Pinto - Case Study 13.3 (485-486) – “Dear Mr. President -Please Cancel our Project”

032016-3-9-pp.10-15.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >Pinto - Case Study 13.3 (485-486) – “Dear Mr. President -Please Cancel our Project”

Performa 2008 stan Khashayar B Department o

A R T I C L E

Article history Received 15 A Received in re 7 August 201 Accepted 16 S

Keywords: Performance PMBOK Processes and Management Compliance a

1. Introduc

*Ahwaz and 23 un southwest p by two tun boring diam construction

One of t successful plans and p human and f of project integrated s senior man countries. P implementa irreparable power of or This neglige during oper a steep rise its time d

* Correspondin Email Address: https://doi.org 2313‐626X/© This is an open (http://creativ

Inte

ance evalu ndard (cas

Bagherinia *,

of Civil Enginee

I N F O

y: April 2016 evised form 6 September 201

evaluation

d areas of proj knowledge and non‐compl

tion

LRT Line 1 i derground s passing down nnels (intern meter: 6.8 n. the problems implementat projects that financial reso manageme

scientific org nagers and Previous expe ation of pr damages due rganization a ence will lead ration which of costs duri delays. Som

ng Author. khashayarb@ka g/10.21833/ijaa 2016 The Autho n access article u vecommons.org/

Internatio

ernationa Jour

ation of pr se study: A

Masoud Olap

ering, Khouzest

ect

iance

includes 2 tu stations from ntown which nal diameter m). The pr

s of developi tion of nati t leads to th ources is the ent techniqu ganization of companies a eriences of o rojects indi e to carelessn and managem d to non‐effici is mainly due ing the execu metimes, less

ayson‐ir.com (K s.2016.09.003 ors. Published by nder the CC BY‐N /licenses/by‐nc‐n

onal Journal of Adva

Contents

l Journal o rnal homepage: h

roject man Ahvaz Metr

pour

tan Science and

A B S T R

unnels in 24 m northeast h are connec r: 5.90 m a roject is un

ing countries ional econom he loss of ma non‐applicat ues and n the projects active in th organizations icate suffer ness towards ment of proje iency of proje e to two facto ution period a s accuracy

K. Bagherinia)

y IASE. NC‐ND license nd/4.0/)

anced and Applied

lists available at

of Advanc http://www.scien

nagement ro project)

d Research Bra

R A C T

of this resear n PMBOK sta on of potential formance mea always during t died in this ation. In this re f each proces dge areas Sh ment impleme ocess and even ication capab ment are iden n in any field management ment in projec

The Authors. Pub D license (http:/

km to

cted and der

s in mic any tion on‐ by hese s in ring the ects. ects ors: and in

est im of fac sta the the to pro int PM an wo me ne reg pro the pro im wi pro sta ou ad org im ma is

Sciences, 3(9) 2016

Science‐Gate

ed and Ap nce‐gate.com/IJA

implemen )

nch, Islamic Az

rch is to evalu andards. Since l components sures to comp the project life research wa egard, evaluati ss and the e hould be bas entation proje ntually in all a bilities and a ntified in the d and strength team to im

ct life cycle sol

blished by IASE. T /creativecommo

timating th mplementation the time, we ctor in this re andards are d e world in o ese standard the provid oject manage tegration and MBOK is a sta d obligations ords, it is a ethods, prin cessary to m gardless of a ovide an imp ese requirem oject, while

mplement an th the PMB ojects. Acco andard devia t so as to ministrative ganization an

mplement th anagement o the duty o

6, Pages: 10‐15

pplied Scie AAS.html

ntation bas

zad University,

ate performan e the perform specified usin pare the future e cycle and proj s carried ab ion and audit o establishment sed on the ct. The deviat reas of projec abilities, and Ahavaz Metr hs and weakn mprove mana utions are offe

This is an open a ons.org/licenses

he time a n could be th eak project m egard. For th developed fo rder to ensu s by identify ed standard ement issues d risks in ad andard dealin s using guide set of guid

nciples, tech manage proje a particular i plementation ments are pr an organiz appropriate

BOK standar ordingly, in ation and com identify the processes

nd obtain an he standard f the specifie f the projec

ences

sed on PM

Ahvaz, Iran

nce of project mance evaluat g weighted cri e is to make d ject‐based org out on a pr of the project of Project

guidelines of tion from the t management weaknesses

o Project. The esses are rea agement and ered.

access article un s/by‐nc‐nd/4.0/

and cost he reason for management hese reasons, r project ma ure executive ying the elem ds which ad s such as log ddition to co ng with the r elines and to elines that s hniques, and cts of any si industry. But n methodolog rovided for zation must e system in rd to manag order to

mpliance, aud non‐compli of the p

nd improve d. Respons ed processes ct manager.

BOK‐

management tion process, iteria related decisions and ganizations to roject‐driven management Management f knowledge standard of t is obtained. in project

e amount of lized for the continuous

nder the CC /).

of project r it. But most is the major today, some

anagement in e methods of ments related ddress other gistics, scope, ost and time. requirements ools. In other specifies the d the tools ize and type, t it does not gy. However, managing a design and accordance

ge a set of achieve the dit is carried iance of the project‐based a system to sibility and s in standard Hence, the

t t r e n f d r , . s r e s , t , a d e f e d e d o d d e

performanc impacts on project or or

2. Research

The st Managemen project man

Question managemen

The Pro What is the

There is processes i acceptable?

To what What is performanc

3. An introd

In 1961, founded by managemen experiences research to were of the American N project man project ma standards is guide. Its de of standard project ma PMBOK guid

4. Evaluati performanc

Performa control syst policies of

hashayar Bagheri

e of project m the function rganization.

h questions

tandard de nt Body of K nagement? ns secondary nt performan oject Manage standard dev a mismatch is to what

extent is the the optim e?

duction to PM

, the Project y five volun nt standards, s of project improve pr

e main goals ational Stand nagement in anagement s the PMBOK evelopment s dizing inform anagers acce de has divide

ion system ce based on

ance evaluat tem which im the organi

nia, Masoud Olap

manager will ns and achie

eviation of Knowledge P

y research: ce evaluation ement Body viation? in executive extent and

project objec mal project

MBOK stand

Managemen nteers. Deve exchanging managers, a oject manag of this insti

dards Institut nstitute for d standards. (Kamandi an started in 198 mation and epted by m ed project m

of project PMBOK stan

tion acts as mplements th ization and

pour / Internation

have signific evements of

the Proj PMBOK What

Is the proj n necessary? of Knowled

and manage how much

ctives achiev managem

dards

nt Institute w eloping proj knowledge a and conduct ement meth tute. After th te confirmed development One of th nd Darabi, 20 87 with the a experiences

most manage anagement i

Fig. 1: Project

t managem ndard

s a closed‐lo he strategy a evaluates

nal Journal of Ad

cant the

ject t is

ject

dge

rial h is

ved? ment

was ject and ting ods hat, the t of hese 09) aim of

ers. nto

nin an (20 an com ma thi pro

com Int pro

gro

ou of pro

est goa ach

pe the spe

ne dev ide pro

fin pro

management

ent

oop and the

fun giv inf pe 20 an

dvanced and Appl

ne (9) know d forty‐two 008)( Zoka'e d transact mprehensive anagement in is standard ojects such as The appro mpatible wi tegration" ( ovided by the Project man oups) are gro Introductory t in order to an existing oject or phas Planning p tablishing th als, and de hieve objectiv Implementa rformed in o e project ma ecifications. Monitoring eded for tra velopment a entify the are ogram and in End proces

nalize all activ oject or phas

process group

nction of diff ves feedback formation an rformance m 08) process w d efficiency

lied Sciences, 3(9)

ledge areas, (42) proce

ei, 2008). PM with each

e as it can be n most proje provides com s constructio ach used t ith the "Cap Osouli et a e Software En nagement pro ouped as follo y group proc define a new project with e. process grou he scope of t efining the ves of the pro ation proce order to comp nagement pl

and control acking, monit and performa eas where ch nitiate the rel ss group. P vities of all p e formally (F

ferent levels k. Hence, ev d measureme management which has a of the pe

) 2016, Pages: 10

five (5) pro esses ‐ Fou MPOK proces other. PM

e used as a as ects. As well, mpatibility w n or state pro to develop pability Mat al., 2008). ngineering In ocess groups ows: cesses. Proce w project or h permission

up: Process the project, necessary m oject. ess group: plete the wor lan to ensure

process grou toring, and r ance of the p hanges are n evant change Processes pe process group Fig. 1).

of the orga valuation pr ent system at (Shafae'i a vital role in e rformance m

0‐15

ocess groups, urth Edition sses overlap MBOK is as s a guide for flexibility of with specific ojects. PMBOK is

turity Model This model nstitute. s (or process

esses carried a new phase to start the

es required refining the measures to

Processes rk defined in e the project

up. Processes regulation of project. They eeded in the es. erformed to ps to end the

nization and rocess is an t the heart of nd Sarmadi, effectiveness management

, n p s r f c

s l l

d e e

d e o

s n t

s f y e

o e

d n f , s t

Khashayar Bagherinia, Masoud Olapour / International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 3(9) 2016, Pages: 10‐15

system. It also has a duty to determine the degree of project adaptation and success in achieving the project's objectives. Performance refers both to the action and the result of that action. In other words, performance is defined as today's action which is the prelude to produce a certain amount of the person's output value. After evaluating performance and determining compliance or non‐compliance with the PMBOK standard, continuous improvement to achieve the optimal expected limit, i.e., creating Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3), continues.

Neely expressed the seven main reasons of desire to measure performance in an article (1999):  Changing nature of work  Increased competition  Innovative activities for improvement  National and international quality awards  Change of organizational maps  Changes in foreign demands  Impact of Information Technology

It should be noted that change in criteria effect the organizational behavior such that the organization adopts those criteria for improvement and gaining higher scores and takes steps for implementation on this basis. Questions that will be raised before establishment of a performance evaluation system are as follows: What should be measured? If the focus is on the performance in the project environment, what is to be measured is performance. But is what we measure performance process or performance outcome? Do we want to know the sectional proof of performance and whether managers can work on a certain standard over a period of time? Do we want to do that measurement individually or as a group? Do we merely measure what managers and supervisors do or we also consider how well it is done?

Several questions raised in the evaluation and assessment also show the subsequent key features. In a system of measurement that is consistent with a standard, focus on performance results and evaluation of managers is during a regular period. The important point is whether the performance evaluation assesses competency (Bayati, 2006) or excellence. What is essential in performance evaluation is the level of compliance with the standard of project management knowledge and this compliance should be evaluated in comparison with all management processes. The goal of any performance measurement system (Bolourian et al., 2007) is to determine the success or the level of harmony between the components for achieving objective of the performance measurement system. Accordingly, the performance measurement frameworks provided by the researchers are divided into two types of structural and procedural measurement frameworks. The difference between structural and procedural frameworks is related to system definition. Procedural measurement frameworks try to design a step by step procedure to create and implement a measuring system and pay

more attention to the system's third dimension (relationship between components); and because of lacking the structural dimension (components), they do not allow for the selection and management of unique performance criteria. Similarly, the structural frameworks regard the second dimension of performance measurement system and provide a specific guidance for defining criteria based on measurement dimensions.

The performance measurement (Teymouri and Ali, 2009) system includes a number of performance criteria.

By identifying the key criteria and indicators in PMBOK processes in the project population as well as interviewing and distributing questionnaires, the level of project management maturity is measured. First, the project manager, managers, and supervisors are encouraged to complete the questionnaires by self‐declaration. After collecting the questionnaires, the items contained in them are audited using detailed interview. Due to the unique characteristics of each project, evaluation is performed to assess the standard application level of project management in the general framework of evaluation process in areas of standard PMBOK. This is done using a general assessment and self‐ assessment questionnaire based on Dennis Bowles model as well as detailed evaluation tool of project management.

5. Developing evaluation indices

The first and most important step in designing the performance evaluation system is to identify and develop the practical measures commensurate with the responsibilities of the project manager and project team managers regarding their position in accordance with the process groups in the project. These indexes must be based on PMBOK standard to be measurable. This means that the indicators should be measurable. For measurement, the indexes should certainly be quantitative. Measures and criteria are defined based on the following indices:  Key indicators: set of parameters measuring a specified criterion for a component.

 Key criteria: conditions, predefined values and measures determined in the scoring model for assessing alignment with the objectives.

 Key performance indicators: a measure which provides the possibility of assessment and reporting. Audit is a systematic, independent and documented process for obtaining evidence and its factual evaluation for meeting the criteria. The criteria were extracted and classified

commensurate with the duties of directors and high‐ ranking officials in the project management team by getting comments of each and regarding the requirements of PMK areas in accordance with the PMBOK standard. The important point is that all the criteria must be instances of the areas of knowledge management so that we can audit them after

Khashayar Bagherinia, Masoud Olapour / International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 3(9) 2016, Pages: 10‐15

quantification based on performance evaluation process.

Examples of performance evaluation indicators based on objective, measures, and output in accordance with the standard PMBOK

According to the following table, the expected outputs are defined and categorized for each area of the project management knowledge based on standards (Table 1).

Table 1: Categorize project management knowledge area

Area Goal Metric measurement

target Main outcomes expected

Integrity management

Identify, define, combine and coordinate project management

processes

Contrary to other metrics

Project charter, project plan

Scope Management The project must consist of the works

required for the project The ratio of scope

changes Detailed statement of

scope Time management Timely completion of project Time performance Project Scheduling

Cost Management Completion of the project with

approved cost Cost performance Cost planning

Quality management

Fulfill the committed qualitative requirements

Duplication ratios, customer satisfaction

Quality design, reports on control and quality

assurance

Human Resource Management

Supply and logistics, maintenance, human resources required for the

project

Satisfaction of authorities of

responsibility centers, Productivity and job satisfaction of staff

Project structure, project team

Communications Management

Production, collection, distribution, maintenance of project information

Accuracy and timeliness of data of each beneficiary for

his share

Communications program, Performance reporting,

Expectations of stakeholders

Risk management Planning, identifying, analyzing, and

responding to project risks Ratio of unmanaged

risks Risk program

Procurement management

Providing products and services of projects outside it

Suppliers satisfaction, customer satisfaction (in this case, the

project implementation team)

Procurement applications, purchase contracts

The results were analyzed after audit of the

authorities in accordance with descriptions of duties within the project organization framework and in field of the related knowledge using self‐declaration and interview methods, .It is obvious that a method should be used for scoring the quantified criteria. To facilitate assessment, some weight and scores were considered for the indexes and then, regarding the weight of each index, AHP (Farahani, 2006) was used to analyze the scores obtained in audit.

6. The issue of selecting options on the basis of criteria

In general, decision‐making process is divided into two categories regarding decision space: continuous and discrete. Decision making in discrete space is divided into two categories of single criteria. The criteria are also divided into three qualitative, quantitative, and mixed (qualitative and quantitative) categories. Hierarchical AHP is a method that allows correct decision making in the presence of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed criteria.

7. Performance evaluation and scoring the project management checklist

After finalizing indexes and weighting each of them by getting the comments of authorities and the project team as well as previous experiences in using AHP for each index, we defined a number for each index from zero to 100 according to Table 2.

After preparation of the final scoring table in the project management checklist, self‐declaration questionnaires were distributed and completed by the project management team. Then, audit was done in the final assessment using interviews (Figs. 2 and 3).

8. Conclusions

The final result is obtained from the study and comparison of the audit scores in process groups of 9 knowledge areas of project management in compliance with the standard and based on the following graph.

It is observed that project management performance shows the average condition in comparison with the process groups and knowledge domains based on PMBOK standard. The organization is weak in areas where it has attained scores less than 50. It should be tried to improve the areas where the score is more than 50 in order to achieve organizational maturity and OPM3 model (Fig. 4).

In comp knowledge w after evalua areas of r

Continuous im 10

The proje awareness of t

of this p

Adequate kn the pro

process‐specif the process b approved p

Adopted proce implementat

Periodic p investigat

improving th

Fig. 2: Comp

Fig. 3: Com

Since th results of t extent of th

hashayar Bagheri

aring the sta with the exp ation that th risk manage

mprovement 0 ect team the necessity process

nowledge of ocess

fic outputs of based on the procedure

edures of the tion process

planned tions for e procedure

parative graph

mparative rada

he audit was the audits w e use of such

nia, Masoud Olap

atus of proje pected values he lowest sco ement and

Table F

The project of the ne

Adequate k pr

process‐spe the proces approve

Adopted pr implemen

in the areas o

ar graph in the

s conducted were used to h tools in the

pour / Internation

ect managem s, it can be se ores are in communicat

e 2: Project ma ormal 75

team awarene cessity of this rocess

knowledge of th rocess

ecific outputs o ss based on the ed procedure rocedures of th ntation process

f knowledge m

areas of know

for evaluati determine e field of proj

nal Journal of Ad

ment een the tion

ma of ma

anagement che

ess

of e

he s

The awarene

Adequat

process‐ the pro appr

management in

wledge manage

ion, the ject

ma are gro

dvanced and Appl

anagement, a quality mana anagement.

ecklist scoring Committed

e project team ess of the nece f this process

te knowledge o process

‐specific outpu ocess based on oved procedur

n the planning p

ement in the pl

anagement. T eas was used oups and out

lied Sciences, 3(9)

and the highe agement, time

g guide

essity

of the

uts of n the re

Th aw ne

Adequ

process group

lanning proces

Then, the gen d to determi tputs of each

) 2016, Pages: 10

est scores are e managemen

Aware 25

he project team wareness of the ecessity of this process

uate knowledg the process

based on PMB

ss group and sc

neral output o ne the outpu h process. Th

0‐15

e in the areas nt, and scope

Absenc 0

m e

ge of

BOK standard

core earned

of knowledge ut of process herefore, the

s e

e s e

Khashayar Bagherinia, Masoud Olapour / International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 3(9) 2016, Pages: 10‐15

analysis and recognition of the root causes of problems and weaknesses of each process are defined.

Hence, project management performance can be evaluated by assessing the process groups as the outputs of 9 groups of project management knowledge; and performance of each director in the

project can be assessed and scored. By defining the weaknesses in each field of knowledge, the expected outputs can be strengthened and correctly used and also the ultimate goal of performance evaluation, enhanced efficiency, and managers' effectiveness can be achieved.

Fig. 4: Project management performance in comparison base on standard

9. Suggestions and recommendations

Since the evaluation of the process by which the performance of project managers and formally evaluated at regular intervals and assessed at each stage of the project life cycle to identify and confirm knowledge of strong managers with motivational levers to improve their operational performance. In addition to identifying the weaknesses of managers with accurate planning is necessary to fill.

May be one way process groups is audited and evaluated and even establish a way they are implemented but standard implementation and success of the project simply is not the main goal, but profitability and gain market share experience and lessons learned should be taken into account It is recommended that, at the end of the project re‐ evaluated performance in addition to compatibility with standards referred cases re‐examined Finally, the utility and success to be measured.

References

Bayati A and Naseri H (2006). Project management association: Project manager competency development framework. Rasa Publication, Tehran, Iran: 12– 16.

Bolourian E, Arab H and Makvandi A (2007). Creation of centers of excellence in project

management, Bulls, Dennis. 1st Edition, the National Petrochemical Company, Tehran, Iran: 43‐56.

Farahani M (2006). Implementing standard PMBOK processes using analytical hierarchy process (AHP). 4th International Project Management Conference, Tehran.

Kamandi PK and Darabi H (2009). Project Management Institute (PMI). PMBOK Guide, 1st Edition, Hami Publications, Tehran, Iran: 31‐36.

Osouli H, Shakeri A, Samimi M, Mokhtar A Manouchehri M and Naseri H (2008). Comprehensive project management maturity model. 1st Edition, the National Petrochemical Company, Tehran, Iran.

Shafae'i R and Sarmadi P (2008). Performance management in manufacturing industry. 1st Edition, Nasir Publications, Tehran, Iran.

Teymouri L and Ali AMH (2009). Measurement of business performance.1st Edition, University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.

Zoka'ei AM (2008). Project management institute, PMBOK. 3rd Edition, Adineh Publications, Tehran, Iran: 54‐63.

100

1 ‐ In

tegratio n

m an agem

en t

2 ‐ Scop

e m an agem

en t

3 ‐ T

im e m

an agem

en t

4 ‐ C

o st m

an agem

en t

5 ‐ Q

u ality m

an agem

en t

6 ‐ H

u m an R eso

u rce

m an agem

en t

7 ‐ C o m m u n icatio

n s

m an agem

en t

8 ‐ R isk m

an agem

en t

9 ‐ P ro cu rem

en t

m an agem

en t

Committed

Aware