Msc Project Management(Thesis)

ROBERT GORDON UNIVERSITY

ABERDEEN

ABERDEEN BUSINESS SCHOOL

MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT

PERFORMANCE BASELINE MATURITY FROM

A CONTROL-BASED PERSPECTIVE

Author: Manuel Angel Gonzalez Suarez ID Number: 1117655 Tutor: Langes Supramaniam Report Word Count: 11,867

A project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Msc in Project Management at The Robert Gordon University

Aberdeen, September 2012

MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT

INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080

MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655

2

DECLARATION STATEMENT

I, Manuel Ángel González Suárez, declare that this research report is my own work

except as indicated in the references and acknowledgements. It is submitted in

partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MSc Project Management in

the Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen. It has not been submitted before for any

degree or examination in this or any other university.

Manuel Ángel González Suárez

Signed at Aberdeen

On the 27th day of September 2012




3

ABSTRACT

This Research Project is focused on the Performance Baseline (PB) and concretely

on the assessment of maturity of the baseline across the PLC, analysing the

elements influencing this maturity and trying to find the way to improve PB

suitability within each project phase in relation to the size, complexity and type of

project.

Initial Literature Review was oriented to obtain relevant information to clearly

define the PB concept, as well as its main components. Then, once it was clarified

the meaning of the term “maturity” in relation to the PB, and outlined the main

elements affecting to the maturity of the performance baseline, a further analysis of

relevant information was undertaken to be able to obtain some initial conclusions to

underpin further research (See Chapter 1). Thus, it was noticed that the Front End

Loading (FEL) of the project is the timing when the PB is developed and therefore

processes undertaken within this stage are essential for the development of a

suitable PB. Furthermore, it was also concluded that Management and Control

frameworks that govern these early stages of the project are major contributors to

the proper progress of the PB maturity. In this regard, several models associated to

different public and private organism have been taken in account in order to

undertake this research project, but finally only a small group of them have been

selected as desirable collaborators for this research, basing on the criteria that have

ruled the research process (See Chapter 2). These selected models have been

analysed and their main features have been briefly defined and further compared to

be able to create a conceptual framework which will create the basis underpinning

this project.

Moreover, it has also been designed a Primary Research which should provide the

relevant data sets allowing to develop appropriate answers to the research

questions (See Chapter 3). Accordingly it was designed a research strategy which

will indicate the way that data will be obtained and analysed. This strategy was

created taken in account several previous researches undertaken in relation with

this area, but also the main characteristics of this particular topic.




4

Finally, as a result of this Primary Research, it is expected to be able to extract

relevant conclusions which make possible to link the maturity of the PB to some of

the main features and processes involved in these management and control

models. Thus, obtaining valuable findings it will be able to outline a theoretical

framework, from a management and control perspective, containing the main

features that would help to maximize the suitability of the PB maturity across the

PLC.




5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research project would not have been possible without the support of many

people who have provided guidance and support throughout my MSc and this

Individual Project. The author wishes to express his gratitude to:

Mr. Langes Supramaniam (MSc Course Leader and Individual Project Supervisor)

(For making me a better researcher)

Ms. Sheonagh Rowley (Lecturer)

(For her patience, supervision and important feedback)

My Close Friends and Family

(For always being there)




6

ACRONYMS

AGR Assurance Gate Review ANAO Australian National Audit Office APM Association for Project Management BC Business Case CD Critical Decision CERF Civil Engineering Research Foundation CII Construction Industry Institute DOE Department of Energy (USA) EPP Early Project Planning EVM Earned Value Management FED Front-End Development FEED Front End Engineering and Design FEL Front-End Loading FMG Financial Management Guidance (Australia) IAPPM International Association of Project and Program Management IPA Independent Project Analysis IPR Independent Project Review KPI Key Performance Indicator NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration OGC Office of Government Commerce(UK) PB Performance Baseline PDRI Project Definition Rating Index PDRI Project Definition Rating Index PIM Probability Impact Matrix PLC Project Life Cycle PM Project Manager PMI Project Management Institute PMP Project Management Plan PP Project Plan PPP Pre Project Planning PRES Primary Research Execution Stage PRP Phases Review Process PT Project Team QA Quality Assurance RPS Research Proposal Stage SOW Scope of Work TBS Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat TPC Total Project Cost TRA Technology Readiness Assessment WBS Work Breakdown Structure




7

CONTENTS:

1. INITIAL RESEARCH PLAN ....................................................................... 16

1.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 16

1.2. RATIONALE .................................................................................. 17

1.2.1. Personal ................................................................................. 17

1.2.2. Business ................................................................................. 18

1.2.3. Academic Rationale .................................................................. 18

1.3. PROBLEM STATEMENT ................................................................... 19

1.4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS .................................................................. 22

1.5. PROBLEM DEFINITION ................................................................... 22

1.5.1. AIM ....................................................................................... 22

1.5.2. Objectives .............................................................................. 22

1.5.3. Scope .................................................................................... 23

1.5.4. Deliverables ............................................................................ 24

1.5.5. Risk Analysis ........................................................................... 24

1.5.6. CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS .................................................... 26

1.5.7. SUCCESS CRITERIA ................................................................. 26

1.5.8. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ............................................... 26

1.5.9. ASSUMPTIONS ........................................................................ 27

1.5.10. CONSTRAINTS ......................................................................... 27

1.5.11. CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................... 27

1.6. RESEARCH PROJECT SCHEDULE ...................................................... 28

1.7. RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS ............................................................ 29

1.8. INITIAL LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................... 30

1.8.1. Introduction ............................................................................ 30

1.8.2. PB Development ...................................................................... 31

1.8.3. The Front End Loading .............................................................. 33

1.8.4. PB Maturity ............................................................................. 35




8

1.8.5. PB Management and Control...................................................... 37

1.8.6. Gate Reviews Models ................................................................ 38

1.9. INITIAL METHODOLOGY ................................................................. 41

1.10. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................ 42

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................. 44

2.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 44

2.2. LITERATURE REVIEW PROCESS ....................................................... 44

2.3. SEARCH PLAN ............................................................................... 46

2.3.1. Search parameters ................................................................... 46

2.3.2. Mapping the literature .............................................................. 47

2.3.3. Sources of information ............................................................. 48

2.4. FRONT END MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL APPROACHES .................... 49

2.4.1. Sources Selection .................................................................... 49

2.5. MODELS BRIEF DESCRIPTION ......................................................... 51

2.5.1. The Royal Norwegian Ministry of Finance QA Scheme .................... 51

2.5.2. OGC Gateway Process (Office of Government Commerce) .............. 53

2.5.3. DFA Gateway Review Process (Australia) ..................................... 55

2.5.4. CII (Construction Industry Institute) ........................................... 56

2.5.5. U.S Department of Energy (D.O.E) ............................................. 58

2.5.6. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) ................................ 60

2.6. MODELS COMPARISON................................................................... 62

2.6.1. OGC/ TBS/ DFA ....................................................................... 62

2.6.2. DOE / CII ............................................................................... 63

2.6.3. Norway / OGC ......................................................................... 65

2.6.4. DOE/Norway ........................................................................... 66

2.6.5. Models Comparison Matrix ........................................................ 67

2.7. LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARY ...................................................... 68

3. METHODOLOGY AND METHOD APPROACHES ............................................. 71




9

3.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 71

3.2. RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY ................................................................ 72

3.3. RESEARCH APPROACHES ................................................................ 73

3.3.1. Quantitative/Qualitative ............................................................ 73

3.3.2. Deductive/Inductive ................................................................. 74

3.4. RESEARCH PURPOSE ..................................................................... 74

3.5. RESEARCH STRATEGY .................................................................... 76

3.6. SAMPLING AND PILOTING .............................................................. 80

3.6.1. Determining Sample Design ...................................................... 80

3.6.2. Target Population .................................................................... 81

3.6.3. Sampling Frame ...................................................................... 81

3.6.4. Sampling Techniques ............................................................... 81

3.6.5. Sample Size ............................................................................ 83

3.6.6. Execute the Sampling Process ................................................... 84

3.6.7. Piloting ................................................................................... 86

3.7. QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN ............................................................... 86

3.8. IDENTIFY DATA SETS .................................................................... 89

3.9. DATA ANALYSIS APPROACHES ........................................................ 91

3.9.1. Analysing Results .................................................................... 91

3.10. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY .......................................................... 93

3.11. VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY ............................................................ 94

4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATIONS..................................................... 96

4.1. CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................. 96

4.1.1. Research Project Development .................................................. 96

4.1.2. Research Project Review/Findings .............................................. 97

4.2. LESSONS LEARNED ....................................................................... 98

4.3. RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 98

5. REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 100




10

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................... 107

7. APPENDICES ...................................................................................... 110

7.1. APPENDIX 1: RESEARCH PROJECT RISK ......................................... 111

7.1.1. Identifying Risks .................................................................... 111

7.1.2. Risk Analysis ......................................................................... 112

7.1.3. Probability-Impact Matrix ........................................................ 113

7.1.4. Risk Evaluation ...................................................................... 115

7.1.5. Risk Response Development .................................................... 116

7.2. APPENDIX 2: SELECTION CRITERIA WEIGHTING SYSTEM ................. 117

7.3. APPENDIX 3: INFORMATION ACCESIBILITY ..................................... 118

7.4. APPENDIX 4: CHANGES LOG ......................................................... 119

7.5. APPENDIX 5: RELATED RESEARCH PROJECTS .................................. 120

7.6. APPENDIX 6: GANTT CHART ......................................................... 126

7.7. APPENDIX 7: RESEARCH PROJECT FLOW CHART .............................. 127

7.8. APPENDIX 8: DATA SET CAPTURING PROCESS ................................ 128




11

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Project Control .............................................................................. 16

Figure 2: Research Project PLC ..................................................................... 17

Figure 3: Immature PB: Effects & Consequences ............................................. 19

Figure 4: Uncertainty Evolution ..................................................................... 20

Figure 5: PB Development ............................................................................ 20

Figure 6: Decision Making Process ................................................................. 21

Figure 7: Research Project Scope .................................................................. 23

Figure 8: Research Project Schedule .............................................................. 28

Figure 9: PB Development ............................................................................ 30

Figure 10: PB Components ........................................................................... 31

Figure 11: PB Maturity-Building Process (1) .................................................... 31

Figure 12: APM PLC Models .......................................................................... 32

Figure 13: PB Progress ................................................................................ 32

Figure 14: Front End Loading ........................................................................ 33

Figure 15: Evolution of Project Uncertainty ..................................................... 34

Figure 16: PB Development .......................................................................... 35




Figure 20: Project Definition Methods & Tools ................................................. 37


Figure 22: Project Reviews ........................................................................... 39

Figure 23: Gate Review Process .................................................................... 39

Figure 24: Initial Methodology ...................................................................... 41

Figure 25: Primary Research Structure ........................................................... 41

Figure 26: Literature Review Process ............................................................. 45

Figure 27: Data Sources .............................................................................. 46

Figure 28: Literature mapping ...................................................................... 47

Figure 29: Norwegian Quality Assurance Framework ........................................ 51

Figure 30: Gateway Reviews (Norwegian QA Framework) ................................. 51

Figure 31: Norwegian QA Scheme Outline ...................................................... 52

Figure 32: UK OGC Gateway Process ............................................................. 53

Figure 33: OGC Gateway Model Outline .......................................................... 54

Figure 34: DFA Model Outline ....................................................................... 55




12

Figure 35: Front End Planning Process ........................................................... 56

Figure 36: CII Model Outline ......................................................................... 57

Figure 37: US DOE CD Stages ....................................................................... 58

Figure 38: DOE Model Outline ....................................................................... 58

Figure 39: TBS Model Outline ....................................................................... 60

Figure 40: Comparison OGC/DFA/TBS ............................................................ 62

Figure 41: Comparison DOE/CII .................................................................... 64

Figure 42: Comparison OGC/ ........................................................................ 65

Figure 43: Comparison DOE/CII .................................................................... 66

Figure 44: Conceptual Framework ................................................................. 69

Figure 45: ResearchPyramid ......................................................................... 71

Figure 46: Research Philosophy .................................................................... 72

Figure 47: Research Strategy ....................................................................... 77

Figure 48: Case Studies Selection (Preliminary Questionnaire) .......................... 78

Figure 49: Detailed Questionnaire ................................................................. 78

Figure 50: Additional Information Gathering ................................................... 79

Figure 51: Sample interpretation ................................................................... 80

Figure 52: Sampling Design Process .............................................................. 80

Figure 53: Sampling Techniques ................................................................... 82

Figure 54: Sampling Techniques Utilised ........................................................ 83

Figure 55: Measurement Stages .................................................................... 86

Figure 56: PB Progress Measurement ............................................................. 87

Figure 57: Questionnaire Parameters Proposal ................................................ 88

Figure 58: Gathering Data Sets ..................................................................... 90

Figure 59: Cost Baseline Maturity-Comparative Analysis (1) .............................. 92



Figure 62: Risk Assessment Process ............................................................ 111

Figure 63: Risk Analysis ............................................................................. 112

Figure 64: Probability Impact Matrix ............................................................ 113

Figure 65: Project Gantt Chart .................................................................... 126

Figure 66: Data Set Capturing Process ......................................................... 128




13

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Project Deliverables ........................................................................ 24

Table 2: Identified Risks .............................................................................. 25

Table 3: Risk Assessment ............................................................................. 25

Table 4: Risk Assessment Matrix ................................................................... 25

Table 5: Research Project Duration ................................................................ 28

Table 6: Resource Requirements ................................................................... 29

Table 7: PB Progress ................................................................................... 33

Table 8: Search Parameters ......................................................................... 46

Table 9: Sources of Information .................................................................... 48

Table 10: Selection Criteria .......................................................................... 49

Table 11: Selection Matrix ............................................................................ 50

Table 12: Norwegian QA Scheme Features ..................................................... 52

Table 13: OGC Gateway Model Features ......................................................... 54

Table 14: Gate Reviews Focus ...................................................................... 55

Table 15: DFA Model Features ...................................................................... 56

Table 16: CII Model Features ........................................................................ 57

Table 17: DOE Model Features ...................................................................... 59

Table 18: TBS Gate Reviews Focus ................................................................ 60

Table 19: TBS Model Features ....................................................................... 61

Table 20: Models Comparison Matrix .............................................................. 67

Table 21: Comparison of Research Philosophies ............................................... 73

Table 22: Quantitative vs Qualitative ............................................................. 74

Table 23: Deduction vs Induction .................................................................. 74

Table 24: Research Purposes ........................................................................ 75

Table 25: Research Strategies ...................................................................... 77

Table 26: Sampling Techniques ..................................................................... 82

Table 27: Sample Size ................................................................................. 83

Table 28: Request for Collaboration (Preliminary Questionnaire) ........................ 84

Table 29: Preliminary Questionnaire Matrix ..................................................... 85

Table 30: Sampling Process Criteria ............................................................... 85

Table 31: Data Sets .................................................................................... 89

Table 32: Organisation Results ..................................................................... 89

Table 33: Comparison Matrix ........................................................................ 90

Table 34: Descriptive Statistic Methods .......................................................... 91




14

Table 35: Risk Identification Techniques ....................................................... 111

Table 36: Identified Risks ........................................................................... 112

Table 37: Probability Scale ......................................................................... 113

Table 38: Impact Scale .............................................................................. 113

Table 39: P-I Matrix .................................................................................. 114

Table 40: Risk Scale .................................................................................. 114

Table 41: Prioritisation Matrix ..................................................................... 114

Table 42: Risk Evaluation ........................................................................... 115

Table 43: Risk Evaluation Matrix ................................................................. 115

Table 44: Mitigation Strategy ...................................................................... 116

Table 45: Criteria Sources .......................................................................... 117

Table 46: Weight Calculation ...................................................................... 117

Table 47: Changes Log .............................................................................. 119




15

CHAPTER 1PROJECT RESEARCH PLAN




16

1. INITIAL RESEARCH PLAN

1.1. INTRODUCTION

The significance of the Performance Baseline (PB) has been extensively analysed in

the literature for many years. This notoriety is given because it is a key element to

be able to determine whether a project is running over budget, over schedule or

whether the scope of work has suffered changes (APM, 2006; PMI, 2008; Kerzner,

2009; Clements and Gido, 2009). However, despite all the project management

methodologies available, having a mature PB against to compare the evolution of

project remains a challenge faced by many public and private organizations (CII,

2012; DOE, 2008b).

Before proceeding any further, it is appropriate to state what is meant by PB

maturity within the context of this research project. Thus, in this study, the

maturity level of a PB can be defined as the proximity between the desired end

product and initially agreed schedule and cost and the real values required to finish

a project (U.S DOE, 2011e).

This report is a project management research proposal titled “Performance Baseline

Maturity from a control-based Perspective”. This document will assess some of the

most important management and control models attempting to find which are the

main characteristics that drive to an improvement in the maturity of the PB, and as

a result to be able to outline a theoretical framework maximising its suitability

across the PLC.

Figure 1: Project Control (Source APM 2010)




17

On the other hand, despite this research project is focused on the processes

associated to the PB development, several project management areas will also be

included within the search plan to be further analysed. Thus, Governance, Change

Management, Planning, and Monitoring and Control processes will be part of the

literature review regarding to the main topic.

Finally, it is also important to note that the approach adopted for undertaking this

project has followed the traditional APM Project Life Cycle model as shown in Figure

2.

Figure 2: Research Project PLC

(Source: Author)

1.2. RATIONALE

The main reasons for undertaking this research project have been divided into

three different categories:

1.2.1. Personal

At the moment of thinking about this research project, Author‘s aim was to apply

some of the recently acquired project management knowledge to the common

issues I was used to deal with during my professional career. Regarding this, one of

my favourite areas and source of several professional discussions has always been

the improvement of the effective control of the projects. Nevertheless, this is a

hugely broad area and further refining was necessary to define the concrete and

specific topic area where the research project would focus. In this sense, the topic




18

selected is the final result of an evolutive process underpinned by an exhaustive

review of the literature.

1.2.2. Business

It is well known that the PB is a key element directly related to the effectiveness of

the decision making processes that govern the evolution of the project (Klakegg,

2012), and also an essential component for controlling the implementation of the

project (Lester, 2006; APM, 2010; DOE, 2011c)

This research project should be able to obtain interesting results regarding to the

relationship between the existing frameworks utilised for managing and controlling

projects and the resulting maturity of the PB across the PLC.

1.2.3. Academic Rationale

From an academic point of view, the principal reason for undertaking this research

project was to put some light on the planning processes which take place on the

early stages of projects, and concretely analyze the PB creation and development

processes regarding to be able to understand its importance and they way to

improve PB maturity.




19

1.3. PROBLEM STATEMENT

It is commonly accepted that the PB is an essential component for managing

projects. The main reason for this consideration is that the PB is the value or

condition against which all future measurements will be compared, and any lack of

reliability will affect dramatically to the project performance measurement (APM,

2006; Tenrox, 2012; PMI, 2008). It is also clear that there are many possible

reasons for project failures, but a highly developed baseline should contribute to

minimise cost overruns and schedule delays as well as to minimise changes in

scope of the project during the implementation phase (DOE, 2011; Meier, 2009;

Williams et al., 2012).

Figure 3: Immature PB: Effects & Consequences

(Source: Author)

On the other hand, it is also commonly accepted the PB development is an iterative

process that starts in the early stages of the project and continues all along the

PLC. Therefore, the level of maturity of the PB will increase at the same time that

project definition grows (APM, 2006; PMI, 2008; DOE, 2011e).




20

Figure 4: Uncertainty Evolution

(Source: Author)

However, it is noticeable that even nowadays, the approach of most of the PM

organizations, bodies of knowledge and private contractors is majorly oriented to

improve the performance of projects during the implementation phase, and few of

them pay reasonable attention to the early stages of the project (Loedre, et al.,

2003). For this reason, the progress of the PB during the front end loading of

projects remains as a question that has not been properly addressed (Jergeas,

2008; Palmer, Gibson and Bingham, 2010; Gibson and Bosfield, 2012).

Figure 5: PB Development




21

(Source: Author)

Nonetheless, despite these attitudes, the level of maturity of the PB is not only

important during the implementation phase of projects, thus during the pre-

implementation stages, maturity of the PB will influence dramatically the decision

making processes (See Figure 6) which conclude whether a project must continue

to the next stage, be stopped or redefined (Williams and Samset, 2010).

Figure 6: Decision Making Process

In this sense, it must be considered that significant differences in the level of

maturity of the PB between the stages preceding the execution phase could indicate

that some of the decisions have been taken under an unsuitable level of

uncertainty. Additionally, it is also clear that in order to avoid wasting of project

scarce resources, the level of maturity of the PB should be directly related to the

criticality of the project, its size and complexity (NASA, 2010).

Regarding all these issues, it has been noticed that during the last decade several

organisms have developed frameworks for managing and controlling projects.

However, these frameworks have been created basing on their concrete necessities,

and also on the type and the size of the projects that they undertake. Additionally,

these organizations claim the suitability of their frameworks underpinning their

opinions on the assessment of the level of project delay, cost overruns and lack of

accomplishment of requirements (DOE, 2011d; CII, 2012; ANAO, 2012).

Nevertheless, few of them take in account the PB maturity as a factor to control

during the whole PLC and not just during the implementation phase. Thus huge

deviations between the PB derived from the BC and the final used to control

performance during the implementation is in most cases a questions that is not

addressed.




22

For all these reasons, this research project will focus on the existing management

and control frameworks and will try to assess their suitability from a PB maturity

perspective. Thus, after selecting some of the most representative, they will be

compared and used as the basis to develop a theoretical framework with the

objective of ensure proper PB across the PLC.

1.4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

How can be minimized the deviation between the PB frozen before project

implementation and the final data sets of the project?

How can we ensure that the level of maturity of the PB is suitable all along the

PLC?

Which are the elements that can be measured in order to calculate the level of

maturity of the PB at each stage of the project?

Why data sets used to decide whether or not to go ahead with the next project

stage of the project are often not totally accurate?

How minimize the gap between the estimations used to develop the Business

Case and those used to develop the PMP?

Which are the processes and tools that can help us to improve the PB maturity

from a control-based perspective?

1.5. PROBLEM DEFINITION

1.5.1. AIM

Investigate how the different perspectives for monitoring and controlling

(reviewing) the project contribute to the development of the performance baseline,

comparing results and obtaining conclusions to make possible the development of a

theoretical framework which facilitates obtaining a mature enough PB progress

across the project life cycle.

1.5.2. Objectives

The main objectives of this research project are:

1. Examine the concept, development processes and quality assurance

methodologies of the Performance Baseline in large capital projects.

2. Critically evaluate and compare the different models utilised for managing and

controlling major public investments.




23

3. Establish the relationship between the Independent Project Reviews undertaken

during the FEL of the project and the performance baseline robustness.

4. Obtain the necessary information for the further development of a theoretical

framework which make possible to obtain a mature enough PB evolution across

the PLC.

5. To synthesise the findings of the study making appropriate recommendations.

1.5.3. Scope

The scope of this research project includes:

Building of a detailed project research proposal.

Undertake a literature review (including critical appraisal of literature) relevant

to the research project objectives.

Design and justification of a suitable primary research methodology.

Assessment of relevant findings and appropriate conclusions

This document is just a research proposal and its scope does not include the

primary research. However, this research project will include:

Complete implementation of the primary research methodology within the

specified context.

Development of questionnaires to gather information from the selected sources.

Data analysis and comparison of the research findings.

Development of a suitable theoretical framework for managing and controlling

the proper progress of the PB.

Figure 7: Research Project Scope

(Source: Author)




24

1.5.4. Deliverables

The main deliverables of this Research Project have been included in Table 1.

RESEARCH PROJECT DELIVERABLES

RESEARCH PROJECT LIFECYCLE

DELIVERABLES EXPECTED

DATE

RESEARCH PROPOSAL STAGE (RPS)

CONCEPT

Chapter 1: Project Research Plan Full Project Definition Initial Literature Review Research Questions Risk Management Plan Research Schedule / Resources and

Costs

5th July 2012

DEFINITION

Chapter 2: Literature Review FEL and Project Success Literature

Analysis Synthesis and Relation to Research Area Conceptual Framework

11th Aug 2012

IMPLEMENTATION

Chapter 3: Research Methodology Research Approach Data Collection Technique Sampling Approach Data Analysis Method

5th Sep 2012

Chapter 4: Conclusions Synthesis of Research Findings Lessons Learned

25th Sep 2012

HANDOVER & CLOSEOUT Project Proposal Report Submission Chapter 1 – 4 Reference and Appendices

28th Sep 2012

PRIMARY RESEARCH EXECUTION STAGE (PRES)

OPERATIONS Primary Research Outputs 8th Dec 2012

Initial Data Analysis Results 25th Dec 2012

CLOSEOUT Initial Data Synthesis and Conclusions Jan 25st 2013

Research Project Final Report Jan 29th 2013 Table 1: Project Deliverables

1.5.5. Risk Analysis

The main purpose of undertaking a risk assessment has been to recognize and

assess potential and unforeseen issues that might occur when the Project is

implemented. The assessment of the different perceived risks has been undertaken

based on estimated probability, impact and level of controllability of the event. See

a summary of results in Tables 2, 3 and 4. (See further details of this process in

Appendix 1)




25

RISK ID STAGE TITLE DESCRIPTION

ID-1 PRES Lack of collaboration Unwillingness of research population to participate in study.

ID-2 RPS/PRES IT failure Data loss/corruption.

ID-3 RPS/PRES Lack of quality Project going off track and not meeting academic requirements.

ID-4 RPS/PRES Cost overruns Funding issues / cost escalations.

ID-5 PRES Analysis issues Research results prove inconclusive.

ID-6 RPS/PRES Lack of organization Referencing issues and information overload.

ID-7 RPS/PRES Project Delays Not meeting research deadlines.

ID-8 RPS Lack of information Unavailability of literature and related academic resources.

ID-9 PRES Methods failure Inappropriate techniques for data collection.

ID-10 PRES Time People just do not respond in time for you to achieve project done on time.

ID-11 PRES Confidentiality Issues associated to the ensuring of the confidentiality of the information provided by the collaborating organisms.

Table 2: Identified Risks

RISK ID TITLE QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT

Prob. Imp. Overall Risk

ID-1 Lack of collaboration 0,7 0,8 0,56 Catastrophic

ID-2 IT failure 0,3 0,2 0,06 Medium

ID-3 Lack of quality 0,3 0,4 0,12 Medium

ID-4 Cost overruns 0,5 0,05 0,025 Low

ID-5 Analysis issues 0,5 0,05 0,025 Low

ID-6 Lack of organization 0,3 0,1 0,03 Low

ID-7 Project Delays 0,1 0,4 0,04 Medium

ID-8 Lack of information 0,5 0,2 0,1 Medium

ID-9 Methods failure 0,05 0,5 0,025 Low

ID-10 Time 0,1 0,4 0,04 Medium

ID-11 Confidentiality 0,3 0,4 0,12 Medium Table 3: Risk Assessment

PR

OB

AB

ILIT

Y 0,9

Almost certain

0,7 Likely ID-1

0,5 Possible ID-4, ID-5, ID-9 ID-8

0,3 Unlikely ID-6 ID-2 ID-3, ID-11

0,1 Rare ID-7, ID-10

Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic 0,05 0,1 0,2 0,4 0,8 IMPACT

Table 4: Risk Assessment Matrix




26

1.5.6. CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS

The success of this Research Project is dependent on:

Research Proposal Stage (RPS):

Effective communication and collaboration between the researcher and the

project internal contributors.

Appropriate research project design with well defined relationships between the

research aim and objectives, the literature review, the research methodology

and its subsequent implementation.

Primary Research Execution Stage (PRES):

Access to relevant data sets and project-related information to support this

research aim and objectives.

Effective communication and collaboration between the researcher and the

external contributors to the project (collaborating organisations).

1.5.7. SUCCESS CRITERIA

This Research Project success will be judged on:


Submission by 28th September 2012.

Exam Board approval and award of module credit points.


Finish this phase on time and within budget as defined in the research proposal.

Robust primary research findings, effective analysis and clear synthesis following

adequately the research methods.

Subsequent development of a theoretical framework based on research findings.

1.5.8. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS


Number of references included.

Number of sources utilized.

Grade awarded by the Exam Board evaluating the proposal.




27


% of responses obtained between the organisations selected to be part of this

research project.

%of fulfillment of the questionnaires (data provided/data solicitated).

Average number of case studies per organisation.

1.5.9. ASSUMPTIONS


Secondary information utilised in this research project is reliable and based on solid research methodologies.


Organisms selected will collaborate to provide necessary information.

Primary data obtained from the selected sources are accurate.

Organism selected will manage to find the range of projects needed to

undertake the study.

1.5.10. CONSTRAINTS


Project supervisor cannot be proactively involved in project.


Confidentiality of the projects data set avoiding a proper primary research data

collection.

Availability of significant data sets allowing to extract relevant conclusions.

Lack of homogeneity of the sample frame affecting to the validity and reliability

of the results.

1.5.11. CONSIDERATIONS

The variety of approaches for managing and controlling projects utilised by

different organisations.

The significant amount of major investments failing in their originally planned

budget and schedule.

The complexity associated to the definition of parameters which can be

representative of the PB maturity concept.




28

1.6. RESEARCH PROJECT SCHEDULE

The Research Proposal Stage (RPS) of this Research Project started in May 2012

and will take 4½ months with final submission on September 28th 2012.

Figure 8: Research Project Schedule

The total duration of the project has been estimated on 189 days (See Table 5 and

Figure 8)

TASK NAME DURATION

(Days)

RESEARCH PROJECT (Total) 189

PROJECT INITIATION 49

RPS (97 days)

Project Kick Off 7

Project Research Plan 42

PROJECT PLANNING 48

Literature Review 22

Research Methodology 16

Conclusions and Recommendations 10

PROJECT EXECUTION 60

PRES (92 days)

Data Collection 30

Data Analysis 30

PROJECT CLOSEUT 32

Synthesise Data and Draft Development 25

Review (external/internal) 7

Project Final Report - Table 5: Research Project Duration

A detailed Gantt chart of this Research Project has been included in Appendix 6.




29

1.7. RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS

The necessary resources to undertake this project have been detailed in Table 6.

According to this, the budget has been estimated in £14,890.

RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS AND COSTS

RP

S

(R

ES

EA

RC

H P

RO

PO

SA

L S

TA

GE

)

LABOUR Units Cost Total

Researcher : Responsible for the entire study from initiation to closeout including: Project Proposal/Planning (200 h)

200 hours £15 £3,000

Module coordinator: Outlines the module structure, sets project requirements, delivers lectures and deals with all extraneous issues.

30 hours £20 £600

Project advisor: Guides the student, gives feedback on progress and holds a number of research tutorials.

20 hours £35 £700

MATERIALS Units Cost Total

Laptop with appropriate software 1 £1,000 £1,000

Additional books, magazines & online resources Multiple £200 £200

Transportation Multiple £300 £300

Access to RGU and associated services: Academic resources/databases World wide web/email account RGU CAQDAS software (cost based on tuition fee for module)

1/4th £9,500 £2,375

PR

ES

(P

RIM

AR

Y R

ES

EA

RC

H E

XE

CU

TIO

N S

TA

GE

) LABOUR Units Cost Total

Researcher: Responsible for the entire study from initiation to closeout including: Data Collection/Analysis (100 h) Conclusions elaboration (50 h)

150 hours £15 £2,250

Project advisor: Guides the student, gives feedback on progress and holds a number of research tutorials.

30 hours £35 £1050

MATERIALS Units Cost Total

Additional books, magazines & online resources Multiple £500 £500

Printing and binding final report Multiple £40 £40

Transportation and Communications Multiple £500 £500

Access to RGU and associated services: Academic resources/databases World wide web/email account RGU CAQDAS software (cost based on tuition fee for module)

1/4th £9,500 £2,375

TOTAL PROJECT COST £14,890Table 6: Resource Requirements




30

1.8. INITIAL LITERATURE REVIEW

1.8.1. Introduction

An initial review of the literature regarding to the PB concept shows that despite the

term “baseline” is commonly utilised within the project management jargon there

are some ambiguities about what concretely it does implicate (APM, 2006; IAPPM,

2006; PMI, 2008). Thus, the APM refers briefly to the baseline concept as the

reference to measure the deviations from the time, cost, scope and quality agreed

objectives (APM, 2006). Additionally, the PMI (2008) gives major details and

considers three different categories included within the baseline concept.

Accordingly, the scope baseline is “the approved detailed project scope statement

and its associated WBS” (PMI, 2008). The cost baseline is a “time-phased budget

that is used as a basis against which to measure, monitor, and control overall cost

performance on the project” (PMI, 2008). And finally, the schedule baseline is a

“specific version of the project schedule developed from the schedule network

analysis…accepted and approved by the project management team…with baseline

start dates and baseline finish dates” (PMI, 2008).


(Source: Author)

Therefore, it can be concluded that the PB will be the combination of all three

mentioned baselines. Furthermore, the development of the PB will include building

INTERACTIO

NS

INTE

RACTIONS




31

a WBS and establishing the key relationships between scope, schedule, costs and

the management of these (IAPPM, 2006; DOE, 2011c, 2011d; Tenrox, 2012).

Figure 10: PB Components

1.8.2. PB Development

Other key element related to the assessment of the PB maturity is to determine

which are the stages where the PB development processes take place. Thus, it

would be possible to assess which are the core components affecting to its

robustness.

Figure 11: PB Maturity-Building Process (1)

In this regard, the main project management associations state that the PB is

established in the project plan (PP), and that it will be periodically updated through

change management processes (APM, 2006; PMI, 2008; IPMA, 2008). Thereby,

taking as a reference the APM PLC model (APM, 2010), the Mobilisation phase is

recognised to be the project stage when the project will be definitely baselined (PB

is frozen), previously to the implementation phase where PB will be utilised for

monitoring and controlling the project (See Figures 12 and 13).




32

Figure 12: APM PLC Models

Source: APM, “Introduction to Project Control” (2010)

However, PB Development is not a process focused on a concrete project stage, but

a continuous and iterative process throughout the PLC which begins at the earliest

phases of it. In this regard, the PB matures as more data and analysis provide more

detailed definition and level of detail. (DOE, 2011c; Alleman, 2012)

Figure 13: PB Progress (Source: Author)

FIN

AL

DA

TA

S

ET

S

BU

SIN

ES

S

CA

SE

PM

P

PB

F

RO

ZE

N

PB

MA

TU

RIT

Y

ST

RA

TE

GIC

B

C




33

This progress of the PB across the initial project stages is clearly reflected on the

DOE Performance Baseline Guide (2011), which details the evolution of the different

components of the PB across the PLC (See Table 7).

PB COMPONENT

PROJECT LIFECYCLE PHASES

Initiation Definition Execution Transition/ Closeout

Technical Baseline

Preliminary functions and requirements from pre- conceptual design

Preliminary design requirements baseline

Final design requirements,

configuration baseline

As-built configuration

baseline

Schedule Baseline

Order of magnitude project duration

and forecast need date

Preliminary schedule and milestones

Complete schedule hierarchy

Actual completion date

Cost Baseline Order of magnitude cost

estimate Preliminary cost

estimates Final TPC estimate

Actual project costs

Table 7: PB Progress (Source DOE 2008)

1.8.3. The Front End Loading

The project stages where the PB development takes place are commonly known as

the Front End of the project (Merrow, 2011).

Figure 14: Front End Loading

(Source: Author)

Thereupon, to be able to assess which are the key elements that contribute to the

development of a mature performance baseline, this research project will pay

special attention to the processes undertaken for managing and controlling the

project during this period, as well as to the tools utilised for that purpose.

After analyzing reputed literature sources, it has been noticed that despite this

concept has been known from the earliest days of the project management




34

discipline, the FEL remains as an ambiguous concept which is called in a number

different ways depending on the authors, and also on the type of industry (Morris,

2011). Thus, all these names refer to the same o very similar reality:

FEP (Front-end planning)

FEL (Front-end loading)

FEED (Front-end engineering design)

PPP (Pre-project planning)

EPP (Early project planning)

This wide variety of approaches used to reflect the same concept may be indicative

that this concept has not been adequately addressed in the different project

management bodies of knowledge. However, this lack of a clear understanding by

the main project management associations has not affected to his significance in

terms of the utility of adding information during these initial stages when

uncertainty is highest and the project concept is conceived (George, Bell and Back,

2008). Thereby, this utility may be also traduced in terms of decision-maker’s

flexibility and cost of making amendments (Willians, Samset and Sunnevag, 2009).

This is illustrated in Figure 15.

Figure 15: Evolution of Project Uncertainty

(Source: Willians, Samset and Sunnevag 2009)

Regarding this, several studies and literature refers to the FEL as a key element to

improve project performance (Yun, Suk, Dai and Mulva, 2012; Gibson and Bosfield,

2012; CERF, 2004). Thus, inadequate front-end planning has been considered one

of the most significant contract and project management issue identified by the U.S

Department of Energy (DOE, 2008b, 2011d). Moreover, the Construction Industry

Institute (CII) includes this project phase within the key elements to improve

project performance (CII, 2012). Finally, others authors like Kerzner (2009) and




35

Willians, Sunnevag and Samset (2009), mention the “quality front end planning” as

a critical success factor for mega projects.

1.8.4. PB Maturity

Researchers have identified in previous studies that PB development will be affected

by several elements: people involved in the development process, baselining

processes, tools and method utilised for project definition (DOE, 2011c; 2011d;

2011e; Flydjer, 2007; Alleman, 2012).


In this connection, it is out of discussion that capabilities and experience of people

involved in the early stages of the project will affect to the development of the PB.


Thereby, several studies undertaken by the U.S DOE include the lack of personnel

with the appropriate skills as root cause for not completing the front end planning

to an appropriate level before establishing the performance baseline (DOE, 2011b;

2011d). Also Steven Meier, in a study undertaken in 2008, including more than 30




36

US Department of Defence billionaire projects; pointed to inexperience workforce as

a key element for the development of unrealistic baselines which contribute to

generate project failure. In the same way, Flyvbjerg (2007) concluded that some of

the major reasons for inaccuracy of project baseline data in large infrastructure

projects were due to political pressures, overoptimism and cognitive biases.

On the other hand, it has also been found that Baselining Processes are other key

element affecting to the creation and progress of the PB across the PLC.

Accordingly, these iterative processes should define how to build the

technical/scope baseline, the schedule baseline and the cost baseline as well as

reflect the relationships between the different components which constitute the PB

(DOE, 2011c; Alleman, 2012).


In this sense, it has been noted that these processes, despite not being

standardized, have been widely investigated by contractors and have been shared

and adopted informally by project management organizations (DOE, 2011c).

Finally, other factor affecting to the development of the PB is the level of definition

of the project in each one of the project stages. In this sense, Project Definition

tools and methods utilised by project teams during the early stages of the project

will be responsible of the evolution in the definition of the project scope, and

therefore it will affect to the levels of project uncertainty in the different stages

which are directly related to the PB construction.

CO

NT

EX

T

WIT

HIN

PL

C

SCHEDULE

BASELINE

SCOPE

BASELINECOST

BASELINE

KPI




37


These tools and methods for project definition are extensively reported in literature

and the may be divided into three main categories: Systems Engineering,

Alternatives Analysis and Front End Planning. (DOE, 2011c)

Figure 20: Project Definition Methods & Tools

It has been observed that abundant research about the significance of these

elements has been undertaken in the last years (Gruhl, 1992; Honour, 2004;

Jergeas, 2008). Thus, several tools for: cost-benefit analysis, lifecycle cost analysis,

benchmarking, functional analysis, gap analysis, requirements definition, etc, have

been created and tailored for being utilised into different industries and type of

projects.

1.8.5. PB Management and Control

The initial conclusion that was extracted after this initial review of the literature is

that there are several elements affecting to the PB, and that the relative

importance of each one in terms of influence over the maturity of the PB is

complicated to measure, due to the high level of interaction and the knock on

effects between all them. Nevertheless, it has been noted that the key element to

ensure a suitable maturity of the PB across the different stages of the PLC is not




38

only related to the development of the baseline, and in this sense less attention has

been put on the question of how the management and control frameworks utilised

during these early stages of the project may affect to the PB. In others words, how

can we know that a PB built upon all those tools and methodologies fits for purpose.


In this regard, the answer should be obtained from the analysis of those

management and control models which drive the progress of the PB across the PLC.

Thereby, analysis of the literature shows that traditionally the focus of the main

project management associations and authors has be put on the implementation

phase of the project, and little contribution has been made related to the control

processes during the initial phases of the project (APM, 2010; PMI, 2010; Kerzner,

2009)

However, several public organisms and some private associations have put their

attention on the fact that project delays and cost overruns still remain as frequent

issues affecting dramatically to the major capital investments. (DOE, 2011d; NASA,

2010; ANAO, 2012).In this way, they have contributed to the project management

knowledge through the development of frameworks which allow to improve the

control over the project with special attention to the early stages.

1.8.6. Gate Reviews Models

Literature reviewed indicates that the main control system utilized by most of the

governmental organizations and private corporations during the early stages of the

project is the Gate Reviews framework (APM, 2010; Maylor, 2010; NASA, 2010;

TBS, 2010b).

CHANGE CONTROL

CO

NT

EX

T

WIT

HIN

PL

C

SCHEDULE

BASELINE

SCOPE

BASELINECOST

BASELINE

PEOPLE

INVOLVED

PR

OJE

CT

DE

FIN

ITIO

N

ME

TH

OD

S

BASELININ

G

PROCESSES

KPI

PB MATURITY




39

Figure 22: Project Reviews

(Source APM 2010)

These gate reviews mark the end of project phases and their function is to check

that the project is to measure project objectives accomplishment, and determine

whether the project should move to the next stage (APM, 2010).

Figure 23: Gate Review Process

(Source: Cooper 2008)

However this system is far from being a clearly defined framework commonly

accepted by the project management community. In this regard, this concept was

initially conceived by NASA in the 1960s and called Phases Review Process (PRP),

along the years this system has been adopted by other organisms and institutions

and nowadays several versions of the gated process are pillar of the project

management systems utilized by many governments and private organizations

(Maylor, 2010).




40

On the other hand, regarding to the control of the progress of the PB in terms of

maturity, these models should allow to assess periodically whether the baseline is

mature enough to be a significant contributor to the decision making processes,

and therefore whether is evolving properly to become the reference during the

implementation phase (Kerzner, 2009; Samset, 2009; HM Treasury, 2011).

Nevertheless, few of them stress on the PB maturity as a factor to be specifically

controlled and consequently it is complicated to assess which is the most suitable

model from a PB maturity contribution perspective. In this regard, next chapter will

continue seeking to clarify these issues.




41

1.9. INITIAL METHODOLOGY

This research project is trying to address some of the issues associated to the

progress of the PB across the PLC; concretely it is going to detail the process for

constructing a theoretical framework for managing and controlling the FEL of the

project ensuring a suitable level of maturity of the PB all along the different stages

before implementation phase. For this purpose, initially it will be gathered and

reviewed information related to the topic, and based on the conclusion of this

assessment it will be chosen the methodology and methods that will be used to

carry out the primary research (See Figure 24).

Figure 24: Initial Methodology

(Source: Author)

This Primary Research will follow the structure shown in Figure 25.

Figure 25: Primary Research Structure




42

1.10. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Research Ethics involves a wide range of issues that may arise from the research

activities. Thereby, there are many ethical issues to be taken into serious

consideration for the development of a research project. Some of those key issues

include but are not restricted to:

Honesty and integrity

Review/Quality control process

Ethical standards

Authorship

During the elaboration of this document the Robert Gordon university Research

Ethics policy has been the valid reference, for this purpose it has been taken in

account the following RGU procedures (RGU, 2009):

Policies relating to Research and Knowledge Transfer

Research Governance Policy

Research Ethics Policy

Commercialisation Reward Sharing Policy

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy




43

CHAPTER 2LITERATURE REVIEW




44

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. INTRODUCTION

After the initial literature review (see Chapter 1) which has introduced the problem,

this chapter will focus attention on the assessment of the existing frameworks for

managing and controlling major public investments. In this regard, after an initial

investigation on the main models utilized in Europe, North America and Australia, it

will be undertaken an option appraisal process for selecting which are the most

suitable models for being the basis of this report. After this, a descriptive analysis

of the selected models will be delivered, and afterwards a comparative analysis

between the models will detail their similarities and differences, as well as the main

strengths and weaknesses associated to each model. As a result, an initial

conclusion about which is the best option from a PB maturity perspective will be

obtained and at the same time it will be gathered information about the type of

parameters that could be used to measure the PB maturity in the context of the

primary data collection.

2.2. LITERATURE REVIEW PROCESS

The literature review can be defined as a systematic reading of previously published

and unpublished information relating to the area of investigation.

(Naoum, 2007) This review should describe, summarize, evaluate and clarify this

information, and it should also give a theoretical basis for our research (Boote &

Beile, 2005).

The basic purposes for this literature review are:

Provide a context for the research

Justify the research

Ensure the research has not been done before

Show where the research fits into the existing body of knowledge

Enable the researcher to learn from previous theory on the subject

Illustrate how the subject has been studied previously

Highlight flaws in previous research

Outline gaps in previous research

Show that the work is adding to the understanding and knowledge of the

field




45

Help refine, refocus or even change the topic (Boote & Beile, 2005).

Literature search and review will be an early activity for most Research Projects. In

spite of this early start, it is usually necessary to continue searching throughout the

PLC. Thus, it may be considered as an iterative method which utilizes the new

knowledge generated through the literature review to get back and refine the

process improving the final written critical literature review (Saunders, Lewis,

Thornhill and Jenkins, 2003).

Figure 26: Literature Review Process




46

2.3. SEARCH PLAN

The literature sources which have been used to develop a good understanding of

the topic and that have provided insight into previous research have been detailed

in Figure 27. Those sources have been divided into three categories based on the

level of detail and accessibility. Thus, primary sources are original materials,

secondary sources provide interpretation and analysis of primary sources, and

tertiary literature sources are designed either to help to locate primary and secondary

literature or to introduce a topic (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009).

Figure 27: Data Sources

(Adapted from Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill 2009)

2.3.1. Search parameters

SEARCH PARAMENTERS

Language of publication: English

Subject area: Project Management, Performance Baseline

Business sector: Public Major Investments

Geographical area: Western Europe, North America, Australia

Publication period: 2007-2012

Literature type: Books, journals, articles, thesis, reports, websites, databases, blogs

Table 8: Search Parameters




47

2.3.2. Mapping the literature

The identification of search terms is the most important part of planning the search

for relevant literature (Bell, 2005). Key words are the basic terms that describe the

research questions and the objectives, and will be used to search the tertiary

literature (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009).They can be identified using

several different techniques, thus for this research project a relevance tree has

been constructed to provide a guide to the search process (See Fig 28).

Figure 28: Literature mapping




48

2.3.3. Sources of information

Most of the materials utilized for the execution of this research project have been

gathered online from different websites. Table 9 includes some of the most

frequently accessed for obtaining relevant information.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

WEB SITES

PROJECT MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE www.pmi.org

APM www.apm.org.uk

CONTRUCTION www.construction-institute.org

PMI www.pmi.org

IPMA http://www.ipma.ch/

ASAPM http://asapm.org/ P. DEVEL & M. ASSOCIATION http://www.pdma.org/

DATA BASES

EMERALD www.emeraldinsight.com

SCIENCE DIREC www.sciencedirect.com

INTERNATIONAL NEWSSTAND www.newsstand.co.uk

BUSINESS SOURCE PREMIER www.ebscohost.com

ELSEVIER www.elsevier.com

ASCELIBRARY http://ascelibrary.org

DSPACE http://dspace.mit.edu

WILEY ONLINE LIBRARY http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com

TAYLOR FRANCIS ONLINE www.tandfonline.com

IEEE http://ieeexplore.ieee.org

SPRINGERLINK www.springerlink.com

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

JOURNALS

PM NETWORK ONLINE http://www.pmi.org/Knowledge-Center/Publications-PM-Network.aspx

INT. JOURNAL OF PM http://www.journals.elsevier.com/international-journal-of-project-management/

PROJECT MAGAZINE www.projectmagazine.com

PROJECT MANAGER TODAY www.pmtoday.co.uk

PM CONNECT JOURNAL http://www.pm4dev.com/resources/pm-ejournal.html

PROJECTS @ WORK MAGAZINE http://www.projectsatwork.com/ Table 9: Sources of Information




49

2.4. FRONT END MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL APPROACHES

The point of departure for this exhaustive literature review will be to analyse the

main perspectives for managing and controlling projects with special attention put

on the Front End control systems. The main objectives of this review will be to

extract the principal features of each model, to compare the most relevant

frameworks and to investigate how different approaches may affect to the maturity

of the PB.

2.4.1. Sources Selection

The first step to undertake this study will be to make a selection of sources based

on several criteria detailed in Table 10. For this purpose it was decided to utilise a

Multi-Weighted Scoring Model (Gray and Larsson, 2008) to calculate the relative

importance of the different public/private organisations and professional

associations which after a detailed search have been pointed as a potential

candidate to be the subject of further research in regard to the topic.

CRITERIA DESCRIPTION WEIGHT

Accessibility The organization allows information to be made available for scrutiny by other researchers.

0.2

Information Quality To have information sufficient to provide results of interest and relevance which can be applied in a general context.

0.15

Time Series Analysis

(database)

Organisations should provide comparative information over time. For the purposes of this research project, retrospective information is preferable to estimates of future costs.

0.1

Sample validity and reliability

The organisations must be able to provide a good sample for obtaining valid and reliable information.

0.1

Applicability It is measured basing on the breath of range of the projects that are managed under each organisation model.

0.2

Illustrative Material availability

The source may be able to provide some illustrative material to assist in understanding potential relationships between then FEL management and controlling frameworks and the PB maturity.

0.1

Alignment Level of alignment with this research project goals, objectives and priorities. 0.1

Capability Capabilities & Professional Standing of the Organisation. 0.05 Table 10: Selection Criteria

In this regard, the different criteria were assessed using a 1 to 10 scale of

suitability, furthermore each one has been weighted taken in account the perceived

relative importance for the decision about the suitability of the organisation for the

purpose of this research project. (See further details about the criteria selection

and weighting process in Appendix 2).




50

SELECTION MATRIX

OR

GA

NIS

AT

ION

S

Acc

essi

bili

ty

Info

rmat

ion

Qu

alit

y

Tim

e S

erie

s A

nal

ysis

Sam

ple

val

idit

y an

d r

elia

bili

ty

Ap

plic

abili

ty

Illu

stra

tive

Mat

eria

l ava

ilab

ility

Alig

nm

ent

Cap

abili

ty

WE

IGH

TE

D T

OT

AL

Weight

20% 15% 10% 10% 20% 10% 10% 5%

US Department of Defence 5 8 4 4 6 5 5 5 5,45

MH Treasury (UK) 5 6 5 6 3 7 6 6 5,2

The Office of Government Commerce (UK) 7 7 8 6 7 8 7 7 7,1

UK National Audit Office 6 6 7 6 5 7 6 6 6

MoD Acquisition Operating Framework (UK) 6 5 7 7 5 6 5 7 5,8

The United States Department of the Treasury 6 8 7 5 6 6 6 5 6,25

Government Accountability office (USA) 6 6 5 6 5 5 6 5 5,55

ICEC (International Cost Engineering Council) 5 6 6 7 6 6 7 5 5,95

AACE 5 6 6 5 5 6 6 6 5,5

Norwegian Quality Assurance 7 7 8 7 8 9 7 7 7,5

CII (Construction Industry Institute) 7 8 7 8 6 6 8 8 7,1

U.S Department of Energy (DOE) 9 8 7 8 6 8 8 7 7,65

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 6 6,85

DFA Gateway Review Process (Australia) 8 7 7 6 7 6 7 7 7 Table 11: Selection Matrix

Based on the results reflected in Table 11 it has been decided that the most suitable models that will be utilized for the purpose of this research project will be:

U.S Department of Energy

CII (Construction Industry Institute)

OGC (UK)

DFA (Australia)

TBS (Canada)

Norwegian Quality Assurance Scheme




51

2.5. MODELS BRIEF DESCRIPTION

2.5.1. The Royal Norwegian Ministry of Finance QA Scheme

The Norwegian Quality Assurance framework was initially established in year 2000

in order to ensure improved quality at entry of major public projects (€ 60 Million).

This model includes two main gateway reviews undertaken by external consultants

who follow the guidelines provided by the Norwegian government (NTNU, 2012).

Figure 29: Norwegian Quality Assurance Framework

(Source: NTNU 2012)

The analysis involves a throughout review of cost estimates, but it also includes an

assessment of project risks and uncertainties, as well as a review of the contract

type, project organization, etc (NTNU, 2012).

Figure 30: Gateway Reviews (Norwegian QA Framework)

(Source: NTNU 2012)




52

The aim of this model is to provide the Government with an independent analysis of

the project before the budget is approved by Parliament. This assessment should

help to justify the final decision regarding the funding of the project, and should be

utilized during implementation as a valid reference for controlling the project

performance (Klakegg, 2012; Klakegg, Williams and Magnussen, 2007).

Figure 31: Norwegian QA Scheme Outline

(Source: Author)

Main features of this model have been reflected in Table 12 below.

NORWEGIAN QUALITY ASSURANCE SCHEME

Process Owner: Norwegian Ministry of Finance

Nº of Gateways: 2

External/Internal Resources External Consultants

Control Basis Control rules established by contract

Review (assessor) roles Agreed in PE Forum

Report Format Standard QA reports defined

Coordination spheres -

Support Organisation None (Research Program)

Decision Makers: Politicians

Characteristic: Simplicity, robustness

Influence: Management of expectation

Authority Mandatory

Review Focus Control of input and methods

Life cycle Front End of the project

Review Aim Cost/risk/value Table 12: Norwegian QA Scheme Features




53

(Adapted from Klakegg et al 2008)

2.5.2. OGC Gateway Process (Office of Government Commerce)

This review process emerged in 1999 to cover a necessity of a common process for

the management of programmes and projects at critical stages in the life-cycle. In

this regard, the UK Office of Government Commerce (OGC) developed this

framework, underpinned by several gateway reviews (OGC, 2007).

Figure 32: UK OGC Gateway Process




54

(Source: OGC 2007)

This Gateway Process is undertaken by independent reviewers from outside the

project or the programme, who examine the progress and likelihood of successful

delivery.

STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT

DELIVERY STRATEGY OPERATION

OG

C (

UK

) BUSINESS JUSTIFICATION

GATEWAY REVIEW 0

GATEWAY REVIEW 1

DESIGN & BUILD

GATEWAY REVIEW 2

GATEWAY REVIEW 3

DECOMMIS.

GATEWAY REVIEW 4

GATEWAY REVIEW 5

INITIATION CONCEPT DEFINITION MOBILISATION IMPLEMENTATION CLOSEOUT

CONCEPT DEFINITIONIMPLEMENTATION

(Design&Build)HANDOVER&CLOSEOUT

TERMINATION

INITIATION PLANNING

PRELIMINARY PLANNING

DETAILED PLANNING

BASELININGRE-PLANNING

RE-BASELINING

BU

SIN

ES

S

CA

SE

PM

P

PB

F

RO

ZE

N

AP

M

OPERATIONS

PROJECT LIFE CYCLE

EXTENDED PROJECT LIFE CYCLE

PERFORMANCE BASELINE DEVELOPMENT

Initiation Review Concept Review Definition Review Mobilisation Rev. Handover Review Compl.Review Closeout Review

Figure 33: OGC Gateway Model Outline


UK OGC

Process Owner: Senior responsible owner

Nº of Gateways: 6 (4 within the Front End)

External/Internal Resources External

Control Basis Review Definitions / Guidelines

Review (assessor) roles Defined in detail

Report Format Standard review report format

Coordination Spheres Centers of Excellence

Support Organisation Permanent administrative organization

Decision Makers: Senior responsible owner

Characteristic: Complex System

Influence: Recommendations

Authority By influence

Review Focus Business Case

Review Aim Value for money Table 13: OGC Gateway Model Features




55

2.5.3. DFA Gateway Review Process (Australia)

Reviewing the literature, it can be stated that this model is based on the UK OGC

Gateway methodology; and that was adopted by the Australian Government in

2003.

In the same way that its British relative this model is a project assurance

methodology that involves brief, intensive reviews at up to six key stages of the

PLC. Continuing the parallelism with the OGC model, the reviews are undertaken by

external experienced peer reviewers who focus their analysis on identifying which

areas require corrective action, assessing objectives accomplishment, and providing

validation that the project is ready to progress to the next stage (DFA, 2006;

ANAO, 2012).

CRITICAL GATE

TYPE OF REVIEW FOCUS ON

Gate 0 Business Need Strategic assessment of the business need

Gate 1 Business Case BC robustness

Gate 2 Procurement Strategy Project preparedness to invite proposals

Gate 3 Investment Decision Supplier selection assessment

Gate 4 Readiness for Service Ongoing management assessment

Gate 5 Benefits Realisation Measurement objectives accomplishment Table 14: Gate Reviews Focus

BUSINESS NEEDPROCUREMENT

STRATEGYSOLUTION DELIVERY

DF

A (

Au

stra

lia)

BUSINESS CASE

GATEWAY REVIEW 0

GATEWAY REVIEW 1

COMPETITIVEPROCUR.

GATEWAY REVIEW 2

GATEWAY REVIEW 3

CLOSURE

GATEWAY REVIEW 4

GATEWAY REVIEW 5

CONTRACT MANAGEMENT

INITIATION CONCEPT DEFINITION MOBILISATION IMPLEMENTATION CLOSEOUT

CONCEPT DEFINITIONIMPLEMENTATION

(Design&Build)HANDOVER

&CLOSEOUTTERMINATION

INITIATION PLANNING

PRELIMINARY PLANNING

DETAILED PLANNING

BASELININGRE-PLANNING

RE-BASELINING

BU

SIN

ES

S

CA

SE

PM

P

PB

F

RO

ZE

N

AP

M

OPERATIONS

PROJECT LIFE CYCLE

EXTENDED PROJECT LIFE CYCLE

PERFORMANCE BASELINE DEVELOPMENT

Initiation Review Concept Review Definition Review Mobilisation Rev. Handover Review Compl.Review Closeout Review

Figure 34: DFA Model Outline




56


DFA GATE REVIEW MODEL

Process Owner: Senior Responsible Official

Nº of Gateways: 6 (3 within the Project Front End)


Control Basis GAT (Gateway Assessment Tool)



Coordination Spheres Centers of Excellence

Support Organisation Gateway Unit (Dep. Of Finance and Adm.)

Decision Makers: Sponsoring Agency





Review Aim Improve on-time and on budget delivery Table 15: DFA Model Features

2.5.4. CII (Construction Industry Institute)

The Construction Industry Institute (CII) has been focused for more than thirty

years on the improvement of key management processes within the construction

and engineering areas (CII, 2011). Thus, it has been found that this organisation

have undertaken over the years several researches related to numerous FEL

aspects such as the phase gated process, team alignment, risk management tools

and other key factors.

Figure 35: Front End Planning Process

(Source: Best Practices Guide CII 2011)




57

This model proposes three different stage gates within the FEL of the project (See

Fig 36), which are controlled applying the PDRI. This tool allows project teams to

calculate the completeness of the project scope through a comprehensive scope

definition element checklist (Construction Research Congress, 2012; ASCE, 2012).

Figure 36: CII Model Outline


CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY INSTITUTE (USA)

Process Owner: Project Sponsor

Nº of Gateways: 3 (both within the Project Front End)

External/Internal Resources Internal

Control Basis PDRI Alignment Thermometer

Review (assessor) roles Defined


Coordination Spheres CII Academic Comittee

Support Organisation Review Board

Decision Makers: Sponsoring Company (private)

Characteristic: Score based system (checklist)



Review Focus Scope definition, team alignment

Review Aim Risk management Table 16: CII Model Features




58

2.5.5. U.S Department of Energy (D.O.E)

The US DOE Critical Decision model is organized by project phases and Critical

Decisions (CD). Thus, five Critical Decisions are considered along the PLC as major

project milestones which establish the mission need, the recommended alternative,

the procurement strategy, the PB, and other essential elements required to ensure

that the project meets its objectives (DOE 2006, 2008b, 2011b).

Figure 37: US DOE CD Stages

The major emphasis of this model is put on the extent of project definition in the

conceptual design phase of the project that includes CD-1(Approval of alternative

selection and cost range). It is considered that by CD-2 (Approval of project

baseline), the project scope definition should be essentially complete.

Figure 38: DOE Model Outline




59

Furthermore, it is important to note that the scope of the reviews includes not only

the assessment of the level of project definition but also technological aspects

related to the project, and makes specific emphasis on the control of the PB

progress. In this regard, this model utilises several tools for reviewing the evolution

of the project from both external and internal perspectives. Thus, it can be

highlighted the Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) and the Technology

Readiness Assessment (TRA).

Main features of this model have been reflected on Table 17 below.

US DOE PDRI MODEL

Process Owner: OECM

Nº of Gateways: 5 (3 within the FEL)

External/Internal Resources External and/or Internal

Control Basis PDRI TRA



Coordination Spheres Centre of Excellence

Support Organisation NNSA, EM

Decision Makers: SAE (Secretarial Acquisition Executive)

Characteristic: Multi-purpose assessment

Influence: Management of expectations

Authority Mandatory

Review Focus Technical/Scope, Management, PB

Review Aim Contract and Project Management performance improvement

Table 17: DOE Model Features




60

2.5.6. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS)

The review of the literature confirms that this model is based on the United

Kingdom’s OGC Gateway Process and the Province of Ontario’s IT Project

Gateway Review Process, and it has been tailored taking into account the

necessities of the Canadian government. (TBS, 2010)

The full gating model defines seven gates that might logically be present in

every project. Its actual application, however, will depend on each case basing

on size, complexity and risk associated to the project. The seven gates have

been detailed in Table 18.

CRITICAL GATE

TYPE OF REVIEW FOCUS

Gate 1 Strategic assessment and concept

Confirmation of project objectives

Gate 2 Project Approach Confirmation of how objectives will be achieved

Gate 3 Business Case Confirmation of funding and business outcomes

Gate 4 Project Charter/PMP Confirmation of resources, support, and governance

Gate 5 Detailed Project Plan Confirmation of readiness to proceed with

construction

Gate 6 Readiness to deploy Confirmation of readiness to deploy

Gate 7 Post-implementation review Gather lesson learned Table 18: TBS Gate Reviews Focus

Figure 39: TBS Model Outline




61


TREASURY BOARD OF CANADA SECRETARIAT (TBS)

Process Owner: Chief Information Officer Branch (CIOB) Nº of Gateways: 7 (4 within the FEL)


Control Basis Review Definitions / Guidelines



Coordination Spheres -

Support Organisation TBS

Decision Makers: Senior responsible owner





Review Aim Assess whether the project is valid, viable and properly resourced.

Table 19: TBS Model Features




62

2.6. MODELS COMPARISON

The comparison between the different models has been undertaken in an organised

manner starting by comparing the frameworks with clear defined similarities and

continuing the process until covering the whole set of models.

2.6.1. OGC/ TBS/ DFA

It has been found that the UK Gate Review model is the common root for these

models, and consequently these frameworks are quite similar. Despite this, after an

exhaustive review of governmental guides and manuals, several differences have

also been noticed.

Figure 40: Comparison OGC/DFA/TBS

Thereby, it has been identified that there is a clear strategic management

perspective in the UK OGC model. This approach is reflected on the inclusion of an

initial review, located at a programme level, which is aimed to assess the direction

and planned outcomes of the programme (OGC, 2007a). Nevertheless, the

Australian and Canadian approaches, despite taking in account the strategic




63

objectives of the project, are not so focused on the programme level and prefer to

concentrate on the project context.

Continuing the analysis of the models, it has been found that the UK OGC

framework was initially developed for being used on procurement projects, and

despite it has evolved to be applied on non-procurement projects, it is clear that

this model still maintains a structure more focused on the procurement lifecycle

than in a traditional PLC (Scottish Government, 2011). The same conclusion may

be applied to the Australian version, also full of references to the procurement and

contract management stages of the project. On the contrary, the Canadian model,

despite being originally created for IT projects, uses a methodology that can be

adapted for a wide range of project types, size and complexity (TBS, 2010b).

Other element which constitutes a clear difference between these models is that

they utilise different assessment tools to decide whether the requirements to move

to the next stage have been accomplished. Thus, the focus of the different models

is oriented to particular objectives defined by each one of the agencies.

2.6.2. DOE / CII

The common feature that clearly relates both frameworks is the utilisation of the

PDRI (DOE, 2010, 2008a, 2008b; CERF, 2004; CII, 2012), initially developed by

the CII and later adapted by the DOE for being used on the type of projects that

they undertake. Furthermore, after reviewing the information obtained regarding to

these models it has been noted that both tend to a quantitative/objective approach

in terms of measurement of the evolution of the project. Thus, not only the PDRI

but others of the tools included within both methods (TRI, Alignment Thermometer)

are based on scored based systems to measure the level of accomplishment of the

established requirements (DOE, 2011a; CII, 2012).

Despite this initial similarity, there are several differences between both models.

Thus, the DOE model is a framework specifically developed for being used in major

public investments; meanwhile the CII model is oriented to the improvement of

performance in private funded mega projects.




64

Figure 41: Comparison DOE/CII

Other difference that is easily noticeable is that the gate reviews which are taken in

account from the CII perspective are concentrated on the FEL (Gibson, et al.,

2004); meanwhile, the DOE includes gate reviews or Critical Decisions all along the

PLC. Furthermore regarding the level of detail of both models, it can be concluded

that the DOE model is a more detailed framework where the critical decisions are

underpinned by several internal and external reviews all along the PLC (DOE,

2008a), focusing control on different objectives. Meanwhile, the CII model is more

a set of Best Practices than a real well organized model for managing and

controlling the FEL, thus it is focused on assessing the maturity of the organisation

through a weighted check list which provide a final score indicating the maturity of

the organisation. It has been found several studies undertaken by this organisation

detailing how increasing this score based on the application of best practices affects

positively to the avoiding of project failures (CII, 2012).




65

2.6.3. Norway / OGC

For the purpose of this research project, both frameworks have been analysed in a

wide context, trying to identify differences and exploring their strengths and

weaknesses, this have been done based on the review of the information provided

by both organisations in their Best Practices guides, and also on a comparative

study undertaken by Klakegg, Williams and Magnussen in 2007.

Figure 42: Comparison OGC/

The first difference which can be noticed is that the OGC model establishes 6 gate

reviews all along the PLC meanwhile the Norwegians model only apply two.

Furthermore, control over the project starts in the OGC model at a Programme

level, continuing later analysing how it could fit from a strategic point of view;

however the Norwegian approach is more focused initially on analysing the project

concept to decide whether go ahead (Christensen, 2009). Continuing the

comparison of these models, it has been noticed that the OGC model is a non

mandatory procedure which is used as a recommendation however the QA is

mandatory and an element used by politicians to take decision on whether or not

go ahead (HM Treasury, 2011; NTNU, 2012; Klakegg, Williams and Magnussen,

2007).

On the other hand, from a governance perspective, the OGC framework goals are

more explicit, administratively focused, and measured in terms of money. In

Norway, there are more clearly politically anchored goals, but not specifying the




66

expected effect of implementation (Klakegg, Williams, Magnussen and Glasspool,

2008).

Finally, in the Norwegian model, the control measures are focused on cost and risk

(moving more toward benefit and value), whereas the U.K. approach is focused on

the business case/value for money (Klakegg, Willians, Magnussen and Glasspool,

2008).

2.6.4. DOE/Norway

It has been noted few similarities between these two models, thus the DOE model

is supported by several tools to measure levels of project definition and technology

evolution across the PLC meanwhile the Norwegian framework is using only guides

to undertake the reviews. Furthermore, the reviews proposed are only external in

the European while include both external/internal in the American.

Figure 43: Comparison DOE/CII

Finally it has also been found differences on the approach utilised by both models,

thus the DOE focus reviews on a wide range of aspects to ensure that no elements

within the technical or managerial areas have been neglected before moving to the

next step, however the Norwegian QA Scheme is only oriented to ensure that

concept and cost estimations have been properly addressed before the important

decisions to be taken.




67

2.6.5. Models Comparison Matrix

MODELS ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES LIMITATIONS CONTEXT

DOE

Utilisation of quantitative assessment tools (PDRI; TRA) which should allow to measure and compare relevant data related to the PB progress. Combination of both internal and external reviews allowing a more complete assessment of the project. This model pays specific attention to the PB development across the PLC.

Lack of homogeneity in the processes for managing and controlling projects under this framework (depending on its size, type and complexity) could drive to increase difficulties to generalise the results obtained.

Mainly utilised in programmes containing several projects, which can make difficult to extract relevant conclusions on the PB progress on specific projects within the programme.

Major Public Investments

CII

Utilisation of quantitative assessment tools (PDRI) which should allow to measure and compare relevant data related to the PB progress.

This model is mainly oriented to increasethe probability of success of the project throughout the improvement of the maturity of the organisation.

Mainly focused on the construction industry. Major Private

Investments

OGC

Include a programme level review which could facilitate to measure progress of the PB from the very early stages of the project. Extends the reviews of the project across the PLC which should provide relevant data to measure progress of the PB during the implementation phase.

There are not specific tools to measure thePB progress

The assessment of the accomplishment of the different requirements associated to each one of the gate reviews is based on qualitative criteria. The approach for managing and controlling projects is oriented to a Procurement Life Cycle perspective.


DFA

Extends the reviews of the project across the PLC which should provide relevant data to measure progress of the PB during the implementation phase.

There are not specific tools to measure the PB progress.

The assessment of the accomplishment of the different requirements associated to each one of the gate reviews is based on qualitative criteria.


TBS

Extends the reviews of the project across the PLC which should provide relevant data to measure progress of the PB during the implementation phase.

There are not specific tools to measure the PB progress.

The assessment of the accomplishment of the different requirements associated to each one of the gate reviews is based on qualitative criteria.


Norway

Simplicity of this framework should allow to manage more easily the information related to the progress of the PB.

The model is oriented to improve the decision making processes, but does not pay specific attention to analyse the progress of the PB. There are not specific tools to measure the PB progress.

This model focuses effort only on the FEL of the project (no analysis during execution phase).


Table 20: Models Comparison Matrix

MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT


2.7. LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARY

After reviewing the literature related to the selected models for managing and

controlling the project, it is clear that there are several perspectives to undertake

the control of the PB during the development process which takes place in the front

end of the project. Nonetheless, at the moment of deciding which is the most

suitable model from a PB maturity perspective, or which are the tools and

processes which will drive to the development of a mature baseline, there is not a

clear answer which can be derived from the literature review.

Thus it is true that several studies have been undertaken regarding to the utility of

most of these models (ANAO, 2012; CERF, 2004; Gibson and Bosfield, 2012;

Williams et al., 2012), and reports reflect that these frameworks increase the

probability of success of the projects. However, in the most of the cases the

measurement of the level of utility of these models has been calculated only in

terms of project delays and cost overruns.

However, for the purpose of this research project, those parameters cannot be used

to evaluate how the PB evolves across the PLC under each framework influence,

thus it has to be develop a group of parameters that allow to calculate for each

model, which is the level of PB maturity at each stage gate of the project.


INDIVIDUAL PROJECT


69

Figure 44: Conceptual Framework




70

CHAPTER 3METHODOLOGY AND METHOD




71

3. METHODOLOGY AND METHOD APPROACHES

3.1. INTRODUCTION

This section outlines the methodology used to conduct this research project. For

this purpose it has been undertaken a detailed literature review in relation with the

methodology and methods applicable.

“Research design is an action plan for getting from ‘here’ to ‘there’, where ‘here’

may be defined as the initial set of questions to be answered, and ‘there’ is some

set of conclusion (answers) about these questions. Between ‘here’ and ‘there’ may

be found a number of major steps, including the collection and analysis of relevant

data” (Naoum, 2007)

In this regard, It will be initially defined the philosophy adopted to undertake this

research, subsequently it will be selected the approach underpinning this work, and

after this it will be justified the research strategy adopted, and finally the method

will be detailed.

Figure 45: ResearchPyramid

(Adapted from Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2007)




72

3.2. RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY

“The research philosophy you adopt contains important assumptions about the way

in which you view the world. These assumptions will underpin your research

strategy and the methods you choose as part of that strategy”.

(Saunders, Lewis, Thornhill and Jenkins, 2009)

When undertaking a research project, it is important to take in account different

research paradigms and matters of ontology and epistemology. Since these

elements portray perceptions, beliefs, assumptions and the way on what reality is

understood, they can influence the manner in which the research is undertaken.

Hence, it is important to understand and define these concepts to make possible

that approaches congruent to the nature, aim and objectives of this particular

research project are adopted, and to ensure that researcher biases are minimized

(Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Jackson, 2008).

Figure 46: Research Philosophy




73

Regarding this, the main research paradigms have been briefly compared in Table

21.

POSITIVISM INTERPRETIVISM PRAGMATISM

ONTOLOGY (Researcher’s view of

reality)

External, objective and independent of

social actors

Socially constructed, subjective

View chosen to best answer research

question EPISTEMOLOGY

(Researcher’s view of what constitutes acceptable

knowledge)

Only observable phenomena / facts

Subjective meanings and social phenomena

Both observable phenomena and

subjective meanings

AXIOLOGY Researcher’s view of the role of values in

research

Value-free / researcher is

independent of process

Value-bound / researcher is part of

process

Values may play a role in interpretation

DATA COLLECTION (Techniques Most often

used)

Highly structured / Quantitative

In-depth / Qualitative Mixed or multiple method designs

RESEARCH APPROACH Deductive Inductive Deductive and Inductive

as appropriate Table 21: Comparison of Research Philosophies

(Adapted from Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2007)

Based on the particular aim and objectives of this research project, it will be

adopted a Positivist position. Accordingly, it is considered that only phenomena

which we can be noticed through our senses can produce the type knowledge that

this project is seeking. In this regard, this position supports the utilization of

experimentation and testing to prove hypotheses (deductive) and then generate

new theory by putting facts together to induce laws or principles (inductive)

(Greener, 2008).

3.3. RESEARCH APPROACHES

Research can be approached in the following ways:

Quantitative/Qualitative

Deductive/Inductive

3.3.1. Quantitative/Qualitative

A quantitative approach to research is usually associated with a deductive approach

to testing theory, often using number or fact and therefore a positivist model. On

the other hand, a qualitative approach is normally related to an inductive approach

to generating theory, often utilizing an interpretivist model (Zhang and Wildemuth,

2009).




74

QUANTITATIVE QUALITATIVE

Role of theory in research

Deductive, testing of theory Inductive, generating theory

Ontological orientation

Objectivism – social reality is external

Constructionism (subjectivism) – social phenomenon dependent on the actors

Epistemological orientation

Positivism & Natural science model

Interpretivism – role of social actors

Table 22: Quantitative vs Qualitative

For the purpose of this project research, it has been considered that the most

appropriate position will be the quantitative approach. This perspective will allow

looking at observable objective facts and figures where they might be seen to exist.

However, despite quantitative data will be the basis to obtain the main conclusions,

in some cases, it could be also necessary to take in account the perceptions of

those involved with these “facts” (Greener, 2008).

3.3.2. Deductive/Inductive

Major differences between both approaches have been included in Table 23.

DEDUCTION EMPHASISES INDUCTION EMPHASISES

Scientific principles. Moving from theory to data. The need to explain causal relationships

between variables. The collection of quantitative data The application of controls to ensure

validity of data. The operationalisation of concepts to

ensure clarity of definition. A highly structured approach researcher

independence of what is being researched. The necessity to select samples of

sufficient size in order to generalize conclusions.

Gaining an understanding of the meanings humans attach to events.

A close understanding of the research context.

The collection of qualitative data. A more flexible structure to permit changes

of research emphasis as the research progresses.

A realisation that the researcher is part of the research process.

Less concern with the need to generalise.

Table 23: Deduction vs Induction (Source: Greener 2008)

This research project will be undertaken by combination of both approaches, thus a

deductive approach would be clearly related to the use of quantitative data

meanwhile an inductive one would be linked to the development of a theory as a

result of data analysis (Saunders, Lewis, Thornhill and Jenkins, 2009).

3.4. RESEARCH PURPOSE

A classification of the most commonly utilised research purposes has been included

in Table 24.




75

EXPLORATORY DESCRIPTIVE ANALYTICAL PREDICTIVE Exploratory research is undertaken when few or no previous studies exist. The aim is to look for patterns, hypothesis or ideas that can be tested and will form the basis for further research. Typical research techniques would include case studies, observation and review the previous related studies and data.

Descriptive research can be used to identify and classify the elements or characteristics of the subject. Quantitative techniques are often used to collect, analyse and summarise data.

Analytical research often extends the Descriptive approach to suggest or explain why or how something is happening. An important feature of this type of research is in locating and identifying the different factors (or variables) involved.

The aim of the predictive research is to speculate intelligently on future possibilities, based on close analysis of available evidence of cause and effect.

Table 24: Research Purposes (Source: Neville, 2007)

Taking in account the Table 24 this research project can be defined as a

combination of Explanatory and Analytical categories. Thus research project looks

to establish a causal relationship between variables involved and at the same time

the study pretends to clarify why and how this relationship exists (Saunders, Lewis,

Thornhill and Jenkins, 2009).




76

3.5. RESEARCH STRATEGY

The set of strategies that have been initially considered to obtain the primary data

of this research project have been detailed in Table 25.

SU

RV

EY

Advantages Surveys are comparatively inexpensive Usually, it has high reliability and is easy to obtain Can be administered from remote locations with large samples

Limitations Highly dependent on people for information Data collected reflects only the questions asked due to its structured format Surveys are inflexible and require the initial study design

QU

ES

TIO

NN

AIR

E

Advantages Questionnaires are more objective than interviews because the responses are

gathered in a uniform and standardized format. It is relatively quick to collect information using questionnaire

Limitations Possibility of generating large amounts of data which can take a long time to

process and analyse.

INT

ER

VIE

W

Advantages

Unstructured Interview: Suitable for project advanced phase as they permit full exploration of ideals

and views providing the researcher with detail understanding of the problem Semi-structured Interviews: It creates a Positive rapport between researcher and respondent It provides a simple, efficient and practical process of getting data about things

that are unobservable All respondent are evaluated and asked the same questions in the same

order, hence making the method time and cost effective. Focus Group Interview: Reasonably easy to assemble and provides inexpensive and flexible form of

data collection Its open recording approach allows participants to confirm their contributions It creates rapport and ensures validity of desired outcomes through direct

interactions between researcher and participants

Limitations

Unstructured Interviews Unstructured interviews requires interviewers to have a rich set of skills The information from the respondent may be huge and too unconnected for

the researcher to analyses Semi-structured Interviews The flexibility of this methods may lessen reliability The data are difficult to analyse and compare Structural Interviews May not provides legitimate and reliable answers It not controlled, it may provide weak understanding into the topic under study Focus Group Interview Research findings may not represent the views and opinion of the larger

sections of the population if right selection of respondent is not made. Requires hard and people management skills to achieve result.

CA

SE

ST

UD

Y

Advantages

Serves as good method for the study uncommon phenomena. The data collected is normally a lot richer and of greater depth than can be

found through other experimental designs. Case studies allow a lot of detail to be collected that would not normally be

easily obtained by other research designs. Case studies can help experimenters adapt ideas and produce novel

hypotheses which can be used for later testing.

Limitations It is difficult to generalize and draw definite cause-effect conclusions. Data collection and interpretation are subject to biases. Insufficient information can lead to inappropriate results




77

INT

ER

NE

T R

ES

EA

RC

H

ME

TH

OD

S

Advantages

Provides access to research respondent at distant locations and who are difficult to contact.

It provides ease of having computerized data collection, which increases efficiency and reduces researcher time and effort.

Limitations

Provides greater uncertainty over the legitimacy of data and sampling issues It requires computer skills for the design, implementation, and evaluation of

the survey

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

Advantages The researcher can observe and record events without necessary relying on

the willingness and ability of participant to the research Reduces or eliminate the biasing effect of interviewers

Limitations

It is often difficult to observe respondents attitudes, motivations, state of mind, and their buying motives and underlying principles.

It also takes time for the investigator to wait for a particular action to take place.

Table 25: Research Strategies (Source: RGU (BSM080) 2012)

It has been considered that several of these methods must be utilised to be able to

obtain relevant results from this research project (See Appendix 7 for a detailed

flow chart of the process). Hence, the basis for the research should be the Case

Studies that will be analysed to measure how PB maturity evolves. However the

way to initially select and then gather information about these Case Studies will be

through questionnaires (See Figures 48 and 49) that will be designed basing on

those parameters that literature review has revealed as directly related to the

maturity of the PB.

Figure 47: Research Strategy




78

Figure 48: Case Studies Selection (Preliminary Questionnaire)

Figure 49: Detailed Questionnaire




79

Moreover, this information that should be provided initially by the collaborating

organisms (previously contacted and engaged to the project, see Appendix 3 for

further details), could need to be completed with further analysis of key features of

those projects (Case Studies) to ensure the accuracy and validity of data. For this

reason, it is also believed that interviews (unstructured) and additional information

review (See Figure 50) may be also utilised when the complexity of some of the

projects indicates that a closer contact with the organism controlling the

performance of the project is necessary to improve the quality of the results.

Figure 50: Additional Information Gathering




80

3.6. SAMPLING AND PILOTING

“A Sample is a segment of the population selected to represent the population as a

whole.”(Dawson, 2002)

The main reason to use sampling is that it is virtually impossible to collect / analyze

all the data available due to constraints on time, money and often access. Thus,

sampling techniques will allow to reduce the amount of data by considering only

data from different sub-groups rather than all possible elements. On the other

hand, the sample should be representative and allow the researcher to make

accurate estimates of the thoughts and behavior of the larger population.

Figure 51: Sample interpretation

3.6.1. Determining Sample Design

Sample design covers all aspects of how the samples in surveys are specified and

selected. The sampling design process may be divided into five steps that are

shown in figure 52. These steps are closely interrelated and relevant to all aspects

of the research (ONS, 2012).

Figure 52: Sampling Design Process

(Adapted from BEE 2012)




81

3.6.2. Target Population

This Research Project will target originally projects with an investment level higher

than £15 Millions. The projects included within the research population will be

undertaken in three main Geographical areas: North America, Western Europe and

Australia. The reasons for this pre-selection are mainly that lower size projects are

not usually methodically and rigorously controlled and therefore obtaining relevant

information from their analysis could be challenging. On the other hand, the

preference for some regions (and countries) was due to the accuracy and rigor that

local authorities legislation infers on data provided from public and private

institutions located in those areas. Finally it also has been taken in account for

these decisions previous researches undertaken in similar areas (See Appendix 5

for further details).

3.6.3. Sampling Frame

The sampling frame is essentially the source material from which a sample is

extracted. It is a list of all those within a population who can be sampled, and may

include individuals or organisations (Särndal, Swensson, and Wretman, 2003). In

this case, it has been utilized a weighting system to select the sampling frame for

this project (See point 2.4.1).

3.6.4. Sampling Techniques

Selecting a sampling technique involves several decisions of a broader nature.

Initially, it can be distinguished two main groups of techniques: Probability

techniques and Non-Probability techniques.

Non probability sampling relies on judgment of research team whereas probability

samplings pre-specify every potential sample of given size that could be drawn

from the population (BEE, 2009). List of various non-probability and probability

sampling techniques are shown in Figure 53.




82

Figure 53: Sampling Techniques

SA

MP

LIN

G T

EC

HN

IQU

ES

NON PROBABILITY

Convenience Sample is chosen for ease or convenience rather than through random sampling.

Judgmental The researcher uses his/her judgement to select population members who are good prospects for accurate information.

Quota

This sample is chosen to include a certain proportion of particular variables. There is no random sampling stage (the choice of the respondent is up to the interviewer provided the profile/quota is accurate).

Snowball The researcher contacts an initial group of people relevant to the research topic, and then uses this group to contact others for the research.

PROBABILITY

Sample Random

Each element in the population has a known and equal probability of selection

Systematic

The sample is chosen by selecting a random starting point and then picking every ith element in succession from the sampling frame. The sampling interval, i, is determined by dividing the population size N by the sample size n and rounding to the nearest integer

Stratified

A two-step process in which the population is partitioned into subpopulations, or strata. The strata should be mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive in that every population element should be assigned to one and only one stratum and no population elements should be omitted. Next, elements are selected from each stratum by a random procedure, usually SRS.

Cluster

The target population is first divided into mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive subpopulations, or clusters. Then a random sample of clusters is selected, based on a probability sampling technique such as SRS.

Table 26: Sampling Techniques (Adapted from Greener 2008 and BEE 2009)




83

Sampling Techniques utilised in this project are both Non-Probability type.

Concretely it was used a “Judgmental” technique to select the sampling frame and

a “Quota” technique to define the Research Project Sample (See point 3.6.6).

Figure 54: Sampling Techniques Utilised

3.6.5. Sample Size

Sample size refers to the number of elements to be included in the study. Sample

size is influenced by the average size of the samples in similar studies. These

sample size have determined based on experience and can serve as rough

guidelines, particularly when non probability techniques are used (BEE, 2009).

Based on the analysis of similar studies (See Appendix 5), and taking also in

account the amount of resources available it has been considered that the sample

size should include between 5 to 10 case studies per each organisation, making a

total of 30-60 case studies that will be selected basing on the criteria that will be

detailed at point 3.6.6 (Table 30).

ORGANISATION Number of

Case Studies

Project Type

CII 5-10 Multiple U.S DOE 5-10 Multiple UK (OGC) 5-10 Multiple TBS (Canada) 5-10 Multiple DFA (Australia) 5-10 Multiple QA Scheme (Norway) 5-10 Multiple

Total 30-60 Multiple Table 27: Sample Size




84

3.6.6. Execute the Sampling Process

Execution of the sampling process requires detailed specifications of how the

sampling design decisions with respect to the population, sampling frame, sampling

unit, sampling techniques, and sample size to be implemented (BEE, 2009). In this

regard, a preliminary questionnaire designed to identify key features of the projects

undertaken will be sent to the previously selected organisms that are willing to

collaborate.

PROJECT TYPES

Nu

mb

er o

f p

roje

cts

man

aged

Ave

rag

e P

roje

ct B

ud

get

Ave

rag

e P

roje

ct D

ura

tio

n

Civ

il E

ng

inee

rin

g/C

on

stru

ctio

n/

Pet

roch

emic

al P

roje

cts

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

g/P

rod

uct

d

evel

op

men

t P

roje

cts

Man

agem

ent/

IT P

roje

cts

N Av.

Budget Av. Dur.

N Av.

Budget Av. Dur.

N Av.

Budget Av. Dur.

Org

anis

m

N1 BAv1 DAv1 N11 BAv11 DAv11 N12 BAv12 DAv12 N13 BAv13 DAv13

Additional Questions: Is there any specific procedure to measure the progress of the PB across the PLC of the projects?

If yes, add some details. Which are the parameters that you consider should be measured to determine which is the level of maturity of

the PB? Table 28: Request for Collaboration (Preliminary Questionnaire)

This Preliminary Questionnaire can certainly help in understanding the various

aspects of the collaborating organisations, as well as some relevant information

about the different perspectives from which PB is currently analysed within each

one of them. Hence, some of the conclusions obtained after the assessment of

these data may help to improve the design of the detailed questionnaire which will

be utilized to obtain relevant data from the selected case studies.




85

PROJECT TYPESO

RG

AN

ISM

Nu

mb

er o

f p

roje

cts

man

aged

Ave

rag

e P

roje

ct B

ud

get

Ave

rag

e P

roje

ct D

ura

tio

n

Civ

il E

ng

inee

rin

g/C

on

stru

ctio

n/P

etro

chem

ical

Pro

ject

s

(Typ

e 1)

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

g/P

rod

uct

d

evel

op

men

t P

roje

cts

(T

ype

2)

Man

agem

ent/

IT P

roje

cts

(Typ

e 3)

N Av. Budget Av. Dur.



DOE N1 BAv1 DAv1 N11 BAv11 DAv11 N12 BAv12 DAv12 N13 BAv13 DAv13 CII N2 BAv2 DAv2 N21 BAv21 DAv21 N22 BAv22 DAv22 N23 BAv23 DAv23

OGC N3 BAv3 DAv3 N31 BAv31 DAv31 N32 BAv32 DAv32 N33 BAv33 DAv33 Norway N4 BAv4 DAv4 N41 BAv41 DAv41 N42 BAv42 DAv42 N43 BAv43 DAv43

DFA N5 BAv5 DAv5 N51 BAv51 DAv51 N52 BAv52 DAv52 N53 BAv53 DAv53 TBS N6 BAv6 DAv6 N61 BAv61 DAv61 N62 BAv62 DAv62 N63 BAv63 DAv63

Table 29: Preliminary Questionnaire Matrix

On the other hand, the sample size will be designed using these data and taking in

account the criteria that have been detailed in Table 30. Those criteria seek to

create a homogeneous sample which allows to obtain relevant results which help to

build a robust framework for managing and controlling the project.

SAMPLE FEATURES

CRITERIA

Budget Range Lower Limit Min (BAv1, BAv2, BAv3, BAv4,BAv5,BAv6) Upper Limit Max (BAv1, BAv2, BAv3, BAv4,BAv5,BAv6)

Duration Range Lowe Limit Min (DAv1, DAv2, DAv3, DAv4,DAv5,DAv6) Upper Limit Max (DAv1, DAv2, DAv3, DAv4,DAv5,DAv6)

Number of projects range

Type 1 1<NT1<(ΣNi1)/6

5<(NT1+NT2+NT3)<10 Type 2 1<NT2<(ΣNi2)/6

Type 3 1<NT3<(ΣNi3)/6

Table 30: Sampling Process Criteria

Based on the analysis of the preliminary Request for Collaboration, a more detailed

questionnaire will be developed specific to the measurement and comparison of the

different PB components.




86

3.6.7. Piloting

A pilot study will be previously undertaken to discover any issue related to the

design of the questionnaires in terms of the degree of clarity and its validity. Two

phases will be conducted for the purpose of testing the reliability, utility, and clarity

of the questionnaires. Firstly, questionnaires design will be critiqued by other

members of the MSc Project Management Course, to obtain valuable feedback and

suggestions. Secondly, the MSc Project Management course leader will be invited to

review the pilot version of the questionnaires.

3.7. QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN

Once the Case Studies have been selected and agreed with the different

organizations, next step will be to gather relevant information about the PB

maturity under the perspective of each one of them. For this purpose, a

Questionnaire with a structure similar to Figure 57, will be sent with instructions

about how to complete it.

Measurement of the progress of the PB will be undertaken taking as reference four

main stages (See Fig 55). Thus, it will be possible to determine which has been the

evolution of the PB across each period.

Figure 55: Measurement Stages




87

This measurement will be undertaken for each one of the performance baseline

components (Scope Baseline, Cost Baseline and Schedule Baseline), and in this

regard different parameters may be utilized to reflect the level of maturity having

been considered the percentage of deviation from the final data set as the initially

valid reference.

Figure 56: PB Progress Measurement

Furthermore, to achieve a better homogeneity in the study a complexity index will

be added to weight the value of the results obtained in each case study basing on

the rate of expenditure of the project (See Table 30).




88

Figure 57: Questionnaire Parameters Proposal

This is a high level draft including some of the parameters that could be measured

through the questionnaire, but they could change depending on the answers to the

initial Request for Collaboration. The main purpose of this questionnaire is to

calculate the level of maturity (expressed on a percentage over the final data

obtained at the end of each stage) for the technical/cost/schedule baseline at each

stage of the project.




89

3.8. IDENTIFY DATA SETS

Tables 31 and 32 reflect the data sets that will be elaborated for each one of the

organizations.

CASE STUDY BASELINE

COMPONENTS

ST

AG

E 1

ST

AG

E 2

ST

AG

E 3

ST

AG

E 4

CO

MP

LE

XIT

Y

OR

GA

NIS

AT

ION

CASE STUDY 1 Cost Baseline CB11 CB12 CB13 CB14

CI1 Schedule Baseline ScB11 ScB12 ScB13 ScB14 Scope Baseline SB11 SB12 SB13 SB14



















Table 31: Data Sets

Baseline

Components Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4

ORGANISATION Cost Baseline AvCB1 AvCB2 AvCB3 AvCB4 Schedule Baseline AvScB1 AvScB2 AvScB3 AvScB4 Scope Baseline AvSB1 AvSB2 AvSB3 AvSB4

Table 32: Organisation Results

AvCB1=(ΣCBi1 x CIi)/n AvCB2=(ΣCBi2 x CIi)/n AvCB3=(ΣCBi3 x CIi)/n AvCB4=(ΣCBi4 x CIi)/n

AvScB1=(ΣScBi1 x CIi)/n AvScB2=(ΣScBi2 x CIi)/n AvScB3=(ΣScBi3 x CIi)/n AvScB4=(ΣScBi4 x CIi)/n

AvSB1=(ΣSBi1 x CIi)/n AvSB2=(ΣSBi2 x CIi)/n AvSB3=(ΣSBi3 x CIi)/n AvSB4=(ΣSBi4 x CIi)/n




90

Finally the different results obtained after analyzing the different case studies will

be reflected in Table 33. This will allow to compare how the different baseline

components evolve under each management and control perspective along the PLC.

Main conclusions must be obtained analyzing this matrix.

ORGANISMS BASELINE ELEMENTS

ST

AG

E 1

ST

AG

E 2

ST

AG

E 3

ST

AG

E 4

U.S DOE

Cost Baseline AvCBi1 AvCBi2 AvCBi3 AvCBi4

Schedule Baseline AvScBi1 AvScBi2 AvScBi3 AvScBi4 Scope Baseline AvSBi1 AvSBi2 AvSBi3 AvSBi4

CII

Cost Baseline

Schedule Baseline

Scope Baseline

QA Scheme (Norway)

Cost Baseline

Schedule Baseline

Scope Baseline

OGC (UK)

Cost Baseline

Schedule Baseline

Scope Baseline

FDS (Australia)

Cost Baseline

Schedule Baseline

Scope Baseline

TBS (Canada)

Cost Baseline

Schedule Baseline

Scope Baseline Table 33: Comparison Matrix

These values will be assessed, trying to obtain relevant conclusions about how the

different management and control frameworks affect to the progress of the PB

maturity across the PLC.

Figure 58: Gathering Data Sets




91

3.9. DATA ANALYSIS APPROACHES

For the purpose of this Research Project it has been considered that the most

appropriate method for data analysis will be the Descriptive statistics.

“Descriptive analyses are frequently used to summarize a study sample prior to

analyzing a study’s primary hypotheses. This provides information about the overall

representativeness of the sample, as well as the information necessary for other

researchers to replicate the study, if they so desire”. (Marczyk, DeMatteo and

Festinger, 2005).

These methods will allow the researcher to describe the data and examine

relationships between variables under observation. The main methods included

within this category have been included in Table 34 below.

DE

SC

RIP

TIV

E S

TA

TIS

TIC

S

Frequency distribution When summarising large amounts of raw data it is often useful to distribute the data into categories or classes and to determine the number of individuals or cases belonging to each category.

Measures of central tendency

When you have a group of data and you wish to find the most typical value for the group, or the score which all other scores are evenly clustered around. These statistics are known as the ‘mean’, the ‘median’ and the ‘mode’.

Measurement of dispersion based on

the mean

This type of analysis can show you the degree by which numerical data tend to spread about an average value and it is called ‘variation’ or ‘dispersion’.

Standard Deviation The standard deviation is another measure of the degree in which the data is spread around the mean.

Table 34: Descriptive Statistic Methods (Source: Naoum 2007)

3.9.1. Analysing Results

There are many options to utilize the Descriptive Statistics methods to analyze the

results; figures below show some examples of how they could be applied.

ORGANISM CONCEPT DEFINITION MOBILISATION IMPLEMENTATION Average

CO

ST

BA

SE

LIN

E

DOE 80,00% 60,00% 37,00% 12,00% 47,25%

OGC 76,00% 62,00% 50,00% 42,00% 57,50%

CII 91,00% 65,00% 40,00% 12,00% 52,00%

TBS 75,00% 45,00% 42,00% 29,00% 47,75%

NORWAY 67,00% 50,00% 40,00% 19,00% 44,00%

AUS 71,00% 45,00% 36,00% 12,00% 41,00%




92

Figure 59: Cost Baseline Maturity-Comparative Analysis (1)



0,00%

20,00%

40,00%

60,00%

80,00%

100,00%

CONCEPT DEFINITION MOBILISATION IMPLEMENTATION

DOE OGC CII TBS NORWAY AUS

0,00%

20,00%

40,00%

60,00%

80,00%

100,00%

CONCEPT DEFINITION MOBILISATION IMPLEMENTATION

DOE OGC CII TBS NORWAY AUS

0,00%

10,00%

20,00%

30,00%

40,00%

50,00%

60,00%

AVERAGE

DOE

OGC

CII

TBS

NORWAY

AUS




93

3.10. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

It is assumed that this Research Project has several limitations due mainly to the

lack of research experience of the Author as well as the limitation of resources

which has driven to a research process design which is academically oriented more

than business oriented.

Furthermore, from a project research development perspective, the different

criteria utilized to evaluate the suitability of the possible data sources give a huge

importance to the possibility to access to data and to obtain collaboration from

those organisations; however it has not given so much importance to others

possible criteria as the current rate of success of the projects undertaken or other

criteria that also could be considered as relevant.

Other limitation that has been noticed is that the size of the different projects used

as Case Studies could differ enormously affecting to the validity of the results. In

this regard, during the sampling selection it will be tried to minimize those

differences but it cannot be ensured at this point whether or not it will be achieved.

Finally, focusing on the way that PB Maturity will be measured, it is clear that it will

be taken as references the final project cost, duration and requirements to be able

to rank the maturity of the PB at different stages of the project. But, it is well

known that there are several elements affecting to the execution of the project and

those elements may affect severely to the final data sets and therefore our

conclusions about the progress of the PB maturity may be wrong at some point. For

this reason, the primary research has been designed taking in account not only

quantitative data related to each project but also (when the interpretation of results

make it necessary) interviews and further analysis of project information.




94

3.11. VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY

“Validity refers to the degree to which a study accurately reflects or assesses the

specific concept that the researcher is attempting to measure. While reliability is

concerned with the accuracy of the actual measuring instrument or procedure,

validity is concerned with the study's success at measuring what the researchers

set out to measure”.(CSU, 2012)

The methodology and the approach proposed for undertaking this research project

seek to increase the level of validity and reliability of the work and consequently

that the research can achieve its desired objectives. In this regard, it is considered

that there are several perspectives that can be taken in relation with the PB

maturity, but it is believed that assessing which is the relation with the

management and control tools utilised during the early stages of the project is a

valid proposal that can provide significant results.

Furthermore, the approach undertaken to build the sample is also oriented to make

the results generalizable and transferable, thus several type of projects and

industries will be included within the range of data sources that have been

considered for this project.




95

CHAPTER 4CONCLUSIONS&RECOMMENDATIONS




96

4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATIONS

4.1. CONCLUSIONS

After finishing the three initial stages of this research project and previously to the

undertaken of the primary research, it has been extracted several conclusions in

relation to the level of accomplishment of the initial objectives. Thus, this chapter

will be a review assessing the validity of the proposal and its initial achievements.

4.1.1. Research Project Development

This Research Project has suffered several and significant changes from the initial

research topic idea to the final proposal. Thus, the initial topic which was

considered as an interesting research area was the Earned Value Management

(EVM) concept and its real utility within the project context; however it was

discovered (after an initial review of related information) that this was an over-

analysed area. After this, the Cost Control processes were the focus of attention

and new gathering and analysis of literature showed that this topic was too broad

to become a realizable research proposal. Finally, after receiving appropriate

support from the Research Project supervisor, it was decided to focus research on

PB maturity.

Nevertheless this is also an enormous research area, and consequently, after a

deeper analysis of the literature, the original aim and objectives suffered several

changes (See Appendix 4 further details about the main changes). Thus, the initial

research tasks were focused on the proper development of the PB to ensure it was

mature enough from a baseline development perspective. However, during the

exhaustive literature review undertaken during the elaboration of Chapter 2, it was

clear that the managing and control processes were located in an upper perspective

and therefore would be the most appropriate target to focus this research.




97

4.1.2. Research Project Review/Findings

Several significant findings have been obtained in relation to the initial research

questions derived from the Problem Statement:

PB Maturity Level suitability across PLC

It is clear after the work undertaken, that PB maturity level must be appropriate to

each stage of the project. Thus, it can be concluded that the maturity level will be

related to PB control and development processes and equally to the level of project

expenditure. For those reasons PB maturity must be related to the complexity, size

and type of the project to avoid waste of resources.

Parameters that can be measured in order to calculate the level of maturity

After the analysis of several, sources some of these elements have been captured

and included within the questionnaire which be part of the primary research.

Despite this, the author also envisages the possibility of including open questions

within the initial Request for Collaboration to assess which is the opinion of the

different organizations about this issue. Thus, it could be improved the quality of

the results, basing on the experience of public and private organizations previous

experiences.

How to minimize PB maturity deviations

Deviations between the PB all along the PLC are normal as far as PB Development

is an iterative process. However, it is also clear that despite initial cost schedule

and scope baseline are going to include a high percentage of undistributed

uncertainties, and effective control of the progress of the PB maturity should

contribute to minimize the difference between the PB across the PLC.

Accuracy data and decision making processes

The accuracy of the data that are used for taking the decision on whether the

project must move to the next stage are related to the level of uncertainty

surrounding to the project and in this sense management and control systems

should collaborate to reduce uncertainty assessing the level of project definition, as

well as minimizing the effects




98

Processes and tools that can help us to improve the PB maturity

After the critical evaluation of related information, it is clear that there are different

perspectives to achieve a suitable PB maturity, and that comparison between the

main models for managing and controlling projects should help to obtain relevant

conclusions and to be able to outline the main processes and tools that should be

part of the theoretical framework underpinning the PB maturity.

4.2. LESSONS LEARNED

After the development of this Research Project, it has been noticed that several

aspect should be improved for future works. In this regard, a clear understanding

of the research process is necessary from the early stages of the project. Thus, the

author recognizes that the initial lack of knowledge about the different processes

has affected to the development of the project in form of continuous re-work and

changes affecting to the final quality of the work. On the other hand, storage and

organisation of the information is also essential, and for future works it has been

decided to use a specifically designed data base for improving the management of

the information gathered.

Finally, this project has contributed to an improvement on the information search

skills as well as on the written communication skills.

4.3. RECOMMENDATIONS

The PB Maturity needs to be studied in a variety of project contexts to add more

validity to the topic area.

It is necessary a deeper understanding of some of the models to be able to

design a comparative process that allows obtaining more robust results.




99

CHAPTER 5REFERENCES




100

5. REFERENCES

1. ALLEMAN, G. (2012). Establishing the Performance Measurement baseline

(PMB). Available:

http://www.projectmanager.org/pdfarchives/pdd_2012/PerformanceMeasureme

ntBaseline_Glen-Alleman.pdf. Last accessed 20th July 2012.

2. ANAO (Australian National Audit Office) (2012). Gate Reviews for Defense

Capital Acquisition Projects. Canberra: ANAO.

3. APM (2006). Body of Knowledge. Buckinghamshire (UK): APM.

4. APM (2008). Introduction to Project Planning. Buckinghamshire (UK): APM.

5. APM (2010). Introduction to Project Control. Buckinghamshire (UK): APM.

6. BEE (Bureau of Energy Efficiency). (2009). Research Techniques. Available:

http://bee-dsm.in/Tools_1.aspx. Last accessed 19th July 2012.

7. BELL, J (2005). Doing your research project. Berkshire (England): McGraw-Hill

International.

8. BOOTE, D. N., & BEILE, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the

centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation.

Educational Researcher. 34 (6), 3-15.

9. CERF (Civil Engineering Research Foundation) (2004). Independent Research

Assessment of Project Management Factors Affecting Department of Energy

Project Success. USA: Civil Engineering Research Foundation.

10.CHAPMAN, C., & WARD, S. (2003). Project Risk Management: Processes,

Techniques and Insights-2nd edition. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

11.CHRISTENSEN, T (2009). The Norwegian Front-End Governance Regime of

Major Public Projects– a Theoretically Based Analysis. Trondheim: Concept-

programmet.

12.CII (Construction Industry Institute). (2012). CII Best Practices Guide:

Improving Project Performance. United States of America: Construction Industry

Institute.

13.CLEMENTS, J. and GIDO, J., 2009.Effective Project Management. 5th ed.

Canada: South-Western Cengage Learning

14.COOPER, D. F., GREY, S., RAYMOND, G., & WALKER, P. (2008). Project Risk

Management Guidelines: Managing risk in large projects and complex

procurements. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.




101

15.COOPER, R. (2008). Perspective: The stage-gates idea to launch process

update, What’s new, and nexgen systems. Journal of Production Innovation

Management. 25 (1), 213-232.

16.CSU (Colorado State University). (2012). Writing Guide: Reliability and Validity.

Available: http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/research/relval/index.cfm. Last

accessed 12th July 2012.

17.DAWSON, C (2002). Practical Research Methods. New Delhi: UBS Publishers

Distributors.

18.DFA (Department of Finance and Administration). (2006). Guidance on The

Gateway Review Process. Canberra: Department of Finance and Administration.

19.DOE (U.S Department of Energy). (2006). Program and Project Management for

the Acquisition of Capital Assets. Washington, D.C.: Office of Management.

20.DOE (U.S Department of Energy). (2008a). Project Review Guide for Capital

Asset Projects. Washington, D.C.: Office of Management.

21.DOE (U.S Department of Energy). (2008b). Quality Assurance Guide for Project

Management. Washington, D.C.: Office of Management.

22.DOE (U.S Department of Energy). (2010). Project Definition Rating Index Guide

for Traditional Nuclear and Non Nuclear Construction Projects. Washington,

D.C.: Office of Management.

23.DOE (U.S Department of Energy). (2011a). Technology Readiness Assessment

Guide. Washington, D.C.: Office of Management.

24.DOE (U.S Department of Energy). (2011b). Cost Review and Estimate (ICR-ICE)

Standard Operating Procedures. Washington, D.C.: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

(DOE).

25.DOE (U.S Department of Energy). (2011c). Performance Baseline Guide.

Washington, D.C.: Office of Management.

26.DOE (U.S Department of Energy). (2011d). ROOT Cause Analysis and Corrective

Action Plan Closure Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.

27.DOE (U.S Department of Energy). (2011e). Performance Baseline Development

and Validation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.

28.DUNOVIC, I. (2010). A study of project governance frameworks for large

infrastructure projects with reflection on road transport projects. Organization,

technology and management in construction. 2 (1), 145-155.

29.EASTERBY-SMITH, THORPE and JACKSON (2008). Management Research. 3rd

ed. London (UK): SAGE Publications Ltd.




102

30.FLYVBJERG, B. (2007). How Optimism Bias and Strategic Misrepresentation

Undermine Implementation. Available:

http://www.concept.ntnu.no/Publikasjoner/Rapportserie/Rapport%2017%20kapi

ttelvis/Concept%2017-

3%20Optimism%20Bias%20and%20Strategic%20Misrepresentation.pdf. Last

accessed 1st August 2012.

31.FORSBERG, K., MOOZ, H., and COTTERMAN, H. (2005). Visualizing project

management. 3rd ed. Canada: John Wiley & Sons.

32.GEORGE, R., BELL, L., and BACK, W. (2008). ”Critical Activities in the Front-End

Planning Process.” J. Manage. Eng., 24(2), 66–74.

33.GIBSON, E., BOSFIELD, R. (2012). Common Barriers to Effective Front-End

Planning of Capital Projects. Available:

http://rebar.ecn.purdue.edu/crc2012/papers/pdfs/-131.pdf. Last accessed 2nd

Aug 2012.

34.GIBSON, HOOVER, FISH, HERRINGTON, ALBRECHT and TALIB. (2004). Project

Definition Rating Index (PDRI) Revisited. Available:

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=project+definition+rating+index+re

visited&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fco

nstruction-institute.org%2Fscriptcontent%2Fac2004slides%2Fgi. Last accessed

1st June 2012.

35.GRAY/LARSSON (2008). Project Management the managerial process. 4th ed.

Singapore: Mc Graw-Hill.

36.GREENER, S (2008). BUSINESS RESEARCH METHODS. UK: Ventus Publishing

ApS.

37.HM TREASURY (2011). Major Project Approval and Assurance Guidance.

London(UK): HM TREASURY.

38.HONOUR, E. (2004). Understanding the Value of Systems Engineering.

Available: http://www.incose.org/secoe/0103/ValueSE-INCOSE04.pdf. Last

accessed 2nd July 2012.

39.IAPPM (International Association of Project and Program Management). (2006).

A Guide to the Project & Program Management Body of Knowledge. USA: IAPPM.

40.IPMA (International Project Management Association) (2008). IPMA Competence

Baseline. The Netherlands: IPMA.

41.JERGEAS, G. (2008). Analysis of the Front-End Loading of Alberta Mega Oil

Sands Projects. Project Management Journal. 39 (4), 95-104.




103

42.KERZNER, .H, 2009. Project Management: A Systems Approach To Planning,

Scheduling, and Controlling. 10th ed. Hoboken New Jersey: John Wiley and

Sons, Inc.

43.KLAKEGG, O.J. (2012). Project assessments and decision gates as governance

tools. Available: https://aupri.athabascau.ca/node/309. Last accessed 25th July

2012.

44.KLAKEGG, WILLIAMS and MAGNUSSEN (2007). Design of Innovative

Governance Frameworks for Major Public Investment Projects; A Comparative

Study of Governance Frameworks in UK and Norway. Norway: IRNOP VIII

Project Research Conference.

45.KLAKEGG, WILLIAMS, MAGNUSSEN and GLASSPOOL. (2008). Governance

Frameworks for Public Project Development and Estimation. Project

Management Journal. 39 (Supplement), 27–42.

46.KOTHARI, C. (2004). Research methodology (Methods and Techniques). New

Delhi: New Age International Publishers.

47.LESTER, A (2006). Project Management Planning and Control. 5th ed. London:

Elsevier Science & Technology Books.

48.LOEDRE, O., OLSSON, N., TORP, O., HANSEN, O. and SAMSET, K. (2003).

Managing the Front-End of projects –A Bibliographical Guide. Available:

http://www.concept.ntnu.no/attachments/058_2003_laerde_frontend_manage

ment_of_projects_bibliographical_guide.pdf. Last accessed 6th Aug 2012.

49.MARCZYK, DEMATTEO and FESTINGER (2005). Essentials of Research Design

and Methodology. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

50.MAYLOR, H (2010). Project Management. 4th ed. Essex (England): Financial

Times Prentice Hall.

51.MEIER, S.R. (2009). Causal Inferences on the Cost Overruns and Schedule

Delays of Large-Scale U.S. Federal Defense and Intelligence Acquisition

Programs. Project Management Journal. 41 (1), 28-39.

52.MERROW, E (2011). Industrial Megaprojects. USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

53.MORRIS, P. (2011). Managing the Front-End: Back to the beginning. Project

Perspectives (IPMA). XXXIII (1), 4-8.

54.NAOUM, S.G (2007). Dissertation Research & Writing for Construction Students.

2nd ed. Oxford, UK: ELSEVIER.

55.NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) (2010). Nasa Space

Flight Program and Project Management Requirements. USA: NODIS.




104

56.NCDSV (National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence). (2011). Examples of

Data Collection Methods. Available:

http://www.ncdsv.org/images/Siebold_ExamplesOfDataCollectionMethods_updat

ed_11-7-2011.pdf. Last accessed 12th Aug 2012.

57.NEVILLE, C. (2007). Introduction to Research and Research Methods. Available:

http://www.bradford.ac.uk/management/media/management/els/Introduction-

to-Research-and-Research-Methods.pdf. Last accessed 24th Aug 2012.

58.NTNU. (2012). Ministry of Finance scheme for quality assurance of major public

investments . Available: http://www.concept.ntnu.no/qa-scheme. Last accessed

26th July 2012.

59.OGC (Office of Government Commerce). (2007)-a. OGC Gateway Process.

Review 0: Strategic assessment. London: Office of Government Commerce.

60.OGC (Office of Government Commerce). (2007)-b. OGC Gateway Process.

Review 1: Business Justification. London: Office of Government Commerce.

61.OGC (Office of Government Commerce). (2007)-c. OGC Gateway Process.

Review 2: Delivery Strategy. London: Office of Government Commerce.

62.OGC (Office of Government Commerce). (2007)-d. OGC Gateway Process.

Review 3: Investment Decision. London: Office of Government Commerce.

63.OGC (Office of Government Commerce). (2007)-e. OGC Gateway Process.

Review 4: Readiness for service. London: Office of Government Commerce.

64.OGC (Office of Government Commerce). (2007)-f. OGC Gateway Process.

Review 5: Operational Review and Benefits Realisation. London: Office of

Government Commerce.

65.ONS (Office for National Statistics). (2012). Sample Design and Estimation.

Available: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/general-

methodology/sample-design-and-estimation/index.html. Last accessed 17th July

2012.

66.PALMER, J.,GIBSON, E., BINGHAM, E. (2010). Front End Planning of Railway

Projects. Available: http://www.apta.com/mc/rail/previous/2010/Papers/Front-

End-Planning-of-Railway-Projects.pdf. Last accessed 18th July 2012.

67.PMI (Project Management Institute), (2008). Project Management Body of

Knowledge. 4th Ed. Newton Square, Pa.: Project Management Institute.

68.PMI (Project Management Institute), (2010). A Guide to the Project

Management Body of Knowledge. 4th ed. Pennsylvania (USA): PMI.




105

69.RGU (Robert Gordon University). (2009). Research Ethics Policy. Available:

http://www4.rgu.ac.uk/files/Research%20Ethics%20Policy.pdf. Last accessed

18th July 2012.

70.SAMSET, K. (2005). The Royal Norwegian Ministry of Finance Quality Assurance

Scheme for Major Investment Projects. Available:

http://www.chairegp.uqam.ca/upload/files/conferences-

publiques/norwegian_QA_Scheme.pdf. Last accessed 20th Aug 2012.

71.SARNDAL, SWENSSON and WRETMAN (2003). Model Assisted Survey Sampling .

New York: Springer.

72.SAUNDERS, LEWIS, THORNHILL (2009). Research Methods for Business

Students. 5th ed. Essex (England): Pearson Education Limited.

73.SECRETARIAT DU CONSEIL DU TRESOR (QUEBEC) (2010). Framework Policy for

the Governance of Major Public Infrastructure Projects. Canada: SECRETARIAT

DU CONSEIL DU TRESOR (QUEBEC).

74.TBS (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat). (2010a). The Independent

Reviewer’s Handbook. Canada: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

75.TBS (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat). (2010b). A Guide to Project Gating

for IT-Enabled Projects. Canada: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

76.TENROX. (2012). Baseline. Available: http://glossary.tenrox.com/Baseline.htm.

Last accessed 23th July 2012.

77.The Scottish Government’s Programme and Project Management Centre of

Expertise. (2011). Gateway Review. Available:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Government/ProgrammeProjectDelivery/Gat

eway-Review. Last accessed 13th July 2012.

78.WILLIAMS, KLAKEGG, WALKER, ANDERSEN, MAGNUSSEN. (2012). Identifying

and Acting on Early Warning Signs in Complex Projects. Project Management

Journal. 43 (2), 37-53.

79.WILLIAMS, T., SAMSET, K. (2010). Issues in Front-End Decision Making on

Projects. Project Management Journal. 41 (2), 38-49.

80.WILLIAMS, T., SUNNEVAG, K. and SAMSET, K (2009). Making Essential Choices

with Scant Information. UK: PALGRAVE MACMILLAN.

81.ZHANG, Y., and WILDEMUTH, B. (2009). Qualitative Analysis of Content.

Available: http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~yanz/Content_analysis.pdf. Last

accessed 9th Aug 2012.




106

CHAPTER 6BIBLIOGRAPHY




107

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. APM (Association of Project Management), 2011. Directing Change: A guide to

governance of project management. Buckinghamshire: England.

2. BRYDE, D. (2008), Perceptions of the impact of project sponsorship practices on

project success. International Journal of Project Management 26:8, 800–809.

3. CLELAND & R. GAREIS (Eds.), (2006) Global project management handbook:

Planning, organizing and controlling international projects. (2nd Ed.) New York:

McGraw-Hill.

4. CRAWFORD, L. and COOKE-DAVIES, T.J. (2007), Project Governance – The role

and capabilities of the executive sponsor. Paper in proceedings 21st IPMA World

Congress 2007. Cracow.

5. GARLAND, R. (2009). Project Governance: A Practical Guide to Effective Project

Decision Making. London and Philadelphia, Kogan Page Limited.

6. GRAY/LARSON (2008). Project Management (The Managerial Process). 2nd ed.

Singapore: Mc Graw Hill. 45-67.

7. KAUFMANN, D. and KRAAY, A. (2007), Governance Indicators: Where Are We,

Where Should We Be Going? Policy Research Working Paper 4370. The World

Bank, World Bank Institute, Global Governance Group and Development

Research Group – Macroeconomics and Growth Team. Available at

http://web.worldbank.org.

8. KLAKEGG, O. J. (2009). Governance: Recent developments of a “messy”

concept, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NTNU.

9. KLOPPENBORG, T, 2009. Project Management a Contemporary Approach.

Canada: South-Western Cengage Learning

10.LI ZHAI, Y. X., CHAOSHENG CHENG, (2009). “Understanding the value of

project management from a stakeholder’s perspective: Case study of mega-

project management.” Project Management Journal 40(1): 99-109.

11.MATTEN, D. and MOON, J. (2008), ‘Implicit’ and ‘Explicit’ CSR: A conceptual

framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility.

Academy of Management Review 33:2, pp. 404–424.

12.MÜLLER, R. (2009) Project governance. Fundamentals of project management.

Aldershot, UK: Gower Publishing.

13.OAKES, G. (2008) Project reviews, assurance and governance. Aldershot, UK:

Gower Publishing Ltd.




108

14.REISS, G., M. ANTHONY, et al. (2006). Gower Handbook of Programme

Management. Hampshire, England, Gower Publishing.

15.REMINGTON, K., & POLLACK, J. (2007) Tools for complex projects. Aldershot:

Gower Publishing.

16.WEAVER, P. (2007). Effective project governance - linking PMI’s standards to

project governance.PMI Global Congress. Hong Kong.

17.WHITTY, S. J. (2010). Project management artefacts and the emotions they

evoke. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 3(1), 22–45.

18.WILLIAMS, T. M. (2007) Post-project reviews to gain effective lessons learned.

Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.




109

CHAPTER 7APPENDICES




110

7. APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: RESEARCH PROJECT RISK

APPENDIX 2: SELECTION CRITERIA WEIGHTING SYSTEM

APPENDIX 3: INFORMATION ACCESIBILITY

APPENDIX 4: CHANGES LOG

APPENDIX 5: RELATED RESEARCH PROJECTS

APPENDIX 6: GANTT CHART

APPENDIX 7: RESEARCH PROJECT FLOW CHART

APPENDIX 8: DATA SET CAPTURING PROCESS




111

7.1. APPENDIX 1: RESEARCH PROJECT RISK

Based on the risk management process flow chart contained on the ISO 31000, the

main tasks involved within the Risk assessment process are:

Risk identification Risk analysis Risk evaluation

Figure 62: Risk Assessment Process

Source: ISO 31000

7.1.1. Identifying Risks

Risk identification reviews the uncertainties associated to the project and lists the

consequent risks (it gives a list of the most significant risks).

RISK IDENTIFICATION TECHNIQUES

Internal interviewing and discussion: Interviews Questionnaires Brainstorming Self-assessment and other facilitated workshops SWOT analysis

External sources: Comparison with other organizations Discussion with peers Benchmarking Risk consultants

Tools, diagnostics and processes: Checklists Flowcharts Scenario Analysis Value chain analysis Business process analysis Systems engineering Process mapping

Table 35: Risk Identification Techniques




112

Based on the risks factors associated to the project and using some of the

identification techniques reflected on Table 35, the following risks have been

noticed within the context of this research project:

RISK ID TITLE DESCRIPTION

ID-1 Lack of collaboration Unwillingness of research population to participate in study.

ID-2 IT failure Data loss/corruption.

ID-3 Lack of quality Project going off track and not meeting academic requirements.

ID-4 Cost overruns Funding issues / cost escalations.

ID-5 Analysis issues Research results prove inconclusive.

ID-6 Lack of organization Referencing issues and information overload.

ID-7 Project Delays Not meeting research deadlines.

ID-8 Lack of information Unavailability of literature and related academic resources.

ID-9 Methods failure Inappropriate techniques for data collection.

ID-10 Time People just do not respond in time for you to achieve project done on time.

ID-11 Confidentiality Issues associated to the ensuring of the confidentiality of the information provided by the collaborating organisms.

Table 36: Identified Risks

7.1.2. Risk Analysis

The risk analysis assigns each risk a priority rating, taking into account existing

activities, processes or plans that operate to reduce or control the risk (Cooper,

Grey, Raymond and Walker, 2008).

Figure 63: Risk Analysis

Qualitative analysis is based on nominal or descriptive scales for describing the likelihoods and consequences of risks

Semi-quantitative analysis extends the qualitative analysis process by allocating numerical values to the descriptive scales.

Quantitative analysis uses numerical ratio scales for likelihoods and consequences, rather than descriptive scales.

RISK ANALYSIS

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS

SEMI-QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS

QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS




113

For this report it will be used a Semi-quantitative analysis of the risks (Probability-

Impact matrix).

7.1.3. Probability-Impact Matrix

A probability–impact matrix has been used to determine a P–I score for each risk

event, enabling the events to be prioritised, and to plot the risk events to provide a

graphical representation.

Figure 64: Probability Impact Matrix

Before building the P-I matrix, it was necessary to define the likelihood and impact

rankings. Both scales were constructed based on the tables 37 and 38.

PR

OB

AB

ILIT

Y

0,9 Almost certain

0,7 Likely

0,5 Possible

0,3 Unlikely

0,1 RareTable 37: Probability Scale

Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic

0,05 0,1 0,2 0,4 0,8

IMPACT Table 38: Impact Scale

The P-I matrix is function of Impact and Probability: f(I,P).Different functions can

be used to define the ranking of risk, but for this work it has been used the

simplest option:




114

Risk = Impact X Probability.

PR

OB

AB

ILIT

Y 0,9 Almost certain 0,045 0,09 0,18 0,36 0,72

0,7 Likely 0,035 0,07 0,14 0,28 0,56

0,5 Possible 0,025 0,05 0,1 0,2 0,4

0,3 Unlikely 0,015 0,03 0,06 0,12 0,24

0,1 Rare 0,005 0,01 0,02 0,04 0,08


0,05 0,1 0,2 0,4 0,8

IMPACT

Table 39: P-I Matrix

There is no absolute standard for the scale of risk matrices. The score values can be

modified depending on the risk appetite of the organisation (Chapman, 2003).

Rank Level Score Extreme 0,4-1 High 0,15-0,4 Medium 0,03-015 Low 0-0,03

Table 40: Risk Scale

Based on both the P-I matrix and the risk appetite considerations (see Tables 39

and 40), it has been developed a Prioritisation Matrix to help us to decide whether

or not the risk is regarded as tolerable.

PR

OB

AB

ILIT

Y 0,9 Almost certain 0,045 0,09 0,18 0,36 0,72

0,7 Likely 0,035 0,07 0,14 0,28 0,56

0,5 Possible 0,025 0,05 0,1 0,2 0,4

0,3 Unlikely 0,015 0,03 0,06 0,12 0,24

0,1 Rare 0,005 0,01 0,02 0,04 0,08


0,05 0,1 0,2 0,4 0,8

IMPACT Table 41: Prioritisation Matrix




115

7.1.4. Risk Evaluation

A semi-quantitative analysis using a PIM (Probability Impact matrix) has been

undertaken to assess the importance of the identified risks and develop prioritized

lists of these risks for further analysis or direct mitigation.

RISK ID TITLE QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT

Prob. Imp. Overall Risk

ID-1 Lack of collaboration 0,7 0,8 0,56 Catastrophic

ID-2 IT failure 0,3 0,2 0,06 Medium

ID-3 Lack of quality 0,3 0,4 0,12 Medium

ID-4 Cost overruns 0,5 0,05 0,025 Low

ID-5 Analysis issues 0,5 0,05 0,025 Low

ID-6 Lack of organization 0,3 0,1 0,03 Low

ID-7 Project Delays 0,1 0,4 0,04 Medium

ID-8 Lack of information 0,5 0,2 0,1 Medium

ID-9 Methods failure 0,05 0,5 0,025 Low ID-10 Time 0,1 0,4 0,04 Medium ID-11 Confidentiality 0,3 0,4 0,12 Medium

Table 42: Risk Evaluation

PR

OB

AB

ILIT

Y 0,9

Almost certain

0,7 Likely ID-1

0,5 Possible ID-4, ID-5, ID-9 ID-8

0,3 Unlikely ID-6 ID-2 ID-3, ID-11

0,1 Rare ID-7, ID-10


0,05 0,1 0,2 0,4 0,8

IMPACT Table 43: Risk Evaluation Matrix




116

7.1.5. Risk Response Development

After risks have been identified and assessed, different mitigation strategies have

been defined in order to obtain the most appropriate response to the specific event.

(See Table 44)

RISK MITIGATION STRATEGY

Lack of collaboration

Increase level of engagement with key stakeholders to increase commitment and close collaboration.

IT failure Regular backups to minimize the possible affections to the project derived from a failure of the IT support.

Lack of quality Undertake quality control reviews with relevant stakeholders to ensure the final quality of deliverables fits for purpose.

Cost overruns Periodic Cost control assessments to avoid deviations from the original cost baseline.

Analysis issues Undertake peer reviews to ensure that the conclusions extracted from the gathered information are valid and suitable to be included as part of the case studies.

Lack of organization

Develop a plan for the development of the different stages of project. This plan shouldallow a proper control all along the PLC.

Project Delays Establish milestones to measure the evolution of the project and avoid possible delays.

Lack of information

Develop a proper Literature Search Plan that allows an effective search of information covering the most important sources.

Methods failure Ensure methodology selected for searching information is suitable for the purpose of the project.

Time Effective utilisation of Communication Management tools and techniques for improving the transference of information between the researcher and the collaborating organisations.

Confidentiality

Confidentiality involves controls to ensure that security is maintained when data is both at rest (stored) and in use to protect against unauthorized access or disclosure. These controls will include physical access controls, data encryption and management controls to put in place policies to protect against social engineering and other forms of observational disclosure.

Table 44: Mitigation Strategy




117

7.2. APPENDIX 2: SELECTION CRITERIA WEIGHTING SYSTEM

For the design of the weighting systems it has been utilized several sources

providing information about the criteria which make a source suitable for research

purposes (See Table 45).

SUITABILITY OF SOURCES-SELECTION CRITERIA

OR

GA

NIS

MS

University of California Berkeley www.lib.berkeley.edu/instruct/guides/evaluation.html

University of Wellintong (Victoria) www.vuw.ac.nz/staff/alastair_smith/evaln/index.htm

Auburn Montgomery Library http://aumnicat.aum.edu/departments/instruction/general/evaluating.html

Cornell University Library http://olinuris.library.cornell.edu/ref/research/webeval.html

UCLA Library www.library.ucla.edu/libraries/college/thinking-critically-about-world-wide-web-resources

State University of New York http://library.albany.edu/usered/eval/evalweb/

New Mexico State University Library http://lib.nmsu.edu/instruction/evalcrit.html

Johns Hopkins University http://guides.library.jhu.edu/evaluatinginformation

Widener University www.widener.edu/about/campus_resources/wolfgram_library/evaluate/

University of Hawaii www2.hawaii.edu/~nguyen/web/ Table 45: Criteria Sources

The selection of the criteria has been based on the number of organism including it

within the key elements making a source suitable for research purposes. Thus,

criteria that have been considered are only those mentioned at least in 30% of

sources. Furthermore, the weight of the different criteria has been calculated as the

percentage over the total of inclusions for that particular criterion. (See Table 46)

CRITERIA Nº INCLUSIONS (%) WEIGHT

Accessibility 10 0,20408 0.2

Information Quality 7 0,14286 0.15

Time Series Analysis (database) 4 0,08163 0.1

Sample validity and reliability 5 0,10204 0.1

Applicability 10 0,20408 0.2

Illustrative Material availability 5 0,10204 0.1

Alignment 5 0,10204 0.1

Capability 3 0,06122 0.05 Table 46: Weight Calculation




118

7.3. APPENDIX 3: INFORMATION ACCESIBILITY

ORGANISM GENERAL INFORMATION DATA ACCESIBILITY INFORMATION COMMENTS AND FURTHER INFORMATION

DOE (USA)

http://energy.gov/mission

http://foiaportal.energy.gov/ http://energy.gov/management/office-

management/operational-management/freedom-information-act

“The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a law that gives a person the right to obtain federal agency records unless the records (or parts of the records) are protected from disclosure by any of the nine exemptions contained in the law”. http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/maprod/documents/Wha_is_th

e_FOIA.pdf http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/maprod/documents/Handbook

.pdf

QA SCHEME(Norway)

http://www.concept.ntnu.no/english

http://www.concept.ntnu.no/about-the-programme/for-researchers

“The Concept Programme conducts research to further the understanding of large projects in general and public investment projects in particular. In this regard, they aim to expand their network of researchers and research communities in Norway and internationally. So they invite all research communities to contribute new ideas and proposals for sub-studies that may be included in the Concept portfolio”.

OGC (UK)

http://www.ogc.gov.uk/ http://www.cabinetoffice.g

ov.uk/

http://data.gov.uk/ http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/content

/cabinet-office http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/content

/major-projects-authority

“The UK OGC has always been committed to transparency over government major projects. Thus, requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 can be done by contacting the Cabinet Office FOI team”.

DFA (Australia)

http://www.finance.gov.au/gateway/

http://www.finance.gov.au/foi/index.html

“The broad objective of the Freedom of Information Act (FOI Act) is to give the Australian community access to information held by the Government of the Commonwealth. In order to do this, individuals can submit a request to a Department for access to documents the department holds and obtain copies of those documents”.

TBS (Canada)

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/itp-pti/pog-spg/pgo-gsp-eng.asp

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/tbs-sct/common/trans-eng.asp

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/report/Acc&priv/11-12/ati-aiprp-eng.pdf

“Reports of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat are accessible under request and further approval by the President of the Treasury Board”.

CII https://www.construction-

institute.org/scriptcontent/index.cfm

https://www.construction-institute.org/research/res-RFQ.cfm?section=aca

“Research Proposals are accepted from any faculty member holding a doctoral degree from an accredited university”.




119

7.4. APPENDIX 4: CHANGES LOG

ID Request

Day Change Requested

By Change Description

Impact Level

Change Reviewed By

Change Approved By

Review Date

Approval Date

1 06/05/2012 L. Supramaniam Research Area Selection Medium M. Suarez L. Supramaniam 15/05/2012 22/05/2012

2 01/06/2012 L. Supramaniam Research Area Selection Medium M. Suarez L. Supramaniam 04/06/2012 08/06/2012

3 15/06/2012 M. Suarez Research Area Selection Medium L. Supramaniam L. Supramaniam 20/06/2012 20/06/2012

4 24/06/2012 L. Supramaniam Problem Statement (Draft 1) Low M. Suarez L. Supramaniam 25/06/2012 28/06/2012

5 01/07/2012 M. Suarez Problem Statement (Draft 2) Medium L. Supramaniam L. Supramaniam 02/07/2012 02/07/2012

6 12/07/2012 L. Supramaniam Problem Statement (Draft 3) High M. Suarez L. Supramaniam 13/07/2012 16/07/2012

7 23/07/2012 L. Supramaniam Chapter 1 (Draft 1) Medium M. Suarez L. Supramaniam 25/07/2012 29/07/2012

8 31/07/2012 M. Suarez Chapter 1 (Draft 2) Low L. Supramaniam L. Supramaniam 02/08/2012 02/08/2012


10 14/08/2012 L. Supramaniam Chapter 2 (Draft 2) High M. Suarez L. Supramaniam 15/08/2012 17/08/2012




14 08/09/2012 L. Supramaniam Chapter 4 (Draft 1) Low M. Suarez L. Supramaniam 11/09/2012 13/09/2012

15 15/09/2012 M. Suarez Appendix 4 Low L. Supramaniam L. Supramaniam 17/09/2012 17/09/2012 Table 47: Changes Log




120

7.5. APPENDIX 5: RELATED RESEARCH PROJECTS

RESEARCH TITLE AUTHOR(S) SAMPLE

SIZE PRIMARY DATA

COLLECTION METHOD COMMENTS DATE

Causal Inferences on the Cost Overruns and

Schedule Delays of Large-Scale U.S.

Federal Defense and Intelligence Acquisition

Programs

Steven R. Meier 95 Programs ($42 billions)

Questionnaires Interviews

“This study was undertaken to understand why cost overruns and schedule delays have occurred and continue to occur on large-scale U.S. Department of Defense and intelligence community programs”. “Analysis of data from this study infers the causes of cost overruns and schedule slips on large-scale U.S. federal defense and intelligence acquisition programs to ineffective human resources policies and practices, consolidation of the aerospace industry, and too many stakeholders”. (Meier, 2009)

2008

Best Project Management and

Systems Engineering Practices in the

Preacquisition Phase for Federal Intelligence and

Defense Agencies

Steven R. Meier 30 Acquisition

Programs

Questionnaires Interviews Information Review

“The analysis of several government defense and intelligence agency large-scale acquisition programs that experienced significant cost and schedule growth shows that several critical factors need to be addressed in the preacquisition phase of the acquisition cycle. These include overzealous advocacy, technology readiness levels, life-cycle cost, schedule details, requirements maturity, acquisition and contract strategy, program office personnel tenure and experience, risk management, systems engineering, and trade studies”.

2006

Attributes of Independent Project

Reviews in NASA Brian J. Sauser 4 Projects Case Study

“To begin to understand some prospective success characteristics of project reviews within NASA and potentially across engineering management, a qualitative case study methodology was used with four NASA projects to identify key attributes of independent project reviews. These attributes were identified in relation to categories of reviewer, reviewee, and the review type”. (Sauser, 2006)

2006




121


SIZE PRIMARY DATA


Building project scope definition using project definition rating index

Chung-Suk Cho G. Edward Gibson Jr

Over 50 Projects Interviews Case Studies

“A research team constituted by the Construction Industry Institute (CII) has developed the Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) to address scope definition in the building sector. The PDRI validation procedure, involving over 50 projects, will be discussed. A description of the potential uses of the PDRI and a summary of its benefits to the building construction industry will be outlined”. (Cho andGibson, 2001)

2001

Optimism in Early Conceptual Designs and

Its Effect on Cost and Schedule Growth: An

Update

Robert E. Bitten Claude W. Freaner Debra L. Emmons,

20 NASA missions

Case Studies Information Review and

Analysis

“This research shows examples of the design evolution, and associated cost and schedule growth, for twenty historical NASA missions. Issues behind the cost and schedule growth of missions are varied, but in part may be attributed to systems that have changed substantially from those examined at initial concept through to launch. Historical resource growth is investigated for a variety of missions and mission types to provide guidelines and lessons learned to be used during the initial conceptual design stage for future missions. The data developed for the research should help both project managers and cost and schedule estimators to develop more robust estimates earlier in the design process”.(Bitten, Freaner and Emmons, 2010)

2010




122


SIZE PRIMARY DATA


The Norwegian Front-End Governance

Regime of Major Public Projects– a

Theoretically Based Analysis

Tom Christensen - Literature Review

“The structure of the report is as follows: First, the quality assurance system will be briefly presented and some of the main questions for analysis and evaluation posed. Second, five different analytical perspectives for analysis will be outlined and related to the quality assurance system. Third, the development of public reforms and political-administrative structures, cultures and practice in recent decades will be outlined in a comparative perspective, and the Norwegian quality assurance system will be discussed in relation to this development. Fourth, a concluding analysis and discussion of the quality assurance system will be made, including outlining strengths and weaknesses and possible improvements”. (Christensen, 2009)

2009

Governance Frameworks for Public Project Development

and Estimation

Ole Jonny Klakegg Terry Williams

Ole M. Magnussen Helene Glasspool

- Literature Review Case Study

“This research investigates how the interface between governance and project management works for public projects. It describes governance frameworks, analyzes embedded governance principles, and discusses the consequences. Based on an initial literature study giving theoretical underpinning, a characterization of frameworks is developed and used to investigate three public-investment-project governance frameworks in Norway and the United Kingdom”. (Klakeg, Willians, Magnussen and Glasspool, 2008)

2008




123


SIZE PRIMARY DATA


Identifying and Acting on Early Warning Signs

in Complex Projects

Terry Williams Ole Jonny Klakegg Derek H. T. Walker

Bjørn Andersen Ole M. Magnussen

8 Case Studies Case Studies Interviews

“Project professionals are not good at detecting or acting on early warning signs (EWS). Barriers that lead to this are identified. The nature of EWS and their detection change with the evolving situation. Project assessments, typically part of gateways, are useful in identifying EWS connected to the formalities of the project. As complexity increases, assessments have more limited use, and the project is increasingly dependent on detecting EWS by informal “gut feeling.” Thus, knowledge, experience, and communication skills are increasingly important in complex situations”.(Williams et al., 2012)

2012

A comparative study of six stage-gate

approaches to product development

Rachel Phillips Kevin Neailey

Trevor Broughton

6 different models

Interviews Case Studies

“This work compares six different companies' stage-gate approaches to the product development process. The six product development stage gate approaches were collated and compared and contrasted against a generic four-staged framework, derived from this research for use as a control. The similarities in approaches were examined and then supporting information on each of the organisations gathered”. (Phillips, Neailey and Broughton, 1999)

1999

Quantification of Front End Planning Input

Parameters in Capital Projects

Sungmin Yun Sung-Joon Suk

Jiukun Dai Stephen P. Mulva

419 Project Questionnaires

“Front end planning (FEP) is recognized by both academia and industry for its potential for improving project success. Despite wide acceptance of its value, the FEP process varies in its implementation throughout the construction industry and from one project to another. This research quantifies several parameters for successful FEP implementation effort in terms of cost, schedule and project management (PM) team size. The paper also examines selected parameters in light of several project characteristics. Analyses show that FEP implementation efforts differ depending on project characteristics such as industry type and project nature, amongst others”. (Yun, Suk; Dai and Mulva, 2012)

2012




124


SIZE PRIMARY DATA


Issues in Front-End Decision Making on

Projects

Terry Williams Knut Samset,

- Literature Review

“The importance of the front-end decision-making phase in projects is being increasingly recognized. This area is underrepresented in the literature, but there are a number of key themes that run throughout, identifying key issues or difficulties during this stage. This literature review looks at some of these themes and includes: the need for alignment between organizational strategy and the project concept; dealing with complexity, in particular the systemicity and interrelatedness within project decisions; consideration of the ambiguity implicit in all major projects; taking into account psychological and political biases within estimation of benefits and costs; consideration of the social geography and politics within decision-making groups; and preparation for the turbulence within the project environment, including the maintenance of strategic alignment”. (Williams and Samset, 2010)

2010

Common Barriers to Effective Front-End Planning of Capital

Projects

Edward Gibson Roberta Bosfield

59 Organizations

Survey

“Effective front-end planning (FEP) has repeatedly been shown in past research to positively affect project outcomes. Members of the Construction Industry Institute (CII) were surveyed to identify barriers to effective front-end project planning. This research describes survey results and gives recommendations to practitioners for improving FEP efficacy in order to improve capital project portfolio”.(Gibson and Bosfield, 2012)

2012

Front End Planning of Railway Projects

Jim Palmer Edward Gibson Evan Bingham

60 projects Workshops

“This research was focused on front end planning of infrastructure projects. This investigation provides an understanding of the critical issues that must be addressed during FEP of infrastructure projects, particularly as applied to rail projects. A new risk management tool for FEP, called the Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) for Infrastructure Projects, will be shown”. (Palmer, Gibson and Bingham, 2008)

2008




125


SIZE PRIMARY DATA


Analysis of the Front-End Loading of Alberta

Mega Oil Sands Projects

George Jergeas

3 mega projects of a total value of $10 billion

(CAD)

Case Study Interviews

“For the purpose of this research, the author considers the case study approach of the qualitative method as more suitable to explore and understand the phenomena of cost and schedule overruns on mega oil sands projects. In addition to studying project documents, the author sought and incorporated the opinion of 87 senior project management professionals— both owner and EPC contractor—who have, or had, responsibility for recent or current major projects, to obtain their insights and to validate the findings of this research work”. (Jergeas, 2008)

2008

Administration of the Gateway Review

Process

Australian National Audit Office

46 projects ($17.6 billions)

Interviews Analysis of key

documentation

“The objective of the audit was to examine the effectiveness of the administration of the Gateway review process by Finance and FMA Act agencies. The audit also examined the extent to which those Gateway reviews that have been conducted have contributed to improvements in the delivery of major projects undertaken by FMA Act agencies”. (ANAO, 2012)

2012

Independent Research Assessment of Project Management Factors

Affecting Department of Energy Project Success

Civil Engineering Research

Foundation 16 projects

Interviews Analysis of key

documentation

“The Civil Engineering Research Foundation (CERF) undertook a project management research study for the US Department of Energy (DOE) beginning in the fall of 2003. CERF was asked to identify key components affecting project performance, to evaluate performance factors, measures, and metrics in relation to their correlation with project success, and to make recommendations with regard to improving performance on different types of projects. The DOE Office of Engineering and Construction Management (OECM) selected 16 projects that were included in the review”. (CERF, 2004)

2004




126

7.6. APPENDIX 6: GANTT CHART

Figure 65: Project Gantt Chart




127

7.7. APPENDIX 7: RESEARCH PROJECT FLOW CHART




128

7.8. APPENDIX 8: DATA SET CAPTURING PROCESS

Figure 66: Data Set Capturing Process

Msc Project Management(Thesis)

Documents

Transcript of Msc Project Management(Thesis)