MSC Project Management (Thesis)

ROBERT GORDON UNIVERSITY
ABERDEEN
ABERDEEN BUSINESS SCHOOL MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PERFORMANCE BASELINE MATURITY FROM A CONTROL-BASED PERSPECTIVE
Author: ID Number: Tutor:
Manuel Angel Gonzalez Suarez 1117655 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
DECLARATION STATEMENT
I, Manuel ngel Gonzlez Surez, 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 ngel Gonzlez Surez Signed at Aberdeen On the 27th day of September 2012
MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655
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.
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.
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)
ACRONYMS
AGR ANAO APM BC CD CERF CII DOE EPP EVM FED FEED FEL FMG IAPPM IPA IPR KPI NASA OGC PB PDRI PDRI PIM PLC PM PMI PMP PP PPP PRES PRP PT QA RPS SOW TBS TPC TRA WBS Assurance Gate Review Australian National Audit Office Association for Project Management Business Case Critical Decision Civil Engineering Research Foundation Construction Industry Institute Department of Energy (USA) Early Project Planning Earned Value Management Front-End Development Front End Engineering and Design Front-End Loading Financial Management Guidance (Australia) International Association of Project and Program Management Independent Project Analysis Independent Project Review Key Performance Indicator National Aeronautics and Space Administration Office of Government Commerce(UK) Performance Baseline Project Definition Rating Index Project Definition Rating Index Probability Impact Matrix Project Life Cycle Project Manager Project Management Institute Project Management Plan Project Plan Pre Project Planning Primary Research Execution Stage Phases Review Process Project Team Quality Assurance Research Proposal Stage Scope of Work Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat Total Project Cost Technology Readiness Assessment Work Breakdown Structure
CONTENTS:
1. INITIAL RESEARCH PLAN ....................................................................... 16 1.1. 1.2. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 16 RATIONALE .................................................................................. 17 Personal ................................................................................. 17 Business ................................................................................. 18 Academic Rationale .................................................................. 18
1.2.1. 1.2.2. 1.2.3. 1.3. 1.4. 1.5.
PROBLEM STATEMENT ................................................................... 19 RESEARCH QUESTIONS.................................................................. 22 PROBLEM DEFINITION ................................................................... 22 AIM ....................................................................................... 22 Objectives .............................................................................. 22 Scope .................................................................................... 23 Deliverables ............................................................................ 24 Risk Analysis ........................................................................... 24 CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS.................................................... 26 SUCCESS CRITERIA ................................................................. 26 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ............................................... 26 ASSUMPTIONS ........................................................................ 27
1.5.1. 1.5.2. 1.5.3. 1.5.4. 1.5.5. 1.5.6. 1.5.7. 1.5.8. 1.5.9.
1.5.10. CONSTRAINTS......................................................................... 27 1.5.11. CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................... 27 1.6. 1.7. 1.8. RESEARCH PROJECT SCHEDULE ...................................................... 28 RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS ............................................................ 29 INITIAL LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................... 30 Introduction ............................................................................ 30 PB Development ...................................................................... 31 The Front End Loading .............................................................. 33 PB Maturity ............................................................................. 35
1.8.1. 1.8.2. 1.8.3. 1.8.4.
1.8.5. 1.8.6. 1.9. 1.10.
PB Management and Control...................................................... 37 Gate Reviews Models ................................................................ 38
INITIAL METHODOLOGY ................................................................. 41 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................ 42
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................. 44 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 44 LITERATURE REVIEW PROCESS ....................................................... 44 SEARCH PLAN ............................................................................... 46 Search parameters................................................................... 46 Mapping the literature .............................................................. 47 Sources of information ............................................................. 48
2.3.1. 2.3.2. 2.3.3. 2.4.
FRONT END MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL APPROACHES .................... 49 Sources Selection .................................................................... 49
2.4.1. 2.5.
MODELS BRIEF DESCRIPTION ......................................................... 51 The Royal Norwegian Ministry of Finance QA Scheme .................... 51 OGC Gateway Process (Office of Government Commerce) .............. 53 DFA Gateway Review Process (Australia) ..................................... 55 CII (Construction Industry Institute)........................................... 56 U.S Department of Energy (D.O.E) ............................................. 58 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) ................................ 60
2.5.1. 2.5.2. 2.5.3. 2.5.4. 2.5.5. 2.5.6. 2.6.
MODELS COMPARISON................................................................... 62 OGC/ TBS/ DFA ....................................................................... 62 DOE / CII ............................................................................... 63 Norway / OGC ......................................................................... 65 DOE/Norway ........................................................................... 66 Models Comparison Matrix ........................................................ 67
2.6.1. 2.6.2. 2.6.3. 2.6.4. 2.6.5. 2.7.
LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARY ...................................................... 68
3. METHODOLOGY AND METHOD APPROACHES ............................................. 71
3.1. 3.2. 3.3.
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 71 RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY ................................................................ 72 RESEARCH APPROACHES ................................................................ 73 Quantitative/Qualitative ............................................................ 73 Deductive/Inductive ................................................................. 74
3.3.1. 3.3.2. 3.4. 3.5. 3.6.
RESEARCH PURPOSE ..................................................................... 74 RESEARCH STRATEGY .................................................................... 76 SAMPLING AND PILOTING .............................................................. 80 Determining Sample Design ...................................................... 80 Target Population .................................................................... 81 Sampling Frame ...................................................................... 81 Sampling Techniques ............................................................... 81 Sample Size ............................................................................ 83 Execute the Sampling Process ................................................... 84 Piloting ................................................................................... 86
3.6.1. 3.6.2. 3.6.3. 3.6.4. 3.6.5. 3.6.6. 3.6.7. 3.7. 3.8. 3.9.
QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN ............................................................... 86 IDENTIFY DATA SETS .................................................................... 89 DATA ANALYSIS APPROACHES ........................................................ 91 Analysing Results .................................................................... 91
3.9.1. 3.10. 3.11.
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY .......................................................... 93 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY ............................................................ 94
4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATIONS..................................................... 96 4.1. CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................. 96 Research Project Development .................................................. 96 Research Project Review/Findings .............................................. 97
4.1.1. 4.1.2. 4.2. 4.3.
LESSONS LEARNED ....................................................................... 98 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 98
5. REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 100
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................... 107 7. APPENDICES ...................................................................................... 110 7.1. APPENDIX 1: RESEARCH PROJECT RISK ......................................... 111 Identifying Risks .................................................................... 111 Risk Analysis ......................................................................... 112 Probability-Impact Matrix ........................................................ 113 Risk Evaluation ...................................................................... 115 Risk Response Development .................................................... 116
7.1.1. 7.1.2. 7.1.3. 7.1.4. 7.1.5. 7.2. 7.3. 7.4. 7.5. 7.6. 7.7. 7.8.
APPENDIX 2: SELECTION CRITERIA WEIGHTING SYSTEM ................. 117 APPENDIX 3: INFORMATION ACCESIBILITY ..................................... 118 APPENDIX 4: CHANGES LOG ......................................................... 119 APPENDIX 5: RELATED RESEARCH PROJECTS.................................. 120 APPENDIX 6: GANTT CHART ......................................................... 126 APPENDIX 7: RESEARCH PROJECT FLOW CHART .............................. 127 APPENDIX 8: DATA SET CAPTURING PROCESS ................................ 128
10
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 17: PB Maturity-Building Process (2) .................................................... 35 Figure 18: PB Maturity-Building Process (3) .................................................... 36 Figure 19: PB Maturity-Building Process (4) .................................................... 37 Figure 20: Project Definition Methods & Tools ................................................. 37 Figure 21: PB Maturity-Building Process (5) .................................................... 38 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
11
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 60: Cost Baseline Maturity-Comparative Analysis (2) .............................. 92 Figure 61: Cost Baseline Maturity-Comparative Analysis (3) .............................. 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
12
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
13
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
14
CHAPTER 1
PROJECT RESEARCH PLAN
15
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)
16
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, Authors 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
17
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.
18
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).
19
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
20
(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 preimplementation 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.
21
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.
22
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)
23
1.5.4. Deliverables
The main deliverables of this Research Project have been included in Table 1.
RESEARCH PROJECT DELIVERABLES RESEARCH PROJECT DELIVERABLES LIFECYCLE RESEARCH PROPOSAL STAGE (RPS) Chapter 1: Project Research Plan Full Project Definition Initial Literature Review CONCEPT Research Questions Risk Management Plan Research Schedule / Resources and Costs Chapter 2: Literature Review FEL and Project Success Literature Analysis Synthesis and Relation to Research Area Conceptual Framework Chapter 3: Research Methodology Research Approach Data Collection Technique Sampling Approach Data Analysis Method Chapter 4: Conclusions Synthesis of Research Findings Lessons Learned Project Proposal Report Submission Chapter 1 4 Reference and Appendices PRIMARY RESEARCH EXECUTION STAGE (PRES) Primary Research Outputs OPERATIONS Initial Data Analysis Results Initial Data Synthesis and Conclusions CLOSEOUT Research Project Final Report HANDOVER & CLOSEOUT
Table 1: Project Deliverables
EXPECTED DATE
5th July 2012
DEFINITION
11th Aug 2012
5th Sep 2012
IMPLEMENTATION
25th Sep 2012
28th Sep 2012
8th Dec 2012 25th Dec 2012 Jan 25st 2013 Jan 29th 2013
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)
24
RISK ID ID-1 ID-2 ID-3 ID-4 ID-5 ID-6 ID-7 ID-8 ID-9 ID-10 ID-11
STAGE PRES RPS/PRES RPS/PRES RPS/PRES PRES RPS/PRES RPS/PRES RPS PRES PRES PRES
DESCRIPTION Unwillingness of research population to participate Lack of collaboration in study. IT failure Data loss/corruption. Project going off track and not meeting academic Lack of quality requirements. Cost overruns Funding issues / cost escalations. Analysis issues Research results prove inconclusive. Lack of organization Referencing issues and information overload. Project Delays Not meeting research deadlines. Unavailability of literature and related academic Lack of information resources. Methods failure Inappropriate techniques for data collection. People just do not respond in time for you to Time achieve project done on time. Issues associated to the ensuring of the Confidentiality confidentiality of the information provided by the collaborating organisms.
Table 2: Identified Risks
TITLE
RISK ID ID-1 ID-2 ID-3 ID-4 ID-5 ID-6 ID-7 ID-8 ID-9 ID-10 ID-11
TITLE
QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT Prob. Imp. Overall Risk 0,8 0,2 0,4 0,56 Catastrophic 0,06 0,12 Medium Medium Low Low Low Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
Lack of collaboration 0,7 IT failure 0,3 Lack of quality Cost overruns Analysis issues Project Delays 0,3 0,5 0,5 0,1
0,05 0,025 0,05 0,025 0,1 0,4 0,2 0,5 0,4 0,4 0,03 0,04 0,1 0,025 0,04 0,12
Lack of organization 0,3 Lack of information 0,5 Methods failure 0,05 Time 0,1 Confidentiality 0,3
Table 3: Risk Assessment
PROBABILITY
0,9 0,7 0,5 0,3 0,1
Almost certain Likely Possible Unlikely Rare Insignificant 0,05 Minor 0,1 Moderate 0,2 IMPACT ID-4, ID-5, ID-9 ID-6 ID-8 ID-2 ID-3, ID-11 ID-7, ID-10 Major 0,4 Catastrophic 0,8 ID-1
Table 4: Risk Assessment Matrix
25
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: Research Proposal Stage (RPS): 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.
Primary Research Execution Stage (PRES):
1.5.8. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Research Proposal Stage (RPS): Number of references included. Number of sources utilized. Grade awarded by the Exam Board evaluating the proposal.
26
Primary Research Execution Stage (PRES): % 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
Research Proposal Stage (RPS): Secondary information utilised in this research project is reliable and based on solid research methodologies.
Primary Research Execution Stage (PRES): 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
Research Proposal Stage (RPS): 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. Primary Research Execution Stage (PRES):
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.
27
1.6. RESEARCH PROJECT SCHEDULE

The Research Proposal Stage (RPS) of this Research Project started in May 2012 and will take 4 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 RESEARCH PROJECT (Total) PROJECT INITIATION Project Kick Off Project Research Plan PROJECT PLANNING Literature Review Research Methodology Conclusions and Recommendations PROJECT EXECUTION Data Collection Data Analysis PROJECT CLOSEUT Synthesise Data and Draft Development Review (external/internal) Project Final Report DURATION (Days) 189 49 7 42 RPS 48 (97 days) 22 16 10 60 30 30 PRES 32 (92 days) 25 7 -
Table 5: Research Project Duration
A detailed Gantt chart of this Research Project has been included in Appendix 6.
28
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 LABOUR Units Cost Researcher : Responsible for the entire study from initiation to closeout 200 hours 15 including: Project Proposal/Planning (200 h) Module coordinator: Outlines the module structure, sets project requirements, delivers 30 hours 20 lectures and deals with all extraneous issues. Project advisor: Guides the student, gives feedback on progress and holds a 20 hours 35 number of research tutorials. MATERIALS Units Cost 1 1,000 Laptop with appropriate software Multiple 200 Additional books, magazines & online resources Multiple 300 Transportation Access to RGU and associated services: Academic resources/databases World wide web/email account 1/4th 9,500 RGU CAQDAS software (cost based on tuition fee for module) LABOUR Units Cost Researcher: Responsible for the entire study from initiation to closeout including: 150 hours 15 Data Collection/Analysis (100 h) Conclusions elaboration (50 h) Project advisor: Guides the student, gives feedback on progress and holds a 30 hours 35 number of research tutorials. MATERIALS Units Cost Multiple 500 Additional books, magazines & online resources Multiple 40 Printing and binding final report Multiple 500 Transportation and Communications Access to RGU and associated services: Academic resources/databases World wide web/email account 1/4th 9,500 RGU CAQDAS software (cost based on tuition fee for module) TOTAL PROJECT COST
Table 6: Resource Requirements
Total 3,000
RPS (RESEARCH PROPOSAL STAGE)
600
700 Total 1,000 200 300
2,375
PRES (PRIMARY RESEARCH EXECUTION STAGE)
Total
2,250
1050 Total 500 40 500
2,375
14,890
29
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 analysisaccepted and approved by the project management teamwith baseline start dates and baseline finish dates (PMI, 2008).
IO CT
R TE
IN
(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
IN
TE R
TI O N
30
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).
31
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)
STRATEGIC BC BUSINESS CASE FINAL DATA SETS PB FROZEN
PB MATURITY
Figure 13: PB Progress
(Source: Author)
PMP
32
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
Technical Baseline Schedule Baseline Cost Baseline
PROJECT LIFECYCLE PHASES Initiation Definition Execution

Final design requirements, configuration baseline Complete schedule hierarchy Final TPC estimate
Transition/ Closeout
As-built configuration baseline Actual completion date Actual project costs
Preliminary Preliminary design functions and requirements requirements baseline from pre- conceptual design Order of magnitude project duration and forecast need date Order of magnitude cost estimate Preliminary schedule and milestones Preliminary cost estimates
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
33
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-makers 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
34
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
35
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).
LE U E ED IN H EL SC AS B
CON WIT TEXT H IN PLC
K PE E O L IN SC SE A B
PI
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.
B CO A SE ST LI N E
36
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
37
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.
CHANGE CONTROL
ITIO EFIN T D DS JEC O PRO METH
LE U E ED IN H EL SC AS B
CON WIT TEXT HIN PLC
PI
PB MATURITY
PE E O L IN SC SE A B C A O SE ST LI N E
P I N EO VO PL LV E ED
G IN I N ES EL SS S E B A OC PR
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).
38
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).
39
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.
40
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
41
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
42
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
43
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
44
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
45
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: Subject area: Business sector: Geographical area: Publication period: Literature type:
English Project Management, Performance Baseline Public Major Investments Western Europe, North America, Australia 2007-2012 Books, journals, articles, thesis, reports, websites, databases, blogs
Table 8: Search Parameters
46
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
47
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.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT WEB SITES
SOURCES OF INFORMATION 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/ EMERALD www.emeraldinsight.com SCIENCE DIREC www.sciencedirect.com INTERNATIONAL NEWSSTAND BUSINESS SOURCE PREMIER ELSEVIER ASCELIBRARY DSPACE WILEY ONLINE LIBRARY TAYLOR FRANCIS ONLINE IEEE SPRINGERLINK PM NETWORK ONLINE www.newsstand.co.uk www.ebscohost.com www.elsevier.com http://ascelibrary.org http://dspace.mit.edu http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com www.tandfonline.com http://ieeexplore.ieee.org www.springerlink.com http://www.pmi.org/KnowledgeCenter/Publications-PMNetwork.aspx http://www.journals.elsevier.co m/international-journal-ofproject-management/ www.projectmagazine.com www.pmtoday.co.uk http://www.pm4dev.com/resour ces/pm-ejournal.html http://www.projectsatwork.com/
DATA BASES
PROJECT MANAGEMENT JOURNALS
INT. JOURNAL OF PM PROJECT MAGAZINE PROJECT MANAGER TODAY PM CONNECT JOURNAL PROJECTS @ WORK MAGAZINE
Table 9: Sources of Information
48
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 Accessibility DESCRIPTION WEIGHT 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.05
The organization allows information to be made available for scrutiny by other researchers. To have information sufficient to provide results of interest and relevance Information Quality which can be applied in a general context. Time Series Organisations should provide comparative information over time. For the Analysis purposes of this research project, retrospective information is preferable to (database) estimates of future costs. Sample validity The organisations must be able to provide a good sample for obtaining valid and reliability and reliable information. It is measured basing on the breath of range of the projects that are Applicability managed under each organisation model. The source may be able to provide some illustrative material to assist in Illustrative Material understanding potential relationships between then FEL management and availability controlling frameworks and the PB maturity. Alignment Level of alignment with this research project goals, objectives and priorities. Capability Capabilities & Professional Standing of the Organisation.
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).
49
SELECTION MATRIX
Illustrative Material availability Sample validity and reliability
Time Series Analysis
Information Quality
Weight 20% 15% 10% 10% 20% 10% 10% 5% US Department of Defence MH Treasury (UK) The Office of Government Commerce (UK) UK National Audit Office MoD Acquisition Operating Framework (UK) The United States Department of the Treasury Government Accountability office (USA) ICEC (International Cost Engineering Council) AACE Norwegian Quality Assurance CII (Construction Industry Institute) U.S Department of Energy (DOE) Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) DFA Gateway Review Process (Australia)
5 5 7 6 6 6 6 5 5 7 7 9 7 8
8 6 7 6 5 8 6 6 6 7 8 8 7 7
4 5 8 7 7 7 5 6 6 8 7 7 7 7
4 6 6 6 7 5 6 7 5 7 8 8 6 6
6 3 7 5 5 6 5 6 5 8 6 6 7 7
5 7 8 7 6 6 5 6 6 9 6 8 7 6
5 6 7 6 5 6 6 7 6 7 8 8 7 7
5 6 7 6 7 5 5 5 6 7 8 7 6 7
5,45 5,2 7,1 6 5,8 6,25 5,55 5,95 5,5 7,5 7,1 7,65 6,85 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
WEIGHTED TOTAL 50
Accessibility
ORGANISATIONS
Applicability
Alignment
Capability
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)
51
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 Norwegian Ministry of Finance Process Owner: 2 N of Gateways: External Consultants External/Internal Resources Control rules established by contract Control Basis Agreed in PE Forum Review (assessor) roles Standard QA reports defined Report Format Coordination spheres None (Research Program) Support Organisation Politicians Decision Makers: Simplicity, robustness Characteristic: Management of expectation Influence: Mandatory Authority Control of input and methods Review Focus Front End of the project Life cycle Cost/risk/value Review Aim
Table 12: Norwegian QA Scheme Features
52
(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
53
(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.
EXTENDED PROJECT LIFE CYCLE PROJECT LIFE CYCLE
CONCEPT DEFINITION IMPLEMENTATION (Design&Build) HANDOVER OPERATIONS TERMINATION &CLOSEOUT
BUSINESS CASE
APM
INITIATION
INITIATION PLANNING Initiation Review
CONCEPT
PRELIMINARY PLANNING Concept Review
DEFINITION
DETAILED PLANNING Definition Review
MOBILISATION
BASELINING
PB FROZEN
PMP
IMPLEMENTATION
RE-PLANNING RE-BASELINING Handover Review Compl.Review
CLOSEOUT
Mobilisation Rev.
Closeout Review
PERFORMANCE BASELINE DEVELOPMENT

OGC (UK)
STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT BUSINESS JUSTIFICATION DELIVERY STRATEGY DESIGN & BUILD OPERATION DECOMMIS.
GATEWAY REVIEW 0
GATEWAY REVIEW 1
GATEWAY REVIEW 2
GATEWAY REVIEW 3
GATEWAY REVIEW 4
GATEWAY REVIEW 5
Figure 33: OGC Gateway Model Outline

Process Owner: N of Gateways: External/Internal Resources Control Basis Review (assessor) roles Report Format Coordination Spheres Support Organisation Decision Makers: Characteristic: Influence: Authority Review Focus Review Aim UK OGC Senior responsible owner 6 (4 within the Front End) External Review Definitions / Guidelines Defined in detail Standard review report format Centers of Excellence Permanent administrative organization Senior responsible owner Complex System Recommendations By influence Business Case Value for money
Table 13: OGC Gateway Model Features
54
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 Gate 0 Gate 1 Gate 2 Gate 3 Gate 4 Gate 5 TYPE OF REVIEW Business Need Business Case Procurement Strategy Investment Decision Readiness for Service Benefits Realisation FOCUS ON Strategic assessment of the business need BC robustness Project preparedness to invite proposals Supplier selection assessment Ongoing management assessment Measurement objectives accomplishment
Table 14: Gate Reviews Focus
EXTENDED PROJECT LIFE CYCLE PROJECT LIFE CYCLE

CONCEPT DEFINITION IMPLEMENTATION (Design&Build) HANDOVER OPERATIONS TERMINATION &CLOSEOUT
BUSINESS CASE
APM
INITIATION
INITIATION PLANNING Initiation Review
CONCEPT
PRELIMINARY PLANNING Concept Review
DEFINITION
DETAILED PLANNING Definition Review
MOBILISATION
BASELINING
PB FROZEN
PMP
IMPLEMENTATION
RE-PLANNING RE-BASELINING Handover Review Compl.Review
CLOSEOUT
Mobilisation Rev.
Closeout Review
PERFORMANCE BASELINE DEVELOPMENT

DFA (Australia)
BUSINESS NEED BUSINESS CASE PROCUREMENT STRATEGY COMPETITIVE PROCUR. SOLUTION DELIVERY CONTRACT MANAGEMENT CLOSURE
GATEWAY REVIEW 0
GATEWAY REVIEW 1
GATEWAY REVIEW 2
GATEWAY REVIEW 3
GATEWAY REVIEW 4
GATEWAY REVIEW 5
Figure 34: DFA Model Outline
55

DFA GATE REVIEW MODEL Senior Responsible Official Process Owner: 6 (3 within the Project Front End) N of Gateways: External External/Internal Resources GAT (Gateway Assessment Tool) Control Basis Defined in detail Review (assessor) roles Standard review report format Report Format Centers of Excellence Coordination Spheres Gateway Unit (Dep. Of Finance and Adm.) Support Organisation Sponsoring Agency Decision Makers: Complex System Characteristic: Recommendations Influence: By influence Authority Business Case Review Focus Improve on-time and on budget delivery Review Aim
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)
56
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) Project Sponsor Process Owner: 3 (both within the Project Front End) N of Gateways: Internal External/Internal Resources PDRI Control Basis Alignment Thermometer Defined Review (assessor) roles Standard review report format Report Format CII Academic Comittee Coordination Spheres Review Board Support Organisation Sponsoring Company (private) Decision Makers: Score based system (checklist) Characteristic: Recommendations Influence: By influence Authority Scope definition, team alignment Review Focus Risk management Review Aim
Table 16: CII Model Features
57
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
58
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.
Process Owner: N of Gateways: External/Internal Resources Control Basis Review (assessor) roles Report Format Coordination Spheres Support Organisation Decision Makers: Characteristic: Influence: Authority Review Focus Review Aim
US DOE PDRI MODEL OECM 5 (3 within the FEL) External and/or Internal PDRI TRA Defined in detail Standard review report format Centre of Excellence NNSA, EM SAE (Secretarial Acquisition Executive) Multi-purpose assessment Management of expectations Mandatory Technical/Scope, Management, PB Contract and Project Management performance improvement
Table 17: DOE Model Features
59
2.5.6. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS)

The review of the literature confirms that this model is based on the United Kingdoms OGC Gateway Process and the Province of Ontarios 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 Gate 1 Gate 2 Gate 3 Gate 4 Gate 5 Gate 6 Gate 7 TYPE OF REVIEW FOCUS
Strategic assessment and Confirmation of project objectives concept Project Approach Confirmation of how objectives will be achieved Business Case Confirmation of funding and business outcomes Project Charter/PMP Confirmation of resources, support, and governance Detailed Project Plan Confirmation of readiness to proceed with construction Readiness to deploy Confirmation of readiness to deploy Post-implementation review Gather lesson learned
Table 18: TBS Gate Reviews Focus
Figure 39: TBS Model Outline
60
TREASURY BOARD OF CANADA SECRETARIAT (TBS) Chief Information Officer Branch (CIOB) Process Owner: 7 (4 within the FEL) N of Gateways: External External/Internal Resources Review Definitions / Guidelines Control Basis Defined in detail Review (assessor) roles Standard review report format Report Format Coordination Spheres TBS Support Organisation Senior responsible owner Decision Makers: Complex System Characteristic: Recommendations Influence: By influence Authority Business Case Review Focus Assess whether the project is valid, viable and Review Aim properly resourced.
Table 19: TBS Model Features
61
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
62
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.
63
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).
64
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
65
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.
66
2.6.5. Models Comparison Matrix

MODELS ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES LIMITATIONS Utilisation of quantitative assessment tools Lack of homogeneity in the processes for Mainly utilised in programmes containing (PDRI; TRA) which should allow to measure and managing and controlling projects under several projects, which can make difficult compare relevant data related to the PB this framework (depending on its size, type to extract relevant conclusions on the PB progress. and complexity) could drive to increase progress on specific projects within the Combination of both internal and external reviews difficulties to generalise the results programme. allowing a more complete assessment of the obtained. project. This model pays specific attention to the PB development across the PLC. Utilisation of quantitative assessment tools This model is mainly oriented to increase Mainly focused on the construction (PDRI) which should allow to measure and the probability of success of the project industry. compare relevant data related to the PB throughout the improvement of the maturity progress. of the organisation. Include a programme level review which could There are not specific tools to measure the The assessment of the accomplishment facilitate to measure progress of the PB from the PB progress of the different requirements associated to each one of the gate reviews is based very early stages of the project. on qualitative criteria. Extends the reviews of the project across the PLC which should provide relevant data to The approach for managing and measure progress of the PB during the controlling projects is oriented to a implementation phase. Procurement Life Cycle perspective. Extends the reviews of the project across the There are not specific tools to measure the The assessment of the accomplishment of the different requirements associated PLC which should provide relevant data to PB progress. to each one of the gate reviews is based measure progress of the PB during the on qualitative criteria. implementation phase. Extends the reviews of the project across the There are not specific tools to measure the The assessment of the accomplishment of the different requirements associated PLC which should provide relevant data to PB progress. to each one of the gate reviews is based measure progress of the PB during the on qualitative criteria. implementation phase. Simplicity of this framework should allow to The model is oriented to improve the This model focuses effort only on the FEL manage more easily the information related to the decision making processes, but does not of the project (no analysis during progress of the PB. pay specific attention to analyse the execution phase). progress of the PB. There are not specific tools to measure the PB progress.
Table 20: Models Comparison Matrix
CONTEXT
DOE
Major Public Investments
CII
Major Private Investments
OGC
DFA
Major Public Investments Major Public Investments
TBS
Norway
67
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.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT INDIVIDUAL PROJECT
Figure 44: Conceptual Framework
69
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY AND METHOD
70
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)
71
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
72
Regarding this, the main research paradigms have been briefly compared in Table 21.
POSITIVISM ONTOLOGY (Researchers view of reality) EPISTEMOLOGY (Researchers view of what constitutes acceptable knowledge) AXIOLOGY Researchers view of the role of values in research DATA COLLECTION (Techniques Most often used) RESEARCH APPROACH External, objective and independent of social actors Only observable phenomena / facts Value-free / researcher is independent of process Highly structured / Quantitative Deductive INTERPRETIVISM Socially constructed, subjective Subjective meanings and social phenomena Value-bound / researcher is part of process In-depth / Qualitative Inductive PRAGMATISM View chosen to best answer research question Both observable phenomena and subjective meanings Values may play a role in interpretation Mixed or multiple method designs 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).
73
QUANTITATIVE Role of theory in research Ontological orientation Epistemological orientation Deductive, testing of theory Objectivism social reality is external Positivism & Natural science model
QUALITATIVE Inductive, generating theory Constructionism (subjectivism) social phenomenon dependent on the actors 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 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. INDUCTION EMPHASISES 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.
74
EXPLORATORY
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
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
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.
PREDICTIVE
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).
75
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.
SURVEY
Advantages
Limitations
Surveys are comparatively inexpensive Usually, it has high reliability and is easy to obtain Can be administered from remote locations with large samples 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
QUESTIONNAIRE
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 Possibility of generating large amounts of data which can take a long time to process and analyse.
Limitations
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 Advantages 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 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 Limitations 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. 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. Advantages 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. It is difficult to generalize and draw definite cause-effect conclusions. Limitations Data collection and interpretation are subject to biases. Insufficient information can lead to inappropriate results
CASE STUDY
INTERVIEW
76
INTERNET RESEARCH METHODS
Provides access to research respondent at distant locations and who are difficult to contact. Advantages It provides ease of having computerized data collection, which increases efficiency and reduces researcher time and effort. Provides greater uncertainty over the legitimacy of data and sampling issues It requires computer skills for the design, implementation, and evaluation of the survey
Limitations
OBSERVATION
Advantages

Limitations
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 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
77
Figure 48: Case Studies Selection (Preliminary Questionnaire)
Figure 49: Detailed Questionnaire
78
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
79
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)
80
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 (Srndal, 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.
81
Figure 53: Sampling Techniques
Convenience Judgmental NON PROBABILITY
Sample is chosen for ease or convenience rather than through random sampling. The researcher uses his/her judgement to select population members who are good prospects for accurate information. 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). The researcher contacts an initial group of people relevant to the research topic, and then uses this group to contact others for the research. Each element in the population has a known and equal probability of selection 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 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. 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
Quota
SAMPLING TECHNIQUES
Snowball Sample Random Systematic
PROBABILITY Stratified
Cluster
(Adapted from Greener 2008 and BEE 2009)
82
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).
Number of Case Studies 5-10 5-10 5-10 5-10 5-10 5-10 30-60
ORGANISATION CII U.S DOE UK (OGC) TBS (Canada) DFA (Australia) QA Scheme (Norway) Total
Project Type Multiple Multiple Multiple Multiple Multiple Multiple Multiple
Table 27: Sample Size
83
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 Number of projects managed Civil Engineering/Construction/ Petrochemical Projects Management/IT Projects Av. Dur.
DAv12
Average Project Duration
Average Project Budget
Av. Budget
BAv11
Av. Dur.
DAv11
Av. Budget
BAv12
Manufacturing/Product development Projects
Av. Budget
BAv13
Av. Dur.
DAv13
Organism
N1
BAv1
DAv1
N11
N12
N13
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.
84
PROJECT TYPES Civil Engineering/Construction/P etrochemical Projects (Type 1) Management/IT Projects (Type 3) Av. Dur. N Av. Budget Av. Dur. DAv12 DAv22 DAv32 DAv42 DAv52 DAv62 N13 N23 N33 N43 N53 N63 BAv13 BAv23 BAv33 BAv43 BAv53 BAv63 DAv13 DAv23 DAv33 DAv43 DAv53 DAv63 Manufacturing/Product development Projects (Type 2) Av. Dur. N Av. Budget DAv11 DAv21 DAv31 DAv41 DAv51 DAv61 N12 N22 N32 N42 N52 N62 BAv12 BAv22 BAv32 BAv42 BAv52 BAv62
Number of projects managed
Average Project Duration N
Average Project Budget
ORGANISM
Av. Budget
DOE CII OGC Norway DFA TBS
N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6
BAv1 BAv2 BAv3 BAv4 BAv5 BAv6
DAv1 DAv2 DAv3 DAv4 DAv5 DAv6
N11 N21 N31 N41 N51 N61
BAv11 BAv21 BAv31 BAv41 BAv51 BAv61
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 Budget Range Duration Range Number of projects range Lower Limit Upper Limit Lowe Limit Upper Limit Type 1 Type 2 Type 3
CRITERIA Min (BAv1, BAv2, BAv3, BAv4,BAv5,BAv6) Max (BAv1, BAv2, BAv3, BAv4,BAv5,BAv6) Min (DAv1, DAv2, DAv3, DAv4,DAv5,DAv6) Max (DAv1, DAv2, DAv3, DAv4,DAv5,DAv6) 1<NT1<(Ni1)/6 1<NT2<(Ni2)/6 1<NT3<(Ni3)/6 5<(NT1+NT2+NT3)<10
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.
85
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
86
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).
87
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.
88
3.8. IDENTIFY DATA SETS

Tables 31 and 32 reflect the data sets that will be elaborated for each one of the organizations.
COMPLEXITY CI1 CI2 CI3 CI4 CI5 CI6 CI7 CI8 CI9 CI10 STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 STAGE 4 CB14 ScB14 SB14 CB24 ScB24 SB24 CB34 ScB24 SB24 CB24 ScB24 SB24 CB24 ScB24 SB24 CB24 ScB24 SB24 CB24 ScB24 SB24 CB24 ScB24 SB24 CB24 ScB24 SB24 CB24 ScB24 SB24
CASE STUDY
BASELINE COMPONENTS
CASE STUDY 1 CASE STUDY 2 CASE STUDY 3 CASE STUDY 4 ORGANISATION CASE STUDY 5 CASE STUDY 6 CASE STUDY 7 CASE STUDY 8 CASE STUDY 9 CASE STUDY 10
Cost Baseline Schedule Baseline Scope Baseline Cost Baseline Schedule Baseline Scope Baseline Cost Baseline Schedule Baseline Scope Baseline Cost Baseline Schedule Baseline Scope Baseline Cost Baseline Schedule Baseline Scope Baseline Cost Baseline Schedule Baseline Scope Baseline Cost Baseline Schedule Baseline Scope Baseline Cost Baseline Schedule Baseline Scope Baseline Cost Baseline Schedule Baseline Scope Baseline Cost Baseline Schedule Baseline Scope Baseline
CB11 ScB11 SB11 CB21 ScB21 SB21 CB31 ScB21 SB21 CB21 ScB21 SB21 CB21 ScB21 SB21 CB21 ScB21 SB21 CB21 ScB21 SB21 CB21 ScB21 SB21 CB21 ScB21 SB21 CB21 ScB21 SB21
Table 31: Data Sets
ORGANISATION
Baseline Components Cost Baseline Schedule Baseline Scope Baseline
Stage 1 AvCB1 AvScB1 AvSB1
Table 32: Organisation Results
AvCB1=(CBi1 x CIi)/n AvCB2=(CBi2 x CIi)/n AvCB3=(CBi3 x CIi)/n AvCB4=(CBi4 x CIi)/n
AvScB1=(ScBi1 x CIi)/n AvScB2=(ScBi2 x CIi)/n AvScB3=(ScBi3 x CIi)/n AvScB4=(ScBi4 x CIi)/n
AvSB1=(SBi1 x CIi)/n AvSB2=(SBi2 x CIi)/n AvSB3=(SBi3 x CIi)/n AvSB4=(SBi4 x CIi)/n
89
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.
STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 BASELINE ELEMENTS Cost Baseline Schedule Baseline Scope Baseline Cost Baseline Schedule Baseline Scope Baseline Cost Baseline Schedule Baseline Scope Baseline Cost Baseline Schedule Baseline Scope Baseline Cost Baseline Schedule Baseline Scope Baseline Cost Baseline Schedule Baseline Scope Baseline STAGE 4
ORGANISMS
U.S DOE
AvCBi1 AvCBi2 AvCBi3 AvCBi4 AvScBi1 AvScBi2 AvScBi3 AvScBi4 AvSBi1 AvSBi2 AvSBi3 AvSBi4
CII
QA Scheme (Norway)
OGC (UK)
FDS (Australia) TBS (Canada)
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
90
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 studys 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.
When summarising large amounts of raw data it is often useful to Frequency distribution distribute the data into categories or classes and to determine the number of individuals or cases belonging to each category. When you have a group of data and you wish to find the most Measures of central typical value for the group, or the score which all other scores are tendency evenly clustered around. These statistics are known as the mean, the median and the mode. Measurement of This type of analysis can show you the degree by which numerical dispersion based on data tend to spread about an average value and it is called the mean variation or dispersion. The standard deviation is another measure of the degree in which Standard Deviation the data is spread around the mean.
Table 34: Descriptive Statistic Methods
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
(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 COST BASELINE DOE OGC CII TBS NORWAY AUS 80,00% 76,00% 91,00% 75,00% 67,00% 71,00% 60,00% 62,00% 65,00% 45,00% 50,00% 45,00% 37,00% 50,00% 40,00% 42,00% 40,00% 36,00% 12,00% 42,00% 12,00% 29,00% 19,00% 12,00%
Average 47,25% 57,50% 52,00% 47,75% 44,00% 41,00%
91
100,00% 80,00% 60,00% 40,00% 20,00% 0,00% CONCEPT DOE OGC DEFINITION CII TBS MOBILISATION NORWAY IMPLEMENTATION AUS
Figure 59: Cost Baseline Maturity-Comparative Analysis (1)
100,00% 80,00% 60,00% 40,00% 20,00% 0,00% CONCEPT DOE DEFINITION OGC CII TBS MOBILISATION NORWAY AUS IMPLEMENTATION
60,00% 50,00% 40,00% 30,00% 20,00% 10,00% 0,00% AVERAGE

DOE OGC CII TBS NORWAY AUS
92
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.
93
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.
94
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSIONS&RECOMMENDATIONS
95
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 overanalysed 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.
96
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
97
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.
98
CHAPTER 5
REFERENCES
99
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: Conceptprogrammet. 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.
100
15.COOPER, R. (2008). Perspective: The stage-gates idea to launch process update, Whats 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.
101
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%20173%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), 6674. 33.GIBSON, E., BOSFIELD, R. (2012). Common Barriers to Effective Front-End Planning 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. of Capital Projects. Available: http://rebar.ecn.purdue.edu/crc2012/papers/pdfs/-131.pdf. Last accessed 2nd
102
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), 2742. 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.
103
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/Introductionto-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: 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/FrontEnd-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. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/generalmethodology/sample-design-and-estimation/index.html. Last accessed 17th July
104
69.RGU (Robert Gordon University). (2009). Research Ethics Policy. Available: http://www4.rgu.ac.uk/files/Research%20Ethics%20Policy.pdf. 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/conferencespubliques/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 Reviewers 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 Governments 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. Last accessed
105
CHAPTER 6
BIBLIOGRAPHY
106
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, 800809. 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 stakeholders perspective: Case study of megaproject 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. 404424. 12.MLLER, 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.
107
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 PMIs 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), 2245. 18.WILLIAMS, T. M. (2007) Post-project reviews to gain effective lessons learned. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
108
CHAPTER 7
APPENDICES
109
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
110
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
111
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
ID-1 ID-2 ID-3 ID-4 ID-5 ID-6 ID-7 ID-8 ID-9 ID-10 ID-11
TITLE
Lack of collaboration
IT failure
DESCRIPTION
Unwillingness of research population to participate in study. Data loss/corruption. Project going off track and not meeting academic requirements. Funding issues / cost escalations. Research results prove inconclusive. Referencing issues and information overload. Not meeting research deadlines. Unavailability of literature and related academic resources.
Inappropriate techniques for data collection.
Lack of quality Cost overruns Analysis issues Lack of organization Project Delays Lack of information
Methods failure Time Confidentiality
People just do not respond in time for you to achieve project done on time.
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).
RISK ANALYSIS
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
SEMI-QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
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.
112
For this report it will be used a Semi-quantitative analysis of the risks (ProbabilityImpact matrix).
7.1.3. Probability-Impact Matrix

A probabilityimpact matrix has been used to determine a PI 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.
PROBABILITY 0,9 Almost certain 0,7 0,5 0,3 0,1 Likely Possible Unlikely Rare
Table 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:
113
Risk = Impact X Probability.
0,9 PROBABILITY 0,7 0,5 0,3 0,1
Almost certain Likely Possible Unlikely Rare
0,045 0,035 0,025 0,015 0,005 Insignificant 0,05
0,09 0,07 0,05 0,03 0,01 Minor 0,1
0,18 0,14 0,1 0,06 0,02 Moderate 0,2 IMPACT
0,36 0,28 0,2 0,12 0,04 Major 0,4
0,72 0,56 0,4 0,24 0,08 Catastrophic 0,8
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
Extreme High Medium Low
Level

Table 40: Risk Scale
Score
0,4-1 0,15-0,4 0,03-015 0-0,03
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.
PROBABILITY
0,9 0,7 0,5 0,3 0,1
Almost certain Likely Possible Unlikely Rare
0,045 0,035 0,025 0,015 0,005 Insignificant 0,05
0,09 0,07 0,05 0,03 0,01 Minor 0,1
0,18 0,14 0,1 0,06 0,02 Moderate 0,2
0,36 0,28 0,2 0,12 0,04 Major 0,4
0,72 0,56 0,4 0,24 0,08 Catastrophic 0,8
IMPACT
Table 41: Prioritisation Matrix
114
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
ID-1 ID-2 ID-3 ID-4 ID-5 ID-6 ID-7 ID-8 ID-9 ID-10 ID-11
TITLE
IT failure
QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
Prob. Imp. 0,8 0,2 0,4 0,05 0,05 0,1 0,4 0,2 0,5 0,4 0,4 0,56 0,06 0,12 0,025 0,025 0,03 0,04 0,1 0,025 0,04 0,12 0,3 0,3 0,5 0,5
Overall Risk
Catastrophic Medium Medium Low Low Low Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
Lack of collaboration 0,7 Lack of quality Cost overruns Analysis issues Project Delays Lack of information
Methods failure Time Confidentiality
Lack of organization 0,3

0,1 0,5 0,05 0,1 0,3
Table 42: Risk Evaluation
PROBABILITY
0,9 0,7 0,5 0,3 0,1
Almost certain Likely Possible Unlikely Rare Insignificant 0,05 Minor 0,1 Moderate 0,2 IMPACT
ID-4, ID-5, ID-9 ID-6 ID-8 ID-2 ID-3, ID-11 ID-7, ID-10 ID-1
Major 0,4
Catastrophic 0,8
Table 43: Risk Evaluation Matrix
115
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
Increase level of engagement with key stakeholders to increase commitment and close Lack of collaboration collaboration. Regular backups to minimize the possible affections to the project derived from a failure IT failure of the IT support. Undertake quality control reviews with relevant stakeholders to ensure the final quality of Lack of quality deliverables fits for purpose. Cost overruns Periodic Cost control assessments to avoid deviations from the original cost baseline. Undertake peer reviews to ensure that the conclusions extracted from the gathered Analysis issues 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 should allow 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 Methods failure Develop a proper Literature Search Plan that allows an effective search of information covering the most important sources.
Ensure methodology selected for searching information is suitable for the purpose of the project. Effective utilisation of Communication Management tools and techniques for improving Time the transference of information between the researcher and the collaborating organisations. 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 Confidentiality 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
116
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 University of California Berkeley University of Wellintong (Victoria) Auburn Montgomery Library ORGANISMS Cornell University Library UCLA Library State University of New York New Mexico State University Library Johns Hopkins University Widener University University of Hawaii www.lib.berkeley.edu/instruct/guides/evaluation.html www.vuw.ac.nz/staff/alastair_smith/evaln/index.htm http://aumnicat.aum.edu/departments/instruction/general/eval uating.html http://olinuris.library.cornell.edu/ref/research/webeval.html www.library.ucla.edu/libraries/college/thinking-criticallyabout-world-wide-web-resources http://library.albany.edu/usered/eval/evalweb/ http://lib.nmsu.edu/instruction/evalcrit.html http://guides.library.jhu.edu/evaluatinginformation www.widener.edu/about/campus_resources/wolfgram_library /evaluate/ 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 Accessibility Information Quality Time Series Analysis (database) Sample validity and reliability Applicability Illustrative Material availability Alignment Capability
N INCLUSIONS 10 7 4 5 10 5 5 3
(%) 0,20408 0,14286 0,08163 0,10204 0,20408 0,10204 0,10204 0,06122
WEIGHT 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.05
Table 46: Weight Calculation
117
7.3. APPENDIX 3: INFORMATION ACCESIBILITY

ORGANISM GENERAL INFORMATION DATA ACCESIBILITY INFORMATION COMMENTS AND FURTHER INFORMATION 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 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. 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. 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. Reports of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat are accessible under request and further approval by the President of the Treasury Board. Research Proposals are accepted from any faculty member holding a doctoral degree from an accredited university.
DOE (USA)
http://foiaportal.energy.gov/ http://energy.gov/management/office http://energy.gov/mission management/operationalmanagement/freedom-information-act
QA SCHEME http://www.concept.ntnu. no/english (Norway)
http://www.concept.ntnu.no/about-theprogramme/for-researchers
OGC (UK)
http://data.gov.uk/ http://www.ogc.gov.uk/ http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/content http://www.cabinetoffice.g /cabinet-office ov.uk/ http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/content /major-projects-authority http://www.finance.gov.a u/gateway/ http://www.finance.gov.au/foi/index.ht ml
DFA (Australia)
TBS (Canada)
CII
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/tbssct/common/trans-eng.asp http://www.tbssct.gc.ca/report/Acc&priv/11-12/atiaiprp-eng.pdf https://www.construction- https://www.constructioninstitute.org/scriptcontent/ institute.org/research/resindex.cfm RFQ.cfm?section=aca http://www.tbssct.gc.ca/itp-pti/pogspg/pgo-gsp-eng.asp
118
7.4. APPENDIX 4: CHANGES LOG

Request Day Change Requested By L. Supramaniam L. Supramaniam M. Suarez L. Supramaniam M. Suarez L. Supramaniam L. Supramaniam M. Suarez L. Supramaniam L. Supramaniam M. Suarez L. Supramaniam M. Suarez L. Supramaniam M. Suarez Impact Level Medium Medium Medium Low Medium High Medium Low Medium High Low Medium Low Low Low Change Reviewed By M. Suarez M. Suarez L. Supramaniam M. Suarez L. Supramaniam M. Suarez M. Suarez L. Supramaniam M. Suarez M. Suarez L. Supramaniam M. Suarez L. Supramaniam M. Suarez L. Supramaniam Change Approved By L. Supramaniam L. Supramaniam L. Supramaniam L. Supramaniam L. Supramaniam L. Supramaniam L. Supramaniam L. Supramaniam L. Supramaniam L. Supramaniam L. Supramaniam L. Supramaniam L. Supramaniam L. Supramaniam L. Supramaniam Review Date 15/05/2012 04/06/2012 20/06/2012 25/06/2012 02/07/2012 13/07/2012 25/07/2012 02/08/2012 09/08/2012 15/08/2012 19/08/2012 24/08/2012 02/09/2012 11/09/2012 17/09/2012 Approval Date 22/05/2012 08/06/2012 20/06/2012 28/06/2012 02/07/2012 16/07/2012 29/07/2012 02/08/2012 11/08/2012 17/08/2012 19/08/2012 26/08/2012 04/09/2012 13/09/2012 17/09/2012
ID
Change Description Research Area Selection Research Area Selection Research Area Selection Problem Statement (Draft 1) Problem Statement (Draft 2) Problem Statement (Draft 3) Chapter 1 (Draft 1) Chapter 1 (Draft 2) Chapter 2 (Draft 1) Chapter 2 (Draft 2) Chapter 2 (Draft 3) Chapter 3 (Draft 1) Chapter 3 (Draft 2) Chapter 4 (Draft 1) Appendix 4
1 06/05/2012 2 01/06/2012 3 15/06/2012 4 24/06/2012 5 01/07/2012 6 12/07/2012 7 23/07/2012 8 31/07/2012 9 08/08/2012 10 14/08/2012 11 18/08/2012 12 21/08/2012 13 30/08/2012 14 08/09/2012 15 15/09/2012
Table 47: Changes Log
119
7.5. APPENDIX 5: RELATED RESEARCH PROJECTS

RESEARCH TITLE AUTHOR(S) SAMPLE SIZE PRIMARY DATA COLLECTION METHOD COMMENTS 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. Steven R. Meier 95 Programs ($42 billions) Questionnaires Interviews 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) 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. 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) 2008 DATE
Causal Inferences on the Cost Overruns and Schedule Delays of Large-Scale U.S. Federal Defense and Intelligence Acquisition Programs
Best Project Management and Systems Engineering Practices in the Preacquisition Phase for Federal Intelligence and Defense Agencies
Steven R. Meier
Questionnaires 30 Acquisition Interviews Programs Information Review
2006
Attributes of Independent Project Reviews in NASA
Brian J. Sauser
4 Projects
Case Study
2006
120
RESEARCH TITLE
AUTHOR(S)
SAMPLE SIZE
PRIMARY DATA COLLECTION METHOD
COMMENTS 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 and Gibson, 2001) 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)
DATE
Building project scope Chung-Suk Cho Interviews definition using project Over 50 Projects G. Edward Gibson Jr Case Studies definition rating index
2001
Optimism in Early Conceptual Designs and Robert E. Bitten Its Effect on Cost and Claude W. Freaner Schedule Growth: An Debra L. Emmons, Update
20 NASA missions
Case Studies Information Review and Analysis
2010
121
RESEARCH TITLE
AUTHOR(S)
SAMPLE SIZE
COMMENTS 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 politicaladministrative 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) 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 publicinvestment-project governance frameworks in Norway and the United Kingdom. (Klakeg, Willians, Magnussen and Glasspool, 2008)
DATE
The Norwegian FrontEnd Governance Regime of Major Public Projects a Theoretically Based Analysis
Tom Christensen
Literature Review
2009
Governance Frameworks for Public Project Development and Estimation
Ole Jonny Klakegg Terry Williams Ole M. Magnussen Helene Glasspool
Literature Review Case Study
2008
122
RESEARCH TITLE
AUTHOR(S)
SAMPLE SIZE
COMMENTS 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) This work compares six different companies' stagegate 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) 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)
DATE
Terry Williams Identifying and Acting Ole Jonny Klakegg on Early Warning Signs Derek H. T. Walker Bjrn Andersen in Complex Projects Ole M. Magnussen
8 Case Studies
Case Studies Interviews
2012
A comparative study of six stage-gate approaches to product development
Rachel Phillips Kevin Neailey Trevor Broughton
6 different models
Interviews Case Studies
1999
Quantification of Front End Planning Input Parameters in Capital Projects
Sungmin Yun Sung-Joon Suk Jiukun Dai Stephen P. Mulva
419 Project
Questionnaires
2012
123
RESEARCH TITLE
AUTHOR(S)
SAMPLE SIZE
COMMENTS 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) 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) 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)
DATE
Issues in Front-End Decision Making on Projects
Terry Williams Knut Samset,
Literature Review
2010
Common Barriers to Effective Front-End Planning of Capital Projects
Edward Gibson Roberta Bosfield
59 Survey Organizations
2012
Front End Planning of Railway Projects
Jim Palmer Edward Gibson Evan Bingham
60 projects
Workshops
2008
124
RESEARCH TITLE
AUTHOR(S)
SAMPLE SIZE
COMMENTS
DATE
Analysis of the FrontEnd Loading of Alberta Mega Oil Sands Projects
George Jergeas
3 mega projects of a total value Case Study of $10 billion Interviews (CAD)
Administration of the Gateway Review Process
Australian National Audit Office
Interviews 46 projects Analysis of ($17.6 billions) documentation
Independent Research Assessment of Project Management Factors Affecting Department of Energy Project Success
Civil Engineering Research Foundation
16 projects
Interviews Analysis of documentation
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 contractorwho 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) 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 key Gateway reviews that have been conducted have contributed to improvements in the delivery of major projects undertaken by FMA Act agencies. (ANAO, 2012) 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 key 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)
2008
2012
2004
125
7.6. APPENDIX 6: GANTT CHART
Figure 65: Project Gantt Chart
126
7.7. APPENDIX 7: RESEARCH PROJECT FLOW CHART
127
7.8. APPENDIX 8: DATA SET CAPTURING PROCESS
Figure 66: Data Set Capturing Process
128

MSC Project Management (Thesis)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MSC Project Management (Thesis)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ROBERT GORDON UNIVERSITY

ABERDEEN BUSINESS SCHOOL MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT

PERFORMANCE BASELINE MATURITY FROM A CONTROL-BASED PERSPECTIVE

Author: ID Number: Tutor:

Manuel Angel Gonzalez Suarez 1117655 Langes Supramaniam

MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT

PROJECT MANAGEMENT INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080

MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655

MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT

PROJECT MANAGEMENT INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080

MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655

MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT

PROJECT MANAGEMENT INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080

MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655

MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT

PROJECT MANAGEMENT INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080

My Close Friends and Family (For always being there)

MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655

MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT

PROJECT MANAGEMENT INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080

MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655

MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT

PROJECT MANAGEMENT INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080

1.2.1. 1.2.2. 1.2.3. 1.3. 1.4. 1.5.

1.5.1. 1.5.2. 1.5.3. 1.5.4. 1.5.5. 1.5.6. 1.5.7. 1.5.8. 1.5.9.

1.8.1. 1.8.2. 1.8.3. 1.8.4.

MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655

MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT

PROJECT MANAGEMENT INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080

1.8.5. 1.8.6. 1.9. 1.10.

PB Management and Control...................................................... 37 Gate Reviews Models ................................................................ 38

INITIAL METHODOLOGY ................................................................. 41 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................ 42

2.3.1. 2.3.2. 2.3.3. 2.4.

2.5.1. 2.5.2. 2.5.3. 2.5.4. 2.5.5. 2.5.6. 2.6.

2.6.1. 2.6.2. 2.6.3. 2.6.4. 2.6.5. 2.7.

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

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

MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655

MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT

PROJECT MANAGEMENT INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080

3.1. 3.2. 3.3.

3.3.1. 3.3.2. 3.4. 3.5. 3.6.

3.9.1. 3.10. 3.11.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY .......................................................... 93 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY ............................................................ 94

4.1.1. 4.1.2. 4.2. 4.3.

LESSONS LEARNED ....................................................................... 98 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 98

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

MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655

MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT

PROJECT MANAGEMENT INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080

MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655

MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT

PROJECT MANAGEMENT INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080

MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655

MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT

PROJECT MANAGEMENT INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080

MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655

MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT

PROJECT MANAGEMENT INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080

MANUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ SUAREZ 1117655

MSC PROJECT MANAGEMENT

PROJECT MANAGEMENT INDIVIDUAL PROJECT BSM080