Approaches of Project Management - PRINCE 2 and Systems Engineering Models - Coursework Example

Project Management Collyer (2013) defines project management as a process which involves organizing, planning, motivating and control of procedures, protocol and resources to achieving certain specified goals of a project. Projects, Eskerod & Riis (2009) explain, are usually temporary ventures of endeavours usually engaged to deliver new unique products or service. Due to constraints in deliverable and funding, projects are normally time-constrained (Fortune et al 2011). A primary challenge of project management in practice, Burke (2013) points out, is achieving the set project objectives and goals within these preconceived constraints. Burke further explains that the secondary challenge, which he defines as more ambitious challenge, is optimizing the necessary inputs and allocations and integrating them towards meeting pre-defined objectives. As such, Gido & Clements (2014) postulate, from a variety of functional project management approaches developed overtime, project managers are required to select the most appropriate to the project details. Selection of project management approaches is based on several factors (Ingason & Jonasson, 2009). Kerzner (2013) argues that the most reliable determinant of the approach is the type of project being handled. On the other hand, Meredith & Mantel Jr (2011) suggest that the approaches’ criteria to project management are the key determiners of selection of approach. Using either of the arguments, the most important aspect is selecting a project management approach that is suitable for the project and reliable in delivering the project goals. Considering this, therefore, it is important for project managers to consider the underpinning factors through which the approach models of project management function (Hallgren et al 2012). These factors should be juxtaposed together with the project details and requirements in order to understand whether they would essential in delivering the project goals (Turner 2014). Muller, Geraldi & Turner (2012) posit that getting an appropriate approach to project management is equal to solving 75% of the project challenges. This paper examines two different approaches of project management: PRINCE 2 and Systems Engineering models. These models are analyzed and discussed within the specific realm of their effectiveness in managing architecture, construction and facilities management. The conceptual framework governing this analysis is the approach methodologies of these models in project management. Specifically, the core aspects to be considered include: quality of product, project environment, organization, risk management, change and flexibility, processes involved and monitoring and evaluation. This selection of entities to be considered is based on factors considered to determine the effectiveness of project management approaches. Thi & Swierczek (2010) observe that they are core qualifiers of effective and functional project management approaches. In addition, Nicholas (2001) points out that all project management approaches in practice are usually consciously or unconsciously governed and controlled by these factors. Effectively handled, they go a long way to achieving the set goals of project management. Moreover, these factors are involved in project management from the onset of the project to the very end (Heagney 2011). As such, through these methodologies and project focuses of project management approaches, this paper analyzes PRINCE2 and Systems Engineering project management approaches. The main aim is to use this framework to draw effective comparisons of these two approaches in project management that would be a governing principle in selecting an effective approach. PRINCE2 Eskerod & Riis (2009) point out that PRINCE2 is a project management methodology that entails, rather, encompasses high level management and organization and control of a project. PRINCE2 is an acronym for Projects IN a Controlled Environment, version 2 (Gido & Clements 2014). The term is also used to refer to a certified training of practitioners of the PRINCE2 methodology of project management. The approach addresses project management through integration of the following four elements: themes, principles, processes and project environment (Collyer 2013). Figure 1: PRINCE2 Project Management Approach Quality of Product Among the principles of prince2 is the focus on product. Prince2 systems focus on the product definition, together with its delivery and the quality requirements. Prince2 throughout the projects maintains several management products which may be in the form of formal registers intended to be more than just a formal log. Among the registers is the quality register which entails the details of the planned quality activities including the dates and the personnel involved. This register according to the prince2 model is updated to show the current status of all the quality checking activities. Additionally, the quality register of the prince2 is used to show whether the delivered products are complete, if they have met their quality criteria and also if the agreed processes have been observed. Through prince2’s work packages, each work package is defined by either one or more deliverable products, preferably with tolerance to time, cost, the scope and the quality identified. Moreover, all the management activities such as stage planning are defined by the final output such as the report that contains the new stage plan. With this kind of management, it allows all the involved parties to clearly specify the requirements of the project and allocate the responsibility for delivery and control of the project. In conclusion, the quality of products when using the prince2 management system is well checked at every stage as the project quality is managed by stages. Risk management Risk management is defined as the systematic approach of understanding, evaluating and addressing risks in order to maximize on the chances of achievement of the objectives of the project. Risk management on the other hand can be used to ensure that individuals, organizations together with communities are sustainable. A good project management system should consider and exploit the opportunities that uncertainties may bring thus allowing project managers to be aware of the new possibilities. In the prince2 project management system, one of the themes is how the project management will assess the project and act to address the uncertainties that might occur within the projects plans and the environment. Using its risk register, prince2 has a table containing all the risks that may threaten the achievement of the projects goals. The risks are then categorized, named and assigned a risk number. Later in the risk register, each risk is awarded a probability score and an impact score which when multiplied gives the risk score. Additionally, the risks are sorted on descending risk scores in order to indicate the risks in the order of priority. With a list of risk available in the order of priority, each risk is then assigned an owner, a precaution and a response action in the case that the risk occurs. Project environment references Burke, R. (2013). Project management: planning and control techniques. Collyer, S. L. (2013). Managing dynamism in projects: A theory-building study of approaches used in practice. Eskerod, P. & Riis, E. 2009, "Project Management Models as Value Creators", Project Management Journal, vol. 40,no. 1, pp. 4-18. Fortune, J., White, D., Jugdev, K. & Walker, D. 2011, "Looking again at current practice in project management",International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 553-572. Gido, J., & Clements, J. (2014). Successful project management. Cengage Learning. Hällgren, M., Nilsson, A., Blomquist, T. & Söderholm, A. 2012, "Relevance lost! A critical review of project management standardisation", International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 457-485. Heagney, J. (2011). Fundamentals of project management. AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn. Ingason, H.T. & Jónasson, H.I. 2009, "Contemporary Knowledge and Skill Requirements in Project Management", Project Management Journal, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 59-69. Kerzner, H. R. (2013). Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. John Wiley & Sons. Meredith, J. R., & Mantel Jr, S. J. (2011). Project management: a managerial approach. John Wiley & Sons. Müller, R., Geraldi, J. & Turner, J.R. 2012, "Relationships Between Leadership and Success in Different Types of Project Complexities", IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 77-90. Nicholas, J. & Hidding, G. 2010, "Management Principles Associated With IT Project Success", International Journal of Management and Information Systems, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 147- 156. Thi, C.H. & Swierczek, F.W. 2010, "Critical success factors in project management: implication from Vietnam", Asia Pacific Business Review, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 567. Turner, J. R. (2014). The handbook of project-based management (Vol. 92). McGraw-hill. Walker, A. (2015). Project management in construction. John Wiley & Sons. Stevens, R., Brook, P., Jackson, K., Arnold, S. 1998, Systems Engineering: coping with complexity, Chapter 6, Prentice Hall, London, pp, 149-170 Nicholas, J. 2001, Project Management for Business and Technology: Principles and Practice, Chapter 3, Prentice Hall, N.J., pp. 51-83 Blanchard, B., Fabrycky, W., 2011, Systems Engineering and Analysis, Chapter 2, Pearson Prentice Hall. Pp. 37-67 Cohn, M. 2010, Succeeding with Agile – Chapter 1, Addison-Wesley: Sydney, pp.3-19 Denning, S. 2012. The Case Against Agile: Ten Perennial Management Objections. Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2012/04/17/the-case-against-agile-ten-perennial-management-objections/ Poppendieck, M. & Poppendieck, T. 2003. Lean Software Development: An Agile Toolkit – Chapter 1. Addison-Wesley: Sydney, pp. 1-13 Smith, G. 2009. Becoming agile in an imperfect world - Chapter 1. Manning, pp.1-24. Thomke, S. & Reinertsen, D. 1998. Agile Product development: Managing Deveopment Flexibility in Uncertain Environments. California Management Review, 41(1) 8-30. Read More