Analysis of Methodology for Managing Projects: PRINCE2 - Case Study Example

Project Management Name Course Name and Code Instructor’s Name Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Part 1: PRINCE2 3 Starting up a Project (SU) 4 Directing a Project 4 Initiating a Project (IP) 4 Managing Stage Boundaries (SB) 4 Controlling a Stage (CS) 5 Managing Product Delivery (MP) 5 Closing a Project (CP) 6 Planning (PL) 6 Part 2: Comparison PRINCE2 vs. PMBOK 7 Part 3: The Channel Tunnel Project 9 Lessons Learned 12 References 13 Introduction Project Management is an important component in ensuring that a project is completed successful. Projects require numerous factors ranging from planning to handing over the completed project. The aim of this paper is to analyse PRINCE2 has a methodology for managing projects. In addition, PRINCE2 method will be compared to PMBOK to analyse how it contributes to completion of projects. The paper finalises through analysing The Channel Tunnel Project has an engineering project. Part 1: PRINCE2 PRINCE stands for Projects in Controlled Environments and was created to assist in management of projects. The origin of PRINCE is traced to PROMPTII, which was developed by Simpact Systems Ltd in 1975. The Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency, which was later named Office of Government of Commerce, adopted PROMPTII. In 1989, PRINCE methodology was adopted by the government and utilised as a standard for government projects (Office of Government Commerce, 2002). However, because of changes within business environment and advancement in technology, PRINCE2 was launched in 1996 and was used by the United Kingdom as a means of managing government projects. Generally, PRINCE2 is a standardised project management tool that is commonly used by both the government and private sector. PRINCE2 methodology is a crucial technique in managing projects. It has provided numerous measures and guidelines into ensuring that a project is successful. PRINCE2 has eight distinct stages that helps in management of a project. Starting up a Project (SU) This is the first phase in PRINCE2, whereby pre-project process and prerequisites for a project are identified. This information is obtained from Project Mandate in which the reason for the project is defined and why the project is required. Some of the information collected on this stage includes the project brief, quality expectations, project approach, risk log and initiation stage plan. Directing a Project This phase is continuous from starting the project (Starting up a Project) to project closure. This stage is important for Project Board since they are responsible for the project and they are required to manage the project through monitoring via reports, through exception and managing controls through decisions points. Some of the activities that should be fulfilled by Project Board includes stage boundaries, initiation, ad hoc direction and project closure (Office of Government Commerce, 2002). Initiating a Project (IP) Objectives of this stage include planning and costing the project, definition of product quality, documentation and confirmation of business case, justification of investment, encouraging the Project Board to own the product, provision for baseline decision making and agree to commitment of resources. All these information are contained in Project Initiation Document. There are also three important blank documents that are created, which are the quality log, the issue log, and the lessons learned log. Managing Stage Boundaries (SB) This process provides foundation in which the Project Board will base its decisions and utilise it in determining whether the project should proceed or not (Office of Government Commerce, 2002). The aim of this process is provide information to determine whether the project is viable, record lessons learned, ensure the information earlier collected are conclusive and provide the Project Board with enough information that may allow for authorisation of next stage. Some of the products of this phase include revised project plan, revised business case, lessons learned log, current stage plans, end stage report and exceptional plans. Controlling a Stage (CS) This phase defines the control and monitoring activities of Project Manger, which includes allocation of work, managing stage and reacts towards unexpected events (PRNCE2, 2013). This is an important part for a Project Manager since it defines daily activities and guides the project towards success. This stage involves cycles, which includes watching for changes, reviewing of situation, authorising work to be done, collection of progress information and reporting (DBERR, 2007). Moreover, some of the products that are produced include highlight reports, an updated risk log, work packages and project issues. Another important document may include exception report. Managing Product Delivery (MP) This process provides means in which planned products are created and delivered. Some of the activities that are accomplished within this phase include negotiating details of work packages, effective authorisation and agreement of allocated tasks, ensuring that work is done, ensuring that works conforms with quality requirements and obtaining approval for completed tasks. Moreover, some of products that are created at this stage include risk log updates, team plans, quality log updates, checkpoint reports and project issues (Office of Government Commerce, 2002). Closing a Project (CP) The process allows Project Manager to end the product either according to the requirements of the project or prematurely. Most of the activities at this stage are for the project manager to inform the Project Board regarding the request for the project closure (Office of Government Commerce, 2002). Some of the tasks that are supposed to be completed include conforming whether Project Initiation Document requirements are met, confirmation of project sponsor’s acceptance of the product, confirmation of operation and maintenance arrangements, archive the project files and prepare an end project report. Planning (PL) Planning is an important requirement, which is important and is repeatable process over time (Office of Government Commerce, 2002). Planning plays an crucial role in other process which include Accepting a Work Package, Updating a Project Plan, Planning a Project, Planning an Initiation Stage, and Producing an Exception Plan. The following diagram summarises the above stages/processes. Part 2: Comparison PRINCE2 vs. PMBOK PRINCE2 and PMBOK methodologies appreciate the importance of organizational culture and portfolio context in which certain project should be commissioned. PMBOK understands knowledge of individual’s availabilities and human resources pool is important in accomplishing a project (Office of Government Commerce, 2002). Conversely, PRINCE2 considers that enterprise environmental factors should be designed into the process model in that before commissioning the project, it is important to include all important components to the project team. Moreover, PRINCE2 acknowledges established procedures and proactive oversight is required to ensure that quality is management and risks are mitigated. Organisational process assets are recognised by both methodologies in that lessons learned from previous projects and corporate processes should be factored into ensuring the current project is successful (Project Management Institute, 2000). The PMBOK regards contract and procurement administration as important components of a project but PRINCE2 regards these tasks as specialists and does not provide guidance in these sections. From this analysis, it is evident that PRINCE2 methodology basis its foundation in the public sector. In addition, these two methodologies provide guidelines in ways in which certain activities should be accomplished. PRINCE2 provides seven processes while PMBOK provides nine knowledge areas (Project Management Institute, 2000). These are the features of knowledge that guides each method’s process towards accomplishment of the project. In these guidelines, there are several differences and major overlaps and both of them recognise quality and risks as important factors for any project. Moreover, both methods recognise some components within the knowledge areas can be traded (Office of Government Commerce, 2002). The important factors championed by PMBOK include schedule, scope, quality and cost, which are recognised as important knowledge areas. While PRINCE2 recognises cost, risk, quality, benefits and scope as the important processes in determining project performance and are utilised in gauging the project. These knowledge areas can be utilised in areas such as change control and planning. Regarding responsibilities and roles, the PMBOK recognises three main roles: the sponsor, the project manager, and the PMO. The role of the project manager is clearly identified, the sponsor is identified as a cursory manner. PRINCE2 clarifies that responsibilities and roles should be clearly identified and allocated. PRINCE2 recognises four main roles, which are Senior Suppliers, Senior Users, Project Executive and project manager. These four main roles are clearly identified and detailed in that there will be no conflict of interest or misunderstandings (Project Management Institute, 2000). Other optional associated with PRINCE2 include project support, change authority, team managers and Project Board. Project requirements are also addressed by both methods. According to PMBOK, it is important to collect the information in early phase of the project (Office of Government Commerce, 2002). The responsibility is left to the project manager and the person will be held accountable for any incorrect or incomplete information (Project Management Institute, 2000). According to PRINCE2, all information for the project is contained in the Project Product Description, which contains what should be deliver, acceptance criteria and quality expectations. In PRINCE2 method, Senior Users are accountable for completeness or correctness of the Product Descriptions and Project Product Description. Part 3: The Channel Tunnel Project The Channel Tunnel is an undersea rail tunnel that links United Kingdom with France. The 50.5 kilometre rail links Folkestone in United Kingdom with Coquelles in France. The Chunnel Tunnel carries international rail freight trains, Eurotunnel Shuttle and Eurostar passenger trains. The ideas of such tunnel began in 1802 but because of press pressure and British political requirements that national security could be compromised, the idea was shelved (Institution of Civil Engineers, 1989). Eventually, the project began in 1988 and it was completed in 1994. The project took a longer time while the cost was beyond the budget. Moreover, after its completion, the tunnel has faced numerous challenges and complications ranging from illegal migrants to fires. Even though the project was completed, issues associated with failures and success existed. Since its implementation stage, numerous challenges were in place such as not agreeing in details of the project resulting in delay of the project and the additional costs (Harrison, 2004). For example, during the design stage, rolling stock were not designed (freight cars and vehicles) while no contingency funds were set aside for any eventualities. Ventilation system is an example of eventuality that occurred resulting in increase in cost of the project. Moreover, the rolling stock from United Kingdom side was not the same with those rolling stone from France. In addition, Intergovernmental Commission (IGC) approved designs that were not comparable to original concession (Pierre-Jean, 2013). Generally, analysing these initial and planning problems, it is evident that numerous failures were reported and thus the planning stage was not successful. Budgeting and economic sense was not considered and it resulted in numerous shortcomings towards the project. For example, return on investments was not considered and many stakeholders and investors were not happy (Project Management Institute, 2013). Moreover, such planning including cost estimation, resource planning was not within existing specifics. Contractual errors existed that affected immensely on the cost of the project while objectives and scope of the project were not thought well. The objectives, real goals and scope were defined by the bankers and not contractors meaning that the bankers were just after ‘their money’ rather than the benefits and impact of the project. Regarding budgeting and financial requirements, it may be assumed that the project was not 100% successful. From project management perspective, contracts are inherent in any procurement management process. This is because contracts define cost, scope of work, rules of engagement and timeline. Moreover, mitigation and risks planning are important and thus should be accounted for exhaustively. Material risks are quantifiable, identifiable and if prioritised at an early stage, risk response measures will be in place to ensure the project is successful. Even though accidents were reported, measures were in place to ensure that they were mitigated on time. Therefore, contractual requirements and approach were successful Another aspect that was successful was the requirement to have a tunnel. In total, three tunnels were in place, the tunnel was completed three months on schedule. Therefore, the project was successful and may be attributed to contractors and human resource that was in place. Moreover, since the requirements for quality were championed, the quality of the tunnel was above board because of quality assurance, quality planning, and quality control since they were defined up front. More than fifteen thousand people were involved in the construction and hence the section of management was successful. Another factor that contributed to the failure of the project was communication and scope creep. Communication was cross-cultural since it was an exchange between two countries that utilised two international languages. Defining and scheduling of the tasks and also exchange of views contributed to the delay and misunderstandings during the project. In addition, scope creep had not been planned for which contributed to delay and increase in cost. The scope of the project was not fully assessed and measures to control the scope or mitigate the scope were not in place and hence contributed towards some challenges within the project. Even though there were original research on soil and level, over emphasising on the project resulted in numerous frustrations that affected the end product. From these analyses, it is evident that communication and scope creep contributed in challenges experienced during construction and after construction. Post construction also is an important aspect that was not addressed conclusively during the design stage and during the business case. The original plan was to for constructing the tunnel was to generate more revenues by driving ferry operators out of service. However, what was not planned was that the ferry operators had their plans. The analysis that the ferry services could be discontinued because of competition was not though well since the ferries improved service and prices making them to retain the market share (Fayman and Metge, 1995). Moreover, additional budget airlines that provided cheaper air services were commissioned between France and United Kingdom. This means that it is important to analyse the outcome of strategy by thinking how competitors will react towards competition. Project management were confident on the project and they did not factor financial problems, construction cost overruns and optimistic revenue projections that were not viable since they did not think of plan B of reaching London from Paris and vice versa (Hay, Meredith and Vickerman, 2004). Therefore, according to PRINCE2 methodology, business case is an important phase and this project should have utilised this approach in determining whether the project could be successful or a failure. Even though the project was successful, since the original requirement of drilling a tunnel and providing means of movement from United Kingdom to France and vice versa were achieved numerous failures were noted. Failures were reported in budget, time and return on investments on the project. Lessons Learned From this project, some of the important lessons learned include: Effective and efficient communication is important in ensuring a project is successful Initially planning and directing are important to ensure success of the project Contingency measures should be in place to mitigate any threats that may occur Business case should be addressed extensively before proceeding with any project References DBERR. 2007. Guidelines for Managing Projects. Available at http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file40647.pdf Fayman, S., and Metge, P. 1995. The regional impact of the Channel Tunnel: Qualitative and quantitative analysis. European Planning Studies vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 333. Harrison, M. (10 February 2004). Eurotunnel calls for government support after record £1.3bn loss. The Independent (UK). Retrieved 23 February 2013. Hay, A., Meredith, K., and Vickerman, R. 2004. The Impact of the Channel Tunnel on Kent. Available at http://www.kent.ac.uk/economics/documents/research/SummaryReport.pdf 23 February 2013 Institution of Civil Engineers (1989). The Channel Tunnel. London: Thomas Telford Office of Government Commerce. 2002. PRINCE2. London: The Stationery Office Pierre-Jean, P. Channel Tunnel: Tunnel's Construction. pagesperso-orange.fr. Retrieved 23 February 2013-02-24 PRNCE2. 2013. Welcome to the Official PRINCE2® Website. Available at http://www.prince-officialsite.com/ Project Management Institute. 2000. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute Project Management Institute. 2013. PMBOK Guide and Standards. Available at http://www.pmi.org/en/About-Us/About-Us-Annual-Report.aspx Read More