Project Management Practices And Lean Production Delivery Systems - Report Example

Student’s name Course code+name Professor’s name University name Date of submission Contents 1.0.Executive summary 2 2.0.Introduction 3 3.0.Lean Production Delivery Systems and Current Project Management Practices 4 4.0.Strengths and Weaknesses of Current Project Management Practices 8 5.0.Strengths and Weaknesses of Lean Production Delivery Systems 9 6.0.Conclusion 10 7.0.References 11 1.0. Executive summary The objective of this report is to critically compare how Lean Production Delivery Systems and current Project Management Practices approaches provide value for the end client. The report will further analyse strengths and weakness of the two approaches. The comparison and analyses of the two approaches will be step-by-step evaluation of literatures available on the two approaches. This report has discovered through its literature review that some project management practices and lean production delivery systems face challenges; from adverse volatile environments to working conditions thus putting projects and production delivery systems at risk. It is on this basis that comparing the two approaches becomes necessary. 2.0. Introduction Current business environment has been dominated by dynamic and rapidly changing practices. This needs reshaping of approaches an organization uses to enhance performance. Basically, this is to quickly deal with the changing market trends and dynamic technology (Winter and Szczepanek, 2010). For these goals to be achieved, lean production delivery systems and current project management practices hold privilege positions as they combine the present organizational tendencies and behaviours---teamwork, delayering, and entrepreneurialism---so as to bridge or provide value for the end client. Recently, it has been noted that project management has been restricted to management of technical activities formulated during the project proposal (Kutsch and Hall, 2010). How does this links with lean production delivery systems? Ballard and Tommelein (2012) argue that due to complexities of current projects, customers have been requesting that they be built less expensive, faster and high quality standard projects. Therefore lean production delivery systems is a revolution to current project management practices as it comprehensively incorporate other lean concepts like lean manufacturing, lean thinking and lean construction into project management context. It is this uniqueness and connectedness that this report seeks to compare the two approaches by also looking at their strengths and weaknesses as experienced in organization and individuals. 3.0. Lean Production Delivery Systems and Current Project Management Practices One major similarity between lean production delivery systems and current project management practices that ensure provision of value for the end client is the efficiency. Both approaches put more emphasis on the notion of efficiency, especially in relation to production. Beginning with project management, some of its current practices have been dubbed as ‘efficient process’ (Bannerman, 2009). In addition, latest researches comparing the two approaches argue that in terms of efficiency, lean production delivery systems and current project management practices are series of activities embodied in a process so as to reach the completion of the project and production (Cicmil et al., 2010; Grau and Torrubiano, 2011) It therefore means that both approaches help in functional process---organizing, planning, directing and controlling. Similarly, other researches argue that efficiency is attained by the two approaches by interrelating their principles and philosophies (Levitt, 2011). As noted by Project Management Institute (2008) many projects, particularly those in construction pass through a given life cycle consisting of unique phases. Therefore, the two approaches enhance efficiency because through these phases management’s organization and structure take a project and or production instead of firm-based form. Secondly, understanding how the two approaches provide value for the end client can be done by first looking at their definitions separately. Beginning with project management, its definitions have been put in different ways to suit different purposes. Working with a definition that can suit this context, project management encompasses the role of establishing and managing the whole project from its establishment or inception to completion (Middleton and Joyce, 2012). This process ensures interests of client(s) are continuously represented. This means that the currently integrated project management practices oversee the whole project and in doing so commonly focuses on cost, time and quality. On the other hand, lean production delivery systems definition adopted by this report borrows from hypothesis developed by Ballard and Tommelein, (2012). Ballard and Tommelein identified two key concepts that formed lean production delivery systems; Total Quality Control (TQC) and Just In Time (JIT). This directly relates with the definition regarding current approaches to project management. The relationship in this case is that attainment of value for the end client is met through cost, time and quality. Expounding on TQC and JIT, Ballard and Tommelein add that the two terms denote effective supply chains, benchmarking and continuous improvement. Fusing the two definitions, there is an aspect of documentations of flow and value elements other than conversion of activities in management and production process. Flow as explained by BusinessDictionary (2012) denotes the process where activities involved in lean production delivery systems and project management practices are harmonized into one single unit. Provision of value for the end client means developing systems of management or deliveries that convert an input to an output (Elliott, 2008). Lean production delivery systems and current project management practices compliment the process of conversion. Looking at one at a time, lean production delivery systems on the one hand, ensure the conversation of the input to output by maximizing the value of delivery. Actually, the concept of lean production that could convert input to output started when Eijii Toyoda and Taiichi Ohno were working with Toyota Motor Company (Cicmil et al. 2010). The same goes with conversion of input to an output. At present time, different organizations all over the world have been trying to understand and introduce lean production delivery systems and current project management to ensure the conversion of input to an output. Good example of such companies includes Endesa Red (Cicmil et al. 2010). On the other hand, while former practices of project management dwelt on the completion of projects, current practices have the addition of flow management as well as management of value. Latest literatures that have tried to compare effectiveness of input to output conversion with regard to the two approaches add that for provision of the end client to be attained, effectiveness must accompany value (Winter and Szczepanek, 2010; Grau and Torrubiano, 2011; Elliott, 2008). However, it needs to be noted that in light with the two approaches, value is not a specific component. Instead, there should be attempts to contend with specific requirements of clients. As matter of fact, lean production has been introducing fulfillment of customer’s specific needs in some contexts to the point of customization (Elliott, 2008). Current practices of project management and lean production delivery systems adopt a methodology that ensures goals of productions and projects are met through quality, time and cost. In addition to these, the methodology also considers factors such as human resources, scope of the production/project, communication, risk, environment and procurement. These are integrated into the realm of production/project management thus forming the new management that ensures value for the end client is met. However, there have been different opinions regarding this methodology. For instance, Kutsch and Hall (2010) argue that production deliveries/projects can be managed effectively by first managing not only cost, quality and time but also other factors such as changes in technology. Giving practical examples Kutsch and Hall also note that there are some complex projects or production process that cannot be sufficiently defined in relations to cost, time and quality. They recommend that for the two approaches to satisfy specifics of clients there need to be identification of other elements that influence the projects and production delivery so as to ensure accurate identification and definition of client specific requirements. In the past few years, researchers have been shifting their attentions on adapting lean principles and current project management that ensure reduction of wastes (Bannerman, 2009). This shift has mainly focused on production, project development and construction. The elaboration on the lean production delivery that reduces waste has been discussed by Ballard (2009); Alarcón and Pellicer (2009). In their last research, Ballard and Tommelein (2012) argue that one major achievement of lean production delivery system is to minimize waste especially when complex productions, deliveries and projects are involved. Recently, United States Environmental Protection Agency argued, during its annual conference that one major way lean production delivery systems help clients and the country at large is through waste management when undertaking operations (Levitt, 2011). This has been made practical through its policy of giving clients exactly what they want, no more no less, at fair cost, without delay and that which reflects value solution to the environment and client. Similarly, Middleton and Joyce (2012) cite Boldt Company where current practices of project management are applied to ensure there is minimum wastes. They argue that Boldt Company offers comprehensive project management practices that ensure sectors are harmonized. One of the recent practices applied by the Company is re-evaluating the complexity of its projects before it is begun. The process of re-evaluation also touches on risk investigation and management. In so doing, the Company tends to avoid waste because it shifts its focus on methods that are better suited for the identified project. Middleton and Joyce conclude that the greater the complexity of the project the company is dealing with the more lean methods is required so as to meet demands of clients. 4.0. Strengths and Weaknesses of Current Project Management Practices Starting with strengths of the approach, current project management practices need to be looked at from global context. In so doing, one of the strengths of the approach is the creation of conditions that enable the project development to have a value creation process. Value creation as adopted by this approach include development and collaboration of confidence between the departments, which are found in the partnering, and other aspects such as learning and progressive improvement, optimization and general systems and not just its parts. Unlike other approaches, the creations of conditions that enable the project development process are made possible by regulating the relationship between the stakeholders and allow such stakeholders share risks and rewards. Secondly, recent implementation of current project management practices in several American countries shows that the approach is a real tool of progressive and continuous improvement of organizations (Levitt, 2011). In a separate research, Rodríguez, Alarcón and Pellicer (2011) add that this strength can also improve organization or individual project. Such improvements are achieved when the individual or organization succeeds in implementing and consolidating cultures related to organizational or individual’s project management. This approach however, comes with some weaknesses. To begin with, Winter and Szczepanek (2010) argue that the approach is one of those with ‘dependence on functional management’ (p.35). This is to mean that from the definition, project management practices are clear regarding the authority of the project manager--- functional managers own resources instead of the project. This dependence on functional management limits project management process. Though this weakness has been reported to be almost negligible in highly projectised organizations it hugely affects the efficiency and value management of projects. Secondly, current approaches of project management tend to ignore one important aspect of an organization; inability to fully align or integrate the project objectives with strategies of an organization. Going by its definition, project managers are supposed to manage projects not an organization. Although in most cases projects are started by executives and or stakeholders, there have been incidences where project managers are incapable, by themselves, to ensure that their projects are aligned with strategies of the company. Giving relevant example, Grau and Torrubiano (2011) point that Boldt Company experiences such weakness. 5.0. Strengths and Weaknesses of Lean Production Delivery Systems A key principle of lean production delivery systems often demands quality deliverance of productions and services to the client. This brings the first strength of the project which is productivity. This is done through conventional thinking which Winter and Szczepanek (2010) describes as ‘the conventional production philosophy’ (p.67). It needs to be noted that the conventional production philosophy as applied by this approach needs a significant overhaul in an organisation’s attitude, which can affect conventional production philosophy (Ballard and Tommelein, 2012) A basic aspect of lean construction and therefore lean production system delivery is the commitment of all participants. This is yet another strong position the approach takes. The concept of commitment of all participants has been successfully applied in a number of projects across the world. Giving specific examples, the Chile’s Centro por Excelencia en Gestión de Producción (Centre for excellence in production management) located at the Catholic University of Chile has been using commitment of all participants in their lean production delivery systems (Alarcón and Pellicer, 2009). After the completion of this production/project process in it is noted that productivity increased by about 20% in this organisation. The University also reported productivity gains between 6% and 48% (Alarcón and Pellicer, 2009). There is one major weakness of lean production delivery systems. That is, organizations practicing the approach require a framework that allows a great degree of flexibility to deal with constantly changing environment of the production process. Unlike project management, lean production delivery systems risks losing the productivity especially if there is high staff turnover in development organizations. 6.0. Conclusion Lean production delivery systems have been seen as a combination of project management approaches given the proposition that their approaches are congruent. It also needs to be noted that from the literatures reviewed, conventional project management and convectional lean production delivery systems possess similar problems; they lack the comprehensiveness that ensure adequate performance in contemporary applications. Though not mentioned by literatures reviewed, the two approaches are also similar in their focus on improving management performance in relation to the attainment of value that ultimately satisfies client needs. However, application of either of the approaches needs to be applied at the initial phases to give rooms for modifications which are inherent in the approaches. 7.0. References Alarcón, L.F. and Pellicer, E., 2009. Un nuevo enfoque en la gestión: la construcción sin pérdidas. Revista de obras públicas, [online] Available at: http://leanconstruction.es/app/download/4595132402/Construccion+sin+perdidas.pdf [Accessed 09September 2013] Ballard, G. and Tommelein, I., 2012. Lean management methods for complex projects. Engineering project organizational journal, 2 (1), pp. 85-96. Ballard, G., 2009. The lean project delivery system: an update. Lean construction journal, 1, pp. 1-19. Bannerman, P.L., 2009. Risk and risk management in software projects: a reassessment. The journal of systems and software, 81(1), pp. 2118-2133 BusinessDictionary., 2012. Online Business Dictionary [online] Available at: http://www.businessdictionary.com [Accessed 07 September 2013] Cicmil, S., Hodgson, D., Lindgren, M. and Packendorff, J., 2010. Project management behind the façade. Ephemera, theory & politics in organization, 9(2), pp. 78-92. Elliott, S., 2008. Agile project management. In: Seminar on current trends in software industry. March 2008. University of Helsinki. Grau, J. and Torrubiano, J., 2011. Agilizar la gestión de proyectos aplicando la Metodología ‘Lean’: el caso Endesa Red. [online] Asociación española para la calidad. Available at: http://www.aec.es [Accessed 08 September 2013] Kutsch, E. and Hall, M., 2010. Deliberate ignorance in project risk management. International journal of project management, 28(1), pp. 245-255. Levitt, R.E., 2011. Toward project management 2.0. In: Engineering project organizations conference. August 2011. Bucknell University. Middleton, P. and Joyce, D., 2012. Lean software management: BBC worldwide case study. IEEE transactions on engineering management, 59(1), pp. 20-32. Project Management Institute., 2008. Guía de los fundamentos para la dirección de proyectos (Guía del PMBOK®) 4th ed. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institue. Rodríguez, A.D., Alarcón, L.F. and Pellicer, E., 2011. La gestión de la obra desde la perspectiva del ultimo planificador. Revista de obras públicas, [online] Available at: < http://leanconstruction.es/app/download/4595141702/Ultimo+Planificador.pdf> [Accessed 06 September 2013] Winter, M. and Szczepanek, T., 2010. Projects and programmes as value creation processes: A new perspective and some practical implications. International journal of project management, 26, pp. 95-103. Read More