1. Introduction
Meredith and Mantel simply describe projects as “messy” (2009. Page 113) as no two projects are the same, yet all run the risk of failure. Rory Burke (2009) describes the project manager as “responsible for delivering the project on time, within budget, and to the required quality.” However, I believe that his description should be extended further to include their role as a leader, encouraging and inspiring their team (Barron & Burke, 2014. Page 143), and maintaining the project’s integrity despite conflicts of demands (Meredith, 2009. Page 111). A project is only as good as the end product, and a successful project manager can assure the quality of their project prior to completion. To ensure that this meets the standards outlined in the statement of requirements, one must constantly review the quality, especially in the planning stage.
1.1 Project description
U Social Venture, a Lancaster University society, promotes social entrepreneurship through different projects each term. As Project Manager (PM), I guide the projects and engage the members to teach them about social entrepreneurship. The most recent project was creating a sustainable Fairtrade stall at Lancaster University. The team is divided into three departments: Strategy, Communications and Logistics, with one team member acting as Team Director to chair meetings in my absence. The brief was simple but open, allowing the opportunity to interpret the project but with a clear end, like a Quest style project (Obeng, 1994 page 54). After the initial research, it was discovered that the scope of the project was larger than the original constraints, which I will explain further in Section 3.1. To produce a quality end product, the team decided that they would first focus on fundraising events to raise awareness of Fairtrade and generate enough profit to fund an independent stall. As this was a highly ambiguous project, there was a greater risk of problems, increasing the demand for management and contingency planning.
1.2 Project Issue
Every project is susceptible to risk (McManus, 2011. Page 18). Utilising risk assessment tools, such as the P-I matrix (PMBOK, 2008. Page 291), we examined possible risks that may occur during the project life cycle. I worked closely with the logistics team to identify risks and contingency plans, allocating one person responsibility of ensuring that the risk does not transpire. An example of this was for our first fundraiser event, a Fairtrade lecture on 30th November 2017. If the guest speaker did not have adequate material to last the event duration, the strategy department prepared activities for the attendees as a contingency. However, a problem developed that had not been identified as a risk in the planning phase. When booking a venue for the lecture, the correct documents were not submitted to the Student Union and so until they were processed, two days before the event, the venue had to remain unconfirmed. As publicity was crucial for enticing people to come, it meant that we had fewer people attend. Subsequently, we only made a small profit towards the stall which compromised the quality of the project, as the time and human resources used were more valuable than the outcome.
1.3 Aims of the Reflective Report
In this reflective report, I will examine how to assure quality within a project reflecting upon relevant literature and real-life experiences, highlighting how issues that emerged could have been avoided if instead I conformed to successful project management practices. I will define the difference between efficiency and effectiveness and how this links to quality, detailing some ways in which the PM can determine quality within the project, then focusing on two management tools that appear in the early stages of a project which I believe affect the project and its quality, using examples from my project to show how I could have managed it differently. To conclude, I will look at how to put these theories and measures into action and what I have learnt while writing this report.
2. Defining Quality
2.1 Effective vs. Efficient
The difference between efficiency and effectiveness is that to be effective, you are “doing the right things” but to be efficient you are “doing the thing right” (Geel, 2011. Page 200). One must always strive for both. From a business perspective, the PM must always aim to complete the project efficiently: on schedule and within budget (Lock, 2003. Page 6) however this is not possible without also being effective. To do the “right thing” and complete a quality end product, the completed product must be “in accordance with the requirement” (Reiss, 2007. Page 42).
2.2 Determining Project Quality Requirements
The quality of the project should be assured at the beginning through conformance to the stakeholder requirements (Burke, 2009) and the subsequent revisions based on what the stakeholder wants compared to what is achievable. For the Fairtrade project, U Social Venture, the main stakeholder, provided a basic timeline to the project team outlining their requirements over a ten-week period.
Figure 1: Basic Project Timeline
The original brief stated that they wanted a Fairtrade stall at Lancaster University within ten weeks, which proved to be impossible (see section 3.1). Therefore, we pitched a counter proposal to the society in Week 5 with an extended timeline including fundraising activities to increase the budget.
Figure 2: Revised Project Timeline
With the revised timeline, the project team were now able to establish weekly targets. The requirements of the stakeholder changed in terms of time, and the extra money generated from the two proposed events would increase the budget for the stall without costing the society more money. This decision was taken to improve the quality of the end product, as the deliverables in the first ten weeks would provide extra information useful to the delivery of the end product, such as the opinions of other stakeholders, like students.
Figure 3: Semi-Structure process (Remington and Pollack, 2007).
The new timeline resembles Remington and Pollack’s ‘Semi-structure’ (2007. Page 137). The timeline outlined in this structure shows that immediately the project objectives are defined alongside the roles and responsibilities of each team member, and weekly milestones clearly express the quality expected for the end product. The initial aim of the Fairtrade project was the creation of a stall, however budget restraints expanded this to include fundraising. Regular meetings each week facilitated the communication within the project team to report progress and allowed for sufficient time to prevent risks that may arise. Beside submitting meeting minutes, the team completed weekly feedback forms, which queried the level of support that they felt they had from their PM, what lessons they had learnt, and what they were tasked with in the upcoming week. To be able to communicate effectively is one of the PM’s key skills (Barron, 2014) and so this model shows a good way of assuring quality effectively through regular meetings in which goals are clearly stated and reinforced. However, the extensive communication through the revised timeline did not fully safeguard the project from issues (Section 1.2).
2.3 Processes to develop and establish quality
2.3.1 Milestones
Milestones are “control stations in the project” and give the stakeholders assurance that the project is moving in the correct direction. (Anderson, 2017). As seen in Figure 2, milestones are an effective way of showing a project’s process but can also be used as evaluation points to see if there any parts of the project that are not functioning properly. However, Beckford (2010. Page 33) labels milestones as ‘unreliable’, as only the essential activities to achieve the milestone are completed, allowing opportunities to ignore other important tasks, resulting in crisis. This is a perfect description of the problem that occurred within the Fairtrade project. The task list did not state specifically that the logistics department needed to complete certain documentation to host an external speaker prior to booking the venue, therefore the project fell behind schedule. Milestones and targets are useful to motivate the team to continue making progress within the projects, however, even though human resources arguably hold the most important role in the project, they are undependable (Ireland, 1999. Chapter 5) and unless these milestones include all activities and are regularly reviewed, the process loses credibility as omitted details can jeopardize quality.
2.3.2. Evaluation
APM Framework 21A1 states that a good PM establishes, schedules and conducts reviews at key milestones. In meetings, the entire team should evaluate the progress and quality of the product and whether the project still maintains clear goals that align with the stakeholder agreement. It gives the PM a chance to communicate directly with the team and discuss any personal problems. These progress meetings may consist of the full team after completing a project milestone, however these could be individual progress meetings. A PM needs emotional intelligence to be able to successfully conduct these meetings (Barron and Burke, 2014. Page 138) to correctly gage the reactions of each of the team members and determine any underlying issues.
3. Analysis of management planning tool that help to ensure that the PM delivers a quality project both effectively and efficiently.
3.1. The Iron Triangle
The ‘Iron Triangle’ is used to measure the success of a project: time, cost and quality/performance. In his 1999 article, Atkinson critiques the use of the iron triangle, stating that it is merely “two best guesses and a phenomenon”, yet the tool has long been a success criteria within project management. The triangle shows how the project balances its three principle requirements and helps the PM and their team to visualise the scope and what is lacking within the first stages of the planning process.
Figure 4: Traditional Iron Triangle (Atkinson, 1999)
Figure 5: Wysocki’s Triangle (2011. Page 13)
Figure 4 shows a traditional version of the iron triangle, but upon further research I discovered Figure 5. By using the triangle to measure the scope and quality of the project, is easier to visualise the resources available, the schedule and budget. Once the time and cost constraints were fixed and the relevant research had been conducted, using Wysocki’s triangle it was discovered that they were too restrictive and would impede the quality of the end product. Although the time scale was possible, the initial cost of a stall in Alexandra Square was greater than the overall budget, and resources were limited. Therefore, the team went back to the society executives with a counter pitch, stating that the stall was still the final goal, but this term the team would focus on raising sufficient funds and awareness. The deliverables collected, both monetary and through publicity, would then provide a better quality end product.
Figure 6: Fairtrade Project Iron Triangle
This proved the most effective solution to the project constraints, as it means that the project can raise extra funds to solve budgetary problems through selling Fairtrade items and applications for additional funding. By changing the time constraint to increase the cost allowance, this does not affect the quality of the project because the end product remained consistent, and the stakeholders were informed of any changes.
3.2 The Hassle Graph: Levels of Management Effort and how that contributes to the success of the project.
“The purpose of planning is to facilitate later accomplishment” (Meredith, 2009. Page 214). More effort in the planning phase leads to a more effective project in the delivery phase, which can be proved using a hassle graph. Figure 7 (Lowry, 2011) shows three different scenarios for management effort within a project. A good project manager strives to put in as much effort at the beginning of the project so it becomes self-sufficient, and “coasts home”. Effort is the “driving force” behind a good PM (Reiss, 2007 page 16-18) whereas a bad PM wields minimum effort at first, yet will exert increased effort later to manage the subsequent problems and crisis that ensue. This usually results in a poor-quality product, over-budget and behind schedule. Naturally, each project requires different amounts of effort; if the project is bigger or more complex, the PM will need to apply more effort than a ‘paint by numbers’ style project. (Barron, 2014 page 174). Complex projects are much more vulnerable to crisis, which in turn leads to the higher risk of project failure (Wang, 2011). Yet, regardless of the project size, the graph shows that more management effort planning ahead to avoid problems increases the likelihood of the project’s success.
Figure 7: The Hassle Graph (Lowry, 2011)
Not considering the second-hand effects of decisions made within a project is a danger for the PM, like in “The Moros” experiment (Dörner, 1996. Page 86.). If the PM makes decisions as if every action was independent of the other, the repercussions of these effects quickly turn into problems leading to more effort in the middle of the project. Problems are rectified through long periods of crisis management before the project becomes self-sufficient, known as “Hectic Change Control”. This stresses the need for effective management planning at the beginning, especially concerning organisation, scheduling and managing the scope. (Harpum, 2011. Page 109).
Figure 8: Effort levels of the PM and Fairtrade project team.
Figure 8 shows the weekly effort levels throughout the Fairtrade project. Following the consensus of the literature studied, more effort was applied within the first stages, and the level of PM effort was steadily declining, like Figure 7, before the problem occurred. The problem (See Section 1.2) meant that the management effort level increased, as I staged an intervention in the logistics department to help rectify the issue. However, there were repercussions for dependent variables, such as insufficient advertising, resulting in longer-term effects on the quality, and the level of effort for the PM continued to increase two weeks after the problem occurred.
The need to increase management effort halfway through the project, leads to several different conclusions. The first being that there was insufficient management planning. To increase the learning curve of the project team I tried to use a less ‘hands on’ approach, leaving them to make most of the decisions after the project brief had been set. My communication with them to ensure progression was through weekly meetings, individual feedback forms and one-to-one sessions. Here, I worked alongside each department to create personal goals and milestones to complete each week. Had I been more involved with the process past the initial planning and WBS, I could have spotted that there were gaps within our requirements, and I would have been able to rectify these before the issue became a problem. Dörner writes in his book that “human planning and decision-making processes can go awry if we do not pay enough attention to possible side effects and long-term repercussions, […] or if we ignore premises we should have considered” (Dörner, 1996. Page 2). By giving the team more ownership of the project, it negatively impacted my role as PM because I could not fully anticipate repercussions of earlier decisions within the planning process.
The second conclusion is that, as stated on the PMI website, all projects are ‘unique’ and regardless of size, all projects run the risk of failure. Although I have studied RACI and other risk assessment methods in a classroom context, I am considered as an unexperienced PM making both me and the project more vulnerable to risk. I was unprepared for the high amount of effort that is needed in the planning process in order to deliver a complex project effectively and efficiently. Fortunately, the problem was easily rectified and the deadline for the Fairtrade lecture was fixed, meaning the project has not fallen behind schedule. More effort during the management planning phase would have decreased the risk’s probability, and could have prevented negative results such as the poor attendance due to reduced advertising.
4. Looking Forward
4.1. Implementing the processes and management tools analysed in my future projects.
Analysing different processes and tools that are used to ensure quality has highlighted areas within my technique as a PM that need improvement. The combination of more management effort at the beginning and the use of clear, achievable milestones followed by review meetings to check the ongoing progress of the project would improve the end quality of the project. The difference between the traditional iron triangle (Figure 4), and Wysoki’s (2011) version showed a new way to visualise scope and quality in relation to other important factors of PM planning. Once the scope was clear and quality achievable within the constraints, it is easier to then divide the project into milestones, which can then be reviewed. The main point to draw from this, which Barron and Burke (2014) state numerous times, is that communication is key in the successful management of a project.
Constant review points to remind the team of the project quality leave less margin for scope creep and problems arising. I used a significant amount of different methods of communication, such as individual meetings and feedback forms, nevertheless I feel that this could be further improved within the next stages of the project. Setting up weekly meeting to review progress would mean that I had first-hand information from every team member regarding their individual developments, strengths and weaknesses. It is much easier to gage the reactions and emotions of different team members in person, and by listening to what they are saying and analysing their body language, it will be easier to pick up on underlying problems which may be taking place without having been reported.
4.2 A New Timeline
Using Remington and Pollack’s 2007 Semi-Structure model to shape the project timeline and meetings gives a clearer structure to the way that my project will be managed. Whereas Figures 1 and 2 state deadlines for each week, Figure 9 places milestones and tasks for each week on the same timeline, showing what needs to be completed so the project can remain at a good standard of quality in the eyes of the stakeholder.
Figure 9: A New Timeline
Unlike the Semi-Structure model (Remington and Pollack, 2007. Page 137), this timeline is horizontal for visual purposes. Each week outlines meetings supported by the PM, whose involvement is highlighted in the red boxes. If this model proves effective, the management effort should follow the ‘Good Practice’ line on the hassle graph, slowly making the project more independent of leadership. As the project will be closely monitored on a one-to-one basis, the likelihood of risk will decrease. Having the project end in Week 17 allows several weeks before the end of term as contingency in case of an unpredictable external factor, such as exams, which could affect a team member.
5. Conclusion
To conclude, by looking at several different management processes and tools, I was able to identify reasons why my style of project management lead to a detriment in the project quality, and how I can use the techniques studied to effectively and efficiently manage future projects to ensure the quality of the end product. By planning ahead, one can ensure the mitigation of risk through clear research and setting each team member specific goals and milestones to safeguard the project from errors that occur. I feel that to develop my skills as PM I need to put more effort into the planning phase and utilise management tools, such as the Iron Triangle and milestones. Throughout this reflective report, it has come to my attention the true importance of effectively planning without losing sight of the stakeholder requirements in order for the delivery to be a quality product.