Starting Up a Project and Its Phase - Case Study Example

Part 1 Background PRINCE2 methodology traces it roots to PRINCE project management method and PROMPTII that was originally developed in late 1980s by Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA). The aim for the development was to provide standardised means for United Kingdom Government to fulfil projects associated with information systems but later the method was applied outside information technology environment (PRNCE2, 2013). PRINCE2 started been utilised in 1996, where it was used as generic management method and later was embraced by United Nations systems and United Kingdom (Office of Government Commerce, 2002). PRINCE2 has been revised continuously and in 2006, it was relaunched as PRINCE2:2009 Refresh in 2009 (PRNCE2, 2013). The name from PRINCE2 was never changed because it still champions the principles of the methodology. The changes that were commissioned included making it adaptable to changes in business environment, making it ‘lighter’, and making it simple (Office of Government Commerce, 2002). This ensured that it correct misunderstandings and weaknesses, and also was able to integrate with OGC methods such as P3M3 and P3O. The major differences that exist between the earlier versions and the 2009 version are that two manuals are available. These manuals are ‘Directing Successful Projects with PRINCE2’ and Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2. Exams are usually carried out to gauge and certify individuals who have knowledge in PRINCE2, which and Foundation Examinations and Practitioner Examinations. PRINCE2 Methodology This is a methodology which is process-driven project management compared to other methods which are either adaptive or reactive such as Scrum (Office of Government Commerce, 2002). PRINCE2 champions seven principles, which are manage by exception, manage by stages, learn from experiences, continued business justification, defined roles and responsibilities, tailored to suit project environment and focus on products. It is also based on seven themes (organisation, quality, business case, progress, change, risk and progress). The themes and principles come together to form the seven processes: Starting up a project Starting phase enables appointment of project team and formulation of project brief. The project brief outlines the requirements of the project through identifying what the project should achieve and business justification of accomplishing the task. Moreover, the overall approach towards the project is decided and the next phase of the project is mapped (Office of Government Commerce, 2002). After all requirements are completed and acceptable, the next phase is authorised through project board. Some of the activities that are accomplished at this stage include preparing a project brief, appointing and designing project management team, definition of project approach, appointment of executive and a project manager for the project. This is followed by initiation phase (PRNCE2, 2013). Initiating phase of a project This phase continues from the start up process and the project brief is defined in terms of Business case. Identification of approach that will be utilised to gauge the quality of the project is indentified and also project controls are identified. Project files for the project are created and overall project plan is created ensuring that the next phase of the project can proceed (Office of Government Commerce, 2002). The information obtained from this phase is provided to the project board that are responsible for commissioning the project. Some of the tasks that are completed within this phase include setting up project files, refining the risks and business case, creating a Project Initiation Document and setting project controls. Directing a project phase This phase dictates the procedure in which the Project Board (which includes project sponsor or executive sponsor) controls and manages the overall project (PRNCE2, 2013). The project board are responsible for authorising and initiating project. Moreover, the Project Board are response for authorising phase plans, which are required in situations whereby challenges occur. The Project Board are responsible for ad hoc direction and how the project should be closed (Office of Government Commerce, 2002). Generally, the activities that takes place at this stage includes confirming project closure, giving ad-hoc direction, authorising exception plan, authorising a project and authorising initiation. Managing Stage Boundaries Two terminologies are important at this stage, which are Controlling a Stage and Managing Stage Boundaries. The Controlling a Stage defines what should be done with a stage while Managing Stage Boundaries defines what should be done at the end stage (PRNCE2, 2013). Some of the tasks completed within this stage include amending the risk register, project plan and business case based on necessary requirements. Moreover, this stage defines and states actions that should be done when the project exceeds the tolerance levels (Office of Government Commerce, 2002). Thus, some of the activities that are completed at this stage include updating the risk register, updating a project plan, planning a stage, reporting stage end, updating business case and producing contingency plan. Managing Product Delivery This is the process in which the link and relationship between the Team Manager and the Project Manger is created. Formality is encouraged and some of the formal requirements that are accomplished include acceptance, execute and delivering of the project work (PRNCE2, 2013). The objectives of this section are to ensure all the requirements of the project are met and hence the project is within acceptable tolerance (Office of Government Commerce, 2002). Closing a Project Some of the important activities that take place include decommissioning of the project, identification of follow-on actions and evaluating the project (PRNCE2, 2013). These strategies ensures that resources are transferred towards other activities and while the project is transferred to the owner (sponsor). Part 2: Comparison of PRINCE2 with PMBOK Differences exist between how these two methodologies can be utilized with a project management. PMBOK states that project management is left for the project manager while PRINCE2 is the strategy in which organisations utilise to manage and deliver projects (Project Management Institute, 2013). This means that those organisations that utilise PMBOK may hold accountable the project manager in determining the success or failure of a project (Office of Government Commerce, 2002). On the other hand, a manager who utilises PRINCE2 methodology will never be held responsible to the organisation rather the responsibility belongs to Project Board, who will be held responsible (PRNCE2, 2013). Thus, PMBOK is a guideline in which strategies employed will be left to an individual and hence the entire pressure is left to an individual while in the case of PRINCE2 methodology, the pressure is left to the entire Project Board (Project Management Institute, 2000). Another distinction between these two methodologies is the way it views a project (Project Management Institute, 2013). For example in the case of PMBOK, the project manager can start a project, it is then followed by identifying the requirements of the project and then formulate and implement strategies that meets with the project requirements (PRNCE2, 2013). Conversely, PRINCE2 methodology requires detailed information that is usually captured in Product Descriptions (Project Management Institute, 2000). This means that it is important to understand the requirements of the project before starting it else there is no need following up with the project. Methodologies in sense are not complete meaning measures and supplementary measures should be in place to address the issue (Project Management Institute, 2000). Both PRINCE2 and PMBOK methodologies provides additional guidance. For example, PMBOK states that it is important for a project manager to utilise other measures such as organisational project management method to ensure it complements with organisational process assets (Office of Government Commerce, 2002). On the contrary, PRINCE2 does not concentrate on techniques or tools rather it concentrates on project management processes. Moreover, PRINCE2 provides guideline that a project manager may need to use technique or tool that is not covered within the methodology (Project Management Institute, 2013). This means that a project manager utilising PRINCE2 has the flexibility of utilising PMBOK in accomplishing the requirements of the project. Another important and major distinction between PMBOK and PRINCE2 is that the aim of PRINCE2 is provision of guidance and advice to the people responsible for projects whereas PMBOK does not support this requirement (PRNCE2, 2013). This means that organisations that utilise PMBOK need to formulate additional support materials and induction to assist those managing the projects (Project Management Institute, 2000). Benefit is another important distinction between these two methodologies. PMBOK postulates that the benefits are realised before the project is completed while PRINCE2 argues that the benefit will be realised after closure of the project (Office of Government Commerce, 2002). This is based on the fact that PRINCE2 project manager has no authority to introduce changes in operational areas that may contribute to realisation of the benefits. The persons responsible for any change are those in Project Board and Senior User(s) within the organisation (Project Management Institute, 2000). These two methodologies approaches project management different but the best strategy is use of PMBOK since it provides flexibility in approaching a project (PRNCE2, 2013). It also allows utilisation of other project management method in ensuring success of the project. Part 3: The Burj Khalifa Tower Project Introduction Projects are not similar to normal businesses because it does not follow regular policies and procedures. Projects are associated with measurable changes and outcomes that results in opportunities and developments (McCuen, Ezzell and Wong, 2011). Projects are managed by project management who are supposed to complete certain task within a certain budget, given amount of time and within certain quality (Miller, Vandome and McBrewater, 2010). An example of such project is the Burj Khalifa Towers, which was designed with inspiration, ingenuity and achievement (Burj Khalifa Towers is located in United Arab Emirates). Burj Khalifa Towers was designed with the aim of illustrating a flower on the desert, and the structure was constructed with a mixture of steel frame and reinforced concrete. According to the design of the project, the project should be constructed between January 2004 and October 2009 with the aim of completing a single floor after three days (Subramanian, 2010). Moreover, specific budget and quality of the project was in place. These aspects provide specific requirements that are required so that a task may be classified as a project. Success or Failure of Burj Khalifa Towers Project To determine whether a project was successful, it is important to compare the objectives and accomplishments. This means that it is important to evaluate entire project from the planning phase to the closure (Subramanian, 2010). The success of any project may be classified by what is referred as “Iron Triangle”, a strategy that measures completion of a project based on time, cost and quality. To understand whether Burj Khalifa Towers project was successful, these three perspectives are utilised in its evaluation. Cost is an important component in construction of Burj Khalifa Towers and it was budgeted that the project could cost US$876 million but in real sense the project costed $1.5 billion. However, there may be some reasons why the cost of the project “doubled”. One of the reasons may be attributed to global recession that made the price of iron, aluminium and cement to increase. Increase in these costs may have contributed to increase of the project cost (Miller, Vandome and McBrewater, 2010). Conversely, design change of the building might have contributed to cost change. The height of the building was changed and also the interior of the building was changed resulting in unexpected costs been incurred. Some of the interior fittings that were changed especially after introduction of Armani chain of hotels include redesign of lobby, luxurious furnishings and fittings to the rooms (Subramanian, 2010). From this analysis, the cost was not meet and thus the project from perspective of cost failed (Kubba, 2012). Another criterion of “Iron Triangle”, which is associated with cost, is time. The original time plan for the project was for between February 2005 and December 2008 without including the time for excavation. However, the project was completed nine months late (on September 2009). The redesign planning and change of numerous requirements of the building contributed to delay of completion of the project (Miller, Vandome and McBrewater, 2010). Moreover, deteriorating economic position of Dubai may also have contributed to the delay in construction. Regarding time and whether the project was a success or failure, it is evident that environmental and design factors made it delay especially the four months that the construction was stoped because of Dubai Shock within real estate (McCuen, Ezzell and Wong, 2011). Generally, if these factors are considered, it may be assumed that time was partially managed well. Quality is another component that is utilised in determining whether a project was successful or failed. This means that quality is directly associated to goals stated. The quality of construction may be determined by resources available and capacity of these resources to accomplish requirements. The main contractor of Burj Khalifa Towers was Besix and Samsung Engineering. These two companies had initial extensive experience meaning they were in a better position to complete the building within the stated goals and requirements (Miller, Vandome and McBrewater, 2010). These companies tested numerous qualities of materials to be utilised to ensure that the ground level could withstand upper levels that were constructed by the use of reinforced concrete to withstand heavy winds (Burj Khalifa, 2013). From service perspective, the completed building met the requirements of stakeholders that include interested parties and customers. These components are important to measure uncertainty and unfavourable nature of the project (Subramanian, 2010). If the project is unfavourable, it means that it may cause unexpected problems while if a project is uncertain, it means that the project may fail. Since the project was satisfactory even though there were delays associated with change of the building, the quality of the project was successful (McCuen, Ezzell and Wong, 2011). Even though the project too a longer time and cost more, it is not right to assume that Burj Khalifa Towers project was a failure (Beaudan, 2012). This means that it is important to introduce better measures that may not include time and cost in gauging whether the project was successful or failure. Lessons Learned Some the shortcomings and success of the project, some of the lessons learned include: Fully negotiated planning should be in place that factors into consideration numerous factors such as cost, nature of design, time, quality and other important factors that guides the project. In construction of Burj Khalifa Towers, different stakeholders and players were involved. In designing the project all stakeholders should have proposed and reviewed their views to ensure requirements have been factored before proceeding with the construction. Nevertheless, it could have been beneficial to stay with the original plan to ensure that budgets and time were as planned. The society within the building should be involved in ensuring long term benefits are achieved. For example, in developing a project it is not only advisable to concrete on luxury customers only rather it is prudent to involve other customers to ensure both low and high customer systems are maintained. References Beaudan, E. 2012. Creative Execution: What Great Leaders Do to Unleash Bold Thinking and Innovation. New York: John Wiley & Sons Burj Khalifa. 2013. The Tower. Available at http://www.burjkhalifa.ae/en/ (Accessed 24 February 2013) Kubba, S. 2012. Handbook of Green Building Design and Construction: LEED, BREEAM, and Green Globes. London: Butterworth-Heinemann McCuen, R., Ezzell, E., and Wong, M. 2011. Fundamentals of Civil Engineering: An Introduction to the ASCE Body of Knowledge. London: CRC Press Miller, F., Vandome, A., and McBrewater, J. 2010. Burj Khalifa. London: Alphascript Publishing Office of Government Commerce. 2002. PRINCE2. London: The Stationery Office PRNCE2. 2013. Welcome to the Official PRINCE2® Website. Available at http://www.prince-officialsite.com/ (Accessed 24 February 2013) 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 (Accessed 24 February 2013) Subramanian, N. 2010. Burj Khalifa, World’s Tallest Structure. Consulting Structural Engineer, Maryland, U.S.A. Available at http://www.sefindia.org/?q=system/files/BURJ+KHALIFA-World%27s+Tallest+Building.pdf (Accessed 24 February 2013) Read More