The need for project management infrastructure

Picture a typical scenario: a list of projects to be delivered over the next three financial years has just landed on the desk of the infrastructure manager of a major corporation, courtesy of the last “strategic planning session”.

Imagine the typical response: hire a few project managers with great credentials, then buy a well-branded project management software solution – and proceed down the never-ending spiral of challenged projects.

So, what have we missed?

Robert Buttrick (The Project Workout, 2000) suggests that organisations need a well-documented strategy (which could be translated into projects initiatives) as well as a clear policy or framework governing project delivery – or else, projects will systematically fail.

It is our contention, however, that while these elements are crucial, they surely are not sufficient for effective delivery of projects – something more operational is required.

Indeed, delivery hardly happens at a stroke of a policy, as suitable machinery is required to operationalise it.

Need for a PM infrastructure

We have learnt from nature that the ability to ‘deliver’ largely depends on the capability of the womb; most animals can only deliver according to the type (e.g. most birds can only lay eggs), capacity, and cycle of their respective wombs.

For instance, pregnancy cycle and ‘batch size’ for common animals are suggested as follows: rabbits, 31 days and up to five cubs; dogs, 64 days and up to seven or even 12 puppies; cats, 65 days and three to six kittens; elephants, 22 months and a single cub; and doves, two weeks and two eggs; while mother-Kangaroo only keeps one joey in her pouch – different patterns and different outputs (or litters).

The same applies to project management in the sense that the ability to deliver on projects largely depends on the capabilities in place. If a product is the expected outcome, comparisons can be made with the manufacturing environment, though differences between project management and manufacturing would be the following:

• Projects deliver a single, novel ‘outcome’ as opposed to a high volume or line production; and
• Projects deliver highly varied ‘outcomes’ as opposed to low variety, mass production.

What, then, should constitute the project management infrastructure? In other words, what elements should be put together to create a ‘factory’ or ‘womb’ for projects? We shall try and answer this question while still keeping in mind the three aspects of delivery as discussed above, namely: the type, cycle and throughput.

With regard to a factory, it is no secret that the makeup and configuration of equipment, manpower and processes in the main determine the type of production (i.e. the kind of commodity or product to be produced), its cycle (i.e. how long it takes to produce it), and its capacity or throughput (i.e. how big a batch of it can be produced at any point in time).

Incidentally, although a project is a novel initiative to produce a unique product or service or even result, there is still a need for a ‘womb’ or project management infrastructure to allow for seamless delivery of projects, which are generated and prioritised via a portfolio management exercise.

If we would agree that the kind of project management infrastructure (which here represents the womb for projects) does determine the type of projects, their delivery cycle and throughput, we may as well understand that a faulty or dysfunctional project management infrastructure will negatively affect the delivery cycle and throughput of projects.

We often witness a recurrent pattern of projects failing to materialise, being terminated, or simply taking too long to complete – blaming it on the project managers will not help; they could be toiling within an environment that is not supportive of their efforts.

We ought to check the project management infrastructure of the organisation concerned, if we are to assume there is one in place!

Components of the PM infrastructure

Learning from the manufacturing domain, and to some extent from the service delivery domain, a working project management infrastructure should generally consist of the following components:

It is the overall composition and configuration of the project management infrastructure that determines the sum total of project management capabilities (which, in turn, determines the type, life cycle and throughput of projects) within an organisation.

In fact, such capabilities emerge from the maturity of its project management processes, as enabled and supported by relevant components such as adequate human capabilities (i.e. project management skills and mindset), tools and systems (i.e. Precedence Diagramming Method and Project Management Information System – PMIS), and project-related structures and interfaces.

Although acquiring human capabilities may prove arduous at times, no single element may be construed as more important than others; they are all needed at different degrees based on the extent (and balance) of maturity required for effectively constituting the project management infrastructure. This is because every organisation is unique, with unique projects. (On this topic, what is good for the goose is not always good for the gander.)

The basic components of the project management infrastructure could be succinctly introduced as follows:

Processes and procedures

Processes are usually considered as repetitive sets of activities, carried out again and again (with little variations) in the attempt to deliver a product that has a clear start and finish, a unique scope of work, etc. – and project management is increasingly defined as a set of interdependent, centrally co-ordinated processes. Organisations that have good, scalable project management processes (if such are generally followed) are more likely to be consistently successful on their projects.

A procedure, on the other hand, is a specified series of actions or operations that have to be executed in the same manner in order to always obtain the same result under the same circumstances; it consists of process assets or documents (e.g. guidelines, checklists, and templates) that aid in the use of processes.

Skills and mindset

Specific competencies (e.g. skills set and appropriate culture) are necessary in order to carry out project activities successfully; it is important to have the right expertise, in right numbers, at the right time in the project life cycle.

In fact, competencies may well develop through learning during the course of the very project delivery, as long as the right mindset (which drives the appropriate, effective behaviour) is instilled and maintained – doing the right thing with a wrong attitude produces bad results!

Tools and systems

Project-related processes such as planning, monitoring and control, and reporting are generally supported (or enabled) through appropriate utilisation of electronic or manual information and communication (ICT) technology instruments for effective standardisation and automation purposes.

For instance, while many organisations take three to six months merely to appoint a contractor, the project department at SABMiller has implemented an online procurement system that reduces the process down to a few weeks.

Thus, project management relies on tools and systems to collect, combine and distribute information pertaining to various aspects (e.g. scope, budget and schedule, quality, etc.) and status of a particular project throughout its life cycle.

Structures and interfaces

While structures (e.g. functional versus matrix) refer to reporting lines and allocation of authority in relation to project delivery, the onus is on the project manager to allocate, maintain and enforce ‘roles and responsibilities’ throughout the project life cycle. In the same vein, interface management identifies subsystems that are to be managed (by the project manager, first of all), those interfaces requiring management attention, and the way in which such interactions should be managed successfully on a project – for instance, is the project sponsor effectively playing the governance and champion role, or is the project manager left to operate in a ‘leadership vacuum’?

Ultimately, project management executives seek organisational methods that facilitate teamwork and maximise efficiency, quality and the use of limited resources in the way projects are being delivered – including how goals and objectives are being achieved in the process.

Tom Mochal (TechRepublic, 2003) suggests that the organisation’s culture has much to do with success rate on projects; in particular, the balance of power between delivery and controls lines is interesting to watch (e.g. which of the two shall keep a bigger contingent? Where should the “solid line” lie? Who carries the onus of assurance?).

About its requirements and workings

Since project management could be seen as a set of interdependent and centrally co-ordinated processes, it shall be the level of maturity in terms of project management processes that generally informs the requirements pertaining to other corresponding components, for project processes work best when supported by congruent structures, appropriate skill sets and culture, as well as effective tools and systems.

In fact, maturity applies primarily to processes, as translated into procedures, or process assets, that facilitate the use of processes based on accumulated experience, which is beneficial in any project management setting. However, should any of the above components prove inadequate – or worse still, not be in alignment with others – project delivery will ultimately suffer, one way or another.

Yet, examples abound of project managers lacking (sufficient) authority, of project personnel not trained on the fancy project management software, of project management methodologies asking for specific ‘risk management’ items while the structure has provided no resource for producing such.

No matter how hard those brave project managers out there may try, projects will probably abort (e.g. get terminated), or take too long to complete, if the entire delivery system will not simply jam and freeze as executives are growing impatient in trying to push in more initiatives through an already congested system.

Many corporations are facing this ‘tight womb’ situation where attempts to deliver more than a few projects simultaneously often result in the clogging of the entire delivery system, causing a general delivery outage.

Expanding project management capabilities entails enhancing elements of the project management infrastructure and improving their alignment. It does not help providing incompetent project managers with state-of-the-art project management software – they will still fail!

Organisations involved in managing projects – whether as a means to implementing their own strategy or as service offered to others – would therefore need to consider devising and installing an adequate project management infrastructure that includes the four previously mentioned elements in accordance with the portfolio of projects to be delivered in terms of type or category (e.g. large versus small, capital versus soft), required throughput, and anticipated cycle; for instance, infrastructure programmes and change initiatives do not require the same kind of project management infrastructure. Likewise, a major infrastructure project is not set up in the same way as a straightforward equipment purchase initiative.

Accordingly, such elements are to be in balance, aligned and in sync with one another. For instance, higher skills (e.g. maturity) are required when dealing with ‘flexible’ procedures, even more so in an organic structure. Likewise, the type of expertise and mindset (e.g. investigator skills, collaborative style during feasibility, but implementer skills, directive style during execution), structure type (e.g. decentralised during construction, but centralised prior to it), and controlling tools and metrics (e.g. earned value management system results are more tangible during construction than during initiation) may all vary from phase to phase.

It is worth noting that the mentioned project management infrastructure encompasses two interdependent dimensions:

• Technical perspective (i.e. processes and procedures, tools and techniques) concerns itself with processes, their translation into operating procedures, and enabling ICT instruments. Dr Pankaj Jalote (2002) puts this at the centre of any knowledge infrastructure for project management.
• Human perspective (i.e. skill sets and mindset, structures and interfaces) concerns itself with people who are operating the processes and how their expertise is brought into play.

Dr Terry Cooke-Davies (It’s People Who Get Things Done, 2002) argues that projects are delivered by groups of people working together, not only techniques, tools, methods or processes. The people side matters!

Hence, requirements of these perspectives must be concomitantly satisfied to provide a working project management infrastructure; yet many organisations do not appreciate the need and demands of the human perspective – they buy tools! (And miss out on leadership, knowledge and learning, relationships, governance and executive sustainability.)

In fact, implementing PMIS in a situation of nebulous processes or low project management proficiency often turns disastrous. We have seen corporations rushing to pull the plug on a newly installed PMIS, before it caused more trouble!

If properly constituted and managed, however, the project management infrastructure, like any system in synergy, will act and deliver in a way that is greater than the sum of its parts; conversely, a dysfunctional one often leads to failure.

Furthermore, while setting up a proper project management infrastructure could at times prove an onerous and costly exercise, its benefits in terms of increased efficiency (as with any infrastructure) shall by far outweigh its initial outlay.

Survey of the current situation

A confined survey (South Africa) recently conducted by the author could reveal that not every organisation involved in managing projects is enjoying an adequate project management infrastructure which, accordingly, reflects on their respective overall project delivery performance as illustrated in Table 2 on the previous page.

Over the next five years, organisations included in the survey will be delivering infrastructure and ICT projects totalling R53.7bn or more.

The survey firstly considered the project management operating model governing the organisation (i.e. whether the entity surveyed is an in-house provider of project management capabilities, or merely a procurer of such, or perhaps a supplier of the same to other organisations, or even a contractor managing suppliers of project management capabilities on behalf of a client).

Secondly, it sought to gauge the adequacy of the project management infrastructure, by assessing each component at a time.

Furthermore, by comparing the emergent project management infrastructure with the prevailing delivery performance within the organisation, the extent to which the project management infrastructure (or lack thereof) affects project delivery was then established: it transpired from the survey analysis that project delivery outcome is directly and significantly proportional to the adequacy level (i.e. extent and alignment) of the project management infrastructure within any organisation.

The same analysis has confirmed that many organisations could score high on the scale of project management technical perspective (i.e. Processes and procedures, tools and systems), but would somewhat lag behind on the scale of project management human perspective (i.e. skill sets and mindset, structures and interfaces) – resulting in such a skewed project management infrastructure, which makes it hard for those organisations to ascend beyond Level 3 of the project management maturity. (Contrary to Levels 1 to 3 – ad hoc, repeatable, defined – both Level 4: managed and level 5: optimising are rather more dependent on the human perspective of the project management infrastructure than on its technical perspective).

Concluding comments

No organisation wants to be like the salmon or the Australian social spider, which deliver only once and then die.

In light of the foregoing discussions and taking into account the outcome of the survey, we can safely argue that organisations interested in ad infinitum delivery of successful projects will require both of the following:

• At the strategic level, a clear strategy (that can be translated into projects initiatives) and a documented policy or framework governing project delivery (Robert Buttrick, 2000); and
• At the operational level, an adequate project management infrastructure, which determines project delivery performance. Its four components (see above) shall be aligned to one another and to the organisation’s project management portfolio.

In particular, the human dimension must be sufficiently developed for its people who can get things done. Inappropriate, dysfunctional organisational structures will hamstring and frustrate the greatest of expertise.

Organisations managing projects may only frown upon the notion of setting up an adequate project management infrastructure at their own peril – for delivery will ultimately suffer, as projects will tend to fail. Conversely, the adequacy of the emergent project management infrastructure will definitely determine the type, cycle and throughput of project delivery.

Joe Meyer, Exxaro general manager for the Grootegeluk Project (R9-billion expansion of the Grootegeluk Mine to provide 15 million tonnes of coal to the Medupi Power Station) agreed as follows: “From our experience, I fully agree with this view. We have found some lessons learnt and adopted approaches that served us well.

“The first was to follow a gated process through all the phases of the project (e.g. we did not go to the next phase if the previous phase was not scope-freezed and signed off) – there were no shortcuts and no major changes in the next phases, just a clearer definition of what we wanted
to achieve.

“Only implementing with detailed approved-for-construction drawings is serving us well in the manufacturing and construction phases,” he added.

“The disciplined approach of executing projects from the Project Management Execution Manual based on the nine PMBoK (Project Management Book of Knowledge) Guide knowledge areas is providing a lot of effective momentum in the execution.”

Meyer went on to emphasise that, “Selecting the right people cannot be overlooked. The (human resources) team must not only look for the right competence, but also ensure that the people you choose have the right personal profiles to enhance teamwork and to have the tenacity to drive for results and ensure a healthy, high-performance culture.”

Therefore, should an organisation elect to outsource the management of its projects (be it in part or in full), the appointed supplier or contractor will need to provide a project management infrastructure that ties in and supplements that of the owner; any misalignment at that level will eventually affect overall performance and outcome of projects.

Many organisations even make the mistake of dismantling their own project management infrastructure to sorely depend on whatever is provided by the engineering, procurement, construction management contractor – not only do they lose leverage over the contractor, but project delivery performance could indeed suffer, should the resulting project management infrastructure ever prove inadequate or simply misaligned to the client’s organisational makeup, its project management portfolio, or even its level of project management maturity.

On a positive note, however, it is very encouraging to realise that most organisations surveyed have the basic ingredients of a project management infrastructure in place; we trust that they will consolidate their current position, not only by enhancing and furthering each of its components, but by seeking a greater alignment among such as well.

If the king of Scotland could dare say, “Nemo me impune lacessit” (no one provokes me with impunity), then many organisations are paying a heavy penalty for failing to establish an adequate project management infrastructure.

We have observed from the animal kingdom that a faulty womb would impair, if not obliterate, delivery – by negatively affecting its cycle (e.g. causing either miscarriage or prolonged pregnancy) or even its output (resulting in either stillborn or pseudo pregnancy).

Any of the aforementioned may have serious consequences on the welfare as well as the temper of the mother animal – even beyond a particular incidence of failed delivery. ☑

Pascal Mabelo

The overall composition and configuration of project management infrastructure determines the sum total of project management capabilities within an organisation