Early Project Phases – Initial Steps to a new understanding
M. Bleier and J. Heathcote.
Centre for Project Management, School of the Built Environment
Leedsmet University, Leeds, LS2 8AJ
m.bleier@web.de; J.Heathcote@leedsmet.ac.uk
Please cite as: Bleier, M. and Heathcote, J. (2011) Early Project Phases – Initial Steps to a new understanding, Online Journal of Project Management, Reviews, No. 5, 1st Quarter 2011
Abstract
This paper develops primary research data from UK based project management professionals from the construction engineering sector. The data shows that these project professionals see the central barrier to better project outcomes arises from the (poor) quality of the early stage work on the ‘brief’. As this usually represents a period of the project that occurs prior to the appointment of the contractor it often represents ‘decisions made’ that clients are unwilling to revisit. The respondents to the interviews conducted, consequently, believed their earlier involvement (prior to solution selection even) would be desirable.
Examining the development of project management theory this paper suggests that a paradigm change is required to assist the improvement of projects generally. From one of: ‘plan then deliver’ approach, to one closer to that of represented in ‘agile’ methodologies in other industry sectors such as I.T. and manufacturing. All of which see a greater ‘blurring’ of the line between project development (planning) and project delivery (the contract).
The paper considers that the partnering, framework supply agreements and an interest in supply chain management generally in project management, are in themselves moves to attempt to facilitate greater integrated thinking in the development of projects as solutions.
Concluding that a paradigm change (change in perspective) is required in project management, and proposes that the idea of the project manager as a ‘manager’ not ‘maker’ would assist construction engineering project managers, and their clients, in reconsidering the way projects are developed, particularly in the early stages.
Keywords: Project Management; Project Management theory; Early project stages.
Acknowledgements: The authors are grateful for the workshop contributions from previous MSc Baumanagement (Wuerzburg University of Applied Science) students who have influenced the interpretation of the findings.
1. INTRODUCTION
Throughout the development of project management, the ‘front end loading’ of projects has always been considered an important issue for project success.
In construction engineering projects, the brief is the initial document. It should summarise the list of client’s demands and thus serve as a general guideline on the project. According to the RIBA, the brief is “the key document” defining the “vision of the finished building and of how the project will be managed”.
Projects are found to be complex systems that are strongly influenced
by their environments: The fast technical innovation increases the
complexity of projects. Multidisciplinary and international planning
teams are working on project all over the world, international suppliers
and construction companies need to be coordinated. On the client side
multiple- stakeholders need to be identified, coordinated and constantly
informed. Goals need to be clarified, monitored and followed up to be
finally achieved.
These rising dynamics result in increasing planning scopes and collide
with always shorter planning periods. On the other hand it is given that
the requirements as defined in the iron triangle: quality, budget and
schedule, need to be met. Thus, on a first look, it is not a wonder that
projects are found to be failing. And as a matter of fact many projects
are found to be underachieving as evidenced for example at Mark and
Heathcote or in the yearly reports of the Standish group.
On the other hand, projects as a form of organisation already exist for more than 50 years and one could possible assume we should be better than what we are achieving now. But why are they still found to miss their targets? To find answers to these questions, within this paper the interface between the client’s organisation and project organisation will be examined. It is claimed that not only the interface needs to be improved, but the early project phases must be recognized as one unit and be re-thought. In order to research the early project phases and to test this thesis, a questionnaire using the question “what is the trouble with clients?” was conducted among construction engineering professionals. In addition a desktop research on the current paradigms in project management was conducted. Finally a look – out on possible improvements as found in other branches such as IT is presented.
This paper builds on the findings of the primary author’s masters thesis.
2. METHODOLOGY
The aim of this paper is to discuss how: A new thinking about the early planning phases can improve project delivery.
This will be done through the following objectives:
- Describe the current perception of construction projects
- Identifying what contributes to the successful delivery of projects
- Analysing primary research data to reveal where things go wrong in construction projects as perceived by construction professionals
- Identifying new ways of project delivery used in other branches of project management
- Discussing a possible new perception of project management which can increase the success of project delivery.
This paper utilises a literature research on the current understanding of project management practice in construction. In addition and to prove the thesis that the interface between clients and project team needs to be reconsidered, primary research data is analysed. The used data is primary research data, based on a questionnaire conducted by LEEDS METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY, Centre for Project Management. The survey was conducted by using the open question “What is the trouble with clients?” An open question was chosen, since it was considered important to get the widest possible range of answers and to be able to (dis)cover all aspects of possible problems with the clients; whereas a closed questionnaire, e.g. a multiple choice questionnaire would have limited the variation of answers given. Since the results were to be interpreted in a quantitative way as well as in qualitative way, a research method was required that would meet both of these requirements. In the tangible case the data was gained by interviewing experts in the construction industry. The data was gained through a series of interviews with project professionals as incorporated in the Delphi method which will deliver the required quality of information.
3. LITERATURE REVIEW
To investigate the state of the art in PM, in a first step meta- researches in Project Management literature, with a main focus on the International Journal of Project Management and the Project Management Journal were reviewed. This aim of this research is to identify whether the Early Project Phases are considered an important issue in current research.
Kloppenborg and Opfer have examined 3.554 articles, papers and research publications since 1960 to find out about the current state of knowledge on project management. They found that 84 % of (English) literature deals with the triangle of cost, time and quality, while only 5% of the papers deal with the matter of integration and another 8% are on communication aspects. Nevertheless they have spotted that emphasis moved from standardized project management systems and pm software towards risk management and earned value management. As a latest trend topic they found human resource aspects.
Pfetzing and Rohde have, basing on 5700 project reports resulting from 44 studies which the University of Karslruhe has carried out, analysed the main success factors of projects. They found “communication” (19 %) to be the main issue, followed by “definition of goals and targets” (17 %) and “planning” (11 %). Other topics including “top- management” 10 %, “competences of the project manager” (8%) and “controlling” (7 %) were found to be of minor importance. Adding to their findings, Pfetzing and Rohde found that often, even in companies or institutions that regularly carry out projects, “project management standards are missing or not known.” Thus they conclude- inter alia – that the ability to carry out projects can be considered one important success factor for projects.
Kwak and Anbari analysed the evolution and trend of project management research as described in management journals over the last 50 years. They found a ranking of occurrence of eight allied disciplines with Strategy/Portfolio Management being the most important project management research subject, succeeded by operations research/decision sciences and organisational behaviour / HR. Information Technologies and Systems, technology application and performance Management, EVM, Engineering and Construction and Quality Management (listed from the most to the least appearing subject).
Pollock who has focused on researching the academic literature in relation to hard and soft paradigms, found that the current understanding is rather difficult: “The PM literature tends to assume the existence of a pre-existing business plan, with clearly defined goals and constraints[…], clear customer requirements, and goals that can be decomposed”(p.269). In praxis “Goal Clarity has widely been associated with project success”(p.269), but, opposing this, he found as well that “highly detailed or rigid plans have been identified as limiting freedom to make decisions”(p.271) and thus been linked to project failure. He concludes that the focus should be rather on methods than on strictly defined goals. There is an “undercurrent (…) in the literature” (abstract) suggesting a growing acceptance of softer topics. On a more general level it can be concluded that a successful Project Management approach will be problem structuring rather than project solving. Among other findings Pollock especially identified that “involving stakeholders in the goal definition and planning process can encourage shared learning regarding both what the client needs and what the project team is capable of in the present context”(p.271). From this one can derive that a good Project Management approach should rather create a good project environment than being focused on problem solving: “A shaping approach, instead of one based on planning and control, may be more appropriate for complex environments” . This includes that a project should develop rather than be predefined and Yeo consequently identified that the secret of success in PM is learning.
J. R. Turner , Editor of the International Journal of Project Management, has analysed the evolution of project management as evidenced by published papers in the IJPM between 1987 and 2007. He found, in general an increasing number of citations in the text indicating the growing academic interest in this field. Next to self-citations of the IJPM, especially Construction and Construction management literature has been quoted, followed by HRM/OB and Decision Science Topics. Among the upcoming topics he identified Business Studies, Strategy and Marketing; Law topics stayed at constant interest, whereas, accounting and procurement seem to be of minor interest.
He found in total 99 (!) different methodologies used by articles published in IJPM from 1987 until 2007. In total there were 168 topics covered from 1987 to 2007. [This may explain why it is so hard to get it all together!] The top topics in 2007 were “Managing Risk”, “Partnership and Alliances” followed by “Managing Decisions” and “Managing Time”. Concerning the topics in dependence on the related industries, engineering and construction was found to be the most important area over the last 20 years.
Crawford, Pollack and England have been reviewing the project management trends between 1994 -2003 using a Keyword Analysis. They found through synthesis with other previous studies that, “Relationship Management, Resource Management, Time Management, Cost Management and Risk Management all displayed consistent significance throughout the study period. “Project Evaluation and Improvement and Strategic Alignment are both increasing in their significance in the field”.
Some aspects in more detail:
“Goal clarity has widely been associated with project success. The level
of goal definition, how well goals are understood, the efficiency of
project planning, the way goals are established, and achievement of
early and explicit agreement as to how goals will be measured are also
traditionally considered to be key project success factors” . According
to the PMBOK it is “generally accepted” that the knowledge and practices
described are applicable to most projects most of the time and there is
“a widespread consensus about their value and usefulness” . Stable
goals and the importance of the brief are widely promoted as a key
success factor by professional bodies. The RIBA states that “the quality
of the finished building will reflect the quality of the brief” and in
the German AHO it is stated that “from a certain project size on the
tasks in concerns of organisation, technical- economical coordination,
controlling of the cooperation of all participants (planners and
executing firms as well as all others) and the care for quality, cost
and schedule will be of such an extent that a client who is not
especially prepared/furnished in terms of personal and knowledge, will
not be able to carry out these tasks on his own”. According to the
project phases as described in the AHO, (table.1) it is interesting that
there is a preplanning phase [a.n.: literally translated: preparation
phase] that includes 26% of the work (and payment) of the project
managers.
| # | Phase | % of work |
| 1 | Preparation phase | 26 |
| 2 | Planning phase | 21 |
| 3 | Preparation of the construction works | 19 |
| 4 | Construction works phase | 26 |
| 5 | Project completion | 8 |
Table 1: Project Phases according to the AHO
It can be concluded that the approach as described in the AHO underlines the importance of the EARLY Project Phases.
Through the definition of goals uncertainty will be reduced; Certainty and clarity should be created. Thus project management practitioners are considered to start working on predefined goals that are not questioned and project management is considered to be responsible “that things get done (…) to ensure that the predefined goals will be achieved” . “Project management is not concerned with thinking about whether the right things are being done” . This understanding explains why the more strategic disciplines “Value Management” or “whole life costing” have been “emerging somewhat separately from traditional project management concepts”.
On the other hand, “Risk is a consequence of the uncertainty which comes from the continuous changing of given or expected economic conditions.” Hence it can be concluded that a proper risk management process will require the due diligence in the project planning.
Franke, who correlated risk management and project controlling, states that “the main task of project controlling is the reduction of uncertainty and the herewith linked risks for all parameters of the project delivery.” To be able to achieve a proper controlling it is indispensable that goals as the baseline for the controlling processes are clearly defined.
Litke states that “it is necessary to concretise and establish goals in the first project phases” but the practical experience shows that often “this step [a. n. the goal definition phase] is rather unattended and underestimated.” As it is in the nature of the project brief that many decisions have to be taken at an early stage, resp. in the project setup phase, and thus these decisions have to be taken while there is a lack of information or ambiguity on many aspects of the project. Consequently these decisions are taken on basis of assumptions and therefore they are to some extend uncertain. Atkinson, Crawford and Ward found that “the management of uncertainty is seen as a necessary condition for effective project management” and Franke found a “growing uncertainty in the estimation of the expectable economical and technical outcomes that lead to increasing risks for entrepreneurial activities.” Koerner and Klein add another aspect when they state that, according to their experience, it is “the ´people side´ of projects which is a constant driver for a complexity that cannot be dealt with technically.” And, speaking about the general aspects, Turner states that you can guarantee one thing about a plan, namely that it is wrong. The issue is to “recognize and cope with uncertainty” . To cope with the risks resulting from uncertainties and changes, there are two possible approaches, namely 1) Avoiding the uncertainties where possible or 2) Accepting the uncertainties and manage them pro actively. Considering the first option it becomes obvious that it is necessary to diminish uncertainty. Thinking this further, this will require due diligence in the project planning, including the collection of more information and additional time to analyse and interpret the information. Consequently these processes will result in a more detailed planning and information gathering phase at the beginning of the projects, whilst assuming that there will be no later changes. Realistically seen, it seems more likely to find an approach that seeks to manage the inevitable uncertainty directly. This means that the possible range of sources for uncertainties needs to be known and considered. Atkinson et al. pointed out that “the conception stage” and the link to subsequent project life cycle stages are not well understood and that it is “the more strategic issues” that include the most important fundamental sources of uncertainty” . Ballard and Howell found that “complex, quick and uncertain projects cannot be managed in traditional ways”.
4. RESEARCH
With the help of this research identifying sources of failure, in the early project phases, should be further analysed.
4.1. PREFACE
The interviewees were experienced personnel of the following different construction related professions:
- Project Management
- Building Surveyors
- Structural Engineers
- Quantity Surveyors
- Building Services Engineers
- Architects
- Planning Supervisors
The participants were working for 20 different companies specialized in the above mentioned services. In total n=233 answers were given. Multiple answers were allowed.
4.2. FINDINGS
In a first step the data was sorted according to the main issue of the answers (Table 2).
| # | Description main issue | No. # | % |
| 1 | Brief | 52 | 22,3% |
| 2 | Stakeholder management | 28 | 12,0% |
| 3 | Early involvement | 26 | 11,2% |
| 4 | Communication | 25 | 10,7% |
| 5 | Change | 19 | 8,2% |
| 6 | Multiheaded | 14 | 6,0% |
| 7 | Other | 14 | 6,0% |
| 8 | Time / Programming | 12 | 5,2% |
| 9 | Budget | 10 | 4,3% |
| 10 | Decisions | 7 | 3,0% |
| 11 | No construction knowledge | 7 | 3,0% |
| 12 | Modelling | 7 | 3,0 |
| 13 | Project management & Procedures | 7 | 3,0% |
| 14 | Risk | 5 | 2.1% |
| In other: | |||
| 7.1 | Business case | 3 | 1,3% |
| 7.2 | Flexibility | 2 | 0,9% |
| 7.3 | Singular issues | 9 | – |
Table 2: Troubles with clients: Main Issues
Looking at the mere numbers the brief is, according to the questioned experts, standing out with almost a quarter of all answers. There are three more issues with more than 10 % of the answers: stakeholder management, early involvement and communication.
Considering the timely appearance of these four items in the project, the brief and early involvement, are without doubt to be situated in the early project phases. The other two issues, stakeholder management and communication have early aspects as well, namely the identification of all stakeholders and communication (flow) planning.
In a second step these different items were summarized to five super ordinate clusters. The criterion was to identify clusters of answers fitting in a pattern representing a project flow (Table 3). The clusters are, in a chronological order:
| Collecting and preparing the information (55, n=2): Brief, Business Case |
Planning and Preparation Phase(130, n=6, 56 %) |
| Early planning steps (33, n=2):Early involvement (of planners), modelling | |
| Setting up the internal organization (42, n=2): Stakeholder management, Multiheaded |
|
| Project management (73, n=6): Project management & procedures, time / programming, budget, communication, change |
Project Delivery Phase(103, n=12, 44 %) |
| General items and procedures (30, n=6):Decisions, lack of knowledge in construction, risk, flexibility, miscellaneous |
Table 3: Troubles with clients: Cluster according to the project flow
As displayed, these five clusters can again be distinguished in two main phases, the Planning and preparation of project issues, including ´Collecting and preparing the information´, early planning steps´ and ´setting up the internal organization´, and the Project delivery issues, including ´project management´ and ´general items and procedures´. It is to be stated, that both phases have almost the same amount of mentioning: “Planning and preparation of project issues” with 130 answers and “project delivery issues” with 103 answers, though the early phases are mentioned even a bit more. It is especially interesting that the first phase has only n = 6 different answers, whereas the second phase has with n = 12 double as much different items. It may be deducted from this that a few items in the beginning have a large influence on many items in the project delivery, an effect commonly known as the “butterfly diagram” in projects.
Fig. 1 The Butterfly diagram.
To gain some deeper insight in the “troubles with clients”, the top
single answers were examined in more detail in a third step: These are:
1) The brief
2) Stakeholder management
3) Early involvement
1) Items mentioned in ’Problems with the brief’.
About 19% of all answers concerning the brief are about the wants being unclear, followed by incomplete brief (11%) and difficulties with having the brief established (11%). Furthermore poor goal definition and the client’s needs are issues. 8% mentions the bad quality of brief whereas 6 % complains about difficulties with the clients not sticking to the brief. About 6 % see a problem in the client not understanding the purpose of the brief at all and another 6 % mention unclear briefings. Others see problems developing the brief or there is simply no brief at all (Table 4).
The problems with the brief can be distinguished in two main categories:
- Problems on an institutional level / content, and
- Problems on operational level
| Problems with the brief | No. # | % | Categories |
| Wants unclear | 10 | 19 | Institutional level (40, 77 %) |
| Incomplete brief | 6 | 1 | |
| Poor goal definition | 6 | 11 | |
| Client’s needs | 4 | 8 | |
| Bad quality | 4 | 8 | |
| Brief is important | 3 | 6 | |
| Unclear | 3 | 6 | |
| Development of the brief | 2 | 4 | |
| No brief at all | 2 | 4 | |
| Establishing the brief | 6 | 11 | Operational level (12, 23 %) |
| Stick to the brief | 3 | 6 | |
| Not understanding the purpose of the brief | 3 | 6 | |
| Total no. | 52 | 100 |
Table 4: Problems with the brief
Most parts of the problems with the brief occur on the institutional level or can be directly linked to the content of the brief. On the operational level it is about not understanding the purpose of the brief, establishing the brief and finally (not) sticking to the initial brief.
In general the brief is considered to be inadequate. Concerning the
content, more effort should be put into the development, in particular
in terms of goals, needs and client’s wants.
It is expected that these issues are clearly defined and communicated.
Thus contractors expect a comprehensive and robust briefing document
serving as backbone and guideline for the project delivery.
2) Items mentioned in ’Stakeholder Management’.
Concerning stakeholder’s management, the ´coordination of several stakeholders´ is the most mentioned issue with 21% of the answers. The successive issue is ´requirement definitions´ with about 18 %, followed by the difficulty of ´understanding stakeholders´ with 14 %. ´User incorporation´ and ´ranking´ raise an issue with the same amount of answers, 14%. Another problem named is ´different aspirations´ of the different stakeholders.
´Lack of early involvement´ and ´lack of interest´ are two issues of minor importance (Table 5). Roughly there are two different categories:
- Understanding the Interests and motivation of the stakeholders, and
- Stakeholder management.
| Stakeholder Management | No. # | % | Categories |
| Multiple – Coordination | 6 | 21 | Stakeholder Management (11, 39 %) |
| Ranking | 4 | 14 | |
| Early involvement of all (identify) | 1 | 4 | |
| Requirements definition | 5 | 18 | Understanding the stakeholders (17, 61 %) |
| Understanding the stakeholders | 4 | 14 | |
| User Incorporation | 4 | 14 | |
| Different aspirations | 3 | 11 | |
| Lack of interest | 1 | 4 | |
| Total no. | 28 | 100 |
Table 5: Stakeholder Management
Within the stakeholder management the three aspects identify, rank and coordinate build a clear specification for the later procedure. It is interesting that the early involvement of all is just mentioned once, though it is one reason for the above mentioned unclear definition of wants and needs in the brief. After all there seems to be a general understanding that the coordination of the stakeholders seems to be a problem, which again is related to a poor stakeholder’s definition. Thus it is argued that these results rather show awareness for the symptoms than for the reasons.
61 % of the answers focus on ´understanding the stakeholders´. Especially a clear definition of requirements is considered of major importance. It is as well stated that the users and all other stakeholders should be included in this process, so that a comprehensive understanding of the stakeholder’s interest can be achieved. There seems to be a consensus that the clients must clearly and in detail define what their interests are. Concluding, this points to a perception that clients are / should be able to establish a robust project setup situation.
3) ’Early Involvement’ according to branches.
All planners state that they could have added value if they were involved earlier (Table 6).
According to the numbers especially Building Services Engineers and Planning Supervisors have the feeling that they are incorporated in the projects too late. In this concern it is interesting that some architects who are usually included in the planning from the very beginning mentioned that they should be included earlier, hence they see possibilities for improvements even before the first drafts are made. On the other hand side only one project manager would like to be involved earlier. Since most PMs mentioned problems in the client’s set up and organisational issues, thus operational topics, they seem to be focused on project delivery issues rather than planning issues.
| Early Involvement no | # | % | |
| 1 | Building Services Engineer | 6 | 23 |
| 2 | Planning Supervisor | 5 | 19 |
| 3 | Quantity Surveyor | 4 | 15 |
| 4 | Structural Engineers | 4 | 15 |
| 5 | Building Surveyors | 3 | 12 |
| 6 | Architects | 3 | 12 |
| 7 | Project Manager | 1 | 4 |
| Total no. | 28 | 100 |
Table 6: Early Involvement by professions
The interviewees considered it important to “be in with the people” in order to establish a common base. Some see opportunities to make or influence decisions, others state that they need to know content, details and programme to be able to add value. Explicitly mentioned were cost improvements which could be achieved by adding cost awareness and special knowledge at an earlier stage.
5. ANALYSIS & ARGUMENT
In the introduction it was said, that many projects still underachieve. It was claimed that, many problems in projects are caused because the interface between client and customer organisation is not well established, the early project phase does not deliver the required results for a successful project delivery. During research it was found with the help of an expert interview that especially the brief, which is the initial document prepared by the client in order to define the projects deliverables (objectives) is considered deficient, while, it was at the same time found that from a contractor’s point of view the brief is still considered very important. In the interviews it was claimed that the brief should be robust from the beginning and that it should not change throughout the project, a perception that was found in the literature as well. According to Sir Michael Latham it is especially the project preparation, contract strategies and the brief that require “patience and practical advice”. He further concludes that the contract is not the issue, but “the role and duties of Project Managers need clearer definition.” Howell and Koskela conclude that the “delivery of value” should be added to the project deliverables. Building on Latham, Sir John Eagan had one of his major points of criticism in the fact that “too many clients are undiscriminating and still equate price with cost”. Thus the “industry needs to educate and help its clients to differentiate between best value and lowest price”. Atkinson consequently suggested to extend the Iron Triangle of cost, time and quality. He recommends clients to “include benefits and value criteria” to the planning and construction process. And Egan found a promising development to improve the situation especially in the improvement of components, in tools to tackle fragmentation, such as partnering and framework agreements and in the “increasing interest in tools and techniques for improving efficiency and quality learned from other industries, including benchmarking, value management, teamwork, just in time, concurrent engineering and Total Quality Management”.
Looking at the findings in the literature research it becomes obvious that especially in construction projects a stable situation and clearly predefined projects are anticipated. The early planning phases and strong client incorporation are widely seen as seminal to project success. Still there seems to be a discrepancy between what should be done and what is done in fact. Considering the “butterfly diagram”, describing the descending influence of decisions the further the project proceeds, it can be stated that pulling a few right triggers in the beginning will have multiple positive effects on many later issues. Since the issue of front end loading and the butterfly diagram are well established, it must be concluded that many clients can not do (much) better, e.g. the clients are not able to carry out the projects or they are not able to respond to the project’s requirements in an appropriate way. This stands in a clear contradiction to the requirements on clients as found in the interviews, where contractor’s state that they expect a robust brief and well organized clients.
Thus from the findings in both, the interviews and the literature research, it can be concluded that the early planning phase does not deliver the required results. Even more, the interface between client and customer organisation is insufficient. Many later problems in the projects are related or directly linked to these problems: The dilemma is obvious, the concept of front end loading and thus establishing a robust brief, does not work.
This leads to a postulation of a new understanding of the early project activities with a focus rather on the creation of a working project environment than on predefining details, a Project Manager should be rather generalist than specialist , or more abstract: Managers instead of Makers. There are already approaches that consider this new “front-end-concept”, especially in IT: The software development method SCRUM utilises an approach, where the future tasks are not defined by the Project Manager, but are created as a result of a project meeting. The project manager is rather seen as a moderator who helps to create and define new tasks. His main task is to be able to support and manage the creation of the new project tasks. Agile project methods are in general said to be using new concepts to manage projects. Utilising these agile approaches in software development nobody would expect the initial brief to be complete. It is rather accepted that the project deliverables develop as the project goes. They strongly emphasise the communication. Supplying the right people at the right time with the right information is considered the central issue. Consequently social skills and here especially the ability to teamwork, natural authority, and pleasure in leadership are must haves of a Project Manager. They should be appointed by their personal aptitude, managerial skills and project management knowledge instead of technically detailed knowledge. The project manager is expected to understand, manage and control the project. In this context the teamwork concept is important. Though the idea of teamwork is known quite long, team- thinking is still challenged especially when the team members are working for different companies (“sides”). This is in parts due to the differing interests of the participants and resulting from the contractual situation in construction projects. Sir Michael Latham states on the aspect of teamwork that projects need, in order to improve the satisfaction of client’s aspirations, a “better performance, but with fairness to all involved. Above all, it needs teamwork.”
Another important aspect of these approaches is the client
integration, as they strongly incorporate processes such as iterations
and constant testing in order to be able to adjust to these “moving
targets”. It has to be stated that, since these approaches strongly
emphasize on quality in the sense of meeting customer demands, but are
found to under- represent the issues time and costs, they can give hints
on a possible direction of development, but they can not be used to
improve project delivery in construction. The ideal construction
approach is assumed to be somewhere in between the current practice and
these new models.
In construction the “Lean- Movement” works on a new perception not only
of the early phases, but of project management in general: Ballard and
Howell claim modern project management paradigms do not work and that
the Lean Construction approach thus roots (amongst others) in “the
dissatisfaction with project performance.” Koskela and Howell further
claim that there is a underlying theory in project management, but they
consider it obsolete and they conclude that a change in paradigms is
necessary. Under this perception Ballard developed the Last Planner ™
system as a practical approach. On the theoretical stream especially
Koskela has been working. Research is undertaken within the Lean
Construction Institute . The basic idea is to apply the seminal Toyota
production system and its principles on construction industries.
Construction needs to be understood as “a special kind of production” .
Bertelsen and Koskela found that the five principles of Lean thinking,
as established by Womack and Jones (1996) which are mainly focusing on
the optimization of the flow are, under particular circumstances, useful
for manufacturing projects. But since construction “indeed is not” a
production similar to manufacturing their usefulness for construction is
not proven (ibid.).They further claim that Lean Construction has moved
beyond these principles. Construction should be seen as “a flow of work
and a creation of value as well” (ibid.). They conclude that
“Construction is a complex production of a one-of-a-kind product
undertaken mainly at the delivery point by cooperation of a
multi-skilled ad-hoc team” (ibid.). The standard procedures which mainly
is about managing contracts is said to be not adequate for the
construction systems. A promising development is seen in the development
of a supply chain between main-contractors, trade contractors and
suppliers of materials. As proposed by Egan (1998). Others stipulate to
strongly integrate the client and his stakeholders (e.g. in workshops)
in the design process in order to achieve both, a better understanding
of the client and a better understanding of the project by the client.
This approach has led to a more efficient design process and a
substantial higher customer satisfaction and fewer project revisions in
the later phases. According to these postulations the project management
paradigm has to change, the new approach will perceive construction as a
complex phenomenon that requires “management as co-operation and as
learning” (ibid).
6. CONCLUSIONS
The current paradigm in construction project management was researched. It was found that the currently used concepts, tools and methods are rather on the hard side, strongly emphasizing planning and controlling whilst anticipating that the project- goals can be clearly defined in advance. This is why the brief, as the initial document, is considered very important. To solve this dilemma, that on the one hand side the brief is the important initial documented, which, on the other hand is considered to be insufficient, new approaches are necessary. It was concluded that the concept of front end loading as it is understood now, does not work. Due to multiple influences on the project and many ambiguous situations, uncertainty can not be eliminated completely, it is a given, that a project must develop. Thus the current perception of the one briefing document that will setup the guideline for the project must be rethought and expanded. The early phases must be recognized as one coherent unit. The project setup must result in an environment defining working conditions rather than fixed plans. This needs a new understanding of the conception stage.
As a general baseline for this new understanding three key items were found:
- Accept that a project will develop
- Prepare a project environment rather than a project plan
- Be a manager instead of a maker
7. RECOMMENDATIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE WORK
It is recognized that the findings in this paper question the current understanding of project delivery. The proposed major changes will, by their nature, cause disagreement and opposition. It should not be assumed that it can be achieved in one day. This paper should rather serve as a conceptual frame for further developments. Thus it is recommended to slowly introduce the “manager instead of maker” approach in praxis. Further research on correlated aspects especially with concerns to client integration will be necessary to prove the approach valuable and realisable.
9. REFERENCES
Authors note:
This paper contains information and quotes from sources in both, English
and German language. For the purpose of a good readability the author
has translated the German quotes.
Both, original English and translated quotes are shown in “italic letters and in brackets”.
It is assumed that the traceability of what is an original and what is a
translated quote is given through the full title of the source in the
index.
[ACW2006] Atkinson R., Crawford L., Ward S.:Fundamental uncertainties
in the scope of Project Management, International Journal of Project
Management (2006), p. 687 – 698
[AHO2004] Untersuchungen zum Leistungsbild, zur Honorierung und zur
Beauftragung von Projektmanagement- Leistungen in der Bau- und
Immobilienwirtschaft, Nr. 9 der Schriftenreihe des AHO, Stand: Januar
2004, Herausgeber AHO e. V:, Berlin,
[ATK1999] Atkinson, R.:Project Management: cost, time and quality, two
best guesses and a phenomenon, it’s time to accept other success
criteria, International Journal of Project Management 1999;17(6):
337-342
[BAHO2004] Ballard, G. and Howell, G.:Competing Construction Management
Paradigms, Lean Construction Journal, Vol.1, October 2004
[BAL2000] Ballard, G. The Last Planner System of Production Control,
Dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, submitted to the
University of Birmingham, May 2000
[BEKO2004] Sven Bertelsen and Lauri Koskela:Construction beyond lean: A
new understanding of construction management, Paper presented at the
12th annual conference in the International Group for Lean Construction,
Elsinore, Denmark 2004
[CPE2006] Crawford L., Pollack J., England D.: Uncovering the trends in
project management: Journal emphases over the last 10 years, IJPM
(2006), p. 175-184
[FRA1993] Franke, Armin: Risikobewußtes Projekt- Controlling,
Schriftenreihe der Gesellschaft für Projektmanagement, Verlag TÜV
Rheinland, Köln, 1993.
[HOKO2000] Greg Howell & Lauri Koskela: Reforming Project
Management: The role of Lean Construction (2000) Proceedings Eighth
Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction,
IGLC-6, Brighton, UK, July 17-19.
[KLO2002] T. J. Kloppenborg and W. A. Opfer: The Current State of
Project Management Research: Trends, Interpretations, and Predictions.
In: Project Management Journal, 33 (2002)
[KOHO2002a] L. Koskela and G. Howell: The Theory of Project Management:
Explanation to novel methods. 10th Annual Conference on Lean
Construction (IGLC-10), Gramado, Brazil 2002
[KOHO2002b] Lauri Koskela & Greg Howell: The underlying theory of
project management is obsolete. PMI Research Conference, Seattle
Washington USA 2002
[KOHO2000c] Lauri Koskela & Greg Howell: Reforming Project
Management: The role of Planning, Execution and Controlling (2000)
Proceedings Eighth Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction, IGLC-6, Brighton, UK, July 17-19.
[KOKL2008] Körner M. and Dr. Klein L.: Projects as difference – towards a
next practice of complex project management, downloaded at:
http://www.systemic-excellence-group.com, 28.06.2010
[KWAN2009] Young Hoon Kwak and Frank T. Anbari: Analyzing project
management research: Perspectives from top management journals, IJoPM,
issue 27, 2009
[LIT2004] Litke, Hans-D.: Projektmanagement, Methoden, Techniken,
VerhaltensweisenEvolutionäres Projektmanagement, 4. überarbeitete und
erweiterte Auflage, Hanser Verlag, München, Wien, 2004
[MAHE2010] Robert David Mark & J. Heathcote: United Kingdom
Construction performance review, utilising Office of National Statistics
Data 2005 to 2009, The International Conference on Strategic
Management, Leeds Metropolitan University, 2010
[MOR1997] Peter W. G. Morris: The management of projects, Paperback Edition 1997, Thomas Telford, London
[OCON2008] O’Connell F.: Simply Brilliant: The competitive Advantage of Common Sense, Pearson, Prentice Hall, 2008
[PFRO2009] Pfetzing, Karl Rohde, Armin: Ganzheitliches Projektmanagement, 3.bearbeitete Auflage, Versus Verlag AG, Zürich, 2009
[PMI2008] PMI (pub.): A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) – Fourth Edition, 2008www.pmi.org
[POL2007] Pollack, J.:The changing paradigms of Project Management,
International Journal of Project Management (2007), p.266 – 274
[RIBA2010] Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA): Commissioning Architecture, Leaflet, 2010
[SEG1998] Sir John.Egan: Rethinking ConstructionThe report of the
Construction Task Force to the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, on
the scope for improving the quality and efficiency of UK construction.
July 1998Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions,
Rethinking Construction. Available from: [Accessed 16th March 2009]
[SLA1994] Sir Michael Latham: Constructing the teamJoint Review of
Procurement and Contractual Arrangements in the United Kingdom
Construction Industry, Final Report, July 1994
[TUR1999] Turner JR: The handbook of project-based management, McGraw Hill, London, 1999
[TUR2010] Turner JR, Editorial IJPM, issue 28, 2010