Managing the project managementprocess in Aerospace andConstruction: a comparativeapproach

Richard GrahamProject Management Division, WS Atkins Consultants Ltd, London, UK

This paper explores, in a practical setting, in¯uences on project managers created by their pro-ject and business environments. The author carried out a study of project management practicewithin two large companies operating in two di�erent industry sectors. The paper explains thecentral theme and ®ndings of the study. The ®ndings show that managers on the projects sur-veyed were in¯uenced by their project environment. Some of the major comparisons observed areillustrated together with suggestions as to broader links and best practice within the constructionindustry. # 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved

Keywords: project management, project management accounting system, comparative case study, aerospace, con-struction

Introduction

Many project management texts discuss the subjectfrom a broad general perspective. Cleland,1 forexample, describes the major elements that underpinproject management. Such works rarely o�er advicehowever on how managers may apply project manage-ment theory in `live' contexts nor do they seek toaddress the question as to whether techniques areapplied uniformly or in response to their environment.A number of researchers have however explored

such issues and have generated some interesting ®nd-ings. Mintzberg in his studies on the structuring of or-ganisations acknowledges the importance of theirwork2 in the development of management best practiceand general management theory. He summarises thework of Woodward, Burns and Stalker, Lawrence andLorsch, and Khandwalla who all suggest that there arerelationships between organisational structure and theenvironment. They coined the term contingency todescribe the existence of particular relationships. Theauthor referred to their ®ndings in structuring thisstudy and uses contingency in the context of `it alldepends', as de®ned by Handy,3 to explore the hypoth-esis that project managers' use of techniques and gen-eral approach are contingent upon the variable projectoperating conditions.Peter Morris,4 in a practical industry study carried

out at Templeton College, Oxford describes the use ofproject management at a strategic level on a numberof major projects. These descriptions lend support to

the idea that contingencies exist in project managementmethodology when related to the project environmentand that an appropriate response is necessary toachieve project `success' under the particular projectconditions. However, the author found few practicalstudies that highlight any particular contingent issuesat an operational level. The lack of available data inthe public domain is supported by other researchersworking in this area.5 Bu-Bushait6 o�ers one practicalstudy. In this he identi®es a number of distinct projectarea groupings. He groups projects under the headings:Construction, Research and Development, Maintenance,and Administrative. To these we should add Industrial/Manufacturing. He surveyed the usage of project man-agement techniques across these project areas andfound that while certain techniques, such as WorkBreakdown structure, are adopted uniformly, support-ing the general project management `body of knowl-edge' he also found that ``the application of projectmanagement techniques varied considerably among thesampled projects''.6 His conclusions infer that contin-gencies may be expected between the management ofprojects and particular project areas.Mintzberg2 o�ers a paradigm to de®ne a link within

a project between product variables (limited in thisstudy to ¯ows of materials) and process variables(de®ned here as ¯ows of information). He sets out therelationship between what he calls Independent (con-tingency) variables; that cover product, material ¯owand environmental issues, and Dependent (structural)

International Journal of Project Management Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 39±45, 1999# 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved

Printed in Great Britain0263-7863/99 $19.00+0.00

PII: S0263-7863(97)00072-0

39

variables: that relate to project management practiceand accountancy systems. These he links byIntermediate (work related) variables: aspects of infor-mation ¯ow. The author linked Mintzberg's paradigmto work by Winch7 on the study of product processes.Winch describes an heuristic production model thathighlights ¯ow sequences at a number of di�erentlevels. He states that contingencies at higher levels de-®ne factors at levels beneath and that these lowerlevels have further levels of contingency factors withinthem. The author concluded Mintzberg's paradigmcould be applied at di�erent management levels in aproject with issues at lower management levels a�ectedby higher decision levels. The author chose for thepurpose of this study to focus on one level, the im-plementation phase of a project: a focus area which isimportant for many project managers. In this way thisstudy represents a subset of the broader Mintzbergparadigm. The author viewed Bu-Bushait's work out-lined above in relation to these issues and used his®ndings to set the practical scope of this study.Bu-Bushait's study has a broad scope in that he

seeks to compare projects from four di�erent projectareas. Hence the project contexts vary widely and thiscreates a problem of scope and comparative measure-ment. Comparison becomes di�cult because of thelarge number of unde®ned and interdependent projectvariables. For this reason the study upon which thispaper is based compares only four projects within onlytwo of Bu-Bushait's project areas: Industrial/Manufacturing and Construction. The author adopteda case study approach, sought to look at the questionof contingency in more depth and did not attempt togeneralise the ®ndings beyond the particular set of pro-jects studied. The advantage of this approach is tomake the broad comparisons clearer. The ®ndingsestablish that contingencies do exist and they suggestsome particular reasons as to why the two di�erentproject areas adopt di�erent approaches.The advantage of this type of study is that compari-

son of di�erent project areas may lead to a betterunderstanding of the major contingencies and in theadoption of `appropriate' management techniques.Potential bene®ts for individual managers lie in a bet-ter understanding of the practical in¯uences that a�ecttheir decision-making. At the level of the ®rm anawareness of these issues may result in project manage-ment organisations becoming better providers of ser-vice to their clients and to clients in receiving bettervalue products. And at an industry level bene®ts existthrough an awareness of how relevant best practice inone industry may be appropriate for adoption byanother if the conditions are suitable. Such issues haveall been highlighted in the construction industry by SirMichael Latham8 as relevant to the future needs of theindustry.

Comparative study

The study is summarised below and drawn from datagathered by the author. The four projects were selectedfrom two companies operating in two di�erent projectareas: aerospace and construction. The author invitedparticipants on the basis of known reputation with theintention that the management of these projects rep-resented `best practice' within both project areas.

The main objective was to compare project manage-ment practice between the projects of both companies.The Aerospace company is a major UK employer thatseeks competitive advantage through long term clientrelationships on major projects, through maximisingthe skills of its labour force and in close partnershipswith its suppliers. It competes within an internationalmarket. The Construction company is a well-knownUK contractor and a company within a UK conglom-erate. It diversi®ed into management of projects,importing ideas and expertise originally from America.Their competitive advantage lies in the e�ciency ande�ectiveness of the management service that it providesto its clients. It is not directly a major UK employer.It competes within both a national and internationalmarket.

De®ning the study

This study adopted a qualitative case study approach.The author designed a questionnaire to gather the ma-jority of the data. This questionnaire was tested withimpartial third parties prior to carrying out the maininterviews. A Semi-structured interview approach wasused as the means to encourage the participation ofthe informants. The author interviewed a number ofdi�erent informants actively engaged on each projectand case studies of each project were written primarilyusing this data. Secondary data from project docu-ments and company literature supported the primarydata. These case studies formed the basis for compari-son. By adopting a similar format to each interviewthe data gathering was repeatable and uniformbetween projects. Discussion focused on cost and timeissues to reduce subjectivity inherent in project per-formance and quality.Each company selected two projects that were sig-

ni®cant within the company and representative of thecompany's workload. In order to make any compari-sons easier to observe a number of simpli®cations weremade to the study. These were:

. a focus on production;

. discussion limited to the quanti®able parameters ofcost and time;

. to look at only a few possible variables; projectstructure, product material ¯ow and project infor-mation ¯ow.

Assessment of project structure was made with refer-ence to the matrix link between function and projectobjectives, described by Clark and Fujimoto9 as light-weight versus heavyweight project management. Theauthor identi®ed other broad project factors such asproject size and duration, and the number of observa-ble project levels. Winch7 describes production ¯owswithin a project in terms of the ¯ow of materials thatgo to embody the ®nished product and the ¯ow ofproject information that is used to manipulate the ma-terial ¯ow. The author considered these ¯ows in thecontext of the producer as a service provider to the cli-ent with focus on the process and not just the product.The author sought in each case study to describe theunderlying process ¯ows in the project rather than theaccountancy process the project managers used to de-®ne such ¯ows. Figure 1 illustrates the materials ¯owand Figure 2 the information ¯ow for one of the

Project management practices: R. Graham

40

projects. Respondents were able to explain these ¯owsin a practical way, illustrating them as diagrams.Respondents were asked to describe their manage-

ment accounting system. This data enabled the author

to de®ne dependent variables for comparison betweencase studies. Bu-Bushait o�ers a list of techniques6

which the author used as a basis for the description ofthe management accounting system on each project.

Figure 1 Material Flow through project

Figure 2 Information Flow through project

Project management practices: R. Graham

41

Respondents explained the extent to which particulartechniques were used or gave reasons why any werenot used. They also described how they viewed therelative importance of these techniques in the successof the project when set against other factors such asmanagerial experience and a knowledge of the pro-duct.

Findings

The relational ®ndings between the two sets of projectsform the basis of the discussion below. The analysis issplit into project structure, material ¯ow and infor-mation ¯ow and the relationships with the manage-ment accounting system and respondents attitudes.

Structure

Both Construction projects were lightweight oriented.Their matrices formed by independent trade contrac-tors acting as pro®t centres and creating project co-alitions. The projects were large scale and of mediumduration. Many of the functional specialists had notworked with each other before and their relationshipswere de®ned purely by the contracts drawn up speci®-cally for the project.Both Aerospace projects were heavyweight oriented.

Their matrices formed between internal functions act-ing as cost centres and external repeat suppliers. Theprojects were a magnitude larger than for constructionand of longer duration. Closer links appeared to beforged between functional specialists over a period oftime and on previous projects. This included a focuson improving the productivity of suppliers. Contractsincluded targets set from previous similar projects.The aerospace ®rm exerted a strong in¯uence on the

project structure. The author did not perceive this tobe the case for the construction ®rm. The project man-ager on the aerospace projects operated within thesame ®rm as a number of the project functions.

However on the construction projects all the functionswere contracted externally.The scale of operation within the projects was

re¯ected by the size of the respective ®rms and theamount of capital resource that they possessed. Theaerospace ®rm was directly larger and possessedgreater capital resource. The author perceived theaerospace ®rm as placing a greater emphasis on thee�cient use of their resources. This was seen in theirformal statements on investment in their employeesskills, capital equipment, partnering and accountabilityto their clients. For the projects selected, the projectdurations were signi®cantly longer and the number oflevels of structure greater in aerospace when comparedto construction. Table 1 summarises these points.

Material ¯ow

Aerospace o�ers a manufactured product as opposedto a quasi-manufactured product o�ered by construc-tion. The aerospace product is tightly controlled andfabricated from a large number of assembled com-ponents. Tight tolerances are achievable and necessarydue to the type of product, to the extensive use ofmetals with high manufacturing tolerances, to oper-ation within a controlled environment and with a pro-duct that is reproduced over a large number ofrepetitions. There are many levels of production fromthe assembly of an internal bracing element (a detailedcomponent) to the assembly of a wing or the com-pleted aircraft. This o�ers many levels at which moni-toring and control of the process is possible.Continuous learning may be achieved by the largenumber of repetitions that occur at all levels of pro-duction. The assembly sequence is well-de®ned ande�ort is expended to limit variability.The construction product by contrast is subject to

vagaries within the external and site-speci®c environ-ment. Tight control and tolerances are often onlyachievable within speci®c manufactured sub-assem-blies. Repetition was limited to within particular sub-

Table 1 Key di�erences in project structure between industry case studies

Attribute Aerospace Construction1 Matrix Type Heavyweight Lightweight2 Size Magnitude larger Large3 No. of major levels in the project structure Five Four4 Operating levels of the project structure At levels three and four At levels two and three5 Degree of centralisation Centralised Decentralised6 Approach to suppliers Relational Contractual7 Resource bases in relation to PM Internally oriented Externally oriented8 Duration Around 60 months Around 20 months

Table 2 Key di�erences in material ¯ow between industry case studies

Attribute Aerospace Construction1 Focus of e�ort Major sub-assembly Final assembly2 Product acceptance of ¯ow variability Low Variable3 Need to "interface" sub-assemblies High Medium to low4 Tolerance in changes to the ¯ow sequence

(network)Low to medium Medium to high

5 Quantity of material used Small High6 No. of levels of assembly Higher Lower7 Direction of ¯ow Toward ®nal assembly Both directions8 Final assembly Small batches Unique9 Repetition At ®nal assembly At sub-assembly10 Production process Manufacture Quasi-manufacture

Project management practices: R. Graham

42

assemblies and the uniqueness of the product is oftencited as a factor limiting continuous learning andtherefore a strategy based on productive e�ciency.The construction product used a wide range of ma-terials, many such as in-situ concrete having wide toler-ances. The product is relatively accepting of thesewider tolerances in comparison to aerospace. There arefewer levels of sub-assembly when compared withaerospace products. This limits measurement, monitor-ing and control. The limited number of manufacturedsub-assemblies is the reason the author believes con-struction to be a quasi-manufacturing process. Thematerial ¯ow direction occurs in two directions withremoval and addition to the site This indicates the in-¯uence that the site has on the construction product.Table 2 summarises these points.

Information ¯ow

All the case studies followed generally the pattern ofthe project lifecycle discussed by Clelend.1 There arehowever critical di�erences. The construction infor-mation ¯ows are based on an heuristic informationplan. The actual system is applied based on the com-pany system and the actual project. Aerospace projectsoperate a formal system de®ned over a large numberof repetitions. Computers generate much of the aero-space systems and procedures de®ning informationstages and catering for change in a formal way. Thecompany structure also formalised information ¯ow.By contrast, construction managers develop `appropri-ate' systems speci®c to each project and developed clo-ser to the point of use.Construction relies on `generic' cost information at

the initial stages. By contrast, Aerospace can look atdata from previous ®nal assemblies and talk directlywith their major suppliers. Baseline budgets may beestablished at an earlier stage.This di�erent approach in¯uenced work package

breakdown between the two industries. Constructiontenderers receive detailed speci®cation and time infor-mation within tender enquiry documents. They thensupply prices. Interfaces must be clearly de®ned withinthe priced contracts. By contrast, aerospace requireonly generalised project information at this stage. Theinterfaces are already accepted between actors anddetailed information exists within the internal systemsor within previous supplier prices. Aerospace nego-tiates budgets with the functions prior to contract sign-ing. The directorates then become cost centres withvalue assigned through the directorate. Constructionallocates value through the pricing of the tender

packages. A number of di�erent outside agents couldwin these contracts.The aerospace projects used an automated pro-

duction system to centralise the ¯ow of information.The construction projects by contrast relied on adecentralised ¯ow of information between a number ofactors and levels. Because these actors were externalthe procedures that each adopted varied.Construction managers used the packaging of infor-

mation as a way to adjust project value. Project man-agers rede®ned downstream packages to mitigate thee�ect of upstream variances. This ¯exibility did notappear to exist within the aerospace projects observed.Table 3 summarises these issues.

Discussion of the main comparisons

The discussion above summarises key di�erencesobserved between the two project areas. The remainderof the discussion focuses on the di�erent ways thatmanagers in both sets of projects related to these¯ows. The discussion concludes by drawing togetherpatterns and suggesting that broad contingencies inapproach do exist: contingencies which would beapparent through comparison between other areas.Production project managers in aerospace were

in¯uenced by tightly de®ned budgets and programmesat an early stage. The accounting system appeared tobe set up to minimise variances from the baseline bud-get and cost information. Formal systems existed,often as computer systems, to monitor and control theproduct process. These systems used rigid methodsthat limited the scope for managers to operate in a¯exible way. This related to a desire to operate a stableproduction process and to deal with variances in aplanned and formal manner. Change control formedan important and highly systematised part of thisapproach.Construction project managers appeared to operate

a ¯exible, more varied and locally adapted manage-ment accounting system. Managers spent signi®canttime at the early stages de®ning the structure of thesystem. These systems appeared tailored to the particu-lar project and although based on the same heuristicmodel had di�erent elements. The systems alsoappeared to be ¯exible to changes within the assemblyof materials forming the product. The change controlprocess was looser, less mechanistic and the in¯uenceof the programme and budget baselines looser. Thepackaging of work between the external functionalsuppliers was used as a means to adjust the projectcontent downstream. This provided for greater project

Table 3 Key di�erences in information ¯ow between industry case studies

Attribute Aerospace Construction1 Information system Planned systems exist Heuristic models

Individual project systems developed2 Source of baseline time and cost

informationInternal production and supplier database Generic industry data and supplier

quotations3 Centralised control over material ¯ow High Medium to low4 Information systems standardisation High Medium to low5 Flexibility within system Low High6 Degree of production information exchange

between actorsBroadly de®ned Tightly de®ned

7 Information complexity High High

Project management practices: R. Graham

43

¯exibility which to some extent the material ¯ow andthe product itself can support.These di�erences were observed in elements of the

accounting system and summarised here.The Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) existed as an

important means to break up the work into manage-able elements on all the projects. In Aerospace theWBS was in¯uenced by the project structure while inconstruction other variables such as `packaging' cre-ated by functional divisions and geography, indicatingthe in¯uence of the site upon the process.Network analysis techniques. Network Planning and

Critical Path Analysis featured in both constructionprojects. These indicated managers need to de®ne theprocess path for each particular project from scratch.In Aerospace the network is much better de®nedwithin the system due to the number of product rep-etitions and managers appeared to expend more oftheir resource to control against this network ratherthan to try to rede®ne it. Bar charts featured heavilyon all projects as a means to illustrate progress and tocontrol activities and used at all levels. However at alllevels a discontinuous split was observed in the stra-tegic level and operational level information ¯owswhich suggested imperfect junctions. In Construction,site operatives are often left to establish their ownmethods of working at a task level. In Aerospace thestrategic plan measures the general progress, howevermanagers appeared to be using other ways to resolvedetails: issues were resolved through informal meetingsand face-to-face discussion. This relied upon manage-rial experience to resolve unforeseen events rather thanthrough recourse to the accounting system. Predictivemethods such as PERT was used on one constructionproject re¯ecting the iterative nature of this construc-tion process.Resource levelling was left to functional centres.

Aerospace appeared to place greater emphasis on thispart of the system than Construction. This related tothe manufactured product as well as the project orien-tation of the matrix which allowed stronger in¯uenceover the cost base.Computers were seen to play an important part on

all projects. However in Aerospace the computer was amainframe and held process data, such as previouscosts, as well as the accounting system. In constructionthe computer sometimes appeared to be used more asa presentational tool.Some methods within the accounting system

appeared too unwieldy, primarily the LinearResponsibility Chart (LRC). Managers assignedresponsibility and accountability through othermethods appropriate to the scale of the projects.Meetings and reporting formed essential control tech-

niques on all projects. This re¯ected the need for man-agers to receive information in an organised way andfor face-to-face regular contact between the main func-tional and project elements. Again di�erences wereobserved. The need for meetings appeared related tothe project size, to the degree of task complexity andto the number of variances requiring swift resolution.Construction used di�erent reporting methods andforms did not appear to be standardised betweenlevels. This related to the management systems beingless formalised and being not carried forward betweenprojects.

Progress measure highlighted another contingencyinherent in the products. Measuring progress in termsof cost and time requires a measured standard. This isharder to achieve in Construction and was re¯ected instatements from managers that their measures weresubjective. In Aerospace managers achieved a degreeof objectivity by using natural milestones that existwithin the product assembly process and the greaterexperience gained through repetition at higher productassembly levels.Cost structure also highlighted the functional separ-

ation within construction of cost and time manage-ment centres, presented within the OrganisationalBreakdown Structures on these projects. Constructionappeared to use a less formal change control processthan Aerospace. Both project areas used Earned ValueAnalysis. However the author suggests that thisaccounting system could be employed to greater e�ectin Aerospace where the measuring standards are physi-cally and historically easier to de®ne.Trend analysis occurred in both project areas re¯ect-

ing the need on all projects to predict the a�ect of cur-rent activity on the end date and out-turn cost. Allprojects exist within a wider business environment.However it is possible that contingency exists here tooin the sensitivity of cost and time variance for businessobjectives. The projects exhibited di�erent sensitivitiesand this a�ected the project managers main area offocus for each project.

Conclusions

The above discussion highlights detailed contingenciesbetween project characteristics and project manage-ment approach. Examination of the practical datagathered for the two sets of projects suggests stronglythat for these projects at least the way that managersoperate is contingent upon the project conditions. The®ndings in this study supports Bu-Bushait's ®ndings inthat project managers in aerospace and constructionadopted di�erent techniques in response to di�erentIndependent and Intermediate variables. Howeverwhilst Bu-Bushait's ®ndings suggest this result gener-ally, the data in this study allowed the author to exam-ine possible reasons for these di�erences in moredetail. These issues together with the case studies aredescribed by the author further in a report on thestudy ®ndings.10 The author believes that further studydata would con®rm more of the contingent Dependentvariables and provide a better understanding of par-ticular contingencies between di�erent project areas. Inconclusion:

1. The large size of all these project requires that for-mal techniques are adopted if these projects are tobe successful.

2. The higher number of levels of product assemblyand the greater degree of repetition within theAerospace projects appears to require highly for-malised systems to manage the required projectstructure and information ¯ows.

3. The light/heavyweight orientation of the projectmatrix structure strongly in¯uences the way thatmanagers operate between the two areas and theway that production is organised.

Project management practices: R. Graham

44

4. The nature of the material ¯ows observed withinthe Aerospace projects, seen as the larger numberof production levels and greater repetition, places adi�erent emphasis on the management accountingsystem used when compared to Construction.

5. All projects required a management accounting sys-tem and made use of important elements withinplanning, reporting and control.

Other factors should not be discounted. The inter-views in both project areas strongly suggested thatmanagerial experience and knowledge of the productplay as important a role in de®ning project managersactions as does adherence to a particular managementaccounting system. The author gained the strong im-pression of a good level of managerial expertise withthe resources available to managers necessary to man-age these projects competently. Without these two el-ements a management accounting system even ifappropriate would be unlikely to control process andproduct ¯ows adequately.

Further research

The author chose to assess only a limited number ofvariables and the study did not attempt to generalisethe ®ndings to all projects within these two industries.A wider study would establish more of the variablesand con®rm the contingency that appears to existacross the project areas. Despite these issues being arich area for research and worthy of wider study, thereappears to be a neglect: re¯ected by the lack of exist-ing information. Perhaps it is time for organisations toconsider issues highlighted by research such as byPeter Morris, to assess their work activities and practi-cal management from a wider perspective.

Acknowledgements

The Author wishes to acknowledge the contribution ofDr Graham Winch at the Bartlett School of GraduateStudies, University College London for his guidance inthe writing of this paper.

References1. Cleland, D. I., Project management, strategic design and im-

plementation Tab Books Inc. Blue Ridge Summit, PA, 1990.2. Mintzberg, H., The Structuring of Organisations: a synthesis of

research Prentice Hall Inc. Englewood Cli�s NJ, 1979.3. Handy, C., Understanding Organisations, 4th edition Penguin

Books, GB, 1993.4. Morris, P. W. G. and Hough, G. H. The Anatomy of Major

Projects: a study of the reality of project management JohnWiley, UK, 1987.

5. Bu-Bushait, K. A., Relationships between the applications ofproject management techniques and project characteristics.International Journal of Project Management, 1988, 6(4), 235±240.

6. Bu-Bushait, K. A. (1986) A survey of the practices of projectmanagement techniques in di�erent industries. ProjectManagement International (PMI) seminar, September 20±25th,131±138.

7. Winch, G. M., Managing Production: Engineering change andstability, OUP, Oxford, Chapter 4, 1994.

8. Department of Environment (DoE) Constructing the team, bySir Michael Latham: ®nal report of the government/industryreview of procurement and contractual arrangements in the UKconstruction industry, HMSO, London, 1994.

9. Clark, K. B. and Fujimoto, T., Product DevelopmentPerformance: Strategy, Organisation and Management in theWorld Auto Industry, Harvard Business School Press, Boston,Massachusetts, Chapters 8 and 9, 1991.

10. Graham, R., Contingency Approach to Project Management: AComparison of Aerospace and Construction MSc ArchitectureReport. University College London, 1995.

Richard Graham trained as an engin-eer and gained his chartered engin-eering status in the constructionindustry. He worked for severalyears in design practice in the UK ona number of high pro®le projectswhich led to a number of manage-ment assignments within various pro-ject teams. He holds a master'sdegree in construction managementand economics from UniversityCollege London, UK and now workswithin the Project ManagementDivision of WS Atkins. His currentrole is to provide consultancy advice

on the appropriate structuring of Private Finance Initiative andBOOT projects, and has completed a number of private and publicsector assignments.

Project management practices: R. Graham

45