.
7. KAUFMANN, D. and KRAAY, A. (2007), Governance Indicators: Where Are We,
Where Should We Be Going? Policy Research Working Paper 4370. The World
Bank, World Bank Institute, Global Governance Group and Development
Research Group – Macroeconomics and Growth Team. Available at
http://web.worldbank.org.
8. KLAKEGG, O. J. (2009). Governance: Recent developments of a “messy”
concept, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NTNU.
9. KLOPPENBORG, T, 2009. Project Management a Contemporary Approach.
Canada: South-Western Cengage Learning
10.LI ZHAI, Y. X., CHAOSHENG CHENG, (2009). “Understanding the value of
project management from a stakeholder’s perspective: Case study of mega-
project management.” Project Management Journal 40(1): 99-109.
11.MATTEN, D. and MOON, J. (2008), ‘Implicit’ and ‘Explicit’ CSR: A conceptual
framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility.
Academy of Management Review 33:2, pp. 404–424.
12.MÜLLER, R. (2009) Project governance. Fundamentals of project management.
Aldershot, UK: Gower Publishing.
13.OAKES, G. (2008) Project reviews, assurance and governance. Aldershot, UK:
Gower Publishing Ltd.
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
108
14.REISS, G., M. ANTHONY, et al. (2006). Gower Handbook of Programme
Management. Hampshire, England, Gower Publishing.
15.REMINGTON, K., & POLLACK, J. (2007) Tools for complex projects. Aldershot:
Gower Publishing.
16.WEAVER, P. (2007). Effective project governance - linking PMI’s standards to
project governance.PMI Global Congress. Hong Kong.
17.WHITTY, S. J. (2010). Project management artefacts and the emotions they
evoke. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 3(1), 22–45.
18.WILLIAMS, T. M. (2007) Post-project reviews to gain effective lessons learned.
Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
109
CHAPTER 7APPENDICES
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
110
7. APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: RESEARCH PROJECT RISK
APPENDIX 2: SELECTION CRITERIA WEIGHTING SYSTEM
APPENDIX 3: INFORMATION ACCESIBILITY
APPENDIX 4: CHANGES LOG
APPENDIX 5: RELATED RESEARCH PROJECTS
APPENDIX 6: GANTT CHART
APPENDIX 7: RESEARCH PROJECT FLOW CHART
APPENDIX 8: DATA SET CAPTURING PROCESS
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
111
7.1. APPENDIX 1: RESEARCH PROJECT RISK
Based on the risk management process flow chart contained on the ISO 31000, the
main tasks involved within the Risk assessment process are:
Risk identification Risk analysis Risk evaluation
Figure 62: Risk Assessment Process
Source: ISO 31000
7.1.1. Identifying Risks
Risk identification reviews the uncertainties associated to the project and lists the
consequent risks (it gives a list of the most significant risks).
RISK IDENTIFICATION TECHNIQUES
Internal interviewing and discussion: Interviews Questionnaires Brainstorming Self-assessment and other facilitated workshops SWOT analysis
External sources: Comparison with other organizations Discussion with peers Benchmarking Risk consultants
Tools, diagnostics and processes: Checklists Flowcharts Scenario Analysis Value chain analysis Business process analysis Systems engineering Process mapping
Table 35: Risk Identification Techniques
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
112
Based on the risks factors associated to the project and using some of the
identification techniques reflected on Table 35, the following risks have been
noticed within the context of this research project:
RISK ID TITLE DESCRIPTION
ID-1 Lack of collaboration Unwillingness of research population to participate in study.
ID-2 IT failure Data loss/corruption.
ID-3 Lack of quality Project going off track and not meeting academic requirements.
ID-4 Cost overruns Funding issues / cost escalations.
ID-5 Analysis issues Research results prove inconclusive.
ID-6 Lack of organization Referencing issues and information overload.
ID-7 Project Delays Not meeting research deadlines.
ID-8 Lack of information Unavailability of literature and related academic resources.
ID-9 Methods failure Inappropriate techniques for data collection.
ID-10 Time People just do not respond in time for you to achieve project done on time.
ID-11 Confidentiality Issues associated to the ensuring of the confidentiality of the information provided by the collaborating organisms.
Table 36: Identified Risks
7.1.2. Risk Analysis
The risk analysis assigns each risk a priority rating, taking into account existing
activities, processes or plans that operate to reduce or control the risk (Cooper,
Grey, Raymond and Walker, 2008).
Figure 63: Risk Analysis
Qualitative analysis is based on nominal or descriptive scales for describing the likelihoods and consequences of risks
Semi-quantitative analysis extends the qualitative analysis process by allocating numerical values to the descriptive scales.
Quantitative analysis uses numerical ratio scales for likelihoods and consequences, rather than descriptive scales.
RISK ANALYSIS
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
SEMI-QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
113
For this report it will be used a Semi-quantitative analysis of the risks (Probability-
Impact matrix).
7.1.3. Probability-Impact Matrix
A probability–impact matrix has been used to determine a P–I score for each risk
event, enabling the events to be prioritised, and to plot the risk events to provide a
graphical representation.
Figure 64: Probability Impact Matrix
Before building the P-I matrix, it was necessary to define the likelihood and impact
rankings. Both scales were constructed based on the tables 37 and 38.
PR
OB
AB
ILIT
Y
0,9 Almost certain
0,7 Likely
0,5 Possible
0,3 Unlikely
0,1 RareTable 37: Probability Scale
Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic
0,05 0,1 0,2 0,4 0,8
IMPACT Table 38: Impact Scale
The P-I matrix is function of Impact and Probability: f(I,P).Different functions can
be used to define the ranking of risk, but for this work it has been used the
simplest option:
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
114
Risk = Impact X Probability.
PR
OB
AB
ILIT
Y 0,9 Almost certain 0,045 0,09 0,18 0,36 0,72
0,7 Likely 0,035 0,07 0,14 0,28 0,56
0,5 Possible 0,025 0,05 0,1 0,2 0,4
0,3 Unlikely 0,015 0,03 0,06 0,12 0,24
0,1 Rare 0,005 0,01 0,02 0,04 0,08
Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic
0,05 0,1 0,2 0,4 0,8
IMPACT
Table 39: P-I Matrix
There is no absolute standard for the scale of risk matrices. The score values can be
modified depending on the risk appetite of the organisation (Chapman, 2003).
Rank Level Score Extreme 0,4-1 High 0,15-0,4 Medium 0,03-015 Low 0-0,03
Table 40: Risk Scale
Based on both the P-I matrix and the risk appetite considerations (see Tables 39
and 40), it has been developed a Prioritisation Matrix to help us to decide whether
or not the risk is regarded as tolerable.
PR
OB
AB
ILIT
Y 0,9 Almost certain 0,045 0,09 0,18 0,36 0,72
0,7 Likely 0,035 0,07 0,14 0,28 0,56
0,5 Possible 0,025 0,05 0,1 0,2 0,4
0,3 Unlikely 0,015 0,03 0,06 0,12 0,24
0,1 Rare 0,005 0,01 0,02 0,04 0,08
Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic
0,05 0,1 0,2 0,4 0,8
IMPACT Table 41: Prioritisation Matrix
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
115
7.1.4. Risk Evaluation
A semi-quantitative analysis using a PIM (Probability Impact matrix) has been
undertaken to assess the importance of the identified risks and develop prioritized
lists of these risks for further analysis or direct mitigation.
RISK ID TITLE QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
Prob. Imp. Overall Risk
ID-1 Lack of collaboration 0,7 0,8 0,56 Catastrophic
ID-2 IT failure 0,3 0,2 0,06 Medium
ID-3 Lack of quality 0,3 0,4 0,12 Medium
ID-4 Cost overruns 0,5 0,05 0,025 Low
ID-5 Analysis issues 0,5 0,05 0,025 Low
ID-6 Lack of organization 0,3 0,1 0,03 Low
ID-7 Project Delays 0,1 0,4 0,04 Medium
ID-8 Lack of information 0,5 0,2 0,1 Medium
ID-9 Methods failure 0,05 0,5 0,025 Low ID-10 Time 0,1 0,4 0,04 Medium ID-11 Confidentiality 0,3 0,4 0,12 Medium
Table 42: Risk Evaluation
PR
OB
AB
ILIT
Y 0,9
Almost certain
0,7 Likely ID-1
0,5 Possible ID-4, ID-5, ID-9 ID-8
0,3 Unlikely ID-6 ID-2 ID-3, ID-11
0,1 Rare ID-7, ID-10
Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic
0,05 0,1 0,2 0,4 0,8
IMPACT Table 43: Risk Evaluation Matrix
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
116
7.1.5. Risk Response Development
After risks have been identified and assessed, different mitigation strategies have
been defined in order to obtain the most appropriate response to the specific event.
(See Table 44)
RISK MITIGATION STRATEGY
Lack of collaboration
Increase level of engagement with key stakeholders to increase commitment and close collaboration.
IT failure Regular backups to minimize the possible affections to the project derived from a failure of the IT support.
Lack of quality Undertake quality control reviews with relevant stakeholders to ensure the final quality of deliverables fits for purpose.
Cost overruns Periodic Cost control assessments to avoid deviations from the original cost baseline.
Analysis issues Undertake peer reviews to ensure that the conclusions extracted from the gathered information are valid and suitable to be included as part of the case studies.
Lack of organization
Develop a plan for the development of the different stages of project. This plan shouldallow a proper control all along the PLC.
Project Delays Establish milestones to measure the evolution of the project and avoid possible delays.
Lack of information
Develop a proper Literature Search Plan that allows an effective search of information covering the most important sources.
Methods failure Ensure methodology selected for searching information is suitable for the purpose of the project.
Time Effective utilisation of Communication Management tools and techniques for improving the transference of information between the researcher and the collaborating organisations.
Confidentiality
Confidentiality involves controls to ensure that security is maintained when data is both at rest (stored) and in use to protect against unauthorized access or disclosure. These controls will include physical access controls, data encryption and management controls to put in place policies to protect against social engineering and other forms of observational disclosure.
Table 44: Mitigation Strategy
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
117
7.2. APPENDIX 2: SELECTION CRITERIA WEIGHTING SYSTEM
For the design of the weighting systems it has been utilized several sources
providing information about the criteria which make a source suitable for research
purposes (See Table 45).
SUITABILITY OF SOURCES-SELECTION CRITERIA
OR
GA
NIS
MS
University of California Berkeley www.lib.berkeley.edu/instruct/guides/evaluation.html
University of Wellintong (Victoria) www.vuw.ac.nz/staff/alastair_smith/evaln/index.htm
Auburn Montgomery Library http://aumnicat.aum.edu/departments/instruction/general/evaluating.html
Cornell University Library http://olinuris.library.cornell.edu/ref/research/webeval.html
UCLA Library www.library.ucla.edu/libraries/college/thinking-critically-about-world-wide-web-resources
State University of New York http://library.albany.edu/usered/eval/evalweb/
New Mexico State University Library http://lib.nmsu.edu/instruction/evalcrit.html
Johns Hopkins University http://guides.library.jhu.edu/evaluatinginformation
Widener University www.widener.edu/about/campus_resources/wolfgram_library/evaluate/
University of Hawaii www2.hawaii.edu/~nguyen/web/ Table 45: Criteria Sources
The selection of the criteria has been based on the number of organism including it
within the key elements making a source suitable for research purposes. Thus,
criteria that have been considered are only those mentioned at least in 30% of
sources. Furthermore, the weight of the different criteria has been calculated as the
percentage over the total of inclusions for that particular criterion. (See Table 46)
CRITERIA Nº INCLUSIONS (%) WEIGHT
Accessibility 10 0,20408 0.2
Information Quality 7 0,14286 0.15
Time Series Analysis (database) 4 0,08163 0.1
Sample validity and reliability 5 0,10204 0.1
Applicability 10 0,20408 0.2
Illustrative Material availability 5 0,10204 0.1
Alignment 5 0,10204 0.1
Capability 3 0,06122 0.05 Table 46: Weight Calculation
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
118
7.3. APPENDIX 3: INFORMATION ACCESIBILITY
ORGANISM GENERAL INFORMATION DATA ACCESIBILITY INFORMATION COMMENTS AND FURTHER INFORMATION
DOE (USA)
http://energy.gov/mission
http://foiaportal.energy.gov/ http://energy.gov/management/office-
management/operational-management/freedom-information-act
“The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a law that gives a person the right to obtain federal agency records unless the records (or parts of the records) are protected from disclosure by any of the nine exemptions contained in the law”. http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/maprod/documents/Wha_is_th
e_FOIA.pdf http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/maprod/documents/Handbook
QA SCHEME(Norway)
http://www.concept.ntnu.no/english
http://www.concept.ntnu.no/about-the-programme/for-researchers
“The Concept Programme conducts research to further the understanding of large projects in general and public investment projects in particular. In this regard, they aim to expand their network of researchers and research communities in Norway and internationally. So they invite all research communities to contribute new ideas and proposals for sub-studies that may be included in the Concept portfolio”.
OGC (UK)
http://www.ogc.gov.uk/ http://www.cabinetoffice.g
ov.uk/
http://data.gov.uk/ http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/content
/cabinet-office http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/content
/major-projects-authority
“The UK OGC has always been committed to transparency over government major projects. Thus, requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 can be done by contacting the Cabinet Office FOI team”.
DFA (Australia)
http://www.finance.gov.au/gateway/
http://www.finance.gov.au/foi/index.html
“The broad objective of the Freedom of Information Act (FOI Act) is to give the Australian community access to information held by the Government of the Commonwealth. In order to do this, individuals can submit a request to a Department for access to documents the department holds and obtain copies of those documents”.
TBS (Canada)
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/itp-pti/pog-spg/pgo-gsp-eng.asp
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/tbs-sct/common/trans-eng.asp
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/report/Acc&priv/11-12/ati-aiprp-eng.pdf
“Reports of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat are accessible under request and further approval by the President of the Treasury Board”.
CII https://www.construction-
institute.org/scriptcontent/index.cfm
https://www.construction-institute.org/research/res-RFQ.cfm?section=aca
“Research Proposals are accepted from any faculty member holding a doctoral degree from an accredited university”.
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
119
7.4. APPENDIX 4: CHANGES LOG
ID Request
Day Change Requested
By Change Description
Impact Level
Change Reviewed By
Change Approved By
Review Date
Approval Date
1 06/05/2012 L. Supramaniam Research Area Selection Medium M. Suarez L. Supramaniam 15/05/2012 22/05/2012
2 01/06/2012 L. Supramaniam Research Area Selection Medium M. Suarez L. Supramaniam 04/06/2012 08/06/2012
3 15/06/2012 M. Suarez Research Area Selection Medium L. Supramaniam L. Supramaniam 20/06/2012 20/06/2012
4 24/06/2012 L. Supramaniam Problem Statement (Draft 1) Low M. Suarez L. Supramaniam 25/06/2012 28/06/2012
5 01/07/2012 M. Suarez Problem Statement (Draft 2) Medium L. Supramaniam L. Supramaniam 02/07/2012 02/07/2012
6 12/07/2012 L. Supramaniam Problem Statement (Draft 3) High M. Suarez L. Supramaniam 13/07/2012 16/07/2012
7 23/07/2012 L. Supramaniam Chapter 1 (Draft 1) Medium M. Suarez L. Supramaniam 25/07/2012 29/07/2012
8 31/07/2012 M. Suarez Chapter 1 (Draft 2) Low L. Supramaniam L. Supramaniam 02/08/2012 02/08/2012
9 08/08/2012 L. Supramaniam Chapter 2 (Draft 1) Medium M. Suarez L. Supramaniam 09/08/2012 11/08/2012
10 14/08/2012 L. Supramaniam Chapter 2 (Draft 2) High M. Suarez L. Supramaniam 15/08/2012 17/08/2012
11 18/08/2012 M. Suarez Chapter 2 (Draft 3) Low L. Supramaniam L. Supramaniam 19/08/2012 19/08/2012
12 21/08/2012 L. Supramaniam Chapter 3 (Draft 1) Medium M. Suarez L. Supramaniam 24/08/2012 26/08/2012
13 30/08/2012 M. Suarez Chapter 3 (Draft 2) Low L. Supramaniam L. Supramaniam 02/09/2012 04/09/2012
14 08/09/2012 L. Supramaniam Chapter 4 (Draft 1) Low M. Suarez L. Supramaniam 11/09/2012 13/09/2012
15 15/09/2012 M. Suarez Appendix 4 Low L. Supramaniam L. Supramaniam 17/09/2012 17/09/2012 Table 47: Changes Log
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
120
7.5. APPENDIX 5: RELATED RESEARCH PROJECTS
RESEARCH TITLE AUTHOR(S) SAMPLE
SIZE PRIMARY DATA
COLLECTION METHOD COMMENTS DATE
Causal Inferences on the Cost Overruns and
Schedule Delays of Large-Scale U.S.
Federal Defense and Intelligence Acquisition
Programs
Steven R. Meier 95 Programs ($42 billions)
Questionnaires Interviews
“This study was undertaken to understand why cost overruns and schedule delays have occurred and continue to occur on large-scale U.S. Department of Defense and intelligence community programs”. “Analysis of data from this study infers the causes of cost overruns and schedule slips on large-scale U.S. federal defense and intelligence acquisition programs to ineffective human resources policies and practices, consolidation of the aerospace industry, and too many stakeholders”. (Meier, 2009)
2008
Best Project Management and
Systems Engineering Practices in the
Preacquisition Phase for Federal Intelligence and
Defense Agencies
Steven R. Meier 30 Acquisition
Programs
Questionnaires Interviews Information Review
“The analysis of several government defense and intelligence agency large-scale acquisition programs that experienced significant cost and schedule growth shows that several critical factors need to be addressed in the preacquisition phase of the acquisition cycle. These include overzealous advocacy, technology readiness levels, life-cycle cost, schedule details, requirements maturity, acquisition and contract strategy, program office personnel tenure and experience, risk management, systems engineering, and trade studies”.
2006
Attributes of Independent Project
Reviews in NASA Brian J. Sauser 4 Projects Case Study
“To begin to understand some prospective success characteristics of project reviews within NASA and potentially across engineering management, a qualitative case study methodology was used with four NASA projects to identify key attributes of independent project reviews. These attributes were identified in relation to categories of reviewer, reviewee, and the review type”. (Sauser, 2006)
2006
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
121
RESEARCH TITLE AUTHOR(S) SAMPLE
SIZE PRIMARY DATA
COLLECTION METHOD COMMENTS DATE
Building project scope definition using project definition rating index
Chung-Suk Cho G. Edward Gibson Jr
Over 50 Projects Interviews Case Studies
“A research team constituted by the Construction Industry Institute (CII) has developed the Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) to address scope definition in the building sector. The PDRI validation procedure, involving over 50 projects, will be discussed. A description of the potential uses of the PDRI and a summary of its benefits to the building construction industry will be outlined”. (Cho andGibson, 2001)
2001
Optimism in Early Conceptual Designs and
Its Effect on Cost and Schedule Growth: An
Update
Robert E. Bitten Claude W. Freaner Debra L. Emmons,
20 NASA missions
Case Studies Information Review and
Analysis
“This research shows examples of the design evolution, and associated cost and schedule growth, for twenty historical NASA missions. Issues behind the cost and schedule growth of missions are varied, but in part may be attributed to systems that have changed substantially from those examined at initial concept through to launch. Historical resource growth is investigated for a variety of missions and mission types to provide guidelines and lessons learned to be used during the initial conceptual design stage for future missions. The data developed for the research should help both project managers and cost and schedule estimators to develop more robust estimates earlier in the design process”.(Bitten, Freaner and Emmons, 2010)
2010
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
122
RESEARCH TITLE AUTHOR(S) SAMPLE
SIZE PRIMARY DATA
COLLECTION METHOD COMMENTS DATE
The Norwegian Front-End Governance
Regime of Major Public Projects– a
Theoretically Based Analysis
Tom Christensen - Literature Review
“The structure of the report is as follows: First, the quality assurance system will be briefly presented and some of the main questions for analysis and evaluation posed. Second, five different analytical perspectives for analysis will be outlined and related to the quality assurance system. Third, the development of public reforms and political-administrative structures, cultures and practice in recent decades will be outlined in a comparative perspective, and the Norwegian quality assurance system will be discussed in relation to this development. Fourth, a concluding analysis and discussion of the quality assurance system will be made, including outlining strengths and weaknesses and possible improvements”. (Christensen, 2009)
2009
Governance Frameworks for Public Project Development
and Estimation
Ole Jonny Klakegg Terry Williams
Ole M. Magnussen Helene Glasspool
- Literature Review Case Study
“This research investigates how the interface between governance and project management works for public projects. It describes governance frameworks, analyzes embedded governance principles, and discusses the consequences. Based on an initial literature study giving theoretical underpinning, a characterization of frameworks is developed and used to investigate three public-investment-project governance frameworks in Norway and the United Kingdom”. (Klakeg, Willians, Magnussen and Glasspool, 2008)
2008
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
123
RESEARCH TITLE AUTHOR(S) SAMPLE
SIZE PRIMARY DATA
COLLECTION METHOD COMMENTS DATE
Identifying and Acting on Early Warning Signs
in Complex Projects
Terry Williams Ole Jonny Klakegg Derek H. T. Walker
Bjørn Andersen Ole M. Magnussen
8 Case Studies Case Studies Interviews
“Project professionals are not good at detecting or acting on early warning signs (EWS). Barriers that lead to this are identified. The nature of EWS and their detection change with the evolving situation. Project assessments, typically part of gateways, are useful in identifying EWS connected to the formalities of the project. As complexity increases, assessments have more limited use, and the project is increasingly dependent on detecting EWS by informal “gut feeling.” Thus, knowledge, experience, and communication skills are increasingly important in complex situations”.(Williams et al., 2012)
2012
A comparative study of six stage-gate
approaches to product development
Rachel Phillips Kevin Neailey
Trevor Broughton
6 different models
Interviews Case Studies
“This work compares six different companies' stage-gate approaches to the product development process. The six product development stage gate approaches were collated and compared and contrasted against a generic four-staged framework, derived from this research for use as a control. The similarities in approaches were examined and then supporting information on each of the organisations gathered”. (Phillips, Neailey and Broughton, 1999)
1999
Quantification of Front End Planning Input
Parameters in Capital Projects
Sungmin Yun Sung-Joon Suk
Jiukun Dai Stephen P. Mulva
419 Project Questionnaires
“Front end planning (FEP) is recognized by both academia and industry for its potential for improving project success. Despite wide acceptance of its value, the FEP process varies in its implementation throughout the construction industry and from one project to another. This research quantifies several parameters for successful FEP implementation effort in terms of cost, schedule and project management (PM) team size. The paper also examines selected parameters in light of several project characteristics. Analyses show that FEP implementation efforts differ depending on project characteristics such as industry type and project nature, amongst others”. (Yun, Suk; Dai and Mulva, 2012)
2012
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
124
RESEARCH TITLE AUTHOR(S) SAMPLE
SIZE PRIMARY DATA
COLLECTION METHOD COMMENTS DATE
Issues in Front-End Decision Making on
Projects
Terry Williams Knut Samset,
- Literature Review
“The importance of the front-end decision-making phase in projects is being increasingly recognized. This area is underrepresented in the literature, but there are a number of key themes that run throughout, identifying key issues or difficulties during this stage. This literature review looks at some of these themes and includes: the need for alignment between organizational strategy and the project concept; dealing with complexity, in particular the systemicity and interrelatedness within project decisions; consideration of the ambiguity implicit in all major projects; taking into account psychological and political biases within estimation of benefits and costs; consideration of the social geography and politics within decision-making groups; and preparation for the turbulence within the project environment, including the maintenance of strategic alignment”. (Williams and Samset, 2010)
2010
Common Barriers to Effective Front-End Planning of Capital
Projects
Edward Gibson Roberta Bosfield
59 Organizations
Survey
“Effective front-end planning (FEP) has repeatedly been shown in past research to positively affect project outcomes. Members of the Construction Industry Institute (CII) were surveyed to identify barriers to effective front-end project planning. This research describes survey results and gives recommendations to practitioners for improving FEP efficacy in order to improve capital project portfolio”.(Gibson and Bosfield, 2012)
2012
Front End Planning of Railway Projects
Jim Palmer Edward Gibson Evan Bingham
60 projects Workshops
“This research was focused on front end planning of infrastructure projects. This investigation provides an understanding of the critical issues that must be addressed during FEP of infrastructure projects, particularly as applied to rail projects. A new risk management tool for FEP, called the Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) for Infrastructure Projects, will be shown”. (Palmer, Gibson and Bingham, 2008)
2008
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
125
RESEARCH TITLE AUTHOR(S) SAMPLE
SIZE PRIMARY DATA
COLLECTION METHOD COMMENTS DATE
Analysis of the Front-End Loading of Alberta
Mega Oil Sands Projects
George Jergeas
3 mega projects of a total value of $10 billion
(CAD)
Case Study Interviews
“For the purpose of this research, the author considers the case study approach of the qualitative method as more suitable to explore and understand the phenomena of cost and schedule overruns on mega oil sands projects. In addition to studying project documents, the author sought and incorporated the opinion of 87 senior project management professionals— both owner and EPC contractor—who have, or had, responsibility for recent or current major projects, to obtain their insights and to validate the findings of this research work”. (Jergeas, 2008)
2008
Administration of the Gateway Review
Process
Australian National Audit Office
46 projects ($17.6 billions)
Interviews Analysis of key
documentation
“The objective of the audit was to examine the effectiveness of the administration of the Gateway review process by Finance and FMA Act agencies. The audit also examined the extent to which those Gateway reviews that have been conducted have contributed to improvements in the delivery of major projects undertaken by FMA Act agencies”. (ANAO, 2012)
2012
Independent Research Assessment of Project Management Factors
Affecting Department of Energy Project Success
Civil Engineering Research
Foundation 16 projects
Interviews Analysis of key
documentation
“The Civil Engineering Research Foundation (CERF) undertook a project management research study for the US Department of Energy (DOE) beginning in the fall of 2003. CERF was asked to identify key components affecting project performance, to evaluate performance factors, measures, and metrics in relation to their correlation with project success, and to make recommendations with regard to improving performance on different types of projects. The DOE Office of Engineering and Construction Management (OECM) selected 16 projects that were included in the review”. (CERF, 2004)
2004
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
126
7.6. APPENDIX 6: GANTT CHART
Figure 65: Project Gantt Chart
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
127
7.7. APPENDIX 7: RESEARCH PROJECT FLOW CHART
MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
128
7.8. APPENDIX 8: DATA SET CAPTURING PROCESS
Figure 66: Data Set Capturing Process