Construction Management -v- Project Management

The Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB) has for many years seen its role as the leader in construction management. The current challenge is to define and differentiate construction management from project management and from the role of an on-site construction manager.

I have been in the UK for the last couple of weeks and was at the CIOB Member’s Forum where this topic was discussed at length. My feeling is construction management has a very wide remit that underpins all phases of a built assets lifecycle from feasibility through to demolition and disposal.

My starting point is the presumption that construction management involves the application of construction knowledge to achieve the efficient creation, maintenance or changing of a built asset. Where a built asset, or the built environment, is a very wide definition that covers all man made structures from canals, roads and railways to any structure or enclosure.

As suggested by the diagram below, the application of construction knowledge through construction management has a very wide application. Whereas project management is focused on the efficient creation of a new product, service or result. Project management has a much wider remit than simply building. Any significant change can and should be managed as a project from the creation of a new software program to the reorganisation of a business’s processes.

The primary role of traditional project management in the construction industry (as indicated in the diagram below) is managing the site based construction activities from initiation through to closure. However, it is quite feasible for projects to be initiated at any phase of the built assets lifecycle to initiate a ‘change’ (eg, a maintenance project to upgrade the facility). Also, if multiple projects are involved such as building the 2012 Olympics, program management can be used to advantage.

If the ideas outlined above hold true, project management is the process of delivering a change, whereas construction management is the underpinning skill set used by a range of specific disciplines, including project management, as the built asset evolves from an idea to a design, to built structure, to a maintained facility through to its final demolition or recycling. It’s the knowledge of good construction practice that allows the surveyors and designers to create a cost effective design that is durable, buildable and maintainable; and similar knowledge is needed by facilities managers to look after the structure through its operational life. As suggested above, construction management is the effective application of construction knowledge to a proposed or actual built asset.

Based on these thoughts, a working definition for construction management could be: The effective application of construction knowledge to all aspects of the creation and care of the built environment to the benefit of society.

The lead discipline will change from Architects and cost engineers to construction companies and project managers to facilities managers depending on the phase in the built asset’s life, but each discipline also needs to understand and apply effective construction management to undertake their work practically and effectively.

What are your thoughts???

How to Suffer Successfully

How to Suffer Successfully, is the title of chapter four in Alain de Botton’s first book of philosophy, How Proust Can Change Your Life. The same idea is the theme of The Adversity Paradox by J. Barry Griswell and Bob Jennings.

The Adversity Paradox is full of inspiring examples of people who have suffered major adversity and have used the experience to improve their capabilities and gone on to outstanding success. The knowledge they gained from overcoming obstacles has played such a crucial role in their success trajectories that they now consider adversity to be an invaluable friend.

De Botton takes a more philosophical view and recognises there are ‘bad sufferers’ and ‘good sufferers’. Bad sufferers learn nothing from their adversities and react to them by engaging defence mechanisms that compound the problem such as rage, delusion and arrogance. Successful sufferers, including those identified in The Adversity Paradox, use their adversity to gain a better understanding of reality and by rising to the challenge, create a better future for themselves and others.

Whilst no sane project manager would chose to suffer sufficiently to produce their version of Proust’s In Search of Lost Time, only the most naive would expect their project to run without a problem. Projects and their attendant stakeholders are a potential source of much grief and suffering, all be it at a lower level of intensity; schedule slippage test failures, cost overruns and accidents to name a few.

As identified by de Botton, bad sufferers try to hide the problems, blame others and learn nothing. Ethical and effective project managers accept their suffering and use the experience to grow their knowledge and capabilities. Quoting Proust, “Griefs, at the moment when they change into ideas, lose some of their power to injure.”

No one likes a project that fails! However, it is only when you are experiencing the pain of failure, the opportunity to learn from the failure opens up. By using the opportunity to maximise the lessons learned, you minimise the potential for similar problems in the future. The cost of the failure is the coin by which future gains are purchased. The difficulty is developing the level of understanding needed to really achieve valuable lessons learned; finding the ‘cause of the cause’. The second more complex challenge is ensuring the lessons learned are transferred to the organisations store of knowledge and available for others to use and thereby avoid unnecessary pain and suffering.

De Botton suggests being a ‘good sufferer’ does not entail subscribing to the Romantic cult of suffering for its own sake, rather making practical use of the occasions when suffering is unavoidable to create new insights and grow in capability or knowledge. Our addition to this basic idea for the practicing project manager is to then make sure the lessons learned are effectively distilled, recorded and made available to others for the future benefit of the organisation and the profession.

Project Management is Optional!?!

Oracle, the owners of Primavera have sponsored a survey by the Economist Intelligence Unit of The Economist, looking at the link between project management excellence and long-term success. The report was based on a survey of 213 senior executives and project managers worldwide and in-depth interviews with nine executives and project management experts.

I have not had the chance to read the full report yet but one item in the executive summary really caught my attention. The editors state “An impressive 90% of respondents say project management is either critical (47%) or somewhat important (43%) to their ability to deliver successful projects and remain competitive.”

This statement raises two interpretational questions:

1. What do the other 10% do? How is it possible to undertake projects and not do project management. I would have thought is was impossible to do a project without doing project management and consequently project management was critical to doing projects. More than 50% of the people interviewed disagree. And interestingly more then 50% of project fail maybe there’s a correlation?
2. Probably a more significant question is what do the respondents to the survey mean by project management? Despite the well established standards defining project management ranging from the PMBOK® Guide to PRINCE2, do over 50% of the people responsible for project still fail to grasp the essentials??

The same survey found nearly one-half (49%) of the respondents only follow formal project management practices on large or complex projects and few (20%) use a standardised set of project management tools including enterprise-level systems. Which is consistent with Gartner’s findings that smaller project fail more frequently then lager projects.

It looks as though PMI, IPMA and academia have a lot of work to do to make project management effective in business. It would appear that whilst executives recognise the value of delivering projects on time, on budget and to the customer’s expectations very few are prepared to invest the resources needed to achieve effective project management.

This reminds me of another quote by Lister DeMarco from a few years ago: “Quality is free, but only to those that are willing to pay heavily for it!” There should be a PM equivalent somewhere…..

Complex Decision Making Explained

Complex decision making is a vital project management skill; required not only by the project manager but also by the project’s sponsor and client / customer among others.

Some of the key areas involving complex decisions include risk management, many aspects of planning (particularly optimising choices) and dealing effectively with issues and problems in a range of areas from scope and quality to cost and performance.

There is an underlaying assumption in project management (derived from traditional scientific management) that decisions will be based on a rational assessment of the situation to optimise outcomes. Unfortunately this is not true! As complexity increases assuming a ‘rational decision making paradigm’ becomes increasingly unrealistic. Human decision makers become ‘predictably irrational’.

Understanding the built in biases and ‘predictable irrational’ decision making processes used by people confronted with complex decisions can help managers requiring optimised decisions to craft strategies to minimise suboptimal outcomes. But where can busy project managers access this information?

I have just finished reading the most amazing paper on the subject that canvases the whole spectrum from risk aversion to behavioural economics in a practical, easy to read format; and it is free!

Behavioural economics and complex decision making: implications for the Australian tax and transfer system has been written by Andrew Reeson and Simon Dunsttall of the Australian national science agency, CSIRO. The report was commissioned by the ‘Henry Review’ into the Australian taxation system and is published on their web site. Whilst you can safely skip the last section which focuses on applying the knowledge to our tax system. The preceding 7 sections are focused on how people make complex decisions in any sphere and are just as relevant to complex project decisions as to complex investment and taxation decisions.

You can download this free resource from the review panel’s website: download the paper (a copy is also on the Mosaic web site on the assumption the Government site is temporary and will close once the Henry Review has reported: download from Mosaic).

If you find the report useful and you don’t live in Australia, you can buy the next Australian you meet a beer; it was his or her taxes that paid for this amazingly useful report. I know I will be keeping my copy handy for a very long time to come.

PMI COS Seminar

This week, I will be presenting live from Australia the final session of the Fall PMI College Of Scheduling (COS) Wednesday Webinar Series: Scheduling in the Age of Complexity. This hour-long event will provide key insights for better scheduling from a personal level: What is the role of the scheduler and what is our future?

The PMI-COS Fall series is designed to bring highlights from the 6th Annual Scheduling Conference held in Boston, MA earlier this year.  Archived presentations are available at http://www.pmicos.org/ondemandlearning.asp if you find them of interest, why not sign up for the College?

The Featured Presentation:   Scheduling in the Age of Complexity

Scheduling was developed as a computer based modelling process at a time when ‘command and control’ was the dominant management paradigm. The mathematical precision of the early scheduling calculations were somehow translated into certain project outcomes. Today, the certainties are no longer so apparent. Most projects run late and uncertainty and complexity are starting to take center stage.

This paper identifies the key elements in Complexity Theory to suggest the real role of a schedule in ‘the age of complexity’. It concludes by recommending a way to re-establish the role of the scheduler in the successful delivery of projects in the 21st Century.

DATE:  Wednesday, December 2, 2009
TIME:   5:00pm EST (US Eastern Daylight Savings Time); Doors open at 4:45pm

LOCATION: http://pmi.acrobat.com/r31077016/

There is no dial-in telephone option for the presentation. All voice will be through the classroom platform.

The Demise of the Iron Triangle

The iron triangle was invented by Dr Martin Barnes in 1969 to demonstrate the connection between time, cost and output (correct scope at the correct quality) – see The Origins of Modern Project Management. The correlation remains but the concept of the triangle is fading and becoming more complex.

The problem with the triangle is whilst the three interconnections are relevant; the way the elements interact geometrically is not intuitive or correct. Output should react inversely to the other two dimensions. Less output is bad, but less time or cost is potentially good.

As we move into second decade of the 21st century, leaving the ‘noughties’ behind, PMI have dropped the concept of the iron triangle from the PMBOK® Guide and the search is on for more meaningful and unfortunately complex metaphors to define the challenges of satisfying a project’s stakeholders and customers. This is a multi-dimensional problem and there is a real need for a new paradigm similar to the iron triangle but representing the many different facets of success.

As Albert Einstein once said “For every complex question there is a simple and wrong solution.” And whilst the iron triangle was not intrinsically ‘wrong’ in the 70s, 80’s and possibly 90’s it is certainly incomplete in the complex world of the 2010s.

I have seen several attempts to replace the simplicity of the triangle with tetrahedrons and multi dimensional effort charts but they lack clarity of insight. Another quote from Einstein is “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” The question and challenge is how to replace a project management icon as powerful as the ‘iron triangle’ with a more representative symbol.

What will be the new symbol of project management in the ‘teen years for the 21st century? Any ideas are welcome.

Project Management 2.0

Project Management 2.0 (PM 2.0) seems to be going the same way some Agile anarchists are trying to take software development which is essentially not to do project management and hope a group of people with good will and good luck will create something useful.

Not doing ‘project management’ is a really good idea if you and your client have no idea what’s needed, when its required, or how much budget is available. Journeys of exploration can be fun and can be highly creative but are nothing to do with managing projects.

Wikipedia (retrieved 27/9/2009 from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management_2.0) lists the following differences between PM 2.0 and ‘traditional’ project management.

PM 2.0 -v- Traditional PM

Whoever wrote this has absolutely no idea what good traditional project management looks like and has probably never worked on a successful major project. Good traditional project management differs from this highly subjective and biased list in many ways:

• Control is not centralised, authority and responsibility are devolved to the appropriate management levels.
• All good project management is based on collaboration.
• All good project management requires open access to the plan both as an input to its creation and to know what needs doing during delivery.
• Access to information is vial when and where needed.
• Open and effective communication is critical.
• Project are,  by definition, separate management entities – a holistic approach (ie, not doing projects) is called general management.
• Tools, see: A fool with a tool is still a fool, and you need the right tools for the right job. Amateurs try to do jobs with inappropriate tools. Easy to use and flexible are fine if you know exactly what you are doing, it is a recipe for wrong information and wrong decisions if you don’t.

The table is correct in so much as project management involves a degree of top down planning. Project management is about delivering a required output to the specifications requested by the client. The product or service is a failure if it does not meet the quality requirements set by the customer; which may include time, cost and scope parameters.

It is also correct in respect of the implied structure – projects work because there is an implied structure that sets a framework for collaboration. If you don’t know who is doing what it is nearly impossible to collaborate. Even Wikipedia and Linux have structure in their collaborative frameworks.

I have emphasised good project management throughout this post. Bad project management involves excessive attempts to ‘control the future’, lack of stakeholder involvement, excessive bureaucracy, and many other problems. These traits are bad management full stop.

One comment on the Wikipedia article is important though: PM 2.0 is good for small jobs. This is consistent with a survey of construction projects in the UK undertaken by the Chartered Institute of Building, focused on time management, which found that on ‘simple projects’ there was no difference in performance between those projects with a properly developed and managed schedule and those without. The same proportions finished early, on time and late.

However, as soon as the projects became ‘complex’; there was a marked difference in performance. Projects with effective schedule control performed significantly better than those without, and the bigger/more complex the project, the more significant the difference. ( I will put up a post on the CIOB’s work and its new practice standard for scheduling in a few days).

The CIOB’s findings and a closer look at many of the blogs and comments on both PM 2.0 and Agile seem to fit this trend. I would suggest two conclusions could be drawn:

1. If the work is small, simple and easy to understand there is no need for much in the way of traditional project controls. Knowledgeable people know what needs to be done and can just get on with the work.
2. If the required output is not capable of being determined by the client and the objective is to ‘create something wonderful’ it is very difficult to apply too many project management techniques – basically you don’t know what needs to be planned, costed and scheduled, etc. Time and cost are secondary to creativity and the exploration of problems.

In both of these circumstances traditional project management may not be appropriate. In fact I would question if either circumstance is actually a project given the definition of a project is to produce a defined product, service or result that meets the needs of a customer.

The challenge for senior organisational management is recognising the threshold where PM 2.0 and ‘free form Agile’ cease to be appropriate and more traditional forms of project management are needed. Traditional project management does not mean ridged control, the type of project influences what’s needed (see: Projects aren’t projects – Typology) but appropriate systems do help optimize cost, time and quality to deliver client satisfaction.

This does not mean dumping the new ideas, rather melding them into an improved project management process. Agile software development fits in nicely to ‘rolling wave’ planning. Similarly some aspects of PM 2.0 can really help enhance team communication and collaboration. Used wisely, these ideas and technologies simply help improve the way projects work to deliver quality outputs to their clients. This change is really no different to the shift from faxes and carbon copy paper to emails. Good project management has always adapted to use improvements in processes and technology to improve the quality of service provided to the project’s clients. This next wave of improved technologies should be no different.

However, be wary of the zealots suggesting the ‘old ways’ don’t work and should be abandoned and use examples of really bad project management to prove their point. This is even more important if the zealots also advocate employing them to solve all of your problems for a fee. Management fads come and go – modern project management has been generally successful in achieving positive outcomes for well over 50 years now and continues to evolve and improve. For further comment see Glen’s post on: Herding Cats

Thoughts on Agile

Following on from a rather lengthy on-line discussion covering various aspects of the interface between the Agile software development methodologies and project management, we have developed a discussion paper that looks at how the two processes can be integrated.

The paper is a ‘work in progress’ aimed at business managers who are new to the concepts of Agile (ie, it is not intended as an Agile manual for IT professionals). Any comments will be appreciated.

The paper can be downloaded from: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/PDF/Thoughts_on_Agile.pdf

Guaranteed PMP Pass?

Prospective candidates for any PMI examination, including the PMP credential need to be vary wary of ‘guarantees’ from some training organisations.

PMI closely manage the security of their exam system and no one can ‘guarantee’ a pass. Candidates take a secure exam with an individually selected mix of questions and pass if they score more than 61% on the day. Less than 61% correct answers = failure!

Despite PMI explicitly prohibiting R.E.P.s from offering guarantees that cannot be substantiated, and obviously ‘guaranteeing’ a pass is impossible, it does not stop some organisations from trying.

Over the last several weeks, we have received a series of emails from FACT Training in New Zealand with a tag line ‘Guaranteed to Pass the PMP Exam!’ and on opening the email the first words are PMP® Preparation Exam Success Guaranteed (in big bold yellow lettering).

FACT Training are the Australian / New Zealand franchisee for Cheetah Learning so you have a guarantee wrapped around a well known brand for a course that costs over $3000. You would assume you are onto a good bet?

WRONG!

Dig into the fine print and you find the ‘guarantee’ is subject to the ‘Terms and conditions of the Cheetah Guarantee’. The ‘Cheetah Guarantee’ retrieved from http://www.cheetahlearning.com/FAQ.asp#What%20is%20your%20guarantee this afternoon starts off:

• We guarantee that you will pass the PMP exam after participating in our accelerated PMP exam preparation program

Looking good until you read on!
The ACTUAL ‘Cheetah Guarantee’ is as follows:

1. You come to class pre-approved by PMI to take your exam (this requires you to have already completed 35 hours of study before beginning the 4 day intensive course).
2. You have your memory map memorized (no idea what this means)
3. You participate in all parts of the program
4. You take the exam within seven (7) days of completing the course (subject to availability of test places)
5. If you do not pass the PMP exam, your instructor will create a personalized coaching program to help you shore up your weak areas and will guide you through the process of rescheduling your exam. (You do the work)
6. Your second exam must be taken within 30 days of the first exam.
7. If you do not pass again, you have to re-sit for the third time within another 30 day maximum period and only then does the real guarantee cuts in!

The real Cheetah Guarantee is that upon request they will fully refund the fee you paid them to take the course. And also they will refund the two re-sit fees of US$275 each (PMI Member rates) you have had to pay to re-book the exams – nothing else.

There seems to be a slight difference between ‘guaranteeing a PMP pass’ as per the FACT Training email and the actual Cheetah Guarantee of some of your money back if you manage to jump through all seven hoops and are still unlucky enough to fail.

Mosaic is a PMI R.E.P. and coincidentally have a very similar success rate to the 98% pass rate claimed by FACT Training. However, we operate from a very different ethical basis:

1. We guarantee to keep working with trainees until they pass (ie, we spend our time and money working with the one or two people unlucky enough to fail each year until they either pass or decide to move on).
2. We do not offer a money back guarantee (with or without multiple hoops for the trainee to jump through) for two reasons:
   1. We feel it important for trainees to have some ‘skin in the game’.
   2. We don’t think it is reasonable to charge a premium on all candidates’ fees to cover the risk for a few.

The challenge I propose to all prospective PMP candidates is to check out the actual guarantees from potential training providers and ask yourselves two questions:

Do I want to deal with an organisation that offers sham guarantees – what does this say about other aspects of their business ethics and service?

Do I want to pay the price premium associated with a very limited guarantee such as the Cheetah Guarantee above? 

• FACT Training’s advertised course fee is US$3250.00 for a 4 day course in Melbourne Australia, in October.
• The PMI Melbourne Chapter fee for a 5 day course in November is AU$2475.00 (approximately US$2130.00). The course is delivered by a professional R.E.P. and PMI members receive a discounted fee of $1,980.00 (view course details).
• Mosaic’s Mentored Email™ course fees are AU$1,320.00 (but there are no venue costs for a distance learning course – see details)

PMI have been working to clean up the advertising of PMP courses by R.E.P.s for several years you can help by voting with your feet and not doing business with organisations that offer impossible guarantees.

I my opinion, there’s nothing wrong with ‘money back’ guarantees provided the terms are clear and not too onerous, many reputable R.E.P.s offer this type of guarantee. However, I do object to organisations pretending to ‘guarantee a PMP pass’ then hiding their real guarantee on another web page.

What do you think?

High Performance Project Management

I have just seen some information on a 2007 survey undertaken by the PMO Executive Council (part of the Corporate Executive Board: http://www.executiveboard.com/). This snapshot survey, Attributes of a High Performance PM - 2007, found very little correlation between project management certification and project management effectiveness, or the number of years a person has been in project management roles and project management effectiveness.

The survey found the drivers for project management effectiveness were behavioural attributes such as problem solving and the ability to relate effectively with key stakeholders. Whilst many people may initially want to disagree with these findings, they are consistent with many other trends and on reflection quite logical.

Firstly, the survey did not look at the PM’s track record, merely the time the PM had been in project roles. It is reasonable to assume highly effective PMs will have a relatively short PM career and then move on and up the organisational hierarchy. Less effective PMs are likely to stay in their PM role focused on process and technology.

Secondly, whilst PM credentials such as PMP remain very effective tools in the job market; passing your PMP does not make you an effective project manager (see more on PMP). The PMP knowledge framework gives you the knowledge to be an effective project manager. Being effective requires you to become a competent project manager.

Competency has three aspects, knowledge, skills and behaviour:

• what you know,
• your ability to apply the knowledge (essentially personality traits) and
• your willingness to use the skills effectively (essentially behavioural traits).

Qualifying project managers based on behavioural competencies is in its infancy. The Australian Institute of Project Management (AIPM) has recently moved its professional certification program (RegPM) from a procedural view of competency (eg, do you have a project schedule – the artefact?) to a behavioural view of competency (how effectively do you manager the schedule on your project?). This is ground breaking work.

PMI have adopted a different, but similar approach in their program management certification (PgMP) with a 360 degree review testing how effective the candidate is in the workplace. These trends have a long way to go but are likely to be the next step in project certification.

Of more direct interest in the short term is the demonstrated link between how effectively a project manager engages with his/her key stakeholders and high performance outcomes. These skills are a core element in a number of workshops we run including Successful Stakeholder Management and The Science and Art of Communicating Effectively, and are supported in part by our Stakeholder Circle® methodology and tool set.

Learning how to apply the skills in the workplace though is not quite as simple as attending a workshop or buying a set of tools. Soft skills are very hard to acquire and use. My feeling is they are called ‘soft’ because they change shape and texture depending on the environment they are being applied within. The calculations for EV or CPM are universal; the best way to engage a senior stakeholder is totally dependent on the culture of the organisation. Some elements remain consistent (eg, the need for an effective relationship) but the way this is achieved varies.

Developing these advanced skills that are the attributes of high performance project managers requires context sensitive coaching and mentoring rather then formal courses (see: Executive PM Coaching & Mentoring). Ideally organisations seeking to develop high performance PMs will move beyond certification towards implementing internal mentoring systems – it’s the best way to ensure they are contextually relevant.

However, where we differ from the survey findings is that we believe certifications such as PMP are still relevant. Passing a PMI credential such as PMP or CAPM (see more on the PMI credential framework) is a positive demonstration of the initial knowledge component of competency; it’s just that knowledge alone is not sufficient.

Achieving this next level of high performance PMs will also require organisational competence in at least two domains. Process competence measured by tools such as PMI’s OPM3® framework and relationship management maturity measured by tools such as my SRMM® framework.

These are definitely interesting times for our profession.