Adam Roberts - Value Management

REFERENCES
(AS FOUND ON LINKEDIN)

 

Tony Peacock
Project Director URS

 

Jonathan Fernandez
Programme Manager London Overground Limited

 

Remi Awolola
Project Engineer London Underground Limited

 

Charanjit Birk
Senior Project Engineer London Underground Limited

 

Merv Wyeth
Project Management Consultant APM Programme Management SIG

 

Mick O'Donnell
M & E Package Manager Crossrail

 

Rod Prigge
Director LRD Engineering

 

Andrew Elliott
Senior Construction Manager London Underground Limited

 

Mike Flowers
Director Web Management Limited

 

View Adam Roberts (MAPM)'s profile on LinkedIn

Papers > Scope & Value

Determining the correlation between: “Scope of Work” and “Delivered Value” in construction projects 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTs

 

Firstly I would like to dedicate this work in the memory of Harvey Winstanley Roberts and Sylvia Doris Roberts, whom I knew more dearly as my Mum and Dad, as without them none of this work would have been possible.

Most importantly I thank my dear and precious wife, Lesley for putting up with my never ending weekends away in Leeds and then coming home to bore you with what had been discussed in the lectures. For the many hours during weekends and after work that I have been locked away in the second room while you ran around bringing me food and drinks and making sure that I was comfortable; as without your help and continued pampering throughout the past two years this course would have been impossible.

Finally, I would like to thank John and Annmarie for their hard work and relentless assistance and guidance throughout the past two years. Thank you for organising the international trips and for all of the group meetings that we have had, such as the great Glühwein we all enjoyed at the Leeds German Christmas market after the last lecture of the year, the great group meals that have been organised for us after the annual conference (I am going to miss the Reliance) and of course for the hard work and dedication from both of you for organising the annual conferences. I attended the annual conference in May 2012 prior to joining the course later in the same year and this reaffirmed for me that I had made the right choice in choosing Leeds Metropolitan University to continue my journey in furthering my knowledge on Project Management.

Acronyms

OGC

Office of Government Commerce

APM

Association for Project Managers

PMI

Project Managers Institute

PMO

Project Management Office

IVM

Institute of Value Management

PRINCE2

PRojects IN Controlled Environments (Revision 2)

BoK

Body of Knowledge

SiG

Specific interest Group

VM

Value Management

VE

Value Engineering

EN12 973

European Standard for Value Management

VB/C

Value Ratio

Triple Constraint

Time, Cost, Quality

LU

London Underground

ATC

Automatic Train Control

RFID

Radio Frequency Identification

 

 

Figures and Tables

Figure 2 .1

Experiment layout - APM presentation on Introduction to Value Management

Figure 4.1

Comparison Chart, Primary findings - Primary findings from APM presentation on Introduction to Value Management

Table 4.1

Comparison Table - Primary findings from APM presentation on Introduction to Value Management

Figure 5.1

RFID Tag Value Management Exercise - Benefits and Value Specific interest Group presentation

Figure 5.2

Reported main drivers of innovation among broader innovators in construction

Figure 5.3

Major Causes of Project Failure

Figure 5.4

APM Product Life Cycle

 

ABSTRACT

A study has been completed to investigate the connection between the Scope of Work that a project team will use to deliver a project and the Value that is delivered to the Stakeholders on completion of the project. There are two conflicting thoughts relating to this; one being that a project team should not be delivering Value as they are only commissioned to deliver the Scope of Work and the second being; that if the project teams were to focus more on delivering Value, there will be a higher possibility that more projects would realise the intended benefits.

The findings in this dissertation are conclusive in the respect that all evidence points towards there being a definite connection between the Scope of Work and the delivered Value, however the study also attempted to investigate possible root causes to why project teams fail to deliver Value. Although the conclusion would lean towards the lack of communication being the most likely root cause of project failure, it was evident in the findings that there are multiple variables to be considered. It should be noted that not all of the variables were covered in this study.  

It should be expected that there are businesses that would prefer the project team to deliver the project regardless as to the expected Value, as it is believed that the operational department will be tasked with extracting the Value from the project in due course. This may result from the business not having an accurate understanding of the requirements beforehand. There are other businesses that have a clearer understanding of their requirements and the intended outcome of the project deliverable and it is these projects that would benefit from ensuring that the connection between Scope of Works and Value is clear to all members of the business unit; inclusive of the project / programme team/s.

It is evident that the correlation between Scope of Works and Value exists and that the quality of the information supplied in the Scope of Work has a direct influence on the delivery of Value for the project. This doesn’t mean that the project team should or should not derive the Value from the Scope of Work. It merely makes the observation that by including information regarding the expected benefits to be produced in the Scope of Works; that there is an increased possibility of achieving those objectives.

It should also be noted that the study was not exhaustive and that further study is required on this subject to allow for a more conclusive result.

Chapter 1 - INTRODUCTION

To discuss the correlation between Scope of Work and delivered Value, it is imperative that there is a clear understanding of the required (or expected) project outcome at the onset of the project, in order to be able to gauge the delivered Value. This will assist in evaluating whether or not the project has succeeded in delivering an outcome that produces a benefit at a ratio higher than that of the outturn cost.

The process of analysing the successful delivery of the Scope of Work can be objectively reviewed and analysed at the completion of the project, on condition the Scope of Work is sufficiently detailed and documented; however delivering the Scope of Work successfully does not necessarily mean that the project will be deemed a success or a failure. It only means that the project was delivered according to a written statement of deliverables or the Stakeholders requirement document. This cannot be said when attempting to deliver Value, as it may prove somewhat difficult to gain a consensus between Stakeholders on the interpretation of the required and expected Value. Prior to being capable of forming a correlation between the expectation of delivered Value and the Scope of Work, a consensus of all major Stakeholders would be necessary in relation to the expectation of the projects requirements. If the Stakeholders were in agreement with the project requirements, the subsequent expected benefits and the maximum allowable budget; then the targeted Value outcome could be calculated.

This dissertation will utilise the findings from various case studies, experiments and interviews with project professionals to attempt to draw out a tangible argument to support the inclusion of an increase in the definition of the project requirements within the Scope of Work, resulting in an increase in projects that deliver Value. John Heathcote (2013) when referring to Value Management in a presentation for the Association for Project Managers, (APM) questioned the authenticity of companies that profess to be utilising Value Management techniques, as there are still large amounts of projects failing to deliver any significant Value. 

It is difficult to determine an accurate figure of construction projects that have been deemed failures, as most smaller construction projects are completed within the private sector and there are very few published results on project failures. An additional factor to consider, is that large government infrastructure and construction projects may possibly be determined a failure to the project team delivering the project, due to failing on time, cost and quality; however due to the size of the deliverable the government may still report the project as a success, due to the eventual benefit realisation being larger than the outturn cost. The example of Wembley Stadium and The Millennium Dome are two such programmes / projects that could have been viewed as catastrophic failures by the contractors and even the public (at the time), but the benefits for both of these programmes have grown larger than the cost.

The programme may therefore be deemed a success, however the individual projects may all have been deemed a failure.

When looking into statistics for project failure it is easy to find many statistics on the rate of failure in IT projects, due to the rapid evolution of IT. If an IT project were to be shelved or to be delayed for a short period of time, it would have a large effect, as by the time the project were to get started again, it can be assumed that there is a strong possibility that the technology would have moved on and that the original technology that the project had commenced using would have become antiquated. This would possibly result in the project being cancelled and ultimately deemed a failure. This is not always the case within large construction projects, which was evident during the recession. Many building sites around the country were hoarded up and work seemed to come to a complete stop. Years later these sites are now all starting to open up again and soon the work will be complete with no evidence of a project failing to deliver. There is a strong possibility that these projects were delivering to the Project Manager’s triple constraint, but as the Business / Government had re-evaluated the expected benefit the projects were either cancelled or put on hold.

It maybe assumed that if it wasn’t for the prospect of being able to ‘recycle’ previously failed construction projects that the failure rate of construction projects may well be in a similar category as that of failed IT projects. In a recent study by KPMG in relation to a survey on IT Project Management they reported that 49% of projects failed outright and 86% of projects reported that they had achieved a reduction of at least 25% of their expected benefit outcome, fortunately construction projects are recyclable, even if a project were to be cancelled half way through the build phase. Although recycling a failed project may convert the project deliverable from a failure into a success, recycling costs money and subsequently will have a negative impact on the original benefit.

In the paper, UK Construction: An economic analysis of the sector, written by the Department of Business Innovation and skills in July 2013 the writer states that the construction industry contributes almost £90 Billion a year to the UK economy and is responsible for employing 2.93million people across the country. The Scope of Work of a single programme / project may have very little effect on the state of the countries economy, however it could be considered that if the Value ration and requirements were detailed in the Scope of Works, that the project team may have identified the potential negative effect on the project earlier and worked towards mitigating the impact. Taking into account that there were an increased number of construction projects delayed during the recent recession, it can be assumed that there have been some major remobilisation costs and in some cases whereby the original business plan has changed, possible ‘recycling’ costs.

It may be suggested that the traditional type of project team does not attempt to deliver Value, as they believe that they are only commissioned to deliver the Scope of Work within the Project Managers triple constraint, as detailed in the scoping document. If the project team delivered the Scope of Work on time, under budget and to an acceptable quality, the project would be regarded a success, regardless as to whether or not any benefit were achieved from the project. This is still the case for many Project Managers, as they are often only measured on their ability to deliver the Scope of Work to the Projects Managers triple constraint. This thought pattern is changing and there is a growing assumption that the project teams should be looking to achieve the benefit to the business.

The APM (2012); have made changes to their depiction of the project lifecycle in their latest edition of the APM BoK (6th Edition) whereby they now include the benefits realisation ‘Stage Gate’ within the project lifecycle. With the drive toward giving the project team more responsibility for delivering Value there needs to be a mechanism to facilitate it. It may be suggested that the best method for this delivery mechanism would be to include the drivers for the expected outcome in the Scope of Work, as the Scope of Work is a common document, which is used during the delivery of construction projects by the project teams.

The primary assumption made in this dissertation is that the expected outcome and related benefits should form part of the Scope of Work. The general hypothesis is that the more decisive the Scope of Work is, the more likely the project team will deliver the expected Value at project completion. The APM (2012); include the section on Value Management in the 6th edition of their Body of Knowledge (BoK) embedded within the section on Requirements Management, as if to infer that they are interconnected.

If the management of Value is pivotal to the management of the project requirements, then it may follow that these requirements can be weaved into the Scope of Works to allow for the project team to inadvertently focus on delivering Value, while retaining focus on delivering the project to the Project Managers triple constraint. Effort is made to investigate the type of information that is provided within the scoping document. To look at the quantity and the quality of information that is required to be included in the Scope of Work in order to increase the probability of delivering the expected Value, to the Stakeholders.

Chapter 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW

 

INTRODUCTION

The literature review intends to include the views of various literary sources, highlighting the relationship that is believed to exist between the Scope of Work, the Value that is delivered and the perceived success of a project. The intention is to investigate the views relating to the correlation between the perceptions of delivering the expected outcome of the sponsor’s requirement and relating this to how detailed the Value is defined in the Scope of Work. It is expected to find that most authors will be in agreement with the general hypothesis of this dissertation, however it is the subtle differences and the effects that those differences are perceived to have on the project, that is the focus of this review. T S ElliotBetween the idea and the reality, between the emotion and the act, falls the Shadow” and it is this shadow that the dissertation intends to research.

 

DEFINITIONS

The term Scope of Work and Value will be mentioned continually throughout, it is therefore important to clearly define what is meant by these terms in relation to this dissertation. It is thought that the Oxford dictionary definition (as a noun) for the term Value will be best suited; “The regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth or usefulness of something” and for the term Scope of Work, the Business dictionary’s definition is best suited; “The division of work to be performed under a contract or subcontract in the completion of a project, typically broken out into specific tasks with deadlines” It may also be noted at this stage that the Project Managers Institute (PMI) define Project Scope as the delivery of a product with specified features and functions, and Harding. J (2012); suggests that the intended outcome of a project, is effectively the Scope.           

 

ASSUMPTIONS

In addition to the above definitions, a key assumption is made in relation to the difference between project management success and project success.  Cooke Davis. T (2002); suggests that there are three factors that are critical to project success, which include both the factors influencing project management success and project success, but adds the joint factor of what leads to consistently delivering successful projects. For the purpose of this dissertation it is assumed that project management success will relate to the Project Managers triple constraint of Time, Cost & Quality, as it is assumed that the Project Manager will perceive success if he / she is able to deliver the project on time, within budget and on condition that the project meets the specified quality requirement.

 

The APM (2012) advocate that a project would be deemed a success if the triple constraint is achieved, while DeWit. A (1998 P.1) suggests that a distinction should be made when measuring success as there can be a difference between the “project success and the success of the project management effort” Although this dissertation assumes that the project management will be successful if the triple constraint is achieved, it also assumes that the project will be a success if the Scope of Work is delivered. This is to be taken one step further, by assuming that the Scope of Work has been drafted in enough detail to ensure that the importance, worth or usefulness of the required outcome is considered and that Value that is provided is the ultimate project deliverable.

 

Scope of Work - It can be proposed that managing the Scope of Work on a project is part of the Project Managers job function and that as with any job, if it is executed correctly it will be concluded successfully. Khan. A (2006); denotes in his paper, that Scope management is the Project Managers most important function, and not just another part of his job, he also implies by effectively managing the project Scope, will ensure that the triple constraint of time, cost and quality is maintained. He goes on to suggest that; “project Scope management is an iterative process” and that the successful management of Scope defines the success of the project in relation to both the Project Manager and the project management team.

 

It can be assumed that a major cause of project management failure would be down to the detail and manner in which the Scope of Work is drafted as the project team will have difficulties remaining within the triple constraints without clear knowledge of the projects deliverable. Harding. J (2012); indicates that in his opinion most project professionals would agree that project failures are mainly a result of insufficient Scope definition and continues by stating that it is surprising how often projects are initiated without a Scope of Work or sufficient definition of Scope. Fageha. M et.al (2012); seems to agree with this point and declares, by not defining the Scope of Work in the early stages of the lifecycle of a construction project, it would be common to experience difficulties in the development process. The same theme is common in many papers that have been reviewed, with Mirza. M et.al (2013); stating that the lack of definition is a definitive link to project failure and continue by suggesting that there is a direct correlation between the Scope of Work and project performance, stating that the significance of the problem is well known in the industry.

 

Arts. J et al (2005); implies that the key to success in some infrastructure projects may be in the early stages of the planning process when the Scope of the project is defined. This may be interpreted to mean that if the Scope has been well defined at the beginning of the project that there is a greater possibility that the project will ultimately deliver the Value that the sponsor has intended.

In a similar manner this would also suggest that if the Scope of Work were not well defined at the beginning of project that there would be a higher probability of the project failing. Flyvbjerg. B, et al (2009); infers something similar by stating that executives typically attribute underperforming projects to various uncertainties pointing out that Scope clarity features high on that list.

Another problem to delivering Value can be seen as ‘Scope Creep’, which may be interpreted as beneficial. Although Scope Creep may be detrimental to achieving the projects triple constraint, it could result in the project itself delivering more Value to the business than the original business case intended. Kerzner. H PhD (2000); points out the importance of Scope definition for project success and states that Scope Creep or Scope Leap is often the real reason for project failure, due to the escalation of the projects cost, reducing the justification of the expected benefit. It is prudent to note that Kerzner defines success in two ways; primary and secondary, with the primary success factor being the Project Managers triple constraint and the secondary factor that of customer acceptance. It can be expected that if the Scope of Work was defined in full prior to the delivery phase of the project, that there would be no reason for Scope Creep. In some cases, if changes were required, then according to the governance process, the project would be required to stop, reassess and possibly move back into the design phase for a more detailed version of the Scope change. This could delay the delivery of the project and in some cases; a late release date may result in losing the Value that is expected by the sponsor. If the Scope was allowed to creep and the cost was permitted to increase beyond the budget allowance ensuring that the project completion date was held, it may result in project success, but project management failure. Although this scenario may seem like the correct action to take, due to the benefit to be realised, it does have a down side. By attempting to deliver the additional undefined Scope, may very well result in delivering an incorrect version of the requirement “on time” but “over budget’; delivering no Value and failing to meet the Project Manager’s triple constraint.  

 

VALUE

Projects are increasingly being measured on the Value that they deliver and not by having delivered to the triple constraint requirement. Maylor. H (2010); suggests that in some cases the project team may actually be looking to deliver Value and not only the product that has been specified in the project brief or business case. Thus moving away from the focus of only delivering projects within time, cost and quality. The delivered Value should be calculated by using the Value ratio of , as described by the Office of Government Commerce (2010); with V - Value, B - Benefit and C – Cost, which would mean that as the cost varies up or down so will the delivered Value. It can therefore be assumed that if the Project Mangers triple constraint had to fail, that the additional cost to delivering the project would impact the Value delivered and in some cases may result in this being a negative Value.

For example – if the estimated cost to deliver a 10 day project is £1,000.00 (£100.00 per day) and the expected benefit to the company for a successful completion is £1,200.00, if the Project Manager fails to deliver in accordance with the triple constraint and runs three days late, even though the Project Manager may have delivered the product according to the requirements, the Project Manager will have failed due to failing to deliver on time. The project as well as the project management effort will be deemed a failure, as it would be responsible for delivering negative Value.

Goodpasture. J (2002 P.68); suggests that if all of the Scope is delivered without exceeding the budget or resource that was planned, then it can be expected that the intended Value would be achieved. This infers that there may be a benefit, to creating a requirement, including Value in the Scope of Work. He also suggests that by having a full complete Scope of Work is probably the best way to ensure project success.

 

It can be expected that unless all of the Stakeholders requirements have been captured in the Scope of Work that it would not be possible to make such a prediction, as the project team may deliver the Scope of Work, within time, cost and quality, but may not deliver the Stakeholders requirements. In research concluded by John Wateridge, discussed in Turner. J (2009); book on Project Management, he reports that a group of Project Managers where asked, in relation to both a successful and a failed project that they had previously delivered, what they thought was the ultimate reason for the success and failure of these projects. In most cases the answer related to whether or not the project delivered Value to the sponsor.

 

Kelly. J et al (2004); discusses various definitions of what a project is and concludes that projects are generally undertaken with the intention that the project outcome will add Value to the core business resulting in the benefit being passed on to the client. The Office of Government Commerce (2010); state that Value is subjective, due to different people applying their own criteria, depending on their interpretation of the requirement. If however the base requirement criteria were assigned a single number in relation to the expected Value to be delivered, then it can be assumed that the delivered Value would be objective.

 

It may be interesting to note that Gardiner. P (2005); talks about project governance and refers to governance as being an integral part of ensuring that a complete and accurate Scope of Work is created and delivered by the project team. He also suggests that Value Management assists in removing waste and adds Value to projects, stating that the Project Manager should always ensure that the Scope is limited to what functionality is required and adequately represents all of the Stakeholders, reinforcing the words of Lawrence Miles, who insists that all function is cost.

 

Turner. J (2009); discusses the requirements for governance in projects and believes there is a difference between company governance and project governance by proposing that the company governance usually maximises returns to the owner only, whereby he defines the project governance as leaning towards all of the Stakeholders involved in the project and the expected benefit.

This would suggest that there is a direct relation between project governance and benefit realisation, and that some Stakeholders have an influence or authority, resulting in delivering the expected Value that is defined even if only partially by the Stakeholders interest.

 

REQUIREMENTS

The general hypothesis of this dissertation, is that a detailed Scope of Work would contribute towards a higher ratio of successfully delivering Value in projects (both project management success which would be more readily achieved and project success); however prior to a detailed Scope of Work, it may be prudent to identify the client or business’s wants and needs in order to achieve their objective. It will be extremely difficult to draft a complete Scope of Work without a clear understanding of the defined requirements. The absence of this detailed understanding of what is required will often result in projects moving forward into the implementation phase too quickly, without consideration for what is actually required or what the actual benefit is to the organisation, due to the need for the perceived Value at an accelerated time scale.

 

Morris. P (1997) discusses this point and concludes that there are too many projects currently being delivered without sufficient definition or study. Clancy. T (1995 – P.7); attributes in his paper on Chaos, that the major cause for the collapse of the 1994, $165 million CONFIRM car rental project was he believed due to having an “incomplete statement of requirements” the report concluded that a clear statement of requirements is amongst the top reasons for projects to either succeed or fail and goes on to state that an incomplete statement of requirements is at the top of the list in relation to projects that are cancelled. It is important to differentiate between the ‘Statement of Requirements’ and the Scope of Work, as without a detailed list of requirements, it will be extremely difficult to produce an accurate Scope of Works’ Field. M et.al (1998 P.20); One of the best ways to insure the quality of any project or any deliverable or product is to get the requirements for it right

 

SUCCESS

It can be expected that in most cases, if a clear set of instructions are distributed, that there is a greater possibility that the correct activity will be carried out, resulting in a successful outcome. It is surprising however, by leaving out a very small amount of information from an instruction, that it could result in either the incorrect completion of the activity or the activity not being completed at all.

 

Mirza.M et.al (2013 – P.1); propose that if the Scope of Work is properly defined and managed that it will inevitably lead to delivering within the Project Managers triple constraint; they continue with pointing out that although there are many texts on the emphasis of project success, there is very little published on the correlation between the Scope of Works and project success.

When conducting a Boolean search on these terms, searching through the full text of the article from the Leeds Metropolitan Library database, only 16 results returned with any significant information.

 

De Wit. A (1988); Points out that in a study on success in construction projects, the university of Texas reported that the project definition became clearer as more emphasis was placed on the Scope of Work. It is important to note that they make the differentiation between Scope of Work and project definition, suggesting that the project definition is a resultant of the Scope of Work.

Mirza. M et.al (2013); comments on the fact that they believe that one of the major processes in pre project planning should be developing the Scope of Work and Scope definition package, as it is suggested that this is the time that risks can be identified and mitigated if necessary.  Buehler. R et. al. (1994); Discuss “The planning fallacy” whereby they report on the findings from various experiments that clearly demonstrate, the more familiar a person is with an activity, the greater the probability that the time estimation for the completion will be incorrect, which could raise the assumption, that if familiarity to an activity can result in flawed time estimation, that familiarity may also result in the lack of risk identification.

 

Mirza. M et.al (2013); also suggest that there are some researches that have verified that a project Scope of Work with clearly defined goals and objectives is a dimension for project success. This however may not always be the case, as within some construction projects, whereby they have delivered the detailed Scope of Work, but the project is still deemed a failure at the time of delivery and then looked on as a success after a further period of time. Taking into account, the Value ratio, it can be expected that in most infrastructure and construction projects that the Value will continue to change over time and that there is always the possibility of turning a previously perceived project failure into a project success years later.

 

If the Value is proportional to the benefit divided by the cost, then on completion of the project; the project is closed out and the project costs are frozen, therefore no longer increasing. The benefit, or whole life benefit, will be monitored for years to come and will inevitably start to increase as time goes by, usually depending on the amount of publicity that the end product receives. Taking the Millennium Dome as an example; this project / programme may have been deemed a failure on completion and years after completion, however as the costs for this project have now stopped increasing and are now sunk and the benefits have continued to increase in Value, they are now becoming larger than the original sunk cost, which has resulted in the outcome of the Value ratio exhibiting project success.

 

Meredith. J et al (2010); Reports on a study by Shenhar et al in 1997 regarding 127 Project Managers; whereby the Project Managers were asked to rate, out of the top 13 dimensions of project success, which they thought was the number one reason that projects are deemed a success.

The perspective of the Project Managers questioned was that delivering within the Project Managers triple constraint would result in project success, with the second dimension being customer satisfaction.

 

RISK

It can be assumed, that the earlier that a risk is identified in the project process, that the more efficiently it can be mitigated, as recognised by Mirza. M et.al (2013) It can also be assumed that there is a stronger probability of it being cheaper to rectify an issue in the Scope definition stage of a project, or as early as the concept stage then it will be during the delivery / install stage. It can be assumed that there will be a direct relationship between the accuracy of the Scope of Work and the risk that the project does not deliver the Value that is intended.

 

Turner. J (2009); suggests that project plans should be setup to facilitate risk management from the start of the project, although the risk process is an on-going process and should be constantly reviewed throughout the course of the project. Kelly. J et al (2004); discuss the link between Risk and Value, noting that they have not always linked the two, however recently they have been combining the Value and risk analysis, as they believe that Risk and Value are simply ‘two sides of the same coin’. They believe that by reducing the risk in a project that it will inevitably increase the Value.

 

DeMarco. T et al (2003); states that “if a project has no risk, don’t do it” as it is their hypothesis that there is a direct link between risk and benefit whereby they imply that risk taking is directly linked to Value. They continue by suggesting that it is more beneficial to take risks when the stakes are high rather than when they are low, as lower stakes will inevitably result in lower Value outcome. It is fair to mention that they were discussing IT projects, however this hypothesis may also be pertinent in construction projects.  The Office of Government Commerce (2010); do not outright concur with what Demarco. T et al suggest, however they do state that by the project taking a calculated risk allows for Value to be maximised and that joint Value and risk provides a structured route for good project governance to be demonstrated, again highlighting the need for good governance.

 

MORALE

One of the more modern focuses in relation to project management is the ‘people’ factor. It is well known that people deliver projects, but what is less known is exactly what motivates these individuals and more importantly what demotivates them and what will cause the reduction in morale for the project team as a unit or individually.

 

Kerzner (2014); suggests that uncontrolled Scope change has the potential to destroy the moral on a project, which can be interpreted as, the negative impact of Scope Creep, reiterating his point that Scope Creep is far too often the reason for project failure. This bringing a whole new dimension into the delivery of a successful project, as it can be expected that if there is a low morale in the project team that there is a stronger possibility of the project management team failing.

This would adversely imply, that if there were an improved morale that there may be a stronger probability of the project management team succeeding. If there is low morale in the team, it does not necessarily follow that the project will not deliver a successful outcome or Value to the Project Sponsor, however it does imply that there is a stronger possibility that there will be a negative impact on the Project Managers triple constraint.

 

Bryson. J (2011);indicates that by accomplishing tasks, the morale within a team will be improved, which is backed up by Vrooms Expectancy Theory, whereby Vroom makes a positive correlation between effort and performance.Field. M et.al (1998 P.261) discusses expectancy theory and points out that there is an assumption that the motivation to work may be based on fulfilling a need through productive behaviour. They continue referring to motivation, by pointing out that the project team will also have the expectation of knowing exactly what is required of them and will expect to receive clear objectives. It can therefore be assumed that if the project team are not clear on their objectives that there would be a greater possibility of reduced morale.

 

The APM (2012); suggest that by improving the morale of all of the staff on a project that this would result in a knock on effect leading to lowering the number of project staff that may wish to leave the project prior to completion, effectively lower the cost of delivering the project, due to the high cost of recruiting new staff and bringing them up to speed with the projects requirements. They point out that a financial appraisal of this benefit would have to include assumptions about the impact of increased morale. Kerzner (2014); added that, although some projects may be completed within the triple constraint requirement that they may well end up costing the client market share or losing their position as market leaders; this will effectively result in loss in profits, which unsurprisingly may consequentially negatively effect the employee morale.

                                        

CASE STUDY

Two projects, delivered by the same Project Manager, but with two completely different outcomes are discussed. Project A: Relates to a project that was delivered by the Project Manager, while he was working on behalf of a contractor, installing equipment into the London Underground network.     

 

Project B: Relates to a project that was delivered by the same Project Manager, however this time he was working for the client and installing different equipment.

 

It is not important to relate the exact equipment that was delivered, but more importantly the process that were followed in both scenarios.

 

Project A – The Project Manager, was instructed to take over the project after the previous Project Manager had left the company prior to project completion (low moral).

He was given a set of drawings, which represented the Scope of Work, the costs had been pre-set prior to his engagement in the project and all quality documentation had already been drafted and accepted by the client. On review of the Scope of Work, it was evident that there were large Scope gaps resulting in multiple variations being raised in order to deliver the work as per the Sponsors requirement. The knock on effect to this was the continual slipping of the activities schedule. The sub-contractor had very little governance in place and had accepted the work without a thorough review of the Scope. There was no risk register and no risk reviews had taken place up until this point. The project completion date was delayed by approximately 6 months with cost spiralling to five times the initial amount in the original contractual agreement. All equipment was eventually installed to the clients satisfaction, however at a cost to the sub-contractor. Disputes were raised regarding the disagreements over the interpretation of the Scope of Work. Although there was items that were clearly not in the Scope of Work (drawings) the client expected that as a ‘competent contractor’ the sub-contractor should have known that these additional items would be required and therefore they should have been included in their original cost. For the purpose of this dissertation it is also pertinent to highlight that during the delivery of the project, the project team continued to change, mainly due to the chaotic governance structure that the company adopted and the low team morale.

 

It was identified by the Project Manager and escalated to the senior management that the project’s costs were spiralling, which resulted in senior management instructing members of the project team to leave, without a replacement. This in turn created concern amongst the remaining team members that they might fall prey to a similar fate. According to the senior management of the sub-contractor, this project was an astounding failure and was delivered at a loss to the company. The client, however eventually achieved their required Value, this Value may have been achieved 6 months later than expected, however as this equipment will now remain in place for the next 30 – 40 years, the sponsor can deem this project a success, as it has delivered Value to the company, albeit the Value was delivered late.

 

Project B- The Project Manager had been instructed to take over a project after the Programme Manager had made the decision to change the delivery process. The position for a Project Manager had been created in order to assist in a more accelerated delivery. It is important to point out that this project was part of a larger enabling programme, that allows for a new automatic signalling system to be delivered creating the possibility of a higher number of trains per hour to be in service in this area of the network. A detailed Scope of Work was supplied to the Project Manager for thorough review with an extremely structured set of governance processes and project management framework.

 

The project budget had been pre-agreed, however this budget included for the allowance for any identified risk realisation, and a process was available to apply for additional funding should such a risk present itself.

 

There was a detailed risk register, which was periodically reviewed and adjusted depending on the requirement. The project team were kept informed of changes and were familiar with the project Scope of Work, resulting in there being a high morale in the team.

The project team had very few changes during the delivery of this project with the two members that moved from the team during the delivery phase. It should be mentioned that they were only moved due to gaining a promotion to work in a more senior position on another project, within the business.

 

The project was delivered one week prior to the originally scheduled completion date and not all of the projects budget authority was used, due to a successful Value engineering process that was followed during delivery. It should also be noted that the cost of all variations that had been raised throughout this project was below average for this type of work. There were no disputes regarding price or variations with the contractors that delivered the work. According to the Project Management team, this project was an overwhelming success, with accolades all round.

This project however was developed as part of a larger programme of work, allowing for Automatic Train Control (ATC) throughout the Sub Surface Railway. In December 2013, London Underground announced that the ATC contract had been terminated and that another contractor would be awarded this work. This having the potential to push back the final delivery date of achieving the additional number of trains travelling on the network, which ultimately results in failing to deliver the Value at the required time. If the completion date of the ATC contract were to move forward by a year, this will result in a delay in benefit realisation and will effectively be seen by the public (Stakeholder) as failure, although this section of the programme delivered a new larger train, which is a partial success, the ultimate goal was to increase the number of trains per hour, reducing the waiting time of the passenger (customer); which suggests that the Stakeholder would perceive this as a project failure for the immediate future.

 

It is also important to note that although this project may be delayed for a year, resulting in continued congestion, as and when the programme delivers ATC, the congestion will be reduced and the number of trains will increase, resulting in the eventual achievement of the originally intended Value, less the Value that had been lost due to the late delivery.

 

This will most likely be looked back on as a successful outcome, regardless as to whether or not the programme or the individual projects delivered with in the Project Manger’s triple constraint.

 

SUMMARY

Most of the literature that has been researched seems to point in a similar direction, however there are some subtle differences in their points of view. Some point towards governance, having a key role and others focusing more on risk, which can well be included in the governance process. There is a significant difference between the views of older works, as the more up to date literature seem to refer to how people respond, whereby the older literature focuses more on the processes. Most of the literary sources both earlier and later titles; however agree that low team morale will have a negative impact on the delivery of the project. It is also interesting to note that various views on what would be accepted as a success.

The assumption relating to success made at the beginning of the literature review is an accumulation of not only the literature that has been sited in this literature review, but from information that has been assimilated from various source listed in the bibliography.

Chapter 3 - METHODOLOGY

 

INTRODUCTION

The process that has been followed to allow for the development of this dissertation was to observe the effects that the Scope of Work has on the delivery of project Value by evaluating the data gathered throughout the process. The primary research completed was in the form of a questionnaire / experiment, which was given to a group of 44 project professionals, during an event specifically created to be delivered to professionals interested in Value Management. The secondary research made use of literary sources, which include Journals, textbooks, Internet and various papers published and unpublished.

 

An additional secondary form of research has been included by means of 2 case studies, however these case studies have been used with the intent purpose of highlighting differences between projects that have delivered Value and projects that have failed to deliver Value. Although both of these projects are real, due to the lack of detail, they have not been included as part of the primary research and instead have been included in the literature review and form part of the secondary research data.

An informal review with various project management professionals was also carried out to allow for a peer review and discussion in relation to the findings of the research.

 

RESEARCH METHODS

A 500-word brief, detailing the problem and the hypothesis to be researched, was created and reviewed prior to commencing work on this dissertation. (Appendix 1) Collis. J (2003) and Swetnem. D et al (2009) Two textbooks describing how a dissertation should be constructed were reviewed and suggestions from both of these sources have been used in the build up of the work produced. Burns. N et al (2011) Further literature, discusses how, relevant quantitative research should be conducted and analysed and this methodology is observed during the analysis process. A full schedule detailing the time that had been planned to complete this dissertation was created. (Appendix 2) It is assumed that this completed schedule may form part of a lessons learned process for future students who may be looking for a typical time scale for the completion of this type of work package.

 

Literary Research

Multiple textbooks, papers (published and unpublished), journals and Internet articles have been referenced and referred to throughout this dissertation. Not all of the literary sources that are detailed in the bibliography have been referenced, however they have all had an influence on the development of this work. The journals and papers have been sourced from either the Leeds Metropolitan University Library website, making use of the Boolean search technique or directly from the Internet, utilising similar techniques to locate relevant literature. All books were sourced from Amazon in the paper, Kindle or Audible edition.

Further study was conducted by means of a course on Leadership and Management at City University (London) focussing on management styles and techniques, which may be deemed useful in the management of Value.

Case Study’s

The case studies referred to; feature two projects that had been delivered by the same Project Manager, however data sensitive information has been omitted along with the company names, thus these case studies form part of the secondary research data. Both projects were delivered into the same industry and the Project Manager delivering them did so for two different companies, the first as a contractor and the second acting on behalf of the client, however for the purpose of this research the Project Managers’ employer is not significant. The significance that is being scrutinised is in relation to the correlation of the Scope of Work and the delivered Value, the reason for pointing out whom the Project Manager was delivering for (the end user), is due to the perception of which Stakeholder may have been ‘scoring’ the delivered Value.

Presentation & Debate (APM 22nd May 2014)

A presentation (Appendix 4) was prepared and delivered to a group of 50 project professionals as part of the research element for this dissertation. The aim of the presentation was to encourage debate amongst the attendees and to attempt to raise some controversial points to generate further discussion. The presentation was focused on Value Management and asked the question: If Value is subjective, is it wise to attempt to manage Value objectively?

The presentation commenced with a short brief on the history of Value Management and went on to discuss what the attendees perceived Value to be. Value was defined, without any doubt, as being a subjective term, this was repeated and reinforced by quoting various trusted bodies, i.e. Association of Project Management (APM), Office of Government Commerce (OGC) & European Standard (EN12 973). The question was then asked as to the possibility of managing something so subjective by making use of an objective process and if Value Management should be a subjective process or an objective process? The aim of this question was to simulate a discussion and debate amongst the attendees and as the presentation progressed; additional information was presented with the objective of attempting to encourage the attendees to challenge their own way of thinking.

Further research was completed on the APM’s methodology for Value Management APM BoK 6th Edition (2012) and Kelly. J et al (2004); this was discussed along with linking Value Management to delivering the project to the client’s expectation. The attendees were then asked to take part in an experiment which was designed to highlight the difference’s that a small amount of information can make to the time and quality of delivering a piece of work.

The presentation was audio recorded (Appendix 5) and some of the questions and comments have been included in the findings and discussion section of this dissertation. The pre-recorded audio file, created for the presentation has been included in the appendices  (Appendix 6) for further scrutiny.

Questionnaire (Experiment)

The key research produced for this paper was drawn from an experiment that was conducted with a group of project professionals, the purpose of this study was to explore the correlation between Project Success and Scope of Work with the aim of discovering the effects that they might have on the successful delivery of a project. The hypothesis was an expectation that if one group of people was to be given more information than another group, that the group of people that were given the more detailed instruction would find completing the task easier and would also complete the task in a shorter time. The experiment was not only designed to prove this hypothesis but also made an attempt to make a quantitative assessment as to what the impact, if any, would have on different amounts of information supplied in an instruction, designed to deliver the same outcome.

 

For the purpose of this experiment it was deemed important that the focus group completing the experiment was made up of project professionals with an interest in delivering Value. In order to ensure that the experiment was conducted with a specific focus group and in a controlled environment, the writer arranged to deliver a presentation on “An introduction to Value Management” (Appendix 4) at an event hosted by the APM Value Management Specific interest Group (SIG). Unbeknown to the test group, the room had been separated in two halves; with one side being given the full set of requirements and the other side a reduced set.

 

The data that was gathered was of a numerical nature, classifying this research as quantitative, which aligns with Burns. N et al (2011); who states that this type of research allows for the opportunity to examine the relationship between variables, being a resultant of the statistical analysis. Burns further describes this type of quantitative research as correlation type research, explaining that, by making use of the correlation analysis, the degree of the strength and type of the relationship between these variables may be determined. (Positive or Negative)

 

The research tool that was used, was developed as a questionnaire and was set out as such: Seven words, all consisting of a different number of letters were written down on a page, next to a series of blocks in a ‘crossword puzzle’ type format. (See figure 2.1) The test subjects were all asked to fill in one letter per block, so that each word fit into a single column, running from the top down to the bottom. The participants were then asked to identify a word that related to a measure of time, typically used when measuring the length of a construction project, this word was buried within the blocks.

Figure 2 .1 Experiment layout

Source: Author - APM presentation on Introduction to Value Management first presented on the

22nd May 2014

 

 

The first part of the instruction that was given out was identical for all of the participants. The difference came in the second half of the instruction, as 50% of the participants, were given additional information explaining in a more detailed manner as to how they could identify the hidden word; they were advised that the word that they were looking for could be found if they should look to finding the word by reading diagonally and upwards; it should be noted that these three words (read diagonally upwards) were the only difference between both sets of instructions. The subjects were asked not to confer, however if some of them did confer, it is believed that the results would not have skewed significantly, as all subjects in one area had the same set of instructions and as this questionnaire had been created specifically for this presentation, nobody within the group had any prior knowledge of the question.

 

The experiment lasted for 15 minutes, any participants that had not completed within this time were asked to place the unfinished experiment into the envelope, however any participants that did manage to completed the questionnaire within 15 minutes were asked to write down the time in the box provided and to insert the experiment page into the envelope. Although it would seem to be inevitable, as to which group would complete the questionnaire in the shortest average time, the objective of the experiment was to identify the magnitude of the differences between those with the additional information and those with less information. The important points to mention in regard to this experiment are that:

There were two variations of the same set of instructions.

·       Instruction one was identical in every way to instruction 2 other that instruction 2 had a further 3 words included in brackets at the end of one of the sentences (read diagonally upwards)

·       Instruction 1 made use of a total of 131 words to instruct the candidates on what to do and instruction 2 made use of a total of 134 words.

·       All fonts, font size, grammar and punctuation were identical for both sets of instructions, with the exception of the three additional words in instruction 2.

·       There was no pre-set seating arrangement and people came in and found seats randomly throughout the room; therefore there was no pre-set format as to who would receive which set of instructions, the room was divided in two by a gap between the chairs in the pre arranged seating, which had been laid out by the hotel staff setting up the room. The presenter / experimenter did not influence the seating arrangement in any way.

·       A count down clock was presented on the large screen in the front of the room, allowing all attendees to see the amount of time that they had remaining.

There were specific elements that were included in the experiment which were designed to make an attempt at simulating a project scenario.

·       All instructions were specifically designed to look a like, as it is expected that people will naturally look around to see what their peers are doing, at a distance each participant would not notice a difference.

·       All experiments were handed out inside a large white envelope, in order to signify the start and end of the project as the participants removed the experiment and replaced it at the end of the experiment.

·       The first part of the experiment was designed to be relatively simple and the identical for all participants, allowing for them to be at ease.

·       The large count down clock placed on the screen was to allow for all participants to feel the time pressure that will inevitably be felt during the delivery of most projects.

·       The room was split in two specific halves rather than mixing the instructions, due to the impact that it will have on the half of the room that notice a large group of peers completing the experiment early. This is noticeable as they insert the page into the large envelope. This adds pressure to the remaining participants and is expected to magnify the gap as this is expected to happen in projects when the pressure of seeing other projects complete on time.

·       Participants are not advised that there are two different sets of instructions, but are advised that there are differing instructions in the room, which was designed to encourage them not to give up to easily.

The presentation was then continued while the data from the experiment was inserted into a spreadsheet template, to allow for a rapid analysis of the results.

Within 40 minutes an overview of the results were captured in the template and the initial findings were presented to the group.

This rapid analysis and presentation of the initial findings to the group, was welcomed, with one of the group commenting that this was a welcomed innovative approach to sharing the findings this quickly. 

 

Prior to conducting the research that is presented here, a sample group from Leeds Metropolitan University MSc. 2014 Cohort were requested to take part, as a pilotgroup, in a similar study to allow for any unforeseen issues to be ironed out before completing the questionnaire with the focus group of project management professionals. This sample group consisted of 30 students, enrolled on a MSc. in Strategic Project Management, which was made up of a mixture of full time students and project management professionals. These results have not been included, due to changes that were made to the questionnaire following issues that were identified during the pilot. 

 

Sample size(Research test group)

The experiment that has been evaluated for this dissertation was conducted during a presentation that was delivered by The APM Value Management VM SiG, with the intent purpose to ensure that the majority of people taking part in the research were either project professionals or had a strong interest in the topic. Smaller splinter groups, from within a project management environment, were issued the exact same research question, over a period of time. These results were separated and evaluated independently, to scrutinise the similarities or differences between the two test groups.

 

Test group 1

The APM Presentation was made up of 44 APM Members and the participants were a mixture of Male and female, no further information was required from any of these individuals. 22 members of the groups were given one set of instructions and 22 were given a different set of instructions.

Test group 2

Was made up of project management professionals; 10 personnel working in different project management departments of a Matrix organisation and their job titles included: Project Manager’s, Planner’s, Commercial Manager’s, Document Controller’s, Project Engineer’s & Construction Manager’s. Although the findings for the second test group have not been used or included in this dissertation, they were consistent with the main focus group that has been used.

Informal peer reviews

There have been informal peer reviews and discussions with various project professionals taking into account their day-to-day activities. These personnel are split into two groups; with the client side employing 80% and 20% working for either tier one or tier two contractors.

All of the personnel interviewed work on major infrastructure projects within a rail environment and all interviews were conducted informally and some were in a group setting. The interviews were not audio recorded; however notes were taken during the interviews and discussions.

SUMMARY

There has been a fair amount of literature printed on the various topics that have been discussed in this dissertation, with less literature discussing the correlation between these topics (Scope and Value), however with the combination of the different sources of literature, the inclusion of the case studies and the peer discussion, it has been possible to create a relatively detailed discussion. Both the research that was completed for the Value Management event at the APM and the feedback that was received from the attendees has been invaluable, for this dissertation. The primary research produced was focused on an experiment that was designed to highlight quality and time differences in the delivery phase. The findings from this experiment is believed to be sufficient in both quantity and quality, as the test group consisted of project management professionals and the raw data that was produced remained consistent throughout. In addition to the findings developed from the primary research, there were some significant points made by the attendees of the presentation, which highlights the ‘people’ factor and perceptions and differences of opinion from different people within the industry. The various methods of retrieving information when conducting the research for this dissertation have all been developed with the purpose of attempting to link the knowledge and understanding of the Scope of Work to delivering the intended Value, expected by the Stakeholder.  

Chapter 4 – FINDINGS / PRIMARY DATA

 

INTRODUCTION

Most of the people that were interviewed during the writing of this dissertation agreed that the more detailed the requirements were, prior to the onset of a project that the higher the probability that the project would have to deliver Value. The presentation that was hosted by the APM’s Value Management SIG, generated interest and debate amongst the attendees with 48 of the people who attended the event, 44 of them agreed to participate in the experiment (detailed in the methodology). The event was audio recorded (Appendix 5) and some of the salient points that were raised have been used in the discussion section of this dissertation. Other relevant points that were raised at the event have been mentioned in this section.

 

ANOMALY

On completion of the experiment, it was evident that some of the attendees had misinterpreted the instructions as to how they were supposed to record the time. The participants were asked to fill in the time as it read on the count down clock on the screen the moment they completed the experiment, thus the lower the time left on the clock, the longer the participant took to complete the exercise. When evaluating the results of the experiment it was evident that some participants had interpreted the instruction incorrectly and had calculated the time that they had taken to complete the experiment and inserted this time onto the sheet and not the time showing on the count down clock, resulting in their times being inverted. It was also observed by the experimenter that the majority of the group (one side of the room) that had been given the instruction with fewer words had not completed the experiment after ten minutes had passed, as he was observing all participants during the experiment. He noted that all of the times in this group did not correlate to the information that had been offered on the page.

It was for both of these reasons and due the observation that some of the participants had left some calculations on their submissions page, showing evidence that they were trying to work out the time taken. On completion of the evaluation of the results an adjustment was made to those experiments showing signs of this error, making the assumption that all experiments that had been completed in a time less than that of the fastest time taken to complete the experiment for the more detailed instruction had been inverted. The decision was then made to revert these times and these changed times have been used in the findings.

 

STATISTICS

A total of 48 project professionals were asked to participate in the experiment; 26 of these individuals were given the set of instructions with 131 words on the page and 22 participants were given the set of instructions with 134 words.

On collection of the envelopes and removal of all experiments only 44 experiments were returned (See appendix 7), resulting in receiving 22 completed submissions from each side of the room, which made the experiment perfectly balanced, with 50% submissions from each group. After counting all of the returned experiments 13 were successfully completed out of the 22 submissions with the 131 word instructions, in comparison to 15 successfully completed entries from the batch with 134 words. Table 4.1 details the statistics, showing the percentages that were complete and the average differences in time that was taken by the two variances. A copy of the individual experiments have been included in Appendix 7 It is interesting to note from a simple experiment with a small amount of additional information, how the additional time required to complete the instruction increased so significantly.

 

Figure 4.1 – Comparison Chart; Primary findings

Source: Author - Primary findings from APM presentation on Introduction to Value Management        first presented on the 22nd May 2014

 

In an attempt to create a pictorial view of the findings, the results were inserted into an Excel spread sheet and were sorted from low to high. These figures were then used to create the graph, shown in Figure 4.1. It is evident by looking at the red area in the centre of the graph, which clearly highlights the reduction of time that was required, by the group that had the additional information. Figure 4.1 illustrates a comparison across the board of how each participant compared to their opposite number ranging from fastest to slowest and Table 4.1 shows the statistics to this experiment in more detail, which is explained in the analysis.

One of the more noticeable points from this experiment is the additional time that was required by the group that received the instruction with only 2% less information.

Table 4.1

 

131

134

Difference in amount of information provided

 

+ 2%

Total Number distributed

22

22

Total number handed back

22

22

Total number completed

13

15

Percentage completed

59%

68%

Total number incomplete in the 15 minute time allowance

9

7

Total percentage incomplete in the 15 minute time allowance

41%

32%

Average amount of time taken to completed

496

323

Difference in time taken from completing instruction 1 and instruction 2

+ 53.6%

 

Comparison Table -

Source: Author - Primary findings from APM presentation on Introduction to Value Management        first presented on the 22nd May 2014

 

The general hypothesis that formed the basis of this experiment was to prove that the group with the more detailed set of instructions would have a higher rate of completion then that of the less detailed instruction. The group working on the more detailed set of instructions would complete the experiment in a shorter time frame and that they would be more accurate in their performance of the task. This hypothesis was proved, however the experiment was not only designed for this purpose, but rather to measure the difference that a small variance could make on the overall outcome of an activity. It can be expected that the less detail that is given in relation to a subject, that the longer an activity will take and the less accurate the delivery of that activity will be. The experiment also takes a quantitative approach; looking at a specific amount of reduced information and forming a ratio between the additional information and the reduced time required to complete an activity, with that additional information.

 

ANALYSIS

The instruction that had 134 words included an additional three words correlating to 2.2% more information than the instruction with 131 words. After review of the completed experiments and reviewing the general workings on the sheets, it is obvious that the participants with the reduced amount of instructions were more frustrated with attempting to complete the task then those participants with the full set of instructions, which can be assumed due to the additional ‘scribbling’ on the experiment sheet. It is also noteworthy that there was a difference of 9% of participants that had the reduced set of instructions, then those whom had the full set of instructions, did not finish the experiment in 15 minutes.

The most surprising result from this experiment was the significant difference in time that was taken to complete the two sets of instructions by the different groups.

By adding just 2.2% additional information to a very short 131 word instruction, made a significant average time impact (54%) from a group of project professionals, who are used to deciphering the meaning from a Scope of Work document and interpreting the wants and needs of Stakeholders.

 

COMMENTS

The event stimulated some strong opinions and some interesting questions, with one individual in particular referring to the differences between Programmes and Projects and advising that on large infrastructure changes, that the programme should be used to deliver the benefit, and the project should only be the enabler and therefore would not be responsible for delivering the benefits; resulting in the Project Manager being able to deliver to the triple constraint. This kind of thinking would work with the European Standard for Value Management (EN12 973), as the standard refers to maximising the organisations performance and talks about developing innovation. This would suggest that smaller projects that are not part of an overriding programme might be the enabler to the business, allowing the business to deliver the benefits and the Project Manager could then deliver to the Project Managers triple constraint.

There was a split in the room as to the management of Value, and if Value should be managed objectively or subjectively. Most people agreed that on condition that there was a consensus between Stakeholders determining the requirement, that an objective approach to the management of that Value could be developed. An example was given by one of the attendees, whereby he stated that a majority vote between Stakeholders would determine the requirement; and this requirement could be managed objectively. 

 

SUMMARY

The results from the experiment, although highlighted the difference between varying amounts of information provided, does not reflect in enough detail, to make any conclusions. In this particular instance, by adding three words to this specific set of instruction, the group with less information took on average 54% longer than the group that had the additional information; however the quality of the information needs to be viewed in context to the set of instructions that are being given. This is not to say that the findings to this experiment are irrelevant in any way, but to note that a different set of instructions with additional information could possibly have the opposite effect. This study does however highlight the need for further surveys and studies to be conducted in this field, as it may be plausible to hypothesise that too much information would also have a detrimental effect to the number of participants completing on time and / or correctly. 

Chapter 5 - DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS

 

INTRODUCTION

It has been noted that during the research of this dissertation that many individuals did not comprehend the difference between project requirements, Scope of Work and project deliverables. It was also noticeable that many individuals struggled with differentiating between delivering Value, benefits and delivering to the Project Managers triple constraint. There did seem to be a definite divide between those people that had some sort of formal training in one or more project / programme /portfolio methodologies and those who did not, but it was also evident that most of the people leaned towards the understanding that the specific methodology that they had been trained in.

The purpose of this dissertation, however is not to focus on who is right and who is wrong and which terminology should be accepted by the project management fraternity; but to focus on the perceived success, as determined by the people most interested in the outcome (Stakeholders) in relation to the amount of information the team managing the work has been given in order to deliver that outcome to the Stakeholder. There is little published on this type of correlation, so in order to bring these two items together the discussions have been focussed around isolated comments in the literature sources, regarding specific points and subsequently aligned to either the case study or the experiment used as the primary data source. Informal interviews and comments made by the attendees at the APM event have also been used, by taking opposing comments and testing them against the conclusions derived from the primary data.

SCOPE OF WORK

The term Scope of Work is used in a broad context and is therefore not being fully defined, this is to assist in expanding on the argument for a wider range of possibilities. After asking a small group of Project professionals how they would define the Scope of Work and what they understood by the term, most of the professionals were in agreement; the Scope of Work is the explanation (usually in writing) that is used to inform the project team of the exact outputs that are expected to be delivered by the project team.

All members of the group agreed that delivering Value or benefits in a project would usually have little relevance to the delivery of the Scope of Work; however, hypocritically most admitted that they believed that delivering Value was the principle intention of all projects. If the project team is not commissioned to deliver Value and only deliver the Scope of Work, then it should be proposed that the creation of that Scope of Work be assembled in such a way that it is built around delivering Value. The group had a diverse understanding of the term requirements and some interchanged this term with Scope, however after further discussion the group became split into two camps. One camp felt the requirements were the project deliverables and identified these as project outputs, with the notion that delivering the Scope of Work was the project team’s requirement.

The other camp viewed the project requirement as the Stakeholder requirement, as they believe that the project team had as much stake in delivering a successful outcome as the Stakeholders themselves.

Further discussions on the development of the Scope of Work identified a clear consensus that all believed that the more detailed a Scope of Work is developed at the onset, the more successful the project would be regardless to the delivery of Value. This opened up the debate on the definition of project success and it was agreed that for the purpose of the debate, project success would be defined as the successful delivery of the Stakeholders wants and needs at the completion of the project. A supplementary discussion regarding who should be responsible for the creation of the Scope of Work created an additional rift within the group and further disagreements came when considering who is responsible for defining the requirements.

There were members of the group that believed that the Scope of Works’ should be built up by an engineering team in the concept phase of a project and should be presented to the project delivery team at a stage gate review, suggesting that the Project Manager may not be qualified in the intricacies of a technical Scope of Work; other members of the group advocated that the concept design should be created by an engineering team. The project team, which would be made up of Project Engineers and a Project Manager, should create the Scope of Work; then there was a third proposition that the project delivery team should be involved in a project from initiation, which would include the gathering of requirements, however most members of the group agreed that this is not usually commercially viable and that members of a project delivery team, may be extremely bored working on a requirements gathering exercise as this could take many months and is not something most delivery professionals enjoy getting involved with.

The final consensus amongst the group, which was strengthened by the comment from John Phillips director of BAM in Leeds, UK, during his presentation at the APM Value Management conference held at Leeds Metropolitan University in May 2014; was that on condition there was some sort of consistency from requirements gathering to delivery that the requirements could easily be interweaved into the Scope of Work resulting in the project having a better opportunity of delivering the Stakeholders wants and needs and ultimately delivering Value.

DELIVERED VALUE

The notion of attempting to deliver Value in a project may be foreign to many Project Managers, as one of the attendees at the Introduction to Value Management presentation at the APM pointed out, that projects deliver outcomes and programmes deliver benefits, therefore a Project Manager may not have any intention of delivering the Value and may only be looking to deliver to the triple constraint of time, cost and quality.

This point can be analysed further, by suggesting that projects are initiated to create the opportunity for the business to realise a benefit. If the business made the decision not to exploit those benefits then the project will have effectively delivered no Value. For example: If a council made the decision to build a block of flats, due to the expectation of an increase in housing requirement over the following years; the construction project building the tower may deliver the project in accordance to the Sponsors requirements, however if the councils expected increase in housing demand was flawed, then there would be a higher cost to benefit ratio, as the block may remain predominantly empty. This does not mean that Value engineering cannot be exercised within the project to allow for a more economical delivery of the Scope of Work, but it does challenge the argument as to the idea of whether a project should be delivering Value or if the project should deliver the output to the business or programme; and then the business should make the decision on how to convert the output into Value.

Martin Barnes, PhD(Past APM President) thought that the Project Managers triple constraint should be adjusted to replace quality with performance, as it can be expected that performance will include quality and Value, which would inadvertently result in the Project Manager working towards delivering the projects intended Value. If this was the case, then there is the possibility that Value will be interweaved into the projects Scope of Works and that just by merely delivering the project Scope to the Project Managers triple constraint that the project team will inadvertently deliver Value.

Taking the experiment into consideration; it is clear that by adding just a few pertinent words (increasing the instruction by just 2%) that the number of successful attempts at completing the experiment increased by 9% and the average time that it took to complete the experiment was increased by 54%. If the assumption is that the instructions that were given in the experiment had been written for the delivery of a project and the supplementary statement contained relevant information that would assist in delivering the Stakeholders wants and needs, then according to the findings of the experiment, this would imply that one out of every ten projects would not have been completed. It would also imply that for each of the projects that were completed, the average time taken would have increased by 150%. This may be interpreted as a flawed assumption, as the three words that had been omitted from the experiment, were extremely pertinent to the successful completion and it may be assumed that by leaving out any other three words the resultant outcome would have been completely different. There is the prospect that by shortening and possibly simplifying the instruction, whilst including the previously omitted words, that more people may have completed the experiment and in a shorter time frame.

Both of these assumptions highlight the importance of developing a detailed and accurate Scope of Work regardless of attempting to include pertinent information and / or exclude irrelevant information. On condition the team delivering the project can easily interpret the instruction and if the Stakeholder’s wants and needs are clearly specified in the Scope of Work then the project team will be in a good position to complete the work on time and within budget allowing the delivered outcome, to perform to the Stakeholders expectations.

CORRELATING SCOPE OF WORK WITH DELIVERED VALUE

There is evidence throughout this dissertation that a correlation exists between the Scope of Work and the delivered Value of all projects. Goodpasture. J (2002); suggests that the completeness of the Scope of Work is directly responsible for the level of project success. He also correlates the projects requirements to the Scope of Work whereby he proposes that an increase in requirements will increase the Scope of Work and visa versa. This point may be argued as a Value Engineering process could determine that an increase in project requirement, may introduce the reduction in the Scope of Work. By including an additional requirement through Value Engineering the Scope of Work maybe reduced. For example a recently delivered rail project had a requirement for all of the Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Tags to be supplied in a locked and non re-programmable state, due to the lack of understanding as to why this was required. There was an interim requirement of purchasing all 1,000 RFID tags at a cost of £135 per tag and installing them to introduce an interim benefit to the company. Prior to the completion of the project the tags are removed, in order to purchase and install a complete new batch with different programing. The requirement was subsequently changed in a Value Engineering safety case exercise whereby these tags were now to be provided unlocked and reprogrammable, hence the end state product would change. This resulted in the additional requirement of the production of a ‘safety case’ that needed to be put in place for all future works on these RFID tags; however this addition to the requirements for this project resulted in the reduction of the overall Scope of Work, as there was no longer the need to replace these tags when transitioning to the ‘end state’, however the requirement had been increased to include the delivery of an addition of a safety case. The process for this workflow is shown in Figure 5.1

Figure 5.1 – RFID Tag Value Management Exercise
Source: Author - Benefits and Value Specific Interest Group presentation - 9th July 2014

This example also points out the correlation between Scope and Value as although there is an increase in ‘end state’ requirements, due to the reduction in the Scope of Work there is also an increase in Value, as these tags can be reprogrammed for many years to come, reducing the risk of obsolescence as the tags can simply be reprogrammed. This indicates that by increasing the requirements in order to reduce the overall Scope of Work may require some sort of innovation to take place.

Bessant. J (2003); Talks about introducing a well established product into a new market as an innovation, which can be aligned with making changes to an established product with the aim of reducing cost, whilst maintaining function, he goes on to make the correlation between innovation and the Value chain management.

Figure 5.2 - Reported main drivers of innovation among broader innovators in construction

Source: BIS Community Innovation Survey (2011) / Department of Business Innovation and skills (2013)

Focusing on the case study detailed in the methodology of this dissertation, there would seem to be a clear correlation between Scope of Work and Value, however it is noteworthy that the Project Manager delivered one of the projects on behalf of the client and employed a contractor to complete the install whereby he was acting on behalf of the subcontractor for the other project and therefore may have had a less information regarding the end users requirements.

The OGC, APM & EN12 973 all state that Value is a subjective term and that various people may define a projects Value, differently. This is evident with the results of the case study, as the Project Manager would have struggled to secure additional funds or resource while delivering for the contractor, as the contractor would see Value as profit.

The client on the other hand would have authorised additional time and funding, if required, on condition a Value case was presented clearly showing an increase in delivered Value by increasing the funding or prolonging the time of the project. Looking at these two projects it is fair to assume that they are dissimilar and that any findings resulting from a comparison will be flawed, however it is also fair to identify the common factors between the projects and analyse this case further.

If emphasis was focussed on the common factors of these two projects; that being the same Project Manager was involved in both projects and both projects were delivered for the same group of Stakeholders (broadly speaking) and that the difference between the two delivery methods were that the Project Manager was effectively the middleman while delivering for the client between the Stakeholders and the contractor, which allowed for a clear communication channel. Then it could be argued that the root cause of failure for the contractor may have been a communication break down in Project A, resulting in the contractor experiencing project failure (Time, Cost & Quality); however as the contractor completed the delivery of the project the client achieved the benefit and ultimately delivered Value.

COMMUNICATION

The experiment that was conducted at the APM presentation (detailed in the methodology and findings of this dissertation), attempted to prove the correlation between effective communications with delivering a small set of requirements. Although the findings were not conclusive, they can be used to strengthen the argument on behalf of the need for accurate communication. A small omission of some pertinent information resulted in a large delay in the delivery of the requirements. Forster. N (2005) discusses the importance of communication and uses the Mars Climate Obiteras example, he illustrates how in this instance, only one word resulted in a $US125 Million blunder, as there were two engineering teams working on the same project, one of the teams were working in imperialmeasurements and the other were working in metric. Adversely it can be proposed that, by locking the Scope of Work down too tightly, that this will reduce the opportunity for the project team to innovate.

 

There are also various methodologies such as Agilethat promotes a cyclic approach and allows for requirements to change throughout the project delivery. A further argument can be made against the notion of locking down the Scope of Work at the beginning of the delivery phase, as it would restrict any Value Engineering exercises that could be achieved throughout the project resulting from advances in technology. Forster, Miles & Kerzner All discuss the importance of clear and concise communication methods and procedures. Miles. L (1972); goes further to state that not only communication breakdowns cause a decrease in delivered Value, but friction between human beings resulting in the cause of unnecessary costs.

 

This introduces another variable, as it can be expected that people may interpret the same piece of written information differently depending on their state of mind, therefore even if the additional pertinent information is included and all of the additional non essential information has been omitted from the Scope of Work; there is still the possibility that depending on the harmony within the team the Scope of Work may be interpreted differently by the team or by individual members of the team.

 

Assuming that the primary purpose of the Scope of Work is to inform the projects delivery team of the activities that are required to be completed in order to effectively and efficiently deliver the project requirements to the projects Stakeholders. A further assumption can be made that this document should be as concise and accurate as possible, in order for the possibilities of misinterpretation or error to be reduced.

Cortex (2014) In 1998 a French computer manufacturer, Bull, commissioned an independent study relating to the causes of IT project failure, in the financial sector of the UK. The study concluded that bad communication was the major cause for nearly 60% of all failed IT projects in the study. Figure 5.3 depicts the remaining causes, but clearly shows communication as being the leading cause of failure.

Although this dissertation is focusing on construction projects it is interesting to note the importance placed on communication across other industries.

Figure 5.3 – Major Causes of Project Failure

Source - IT Cortex.com

 

 

 

 

VALUE MANAGEMENT

It may be expected that if there is no specific process attributed to managing the Value of a project that the Value will not be managed independently or specifically in that project. This is not to say that the project will not deliver Value, only to suggest that the Value will not be managed. The phrase All function is cost” is accredited to the founder of the Value Management process, Lawrence Miles (1904 – 1985). This being the case, should it not therefore be expected that the function of the projects deliverable be included in the Scope of Work; for example, if the Scope of Work was to read: Install widget A and complete testing procedure B to ensure optimal function, as detailed in appendices C is the outcome. By ensuring that the project outcome is included in the projects Scope of Work, may invariably ensure that the project delivers the required and expected Value.

Both Tassinari and Goodpasture allude to the point that, by reducing the resource required on a project will lead to the increase in Value, however both authors mention a further element in managing Value, by suggesting that a reduction in resource will not necessarily result in increased Value.  Tassinari. R (1995) states that Value (or the perception of Value) escalates by increasing the Stakeholders satisfaction while decreasing the resource required to deliver the product.

Goodpasture. J (2004); offers the notion that Value is a balance between resource, risk and quality going on to state that all projects are created for the benefit of the organisation and that a truly successful Project Manager would understand this. It is clear to see the correlation between these two authors, as the quality and risk related to delivering the project will almost always be proportional to the Stakeholder satisfaction.

Taking the experiment, discussed in the methodology, into account, there seems to be a relationship between the Scope of Work and the delivered Value, as it is evident that additional time was required to complete the task that had less information, which may be interpreted as an increase in resource and it is also evident that there was a 10% increase in unfinished tasks which may be compared to a level of expected quality. Taking both of these factors into account, it is clear to see that by supplying a reduced amount of pertinent information that there is a higher probability of not achieving the targeted Value.

Kerzner. H (2014); Suggests that it is critical to get the timing correct and that there is often a trade off between quality and quantity, he also suggests that the option of not using Value based project management for projects of lesser intensity, should be available.

BENEFIT REALISATION

The APM (2012) have included the benefit realisation stage into their extended project lifecycle in their latest edition of the BoK. This should allow for a fair assessment to be made of the delivered Value obtained on completion of the project.

It will however be difficult to manage, due to the whole product life of most construction projects, the project teams will have been reassigned to other projects long before all of the benefits are actually realised. By including the benefits realisation into the project lifecycle it would also add further costs regarding the fact that the project would then be required to pay for this process and prolongation. These costs would also be required to be included in the benefits realisation analysis. 

This scenario is best summed up by referring to a question that was asked by one of the members of the Benefits and Value SIG of a large government organisation; whereby he points out that at the close out stage of a project, which is usually up to 12 months after project completion, all funds are transferred, as the project is closed. In the event that the product delivered by the infrastructure project has a whole life expectancy of around 40 years, and an expected return on investment (ROI) within 5 - 10 years – He asks where the funds will come from to pay for the analysis at the end of the 5 - 10 year expected benefit realisation phase.  

It can be argued that a benefit projection can be determined by what was achieved in the first 12 months and trends can be created to estimate the remaining years. The project team can only be expected to deliver the work packages as detailed in the Scope of Work, which would suggest that if the potential benefits were not detailed in the Scope of work, the project team might not even be aware of the existence of this requirement.

 

Figure 5.4 - APM Product Life Cycle

Source: APM BoK (2012)

 

SUMMARY

Looking at the case studies and the experiment that was conducted at the event hosted by the APM, it is evident that there is no simple analogy that can be adopted. It is suggested that by changing the Project Managers triple constraint to include performance, would allow for the inclusion of Value in the Scope of Work; and subsequently encourage the Project Manager to manage the expected Value in the daily activity.

Further discussions regarding the importance of communicating clearly were touched on with the inclusion of the people factor. The people factor was not fully analysed in this instance, as it is expected that with further scrutiny, that this will open up several additional people related factors, which may remove focus from the main topic. There seem to be two main schools of thought in relation to a Scope of Work, one being that the Scope of Work should be locked down and that the project team should deliver only what is identified within the Scope of Work and the other suggesting that the Scope of Work should be a live document and continually revisited to allow for the inclusion or removal of work as and when required. This approach would make it difficult to be consistent in the controlling the Project Managers triple constraint, but may encourage the project team to manage the Stakeholders’ expected Value. 

Chapter 6 - CONCLUSION

 

INTRODUCTION

By reviewing all of the literature and research that has been completed in relation to this dissertation, there is evidence to assume that the original hypothesis is correct; however the intention of this research was not only to prove this hypothesis, but to determine the level of correlation that there is between the Scope of Work and the delivered Value of a construction project. As it is generally accepted that each project will be unique in one way or another, then it can also be assumed that each projects requirement’s and intended Value will also be unique and will therefore vary from one project to the next.

 

Although many conclusions have been drawn from the research and findings of this dissertation, there are variables that were not included and thus suggesting that the quantitative results included in this dissertation, may not have a high degree of accuracy. The results that were attained may be used in the future as a platform for further and more in depth study, by making use of a larger test group, increasing the number of variables and by fluctuating the experiment to allow for flexible abilities of the respondents.   

 

CORRELATING SCOPE OF WORK WITH DELIVERED VALUE

Throughout most of the discussions held with many of the project professionals during research for this dissertation, the general consensus was; that although delivering Value and seeing evidence of achieving a Value based result increases job satisfaction and motivation, the attentiveness when working on a project is usually focussed on delivering the project to the Project Manager’s triple constraint. There is evidence of a correlation between the Scope of Work and the delivered Value of a project. The project team may have very little control over the manner in which the business would intend to extrapolate that Value from the output delivered by the project. The variance between the delivered Value and the intended Value will ultimately be a business decision and outside of the Project Managers control. There is also evidence of the correlation between the quantity and quality of the information supplied in the Scope of Work, the more information that the project team have been given regarding the projects requirements, the better the chances are of delivering Value to the Stakeholders.

 

There is however multiple factors that plays pivotal roles to varying degrees of importance when attempting to deliver Value. Too explain; it is best to revert back to the definition of a project whereby most literature including that of, Maylor, The APM, The PMI & PRINCE2 define a project as unique and temporary endeavour, with a beginning and an end. This would suggest that there are never two identical projects. If a project is unique, it can be expected that the requirements will also differ from one project to another accordingly.

There are some projects that may benefit from continuous requirement changes, throughout the delivery duration, however from the research completed for this project, it would seem that most (if not all) construction projects would benefit more from a full and complete set of requirements prior to the onset of any delivery work. It is also evident that it is not always possible to fix the requirements of construction projects, due to varying influences from sources external to the project. It was also evident that the more pertinent the information that is included in the Scope of Work, the greater the probability of achieving all of the requirements set out by the project sponsor. In the same respect it should also be noted that by leaving out excessive non-essential information would have a positive effect on the project team trying to manage the Scope of Work, as non-essential information can lead to confusion and a reduction in team moral. It was observed that there is a correlation between the delivery of the project Scope of Work and delivering to the Project Manager’s triple constraint. The research findings showed that a more detailed and clear set of instructions is carried out more efficiently, in a shorter time frame and with fewer mistakes, strongly suggesting that a good clear communication structure should be utilised when delivering a project, with Forster, Miles & Kerzner all agreeing on the importance with relation to communications and the negative effects a bad communication strategy can have when delivering a project. 

 

Perhaps one of the anomalies that has been highlighted by this dissertation, is the point made in the EN12973 regarding developing innovation within the project team. Bessant, Anthony, Cerqueiro & Fernandes all support an innovative approach amongst team members. Encouraging innovation early on in the project will allow for the project team to question the requirements and to discuss the expected Value resulting from each requirement. The APM BoK (2012) state that the four initial steps to Value Management are Framing, Gathering, Analysing & Processing; although the APM have the expectation that these steps should be completed at a high level within the organisation, the step suggested in relation to the analysing phase, can be carried out with the project team as an innovation exercise, resulting in mid project Scope changes. The APM suggest that each requirement is analysed to ensure that they all have Value and that any requirement that may not sustain sufficient Value, could be re-examined and possibly removed. It can be expected that if a requirement was to be removed that there is a strong likelihood that the Scope of Work will be reduced.

 

It can be expected that any innovation or Value study that is conducted during project delivery, will result in a Scope change, which will need to be analysed within the constraints of the project governance environment, in most Project Management Office (PMO) environments a change to the Scope of Work will result in process and authorisation delays; which may have the knock on effect of delaying the project completion date and effectively reducing the delivered Value.    

 

 

SUMMARY

A clear concise well-written and well document Scope of Work, that includes all of the relevant Stakeholder requirements and allows for the delivery and realisation of the intended Value of the project prior to contract award is ambitious and in most cases not plausible. There is most certainly a correlation between the projects Scope of Work and the delivered Value of that project, but this can only be achieved through a myriad of on-going discussions throughout the delivery of the project, taking into account the multiple changes that the project will be subjected to from inception to completion, which may include internal and external influences, thus resulting in constant review and update (if required) of the Scope of Work document, throughout the lifecycle of the project.

 

If the Scope of Work has considered the required and expected Value and has included a provision for the Project Manager to assess the progress of delivering Value, then it will result in a much stronger possibility of the project delivering the Stakeholders intended outcome, however these factors should be reviewed regularly throughout the project, taking into account any (internal or external) influencing factors, such as an impending recession.

 

In the same respect, it can be considered that if the Scope of Work is incomplete, unclear or just insufficient and not updated throughout the project lifecycle, then it can be expected that there will be a reduction in delivered Value. The level and depth of the required Scope of Work should be considered in the concept stage taking account of any possible changes or external impacts to the project. These factors should be utilised during the creation of the Scope of Work, progressed and constantly reviewed through the project lifecycle.

 

Perhaps the most important argument for this dissertation is that if the Value ratio is not included in the Scope of Work, then the project team will not be aware of the potential benefits of the project and cannot be aware of the Value that they are attempting to achieve. There may be a definite correlation between the projects Scope of Work and the delivered Value, but this will serve very little purpose and have no impact, if the projects outcome requirements (benefits) are not included within the Scope of Work.

 

After reviewing the findings of the experiment, the discussions with many project professionals and looking at the various case studies sited in this dissertation, the most salient issue that is highlighted relating to any sort of project failure points at a lack of communication. If the Scope of Work is utilised as a form of communicating the projects deliverables and in addition to allow for a communication channel delivering the wants and needs of the stakeholders and the sponsor’s requirements; then it can be suggested that the more pertinent the information that is included in the Scope of Work, regarding the expected outcome of the project, that the higher the probability that the project team will deliver the expected Value.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A

1.          APM (2012); Body of Knowledge 6th Edition – ©Association for Project Managers 2012

2.          Adair. J (2013); How to grow leaders, the seven key principle of effective leadership development – Kogan Page

3.          Anthony. S (2012); The little Black book of Innovation, How it works, How to do it Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation

4.          Arts. J & Van lamoen. F (2004); Before EIA; Defining the Scope of infrastructure projects in The Netherlands – Imperial College Press

5.          Alyami. A. M (2012); Advanced topics in Value Management CE-610 – King Saud University Engineering College, Civil Engineering Department

B

1.          Brown. J (2008); The Handbook of Program Management; How to facilitate Project success with Optimal program management – McGraw Hill

2.          Buchanan. D & Huczynski. A (2010); Organizational Behaviour 7th Edition- Pearson Education Ltd.

3.          Belbin. R (2004); Management Teams, why they succeed or fail 2nd Edition – Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann

4.          Bessant. J (); High –Involvement Innovation, building and sustaining competitive advantage through continuous change – John Wiley & Sons Ltd

5.          Bavister. S & Vickers. A (2010); Teach yourself essential NLP – Macmillan

6.          Burnes. B (2009); Managing Change, 5th edition – Pearson Education Ltd

7.          Baguley. P (2012); Project management, Instant Manager, taking control of work and life – Hodder and Stoughton educational

8.          Bryson. J (2011); Strategic planning, For public and non profit organisations, A guide to strengthening and sustaining organisational achievement, 4th edition – John Wiley & Sons Inc.

9.          Buehler. R, Griffin. D and Ross. M (1995); Exploring the "Planning Fallacy": Why People Underestimate their Task Completion Times - Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

10.       Burns. N Groves. S (2011) Understanding Nursing Research: Building an Evidence-Based Practice, 5th edition. – Elsevier Saunders

11.       Bigand. B, Yannou & C. A. Davy (2004); Value creation and Management in a graduate engineering school – International Engineering and product design education conference

12.       Bone. C & Law. M (not dated); Value Management – The best practice approach for maximising productivity, performance & Value for money – Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)

C

1.          Cialdini. R PhD (2007); Influence, The psychology of Persuasion, Revised edition – Harper Collins Publishers

2.          Caregie. D (2006); How to win friends and influence people – Vermilion

3.          Christopher. M (1994); Logistics and supply chain Management – Irwin professional publishing

4.          Callahan. K & Brooks. L (2004); Essentials of strategic project Management – John Wiley and Sons Inc.

5.          Covey. S (2012); The seven habits of highly effective people – Rosetta Books

6.          Clancy. T (1995); Chaos - The Standish Group Report

7.          Cooke Davis. T (2002); The ‘‘real’’ success factors on projects – International Journal of Project Management

8.          Cerqueiro. J, Lopez. L & Pose. J (2011); A proposal to incorporate the Value Analysis / Value Engineering techniques into a PLM system – International conference on innovation methods in product design

9.          Cortex. IT (15.45 – 22/06/2014) - http://www.it-cortex.com/Stat_Failure_Cause.htm

D

1.          DeMarco. T & Lister. T (2003); Waltzing with Bears, managing risk on software projects – Dorset House Publishing Co Inc.

2.          De Bono. E (1990); Lateral thinking for Management – Penguin Books

3.          Davies. R & Davies. A (2011); Value Management, Translating aspirations into performance – Gower Publishing Limited

4.          Dallas. M (2006); Value and Risk Management, A guide to best Practice – Blackwell publishing

5.          Duhigg. C (2012); The Power of Habit, Why we do what we do and how to change – William Heinemann

6.          De Wit. A (1988); Measurement of Project Success – Butterworth & Co (Publishers) Ltd

7.          Department of Business Innovation and skills (2013) - UK Construction: An economic analysis of the sector

 

 

E

1.          Englund. R, Graham. R & Dinsmore. P (2003); Creating the project office, A Managers Guide to leading organisational change - John Wiley & Sons Inc.

2.          European committee for standardisation (2000); EN12973 European standard for Value Management - CEN

F

1.          Field. M & Keller. L (1998) Project management - The open University

2.          Fisher. R, Ury. W & Patton. B (2011); Getting to Yes, negotiating an agreement without giving in – The random House Group

3.          Forster. N (2005); Maximum Performance, A practical guide to leading and managing people at work – Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd

4.          Fageha. M & Aibinu. A (2012); Managing project Scope definition to improve Stakeholders participation and enhance project outcome – Elsevier

5.          Flyvbjerg. B, Garbuio.M & Lovallo. D (2009); Delusion and deception in large infrastructure projects – Emerald Insight

6.          Fernandes. M. T (2012); Value Creation and how it relates to technology and cultural innovation – SAVE International

 

G

1.          Gardiner. P (2005); Project Management, a Strategic Planning Approach - Palgrave Macmillan

2.          Goffin. K & Mitchell. R (2010); Innovation Management, Strategy and implementation using the pentathlon framework 2nd Edition – Palgrave Macmillan

3.          Gerber. M (1995); The E-Myth Revisited, Why most small businesses don’t work and what to do about it – Harper Collins Publishing

4.          Goldacre. B (2009); Bad Science – Harper Collins Publishers

5.          Goleman. D (1999); Working with emotional intelligence – Bloomsbury Publishing PLC

6.          Gold. J, Thorpe. R & Mumford. A (2012); Leadership and Management Development, 5th Edition – Charted institute of personnel & development

7.          Goodpasture. J (2002); Managing Projects for Value, Project Management essential diary – Project Management Institute

8.          Görög. M (2011); Translating single project management knowledge to project programs – Wiley online library

H

1.          Hamilton. A (2004); Handbook of Project Management Procedures - Thomas Telford Publishing

2.          Hamilton. A (2001); Considering Value during early project development: a product case study – Elsevier (International journal Project Management)

3.          Harvard Business Essentials (2004); managing Projects Large and Small, The fundamental skills for delivering on budget and on time – Harvard business school publishing

4.          Harding. J (2012); Avoiding Project failures, recognise these key project failure modes, so that corrective action can be taken – Chemical engineering (www.CHE.com)

5.          Harding. J (2014); Seven tools for project success – Chemical Engineering (www.CHE.com)

6.          HM Treasury (2003); The Green Book (Treasury Guidance) – London TSO

7.          Hyatali. N & Pun. K. F (2011); Value Management in academic libraries – The journal of the association of Professional Engineers of Trinidad and Tobago

J

1.          Johnson. G, Whittington. R & Scholes. K (2011); Exploring Strategy text & Cases 9th Edition – Prentice Hall

2.          Jones. P (2008); Communicating Strategy – Gower Publishing Company

K

1.          Kerzner. H PhD (2009) Project Management, A systems approach to planning scheduling and controlling – John Wiley & Sons Inc.

2.          Kerzner. H PhD (2000); Applied Project Management, best practices on implementation – John Wiley and Sons Inc.

3.          Kerzner. H PhD (2001); Strategic Planning for project Management, using a project management maturity model – John Wiley & Sons Inc.

4.          Kerzner. H PhD (2014); Project Management Best Practices, achieving global excellence, 3rd edition - Wiley

5.          Kennedy. G (2003): Perfect Negotiation, All you need to get it right first time – Random house

6.          Kelly. J, Male. S & Graham. D (2004); Value Management of construction projects – Blackwell Publishing

7.          Kouzes. J & Posner. B (2007); The Leadership Challenge, the most trusted source on becoming a better leader, 4th edition – John Wiley & Sons Inc.

8.          Khan. A (2006); Project Scope Management – Cost Engineering

9.          KPMG Survey (2005); http://www.kpmg.com.au/Portals/0/irmpmqa-global-it-pm-survey2005.pdf

L

1.          Lock. D (2007); Project Management 9th Edition – Gower Publishing Ltd.

2.          Levitt. T (2004); Marketing Myopia – Harvard Business school Publishing

3.          Leung M. Y, Kong. S.N (Not dated); Identifying key competencies of VM facilitators based on international standards – Department of construction City University Hong Kong

4.          Lampel. J, Mintzberg. H, Quinn. J & Ghoshal. S (2014); The Strategy Process, Concepts, contexts, cases, 5th edition – Pearson Education Limited

5.          Liker. J & Convis. G (2012); The Toyota way to Lean leadership, achieving and sustaining excellence through leadership development – McGraw hill books

M

1.          Morris. P (1997); The Management of Projects – Thomas Telford Publishing

2.          Marsh. D (2002); The project and programme support office Handbook, Volume 1 Foundation – Project Manager today Publishers

3.          Meredith. J & Mantel. Samuel (2010); Project management, a managerial approach, Student version, 7th Edition – John Wiley & Sons Inc.

4.          Martin. J & Fellenz. M (2010); Organizational behaviour and management, 4th Edition – South western Cengage Learning

5.          Maylor. H (2010); Project management, 4th Edition – Pearson Education limited

6.          Mullins. L (2010); Management and Organisational Behaviour, 9th Edition – Pearson Education Limited

7.          Mirza. M, Pourzolfaghar. Z & Shahnazari. M (2013); Significance of Scope in project success – Elsevier

8.          Male. S Kelly. J, Gronqvist. M & Graham. D (2007); Managing Value as a management style for projects – Elsevier (International journal of Project Managers)

9.          Male. S Kelly. J, Gronqvist. M & Graham. D (2007); A re-appraisal of Value methodologies in construction – No publishing identification

10.       Mitchell. C A (2013); Developing a standard approach to the Value Engineering process for the Civil Engineering Industry: A Theoretical, Case Study and Industry perspective – Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT)

11.       Miles. M (1972); Techniques of Value Analysis and Engineering, 2nd Edition – McGraw-Hill Book Company

 

 

O

1.          Office of Government Commerce (2010); Management of Value - TSO

P

1.          Pennypacker. J (2002); The Value of Project management – Centre of business practices, PM Solutions

2.          Porter. M (2004); Competitive Advantage, creating and sustaining superior performance – Free Press

3.          Parker. D (Not dated); A White paper on Value Engineering – No publisher’s reference.

R

1.          Rayner. P & Reiss. G (2013); Portfolio and Programme Management Demystified 2nd Edition – Routledge

2.          Rad. P & Levin. G (2002); The advanced Project Management Office, A comprehensive look at function and implementation – CRC Press

3.          Reiss. G (2003); Project management Demystified, Todays tools and techniques, 2nd Edition – Taylor & Francis

4.          Ross. G (2006); Trump style negotiation, powerful strategies and tactics for mastering every deal – John Wiley & Sons Inc.

S

1.          Sutherland. S (2007); Irrationality – Pinter and Martin Ltd.

2.          Simms. J (2012); The top 10 topics on being a successful Sponsor – TOP

3.          Sanjuan. A & Froese. T (2012); The application of project management standards and success factors to the development of a project management assessment tool – Elsevier

4.          Sangwon Han, SangHyun Lee and Feniosky Peña-Mora (2012); Identification and Quantification of Non-Value-Adding Effort from Errors and Changes in Design and Construction Projects Journal of construction engineering and management

5.          Shen. G. Q. P (Dr.) – Editor (2002); Journal of Value Management – The Hong Kong Institute of Value Management

6.          Swetnam. D & Swetnam. R (2009); writing your dissertation, The bestselling guide to planning, preparing and presenting first class work 3rd edition – How to Books Ltd.

 

 

T

1.          Turner. J (2009); The Handbook of Project based Management; Leading Strategic Change in Organisations – The McGraw Hill Companies, Inc.

2.          Tracy. B (2003); Be a sales superstar, 21 great ways to sell more, faster, easier in tough markets – Berrett Koehler Publishers Inc.

3.          Tannen. D (2010); You Just don’t understand, women and men in conversation – Virago Press

4.          Tidd. J & Bessant (2009); Managing Innovation, Integrating technological, market and organizational change 4th Edition – John Wiley & Sons Inc.

5.          Tek. O. H. (Not dated) Quality and Value Management in Construction - Unpublished

V

1.          Verner. J & Abdulah. L (2011); Exploratory case study research: Outsourced project failure – Elsevier.

2.          Verhoef. M PhD, Hilsden. R MD MSc FRCPC (2001); Writing an effective research proposal - University of Calgary

W

1.          Wolmar. C (2004); The subterranean Railway, How the London Underground was built and how it changed the city forever – Atlantic Books

2.          Wing. R (2000); The Art of strategy; A New translation of Sun Tzu’s classic, The Art of War – Broadway Books

Y

1.          Young. T (2010); Successful Project Management, Develop effective skills, manage the risks, use tried and tested techniques, 3rd Edition – Kogan Page Limited 


WORK HISTORY

ASTAD Project Management - QATAR, Doha

 

London Underground Limited 

 

NHS Homerton Trust

 

M J Quinn

 

Wingate

 

Tube Lines Limited

 

RBEBS Limited Various

 

eVentFil Closed Corporation 

 

Filtra (Pty) LTD