A few weeks ago in a post, The Phases of Project Controls, we suggested the current ‘second phase’ of project controls started in 1957 with the development of CPM and PERT scheduling software[1] and has continued through to the present time driven by the development of various computer assisted project control tools.
Exploiting the capability of these tools, project controls has developed into a sophisticated process with a focus on detail, needing highly specialized experts to run the software. It is not uncommon on a major project to see contractual requirements for a fully detailed schedule and cost plan for the entire project duration to be finished and approved within weeks of the project commencement. The responses to project failures have been to require even more detail in the various controls systems[2]. In the last couple of decades, this has resulted in the breakdown of project management, and project controls, into a diverse series of mutually exclusive branches. The result is far from optimal for organizations that require consistency in project delivery. There seems to be three main trends in the way projects are managed, with a number of significant sub-trends.
Traditional major project management. These projects tend to have large, complex, highly detailed controls systems, focused on cost and schedule, often integrated into an EVMS or IMS. However, despite the ever-increasing levels of detail in the tools, project failure rates remain unacceptably high. Some of the problems include:
- A focus on detail over usefulness. Masses of unnecessary detail can be used to hide information, often deliberately, and particularly when the news is bad.
- A refusal to allow flexibility. The project plans are approved at the start of the project and cannot be changed easily. This is despite most of the people and organizations that will be required to undertake the work being unknown at the time the plans are finalized.
- A focus on history. 80% to 90% of a typical multi-page project report focuses on what has happened – you cannot change history. Most forward analysis is restricted to consideration of the risk register.
- A focus on cost over performance. Cost is a symptom of performance, not a cause. A negative cost variance is a lagging indicator of a problem, to change cost outcomes, you either need to procure project resources more cost effectively, or use the project resources more effectively.
- Delayed reporting. The size and complexity of the report means 3 to 4 weeks are needed to compile and deliver the report after the end of the reporting period. This means an average delay of around 6-weeks from the mid-point of the previous reporting cycle.
- A focus on allocating (or hiding from) blame. Starting with negative variances in the monthly reports, and continuing through to post contract litigation and arbitration. The plans are supposed to represent the one correct way of working and blame is apportioned based on this premise.
- The need for layers of tools experts. Experts in running the controls systems are found on both sides of the contract, often fighting each other to nuance the reported message in favor of their side. Management has little direct involvement or visibility.
Agile and adaptive project management. The widespread adoption of management philosophies such as Agile and Lean have abandoned the traditional approach described above and are focused on short term iterative planning within some overall project roadmap.
- These methods appear to offer improved outcomes, particularly on soft[3] projects. The core benefits are a focus on getting work done and adapting future actions to overcome issues.
- The major limitation in the techniques is a lack of effective forecasting. Most of the tools used for management are good at identifying work to do and work completed, but lack standard processes for converting this information into an expected completion date[4]. There are efforts underway to link agile with EVM, but this approach is being applied to a very small number of projects in a very limited area.
The project management agnostics. There is an increasing number of projects where the people running them have simply given up on using project controls. Most still report cost as a historical fact but little else:
- A surprisingly large number of traditional projects do not have a maintained CPM schedule.
- A large number of smaller projects have reverted to using simple bar charts.
- Large sections of the agile IT industry are moving away from project management, adopting concepts such as flow and progressive delivery[5].
- The No Estimates movement suggests just getting on with the work is the best way forward, no need for plans.
It seems project controls has grown into a complex system-of-systems embedded within the larger project management system-of-systems but is rarely connected and coordinated with the management processes, and often of limited value in delivering successful outcomes. Increasing numbers of organizations and projects are simply abandoning this concept; many others pay lip-service to controls and buy a schedule or other plans from a consultant, send it off to the client, then ignore the plan and get on with the work.
Summary
The above overview is very general. There will be hundreds of individual areas of excellence in specific organizations and thousands of well-run projects. However, these exceptions cannot hide the trend in project failure and the breakdown of project controls. There is a need for improvement. You cannot control the past, and cost is a symptom of past performance.
The way projects are delivered is also changing, traditional controls paradigms are struggling to deal with a wide range of adaptive and distributed projects where there is no required sequence of working for large parts of the delivery process including:
- Physically distributed projects (housing estates, windfarms, etc.)[6]
- Most Agile projects[7]
- Projects delivered iteratively or incrementally (IID)
- Most other soft projects using adaptive work practices and agility
(design is always a soft project) - Complex projects where different approaches are used for different elements.
We have suggested the best way to deliver project success is to adapt the controls paradigm to focus on things that can be controlled and achieving success – Project controls 3.0 (PC-3.0). A few paraphrased quotes and truisms that underpin the need for PC-3.0:
- History, the past is fixed! The present is too late to change, the future is where the opportunity to manage lies.
- Cost is a lagging output, using cost reports to drive a project is like using the rear-vision mirror to drive a car.
- Field Marshal Moltke: No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy – adaptability wins battles.
- President Eisenhower (during WW2): Plans are worthless, but planning is everything – you do need to know your objectives and constraints.
All of the existing controls techniques can be adapted and used in PC-3.0, but is this the best solution? What do you think?
For more on PC-3.0 see:
https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PC-3-00-Overview.php
[1] For more on the history of:
– The Critical Path Method (CPM) see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-ZSY-030.php#Overview
– The origins of PERT see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-ZSY-030.php#Process2
[2] For discussion on the problems with excessive detail see:
– The Planning Paradox, How much detail is too much?
https://mosaicprojects.com.au/Mag_Articles/AA022_The_Planning_Paradox.pdf
– Estimating Fallacies – excessive detail does not help
https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PDF_Papers/P145_Estimating_Fallacies.pdf
[3] For a definition of soft projects, see Hard -v- Soft Projects: https://mosaicprojects.wordpress.com/2023/01/21/hard-v-soft-projects/
[4] For more on calculating project completion in Agile projects see Calculating Completion: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PDF_Papers/P217_Calculating_Completion.pdf
[5] Removing the project overhead from on-going work is probably a good idea! The routine maintenance and upgrading of systems is business as usual, not a one-off project, see De-Projectizing IT Maintenance: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/Mag_Articles/N010_De-Projectising_IT_Maintenance.pdf
[6] Discussed in WPM for Lean & Distributed Projects:
https://mosaicprojects.com.au/Mag_Articles/AA041_-_WPM_for_Lean_+_Distributed_Projects.pdf
[7] Discussed in WPM for Agile Projects:
https://mosaicprojects.com.au/Mag_Articles/AA040_-_WPM_for_Agile_Projects.pdf xx
Mosaicproject's Blog 
Pat, the problem is NOT with Project Controls. We are nothing more than the SCOREKEEPERS. Blaming us is like shooting the messengers.
The PROBLEM is that Project Management itself is an INCOMPLETE and broken system. Your own AIPM/KPMG has done a good job over 5 years that have documented in their “State of Project Management in Australia, 2022” that “Stakeholder satisfaction 48% said their projects were delivered with stakeholder satisfaction compared to 52% in 2020
On-budget 36% 43% of respondents feel their organisation manages projects and programs effectively or very effectively, compared to 48% in 2020.
The perception of effective management of projects has slipped compared to 2020, and so have most success metrics. Business goals 50% said their projects were delivered in line business goals compared to 51% in 2020 On-time 32% said their projects were delivered on-budget compared to 40% in 2020 said their projects were delivered on-time most of the time compared to 42% in 2020.
The “secret” is that since ~1955, Esso or Diamond Shamrock Oil made public a fully integrated system that COMBINED Asset, Portfolio, (of assets and projects) Programs and Projects into a system that combined what is known today as ISO 55000 and ISO 21500 (before it got “woked”) To my knowledge, the only two professional societies who have embraced this system that has been TESTED and PROVEN to work for going on 70 years is AACE with their Total Cost Management Framework and the Institute of Asset Management, and yet despite having EMPIRICAL PROOF, we still cannot or will not embrace the “Lessons Learned” of what has been tested and proven to work for 1000 years of the Scientific Method.
Each generation REFUSES to look at what has been successful in the past and now it looks like yet another generation is just as guilty as some of our own generation. At least PMI has demonstrated a little bit of hubris by “retiring” or “sunsetting” their PMBOK Guide. (Although the 7th Edition is an even bigger disaster)
Schedulers are, IMPO, the weakest link. There are 6 truths or “fundamental rules” that have been well-published for close to 100 years now:
RULE #1- “No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy.”9
RULE #2- “Plans are USELESS, but planning is ESSENTIAL.”10
RULE #3- “Amateurs study STRATEGY while Professionals study LOGISTICS.”11
RULE #4- “Reality eats strategy for breakfast.”12 (paraphrased)
RULE #5- “God (or the devil?) lies in the details.”13
IF we want to improve on the success rates, then these are the root cause issues we need to focus on correcting.
https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/pmwj133-Sep2023-Giammalvo-futility-of-master-plans-prepared-with-little-or-no-hands-on-experience.pdf
I agree with your basic proposition, but if the only thing project controls professionals are asked to be is a ‘scorekeeper’ nothing will change. The core element in PC-3.0 is requiring a manger to decide what to do to change undesirable trends: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PC-3-00-Overview.php#PC-3-Overview
It is a different paradigm – and yes… I know changing the world is an almost impossible task but I’m in for the fight…..
The question is “WHICH” manager? PMI screwed things up big time when Bill Duncan and his team wrote the 1996 PMBOK Guide and somehow “forgot” to include the role and responsibility of the ASSET MANAGER, as Max Wideman advocated in the original PMBOK.
There are 4 levels of “Decision Makers” and each level is responsible for and should be held accountable for the appropriate decisions at their level.
https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/pmwj111-Nov2021-Giammalvo-principle-based-project-management-the-whole-truth.pdf
At our level (Project Manager, PMO Managers, Cost Engineers/QS, and Planner/Schedulers), we are and should be held ACCOUNTABLE for TACTICAL DECISIONS.
This model dates back 2500 years to Sun Tzu and was advocated by Max Wideman around 1980-1985 and is the dominant structure in all our clients. (Oil gas, mining, telecommunications, and infrastructure owners and contractors)
I have an open letter to my US Government demanding they abandon the use of ANSI/EIA 748 (now SAE/ANSI 748D) and replace it with the model published in 1909 by Gillette and Dana, based on the research by Taylor, Fayol, Gantt, and the Gilbreths in the late 1800s and 1900s. This will be published in the July PMWJ, and you are encouraged to copy it and send it to your elected leadership.
Project Controls 3.0 is forward looking – we cannot change history.
But we can and SHOULD be learning from history!!! We know (or should know after 1000+ years) what works and what doesn’t.
Earned Value Management as we have used it to run our companies for 50+ years and what we teach to our clients, all we had to do was update what Gillette and Dana advocated was for using Excel (Artificial Intelligence AI Tools) Same formulas, same concepts with the addition of 3 Sigma SPC tools & techniques. https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/pmwj141-May2024-Giammalvo-how-to-implement-a-proven-competency-development-program-for-EVM.pdf
I don’t see any indication where your “Project Controls 3.0” includes anything about Operations Managers, Asset Managers and C-level decision makers. It appears to me you cannot move beyond PMI’s myopic focus only on PROJECT MANAGERS when we are not the most important decision-makers.
Go back and INTEGRATE ISO 55000 with ISO 21500 and you can see a model that has withstood 70 years of TESTING and PROVING to work.
The philosophy driving PC-3.0 is pragmatic decision-making needs useful information at the right time. This requires a simplified project controls approach focused on:
– Dividing the project into discrete management areas (Work Units)
– A robust controls system that delivers timely information that is accurate enough to be useful
– A management team empowered to take action and make decisions to change the future course of the project’s work
– Proactive problem solving focused on achieving the project’s objectives.
You cannot change history, but proactive management can change the future. The elements of PC-3.0, at the assessment date are:
– Knowing what work was planned to be accomplished
– Knowing how much work has been achieved
– Applying Work Performance Management (WPM) to understanding what the likely consequences of the current production rate is on the projected completion
– Doing something to change an unacceptable projection.
The very last point seems to be your focus. It is vitally important but requires common sense and tacit knowledge of the situation. PC-3.0 can highlight the challenge, it cannot make managers manage effectively: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PC-3-00-Overview.php#PC-3-0-Philosophy
(If I could solve the management challenge I would be very wealthy)
Pat, following up on my open letter calling for specific changes to SEA/ANSI 748D (Earned Value Management) here is your opportunity to put forward your proposal as well.
https://www.crowell.com/en/insights/client-alerts/taking-care-of-business-systems-dod-proposes-to-change-the-definition-of-a-business-system-deficiency