Project Environment and Planning 1

Answer

Project Environment and Planning 1

Introduction

            With accelerated competition, technological advancement and economic pressures practitioners and researchers are continuously searching and proposing better ways of managing projects. It has come to the realization that most projects are poorly managed leading to significant losses in profitability, productivity and even employee morale (Patanakul & Shenhar, 2012). This is an indication that traditional emphasis placed on budget, time and project performance no longer are essential in guaranteeing achievement of objectives and success. This development has therefore necessitated the development or emergence of the concept of strategic project management that espouses the understanding that most projects initiated aims at delivery business result which focuses on ensuring that the project delivers (Savolainen Ahonen & Richardson, 2012). In view of the emerging trends in the arena of project management, the paper focuses on an array of aspects pertaining to strategic project management. Areas covered range from definitions of strategy, critical factors influencing a project to be strategic, factors considered in defining whether a project is strategic or not incorporating models. In addition, the paper adopts a case study dubbed, ‘2016 Rio Olympic Games’ to guide the discussion in appreciating the concept of strategic project management.

Discussion

Quite a number of studies conducted have attempted to define strategy in reference to project management. Strategy is a term often used and which has been in use for quite a long period dating from writings of Tzu’s such as the art of war (1994) (Patanakul & Shenhar, 2012). The word has also widely been employed in organizations in reference to planning by top managers to accomplish mission. Strategy has been used in project management since 1950s but the focus was mainly on developing tools, procedures and techniques to aid in proper project management (Patanakul & Shenhar, 2012). However, recently, the concept has changed with new research agendas on strategy (Bañuls, López, Turoff & Tejedor, 2017). Currently, strategy has shifted and it is more concerning about winning. In simplest term, strategy in the context of project management would mean the approaches or requirements that are required to emerge a victor. It is how a manager or project leader is planning to win (Horne, 2017). It is important to understand that a strategy is not a plan, but views, and is usually at a higher level than a plan. Strategy drives the plan and upon its establishment, plans would entail tactical decisions on activities needed to be executed such as the resources, timelines and deliverables (Kiridena & Sense, 2016). Furthermore, it encompasses guidelines, perspectives, the direction, attitudes and the policy that leads to the actual plan that eventually creates patterns of behaviours required to win and create value and ultimately achieve success (Lyneis, Cooper & Els, 2001). Therefore, a good strategy would require effectiveness and efficiency. The project managers have to aspire to succeed by choosing right outcomes and doing them the right way (Williams, 2017). The right choices have to be made, by defining outcomes and ensuring efficiency in the execution of the choices.

These definitions to large extend compare with each other, with slight differences in the wording and the context. Generally, most of the definitions of the strategy, project strategy from different researchers intend or refer to the same concepts.

Project become strategic if the strategy is appropriate. According to Ika (2009), projects are unique to each other in terms of complexity, cost and scope e.t.c. and this makes the critical success factors (CSR) of such project different (Westerveld, 2003). Research on CSFs takes into consideration the project life cycle as cited by Pinto & Slevin, 1988b) in Ika (2009).  Some of the CSFs in any project would include the project design phase, mission and client consultation.  However, in the project planning phase CSFs would include the mission of the project, the top management support, urgency and the client acceptance (Shenhar, Dvir, Levy & Maltz, 2001).

In the project execution phase, the notable CSFs include project mission, troubleshooting, characteristics of the team leader, project plan/schedules, technical tasks and the client consultation (Locatelli, Mikic, Kovacevic, Brookes & Ivanisevic, 2017). Finally yet importantly, at the closing phase of a project the CSFs would include project mission, technical tasks and client consultation (Gemünden & Aubry, 2017). Critical success factors that make a project to be strategic include mission, urgency and client consultation among others.

  Project strategy is also an important aspect in the strategic project management. Project strategy should be rich to enable a project manager to initiate, plan and execute a project to attain or achieve the desired business results as well as long-term sustainability (Turner & Müller, 2005). According to Patanakul & Shenhar (2012), there are models that help understand and guide project strategy. One is the Mintzberg’ Five P’s Model. Which posit that project strategy has to have a perspective, position, and plan, ploy and pattern (Patanakul & Shenhar, 2012). Perspective includes the background, the general idea and the reason for the project. Position entails the results required to be achieved and ways to know that the results have been achieved. Plan is the guidelines on what is needed to be done to achieve the outcomes (Müller &Turner, 2007). Therefore, a project strategy includes the question of why, what and how to create competitive advantage and value for the business. In summary, a project strategy is the perspective, position, and guidelines on what is to be done, and how it should be done to achieve highest competitive advantage and value. It is worth noting that project strategy is viewed in broad or wider sense and not only as a direction to achieve success.  According to Patanakul & Shenhar (2012), the model, these Five major parts  cover eight components which include;  background of business, objective of the business, strategic concept, competitive advantage/value, product definition,  project definition, success and failure criteria and strategic focus.

Source: Patanakul & Shenhar (2012)

Important aspect in strategic project management is to evaluate whether a project is strategic or not. According to (Chapter 1: Introduction -- managing strategic business projects, 2001) a project that is strategic has to consist of a perspective, position and plan. This Five elements are espoused in the Mintzberg’ Five P’s Model. The Five main parts have eight components that provide frameworks in project strategy. Project management Maturity models similarly, are employed by different entities to deliver their various projects. The maturity models are used in project environment to assess, define and improve the capability of the managers to carry out these projects successfully (Cleland & Gareis, 2006). In maturity models, the key project is still missing in action implying, that the learning and knowledge acquisition process is ongoing as the project progresses. The notion is that, projects bring about different issues and challenges that will lead to more insights on the project managers especially when dealing with other projects (Mir & Pinnington, 2014). The current projects acts as learning opportunities in generating knowledge that increases competencies and organizational assets. The major aim of the maturity model is to present a framework to improve an entity business through assessment of the organization’s project management strengths as weaknesses, to allow comparisons with similar entities through measuring correlations of the two entities (King, 2016). A good example of the maturity model is the Project Knowledge Management Maturity Model (PKMMM) designed to help understand as well as measure with the intention of promoting maturity of a project-based entity to create and manage project knowledge (Davis, 2014).  Furthermore, there is another model known as sustainability model, which focus on monitoring and reporting on the environmental, economic and social performance of preparation of a project (Indelicato, 2015). The model is helpful in providing an elaborate assessment of a project based on multifaceted dimensions that are key in the overall success of the project (Crawford, 2006).

Different authors and researchers have developed their understanding of strategic project management through their definitions (Meskendahl, 2010). Even though, these definitions tend to look similar, it becomes essential to evaluate them to foster understanding.  According to Chapter 1: Introduction -- managing strategic business projects (2001) Strategic project management process has five stages including, defining the project, creating the strategy, coming up with detailed project planning and then implementing and controlling the project (Ika, 2009). All of the stages are manifest in the overall lifecycle of the project.  According to Yu, Flett, Bowers (2005).  SPM is the process employed in management of complex projects by deploying both business analysis and project management techniques to correctly implement the business strategy to enable an organization achieves breakthroughs. This is achieved through various business analysis techniques such as financial, strategic and operational organizational (Miterev, Engwall & Jerbrant, 2017). There are noticeable differences between conventional project management and strategic project management in various ways. When it comes to the link with business strategy, SPM is more direct and explicit, it defines project as being highly creative, and flexible, project planning is done the moment project strategy is set. Furthermore, SPM gives details on the context as things are always seen in a bigger picture (Thompson & Cox, 2017). Stakeholders in SPM require continual scanning as opposed to CPM where more emphasis is on formal structures such as managers, and sponsors (Yu, 2017). Furthermore in SPM, uncertainty analysis is done first then planning of activities commences, as opposed to CPM where uncertainty are coped with through the critical path analysis meaning after the activity planning has taken place.

 Furthermore, Patanakul & Shenhar (2012) argues that in strategic project management, project management teams not only have to concentrate on meeting traditional budget, time, and performance goals but also rather endeavor to put into consideration the various business aspects of the projects and be able to support the company business strategy putting into perspectives sustainability aspects.

Case scenario-2016 Rio Olympic Games

 The case study adopted in this study is the 2016 Rio Olympic Games project management. The project was one of the major projects in the sports industry that saw integration of various kinds of resources that needed proper management to achieve efficiency and sustainability (King, 2016). The project entailed building /construction of modern 12 stadiums and related facilities in preparation for the thousands of sports men and women and their delegations in the Olympic Games (King, 2016). The government sponsored the project and indeed, there was involvement of strategic project management analysis.

In this project, there is no doubt that sustainability model was widely adopted. The project managers had to monitor and report on the sustainability of the project focusing on its economic, environmental and social performance of the project in both short and long run (Millhollan & Kaarst-Brown, 2016). The public bodies and organizers of the game remained more responsible to ensure that the project does not cause environmental damage or, does not impact negative on the economy and social dynamics of the country. The project adopted a long-term strategy because of integration of the sustainable development principles. The project was set between 8 years before its commencement date. It also exhibited sustainability concepts through conceptualization, feasibility stage, bidding processes, strategic and operational planning and operations and dissolution. All these areas were closely analyzed in the context of the impact the project had on the environment, economy and social dynamics. All the venues, which were to host the Olympics games and infrastructures, were well planned putting into consideration the strategic urban planning of the city.

There were partnerships with the private entities to ensure that all components of sustainability are met. Collective efforts were instrumental in providing expertise and knowledge that enabled the project to be completed well.  Brazil as well developed its vision, which it blended with the overall vision it had for the future of the country (Albrecht & Spang, 2016). Furthermore, at the conceptualization stages, the organizers had to seek for public consultations to get their views and opinions. These consultations promoted long term sustainable of the project (Ika, 2009).

There were mitigation measures put in place to limit potential negative effects on the social and environmental fronts. The measures were also communicated to the members of the public in advance to enable them take the requisite measures. For instance, members of the public were informed about the increase in the number of visitors and tourists and therefore, they remained vigilant and cautious (King, 2016). The rate of illicit sex and importation of cultures that the society is not privy and familiar to would occur. The communiqué concerning the likelihood turn of events during the games aimed at ensuring that social fabric of the host country remain intact.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC), the body that determines the city that hosts the Olympic requires the interested party to understand the potential negative effects of hosting such games. In the case scenario, the city of Rio was aware of the potential risks at the time of bidding and conceptualization stage, which was important in helping the country prepare enough to counter the potential negatives (King, 2016).

Similarly, maturity models would help espouse the application of strategic project management in this analysis. As earlier stated, the model assesses the strengths and weaknesses of a project allowing comparisons. The 2016 Rio Olympic Games was not the first sports event of that nature. The organizers evaluated the benefits versus the potential costs or risk based on the previous countries that have already hosted the games. Rio had the capability of hosting the games, hence was anticipating the event would accrue some financial benefits. Between the year 2008 and 2014, the city of Rio had recorded an increase in revenues emanating from tourism market aided by the 2014 world cup (King, 2016). The country therefore was optimists that with the Olympics, it would increase the tourist market even higher. The influx of tourist would mean increased revenue hence economic boost. Furthermore, based on the city, many famous landscapes, carnivals and monuments that attract tourists, the opportunity of hosting the games could not be left to go. However, there were notable challenges that marred the project but because of the initial investment, the project could not be stopped. The Zika virus was a threat and a challenge to the success of the project. The World Health Organization had reconsidered the risk of the virus and contemplated on postponing the games or moving the games to other countries. Similarly, more than 200 academies were of similar views. Even though, this did not happen, if it could, will have negative consequences on the project (King, 2016). In addition, the time of the games, the government was experienced economic challenges that was having atoll to the people. The project was also affected by political shenanigans, as the temperatures were high with calls for the resignation of the head of state on ground of poor governance. This was a challenge that would have had negative ramifications on the project.

There was setting up of knowledge transfer programs between the team leaders to enable the members of the public to ensure that they understood the impact of the game on their environment something that helped in promoting project sustainability.

Mintzberg’ Five P’s Model is also applicable in the Rio Olympic Games.  Based on the perspective dimension, the reason why Brazil place bid for the games was to accrue the benefits of the event in terms of economic. Cost benefit analysis of the country established that advantages of holding the event surpassed the disadvantages. Advantages included increased foreign exchange through the revenues, and high level of economic growth because of the increase in demand. The project would also transform the infrastructural situation of the country in the near future.

The project in its planning dimension as well defined the way the objectives and competitive advantage was to be attained. The project clearly provided the scope statement, the budget, the time that the project would start and end, the team involved, and the individuals or the project management in charge of the project. These attributes/definitions promoted efficiency execution and completion of the project (Baccarini, 1999).

The position dimension saw the project define the product that did not exist. The project manager clearly presented and defined the kind of the stadiums required, the requirements, the functions and specifications.  Competitive advantages helped in defining exactly the attributes that would appeal to the stakeholders to go for Rio and not other country. The cultural mix and the good transport networks with vast and adequate infrastructure was an added advantage for Rio, which made it earn the spot as the host nation.

From this discussion of the Five models, it is evident that the 2016 Olympic Game project was strategic. The processes since its commencement to its conclusion, is an illustration of a determination to emerge victor. This project was not going to fail on its way because all the necessary measures and requirement were in place. The project management did not only focus on the traditional management attributes of time and budget but they went further to understand the suitable business strategy that would add value to the project.

The critical Success Factors of the project included mission, client consultation, top management support, urgency, client acceptance, schedules and knowledge transfer. For instance, the mission was to ensure that all necessary infrastructures were in place and that the Olympic Games 2016 are held successfully (King, 2016).  The consultation was done among various stakeholders including, the government of Brazil, the private sectors, the organizers, the members of the community and other interested parties. A consultation was reached by community members approximately 300 who relocated to other areas to pave way for construction for a highway from the International airport to the 12 stadiums (King, 2016). The government reimbursed the affected community members. This initiative contributed to the success of the project. The timeframes were also set under which various parts of the project needed to have been completed. The timeframes helped in planning helping the project to end at the right time. Knowledge transfer through seminars, forums and education created understanding and cooperation fostering success of the project.

Overall, even though the project was long, it was successful. The rate of return of the project expected was realised. The project present future benefits to the government and the people of Brazil. The project has contributed greatly to the development of infrastructure that will continue attracting economic value to the people. The road infrastructure, housing and other fundamental social services such as hospitals have been improved and community members will forever enjoy these fruits (Winter, 2016). The project goals align to the business goal for this project because, through the quest of hosting the games, the country was aware of the economic advantages it was going to rip.

Conclusion

Conclusively, the concept of strategic project management continues to gain prominence in project management across the world. The changing dynamics in the world orchestrated by different aspects such as technology, climate change, social, and economic dynamics have necessitated the same. Project management embraces new approaches more so business strategy to gain value and achieve competitive advantage. This trend is evident in both private and public organizations a clear indicator that indeed, project management is moving to the next level (Winter, 2016). The Rio 2016 Olympic Games was a clear demonstrate of application of project strategy. Even though the project had a goal to achieve, it widely espoused business strategy.  Five models of strategy in project management manifest in the case study. The sustainability model, the maturity models and the Mintzberg’ Five P’s Model provided a framework in ensuring that 2016 Olympic Games project becomes success. Critical success factors mentioned in the project cannot be delinked in the overall success of the project.(2017) study employed, there are very little room for generalizing the study’s findings.