Improving the Project Control in Practice
Researchers all through the years have proposed new approaches that can be used to improve project control. However, most of these research have been focused on individual areas of project control such as techniques, causes of project cost and time overrun, and project success factors. A literature review carried out during the PCIM project control methodology research revealed that there is a dearth of comprehensive research on the improvement of the project control process in its entirety. Viewing project control as just about the use of a technique or a software tool is an incomplete approach because project control encompasses the techniques, software tools use, practices, and the environment where project control is taking place. The deficiency of a comprehensive approach to project controls is one of the reasons the research that informed the PCIM project control methodology was carried out.
Many of the project control methodologies in existence only describe what, not how effective, project control should be implemented. Although several studies describe what an ideal project control process should look like diagrammatically, mathematically, or the isolation of a project management control success factor, there is not much that has been written on how they can be utilized in practice.
Second, and most importantly, many of the studies that have informed the development of these approaches are not well grounded in project control practice. As most of the developed approaches have not involved practitioners in their development. Therefore, it is questionable how accurately they reflect the real problems faced by project management practitioners during the project control practice. These conclusions underlie the need for an improved project cost and time control approach and the rationale for research that underpin the development of the PCIM project control methodology.
The development of the PCIM project control methodology focused on classical triple constraints of projects (cost, scope, and time) and adopted a collaborative and contingent (situational) approach through the involvement of practitioners to draw out their needs, requirements, bottlenecks, and current issues in practice.
Figure 4.1 PCIM methodology framework
The PCIM project control methodology is focused on three primary areas during project control:
i. The project phases, that is, plan, execute, and deliver and finish;
ii. The project control steps; and
iii. Factors that inhibit effective project control.
The PCIM approach is depicted in Figure 4.1. The top section covers the primary phases through which a project proceeds (plan, execute, and finish), the middle section includes the primary project control steps (monitor, report, analyze, feedback, action, and revise plan), and the bottom section reflects the fact that project control is not a closed system and is often inhibited by some factors. The leading project control inhibitors from the research conducted in the construction and infrastructure project industry in the UK include design changes, risks and uncertainties, complexity, inaccurate evaluation of time, and nonperformance of subcontractors. This framework includes two sets of good practice checklists, which provide advice on the project control process. One set contained numerous mitigating good practices for the leading project cost and time control inhibitor (see Chapter 5). The second set contained several good practices for the major steps of the control cycle (planning, monitoring, reporting, and analyzing (see Chapter 6)). The processes of the PCIM project control methodology are described in the following sections.
Plan the Project Control Process
The PCIM methodology recommends that project control should start at the planning stage of a project. The reason for this is that quite often project management practitioners do not plan how a project will be controlled at the outset of the project. During the planning stage of the project, much effort is often spent on planning how the project will be executed. For example, various types of schedule of works are used to sequence the activities to be performed. Detailed cost estimates and cost plans are also produced. However, these plans are often developed without giving prior thought to how they will be used for project control. Similar to the assertion of Fewings and Henjewele (2019) who stated that the control system is critical to the health of the project, and its choice should influence the planning process rather than vice versa.
The PCIM methodology identifies this problem and recommends that during the planning stage of a project, in addition to production of the schedule of works and cost estimates, consideration should be given to how the project will be controlled during the execution stage. Therefore, a very important component of the PCIM project control methodology is the preparation of a document during the planning phase of the project that details how the project will be controlled. This document has been termed the project control implementation document (PCID). The document will set out the following:
• Project control tools and techniques to be used during the project;
• Frequency of monitoring and reporting;
• Destination of the reports;
• Templates of the reports;
• Duties of the project team as it relates to controlling the project;
• Other information deemed necessary for effective control.
The PCID should be prepared by the project manager in consultation with the other members of the project team, and it should be circulated to the entire project team, including project team members working in external project sites. The PCID for each project should be reviewed regularly by the project manager to ascertain that the project is being controlled as planned.
Execute
The PCIM methodology moves from planning to the execution phase of the project. The execution phase of a project is the phase in which the plan is put into practice to bring the concept into reality. It is during this stage that control of cost and time is primarily needed because it is the riskiest phase of the project; things can often go wrong, and the plan developed at the outset is tested. Project control during this phase consists of a cyclic and iterative process of the following activities.
After the project has been planned and the plan put into execution, this original plan needs to be monitored during the execution stage. Monitoring is the process of observing systematically the position of the project all through the course of delivering the project and documenting the information obtained so that the performance of the project can be revealed. It aims to determine whether the intended objectives have been met.
The monitoring step of the PCIM project control methodology, first, suggests that monitoring should be a distinct step in the control cycle as opposed to the prevalent practice, in which monitoring is barely done by the project delivery team (see Chapter 3), and control seems to move straight from planning to reporting by project-based cost experts such as quantity surveyor for construction projects or cost engineer in process engineering projects. Although having project-based cost experts like this is not being discounted and can provide good reports, it will be better if, in addition to reporting, monitoring is incorporated into the practices or duties of the delivery team on the project site.
Reporting
The next step of the PCIM project control methodology is reporting. Reporting provides a straightforward statement of the work accomplished, predicts future accomplishment in terms of the project’s scope, cost, and schedule, and measures actual accomplishments against goals set forth in the plan. It reveals the problems in the project and potential risk areas so that management can act to stop or minimize these problems and risks.
In practice, although the research underpinning the PCIM methodology found that cost control reporting seems robust in practice, given that it is often performed by a project-based cost team member, the reporting on time control is at best loose (see Chapter 3). The PCIM approach advocates a more structured process through, for example, incorporation of the reporting regime for the project in the PCID at the project outset. This will specify the reporting templates, reporting cycle, destination of reports, and ensures that reporting is not solely achieved through progress meetings but is instead systematic and regular. Simple software packages should also be used to aid reporting and allow reports to be sent to the departments responsible for collating and analyzing these reports.
The PCIM approach also proposes that time and cost reporting should be conducted together rather than separately. This can be achieved through the use of reporting templates that contain both cost and time information to aid the integration of cost and time control. This will combat the prevailing practice in which management of time is left to the planning department, management of the cost estimate/cost plan is left to another department such as cost management or project accounting, and the two rarely report jointly.
Analysis
From reporting, next in the PCIM framework is the analyzing step, during which cost, and time information contained in the submitted report is analyzed. This is the step where the team needs to assess whether the project is performing as desired and compute the extent of variance. This is one of the most important steps during the control process because, if performed properly, the analysis step could go a long way in improving a failing project.
The problem with the analysis step in practice is that the full potential of analysis is not explored. The analysis step is more of interpretation of the information reported instead of analysis. The prevailing practice as found by the research underpinning the PCIM methodology, is that analysis often does not integrate cost, scope, and time during this important step. This is usually not an effective approach since classical research by Jung and Woo (2004) has highlighted the fact that cost and scheduling are closely interrelated, because cost and time share a lot of common data in their controlling processes on projects. Therefore, integrating cost and schedule control functions provides an effective tool for monitoring cost and time performance during the execution process of a project.
Not integrating cost and time analysis will invariably generate results that are not very useful for the next step of the control process because any action to bring the project back on track, for example, will usually have a cost implication. The PCIM project control methodology avoids these shortcomings by advocating that techniques that combine cost and time data are used during analysis to foster the integration of cost, scope, and time controls. Additionally, the approach goes beyond just interpretation but advocates trending and the use of the results to forecast the future performance of a project. A useful technique that can be used to achieve this is the earned value analysis and management (see Chapter 8). The earned value method is very effective for most projects and provides the added benefit of utilizing cost, scope, and time information. It considers the work completed, the time taken, and the costs incurred to complete the project. This provides results that are useful for both the cost, scope, and time objectives of the project, thereby allowing integration of both cost and time.
Feedback
From the analysis step, the PCIM project control methodology advocates a dedicated feedback action. Feedback is the process of disseminating the results of the analysis conducted on the information from the monitoring and reporting steps to all the necessary participants and relevant stakeholders involved in the project. This is very important during the project control process, but interestingly, quite often, this is not reinforced in most project control models. According to the PCIM project control methodology research, feedback was also found to be missing from the prevailing cost and time control process in practice as explained in the previous chapter, where it was revealed that in practice, there is usually no systematic method of disseminating the findings of the analysis step. What normally happens is that if analysis reveals that action(s) are required to bring the project back on track, quite often, at best, only ad hoc meetings are held to discuss the situation. The results of the analysis step need to be transmitted to everybody who has an action to take; otherwise, the effort that has been put into collecting information, reporting, and analyzing will be in vain.
The PCIM project control methodology stresses that, irrespective of the results of the analysis, systems and processes should be put in place to provide feedback on the findings to the project delivery team. In practice, transfer of project control information is often only one way, that is, from the delivery team to the project office. The project office rarely provides feedback on their findings to the project delivery team on-site except for when the findings are negative.
The PCIM project control methodology suggests the use of a feedback report from the project control team sent at set periods to the project delivery site team. This will go a long way in motivating them that the monitoring and reporting they conduct and transmit to the project office is not useless information but is being used. This will also instill a project control culture in the organization. This feedback report should also be sent to senior managers, and the project decision makers who can act on the findings of the analysis stage. Finally, having a dedicated feedback procedure ensures that information is transmitted quickly and efficiently and is not left on the desk until it becomes obsolete and useless.
Action
The action step ensures that information revealed from the analysis step is put into practice. To close the control loop, the team must take effective action to overcome any variances. This involves identifying and evaluating alternative courses of action for resolving a perceived problem situation. Corrective or mitigating actions need to be timely, practical, and should be consistent with the project objectives and plan.
The PCIM project control methodology specifically reinforces the need for actions not only to be reactive but primarily proactive. In the prevailing project control process used in practice, action is primarily reactive. In other words, action is only taken to correct things that have gone wrong. Reactive actions are often not effective during project control; hence, the PCIM methodology advocates that action should be reactive and proactive. Information generated during analysis should be able to highlight possible problems and develop remedial actions well in advance instead of waiting for problems to occur or, even worse, after they have occurred (as is often the case in practice as detailed in Chapter 3); action should always be taken immediately if possible.
The PCIM project control methodology also recommends that the process of implementing remedial actions during project control should not be haphazard; instead, it should be controlled and systematic. Acting systematically would, for example, involves conducting an impact analysis on the action that will be taken before acting. Some actions may create risks and problems in the future; some actions may cause delays to the project, incur cost increases, or raise quality issues. Therefore, it is important that both the time and cost implications of planned corrective or mitigating actions are analyzed fully and appreciated by appropriate project parties and stakeholders as soon as possible. If actions are not systematic, not all the members of the project team will be aware of the action and this will be counterproductive. Therefore, a systematic approach is essential when deciding on the best course of action to get a project back on track during project control. Finally, all the relevant people that will be involved in and impacted by a remedial action should be notified and informed of their involvement. Additionally, the project team and stakeholders should together plan (not planning in isolation) how the action will be implemented, so that any consequential effect to other areas of the project can be identified.
Revise Plan
The PCIM framework moves from action into the revised plan. Revision of a plan involves the updating of the previous project plan to reflect the impact of any action taken because of the analysis conducted on the project. This has been treated as a separate step instead of tagging it to the original planning step (as often the case in practice) because the PCIM project control approach recognizes that this is a process that requires due diligence.
The research underpinning the development of the PCIM project control methodology revealed that, in practice, when action is taken, the status quo often resumes, and revisions of the project schedule are produced by just being updated with the action that has already been taken or updating the cost plan and budget (see Chapter 3). The revise plan step in the PCIM project control framework goes beyond just updating the old project plan. This is because the actions that are taken will often exert an impact on the remaining activities of the project. Therefore, revision of the schedule and cost plan needs to be more rigorous than just updating. The initial plan should always be kept as a baseline, whereas the revised plan should be used for continuing the project. Revised plan marks the end of one iteration of a cyclic and iterative process, which should be repeated continuously while the project is still being executed.
Finally, the PCIM project control methodology framework moves to the finish step. This is when the project has been completed and the original conceived plan or an iteratively revised plan accepted by all parties during the project has been achieved. At this point of the project, the PCIM methodology supports the carrying out of a formal project lesson learned session (not long after completing the project) by all members of the project team, especially in relation to the effectiveness of the project control regime implemented on the project. This will serve as a feedback to improve the overall project control process and practice within the organization.
Project Control Inhibitors
The next section of the PCIM framework shows the inhibitors to the cost and time control process. This is because project control techniques are often recommended without additional suggestions in relation to the enabling environment required for their success. The research that informed the PCIM project control methodology identified inhibitors to effective project cost and time control in the UK construction and infrastructure industry (see Chapter 5 for more details). The research revealed that the leading five factors that inhibited time control are also the leading five inhibitors of cost control. This goes with the saying “time is money”; in the author’s experience of working on projects, many reasons for cost increases relate to schedule and vice versa. The leading five project cost and time control inhibitors identified are design and scope changes, risk and uncertainty, inaccurate evaluation of project time duration, complexity of works, and nonperformance of subcontractors.
The PCIM Project Control Methodology Good Practice Checklist
The final ingredient of the PCIM project control methodology is a checklist of good practices. Deliberate documentation and implementation of good practices within the organization are important because it will facilitate the development of a project control culture through embedding of these good practices in an organization. And alongside this, it will enhance staff competency and organizational capability through training on the use of these good practices and enable continuous improvement. Therefore, modeling the project control steps is only half the story of the control process in practice because any developed project control framework still depends on people to put it into use. One of the problems of project control in practice is that many project managers often lack a sense of direction and guidance of what to do. Therefore, the research underpinning the development of the PCIM project control methodology developed two sets of good practices checklist. First, a set of good practice checklist was developed for the five leading project control inhibitors discussed in the previous section because of their importance to effective project control, and to help mitigate their negative impact on project cost and time control. Second, another set of good practices was developed for the major steps of the control process (plan, monitor, report, and analyze) because they form the crux of the project control process.
The developed good practice checklists are an integral component of the PCIM project control methodology and provide guidance to users. These good practice checklists are presented and discussed in detail in Chapters 5 and 6. These good practice checklists are by no means exhaustive. Companies and individual practitioners can add additional good practices to the existing checklists or create new checklists for other project control inhibitors, which might be particularly important to them. The primary purpose of these checklists is to act as a starting point for practitioners to use during the project cost, scope, and time control process.
Scalability of the PCIM Project Control Methodology
The process used in the development of the PCIM project control methodology can also be used as a blueprint for developing a control process specific to a project. For example, the framework used for the development of the PCIM methodology can be used in the development of a more specific control model for any desired type of project such as IT projects, process engineering projects, pharmaceutical research and development projects, and so on. It can also be used in developing control models to be used by serial clients for the type of projects they invest in or the area of the project life cycle they are most active. For example, a client might adapt the PCIM approach using the framework in this study just for the preconstruction phase of its design and build projects since that is mostly where its risk lies and not the construction phase.
Another way the PCIM project control approach that can be used as a blueprint is in developing project controls specific to the environment in which a project is being executed. The reason for this is that the project control inhibitors that have been incorporated as part of the PCIM project control methodology were brought to light based on a research conducted in a developed economy. These factors may be different from the pressing factors in a developing country, for example, where the inhibitors to the cost and time control effort may be different from those in a developed economy. Therefore, the framework used for the identification of these factors and the development of mitigating measures may be used to identify inhibitors and their mitigations as specific to projects being implemented in any type of macroeconomic environment or country if so desired. It is important to note that the good practices developed for the project control cycle will be the same irrespective of the type of project or the location country where the project is taking place.
Barriers to the Implementing the PCIM Methodology
It is important to highlight some of the barriers that may be faced in implementing the PCIM project control approach.
Organizational Cultural Change
First, cultural change may be a key barrier to implementing the PCIM project control methodology successfully because one of its important requirements is the need to get cost and scheduling professionals to work together. However, the culture in projects, especially infrastructure projects as noted in chapter three, is that these are separate disciplines and getting them to work together will require a dedicated effort by management. This may involve some organizational restructuring and the inconvenience of doing this may be seen to outweigh the perceived benefits.
This barrier may easily be surmounted because the PCIM project control approach has combined the two structures (scheduling and cost) that are mostly separated but are dependent on each other. Therefore, the management will need to work at convincing these two disciplines that utilizing the PCIM approach for project control and working together will eliminate duplication of effort. The implication of this is that implementing the PCIM project control approach may be difficult at first, but the benefit will soon become obvious as time goes on.
Cost Implications of Change
Another potential barrier is the perceived cost implication of modifying existing systems, for example, modifying software packages, reporting templates, training in the use of new techniques, and so on may be considered costly. But this can be prevented by stressing to the senior management that the PCIM project control methodology is not advocating a total departure from the tangible aspects of project control in practice, what it does is bring a focused structure to the process of project control in practice. For example, some of the techniques like the earned value analysis and CPM advocated in the PCIM project control methodology are techniques that are already in existence and used in practice. What is needed is training in the use of these techniques and management support to see that the process advocated by the PCIM project control methodology is followed. There may also be a demand for additional compensation by staff due to a perceived addition to their responsibilities; this will be overcome by highlighting that the process will make their job easier.
Management Buy-In
Another potential barrier to the implementation of the PCIM project control methodology is that it depends on management buy-in because as metioned previously, the PCIM project control methodology requires, for example, a cultural change, realignment of existing processes and so on as these changes will never happen if there is no management buy-in. If the senior management of a company does not support the utilization of the PCIM project control methodology and the requirements needed to implement it, then its use will falter as soon as implementation begins. Therefore, to prevent this from happening, it is essential that management instills in the psyche of all employees the need to utilize the PCIM project control approach and accompanying good practice checklist and follow the recommended steps. Management should also provide all the support and encouragement needed to make it work to realize the full benefits of implementing the PCIM methodology and for it to stand the test of time.
It is also important to point out that the PCIM project control methodology is not intended to be a “silver bullet.” The PCIM project control approach, especially the incorporation of the project control inhibitors, their mitigating good practices, and good practice checklist for the cyclical project control steps, should be a minimum requirement for the project control process.
Case Study: Practical Value of the PCIM Project Control Methodology
The practical applicability of the PCIM project control methodology and its potential benefits can be illustrated using a real-world example of a construction company, for which the author had worked as a project manager. The firm, “Constructwell Ltd” for anonymity, is involved in projects, which usually last between 3 and 12 months. It employed project managers with varied levels of experience. Each project manager usually handled up to four projects simultaneously depending on project size and complexity.
Although Constructwell Ltd. had an established accounting and financial control system and an ISO-certified quality control system in place, it had no standard project control methods. Each project manager adopted ad hoc procedures and decided the type and detail of the schedule at his/her own discretion. In addition, although most of the project managers were trained to an appropriate level, rendering them aware of project control techniques such as EVM, CPM, and S-curves. These techniques were not used in the analysis of project progress because of a lack of standardized project control process within the organization. Furthermore, when remedial actions were required, they were usually decided based on the experience of the individual project managers rather than on any systematic approach. As a result, delays and cost overruns were common in many projects of Constructwell Ltd.
The PCIM project control methodology would be beneficial to Constructwell Ltd. in several ways as described below:
• The PCIM project control methodology requires a project team to develop a project control implementation document (PCID) at the outset of the project.
• This will help to impose a standardized project control procedure and will provide a basis for measuring and improving performance of project controls.
• Adopting the PCIM methodology would promote proactive culture toward project control in Constructwell Ltd. Project managers will follow a clear process to monitor, review, and manage variations of cost, scope, and time during projects. The use of the good practice checklists and integrated reporting templates will further formalize project control practice throughout the entire company.
• The normal practice of project progress analysis at Constructwell Ltd. was through a qualitative evaluation of the reported progress against the planned progress and by assessment of subcontractor’s invoices in relation to the work package cost budget. Cost and time were often assessed separately; holistic assessment was difficult.
• The PCIM project control method addresses this issue by always advocating integrated quantitative analysis of cost and time information.
• The dedicated feedback phase of the PCIM approach will ensure that the results of analysis are fed back immediately to the project manager and other team members from whom actions are required. This will lead to prompt actions and timely update of cost and schedule information, avoiding the current situation in which schedule of works is updated regularly, but cost plan is only revised later for final accounts purposes.
• The PCIM project control methodology requires an impact analysis to be conducted on all potential corrective actions by evaluating the potential domino effect of any action and the feasibility of its implementation. This will help project managers to choose the optimum solution rather than the first solution that comes to mind.
• Use of the PCIM project control methodology, especially the good practice checklists, will remove the lack of a sense of direction and guidance of project managers on good practices to adopt during project control. These checklists will be reviewed periodically to ensure their applicability to the types of projects and project stages at Constructwell Ltd.