PROJECT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS: TYPOLOGY, STATE-OF-THE-ART AND FORECAST

Transcription

1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS: TYPOLOGY, STATE-OF-THE-ART AND FORECAST F. AHLEMANN (UNIVERSITY OF OSNABRÜCK, GERMANY) 1. INTRODUCTION management software systems are widely regarded as an important building block in today's project management [1]. The nature of such systems has changed considerably in the last decade; they are still developing from single-user/single-project management systems to complex, distributed, multi-functional systems that no longer exclusively cover project planning [2]. Unfortunately, the market for project management software systems is not transparent. Hundreds of vendors compete for millions of users of such systems and the variety of underlying technologies and concepts is wide. For this reason, the University of Osnabrück carried out a comprehensive market study on present project management systems [3]. The study was prepared in order to offer a solid information base to decision-makers intending to buy or rent a project management software system. In contrast to other project management market studies [4], we have concentrated on a medium-level comparison of the systems; project management systems are compared by their functionality to support the overall life cycle of projects and their ability to provide all levels of management with the information relevant to manage not only one but dozens or even hundreds of projects. This article summarizes the findings of the study by describing the breadth and depth of functionality one can expect from such software, classifying present project management systems into four different clusters and attempting to forecast the development of project management systems. The conceptual framework for the study and this paper is the so-called M-Model, a conceptual information system architecture embracing the entire life cycle of projects and their respective process steps. The structure of this paper is as follows: Section 2 presents the research design of the study. Section 3 gives an overview of functionality that is provided by present project management systems. Section 4 deals with the findings of the study; the product clusters are introduced and the corresponding functionality is outlined. Section 5 contains a forecast of the development of project management systems, based on the results of the study and individual interviews with software manufacturers and users. Section 6 contains the summary. 2. RESEARCH DESIGN Within the framework of the study we evaluated generic (non-industry-specific) multi-project management systems running in PC environments. The manufacturers and their software systems were identified in an Internet inquiry. Altogether 72 manufacturers were contacted, 28 of whom decided to participate in the study and provide their software. This led to 29 evaluated software systems, due to the fact that one manufacturer provided two systems. The study was initiated in June 2002 and was completed in January Functionalities of new versions that have been released in the meantime were incorporated into the study. We have focused on the breadth and depth of functionality rather than non-functional quality criteria. Our evaluation scheme therefore consists almost only of groups of functionality (see table 1). These functionality groups were created in two steps: First, we followed a top-down approach and deductively derived necessary functionality for enterprise-wide project management from a theoretical point of view using the so-called M- Model [5]. Then we looked at the functionality the software systems offer (bottom-up approach). This was done to make the theoretical findings more realistic and to validate them. The results of this phase were mainly summarized in the form of an adapted M-Model, as it is described in detail in section 3. The evaluation of the software was either carried out in our media lab or we accessed the manufacturers hosts via the Internet. In most cases we obtained a short introduction to the software by a consultant. Some evaluations were carried out at the manufacturer's site since the complexity of the software installation did not enable us to evaluate the software in our media lab. At the end of the study the detailed evaluation results were presented to the manufacturers for final approval.

2 Strategic Business Unit: Portfolios Definition of Strategy Portfolio Portfolio Controlling - Office: s Idea Evaluation Controlling Termination - Manager: s Idea Generation Controlling Termination Personal Information Management / Team Collaboration Administration / Configuration / Interfaces / Miscellaneous FIGURE 1: THE M-MODEL 3. FUNCTIONALITY OF PRESENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS The M-Model as a Point of Reference The so-called M-Model is a conceptual software architecture which embraces all tasks related to the initiation, planning, execution, and termination of projects (see fig. 1). It describes the process of enterprise-wide project management (project life cycle) and explains the management levels involved. Independent of their individual objectives, projects run through a series of phases which form the project life cycle. At a high level of abstraction, this life cycle consists of the following four phases reflected in the shanks of the M [6]: In the initiation phase, project ideas are generated, collected, captured, and examined. Their feasibility, profitability and strategic impact are analysed so that a final decision about their implementation can be made. In the planning phase the project idea is refined into a project plan and the necessary resources (financial, human and other resources) are provided. The execution phase embraces the realization of the project idea using the resources assigned to the project. In the termination phase the project results are installed and handed over to the project sponsor. In addition, the enterprise closes the project and tries to learn from the experiences made. These phases are further sub-divided into process steps as outlined in table 1 and figure 1. Throughout the project life cycle different management levels are involved [7]: At the level of operational project management the project manager is responsible for the planning and execution of a single project. This level is represented by the lower third of the M-Model. The primary planning object of the project office is the project program, a set of interrelated projects. The project office assigns resources to projects, collects control data and reports to the upper management levels. In addition, it assists project managers and assures that the project management standards are adhered to. The project office is represented by the middle third of the M- Model. The management of a strategic business unit is represented by the upper third of the M-Model. Since higher management levels do not have the time to coordinate each individual project or program, all programs of a strategic business unit are combined into a portfolio to increase the clarity of the project landscape and to reduce complexity. The strategic business unit is responsible for planning and controlling the portfolio. Its task is to harmonize the business strategy and the project portfolio.

3 In addition to the process steps of the project life cycle, the M-Model also reflects generic functionality for personal information management (11) and team collaboration (12) and non-functional software features such as administration and configuration (which is not discussed here). Emprirical Results Within the study we assigned functionality groups to each of the process steps described above (see table 1) to analyse the extent to which present project management systems support the overall project management life cycle. We also differentiated between basic functionality, advanced functionality and elaborate functionality [8]. The results can be found in figure 2. Some of the findings are: 1. It is obvious that the majority of project management systems still have their functional focus on the classic area of project planning/controlling and program planning/controlling. The early and late phases of the project life cycle are only marginally supported (e.g. only 3% support creativity techniques, 21% offer very rudimentary support for employee suggestion systems). 2. In these core areas the manufacturers concentrate on work breakdown structure planning, time planning (90%) and scheduling (76%), resource allocation (97%) and timesheet functionality (86%). This functionality is complemented by corresponding reporting functionality. 3. In comparison with the results of older studies, we determined that collaborative features become increasingly important. The widespread provision of document management functionality (90%) may be one indicator. The increasing support for workflows enabled by notification and alert mechanisms (59%) is another. 4. On the other side, collaborative functionality like chatting (14%), discussions (31%) or surveys (7%) seem to lack acceptance, provided that the functionality offered by the manufacturers reflects the users needs. 5. Portfolio planning and the initiation phase are hardly supported. Only 17% of the systems support a subset of portfolio management functionality. This may be interpreted as an indicator of the hypothesis that strategy implementation and strategic alignment is still a problem in enterprises nowadays and that the term enterprisewide project management may still be wishful thinking when looking at the reality of project management systems. 6. With the exception of network planning and the earned value analysis, advanced quantitative project management techniques (e.g. selection models, investment controlling methods, risk or resource estimation procedures) are ignored by the manufacturers. E.g. no manufacturer provides support for quantitative project selection models, and only one product provides advanced resource usage estimation functionality. 7. Quality management is only supported by few systems. Only 28% of the systems offer advanced quality planning; 21% provide advanced quality controlling functionality. 8. Although most of the manufacturers claim to offer suitable software for enterprise-wide project management the functional infrastructure is often insufficient to handle a large number of projects efficiently: 41% of the systems offer advanced classification systems; 62% provide advanced search functions. Regarding non-functional characteristics of present systems we have determined that 9. Almost all manufacturers offer web-based project management solutions or are heading towards such a product. 96% of the manufacturers offer web-based or web-enabled solutions with complete or reduced functionality. However, the degree of Internet-ability varies from systems that are completely HTML-based, and hence completely platform-independent, to systems that use platform-dependent plugins (e.g. ActiveX components). Surprisingly, security does not seem to be an issue for a number of manufacturer; they offer solutions with non-encrypted connections over the Internet. 10. Microsoft and the Microsoft file format are the de-facto standards in the world of project management software. Import and export interfaces to the market leader are state of the art (86%) and underline the dominant position of this software package. 11. Enterprise application integration is mainly undertaken using database interfaces like ODBC or JDBC (72%) or simple flat file import/export (66%). Only a few systems offer a documented application programming interface (31%). 12. Only a limited number of systems are prepared for global project management with dispersed teams. 52% can handle multiple time zones. 34% are capable of working with multiple currencies and exchange rates. However, 62% of the systems offer multi-language support.

4 1. Idea Generation 7. Controlling Creativity Techniques: Support for creativity techniques such Status Reporting: (Personal) reporting regarding time, cost and as brainstorming or brainwriting. quality, the level of attainment of objectives, current problems Employee Suggestion System: Adequate input screens for a and decisions to be made, subsequent steps, and the personal decentralized entry of ideas and tools for screening new ideas. appraisal of the situation made by the project manager. Idea/ Classification: Flexible grouping of project ideas Budget Controlling: Analysis of the general budget situation of and projects according to different criteria (e.g. classifications the program including a deviation analysis. following the product line, the location or the functional area). Auditing: of audits, capturing of audit results including measures that need to be taken to further improve quality. Monitoring: Flexible reporting regarding time, cost, and quality and all other aspects of project management, sometimes even in the form of OLAP functionality. 2. Idea Evaluation 8. Portfolio Controlling Proposal Workflow: Examination of project ideas by Basically, portfolio controlling requires very similar functionality multiple experts supported by workflow functionality. to that of portfolio planning. Complete systems, however, are Resource Usage Estimation: Skill and resource directories and provided by extensions that ease controlling and enable the estimation procedures, such as the function point method. development of the strategic positioning of projects to be analyzed. Risk Estimation: Risk estimation based on risk categories, estimation procedures and key figures. Cost Estimation and Profitability Analysis: Investment controlling methods (such as NPV), input of time-dependent cash flows as the basis for such key figures. 3. Portfolio Controlling 9. Termination Appraisal: Analysis of the strategic impact of single projects or programs. Typically done by applying scoring models. Selection: Selection models considering the individual project appraisals, the resource situation and the overall budget. Performance Measurement: Assignment of measurable, quantitative targets derived from the business strategy. Knowledge Management: Explicit documentation of lessons learnt, categorization of past projects, menu structure for browsing through past projects, efficient search function. Metrics: metrics supporting risk and cost estimation for future projects Termination Templates: Standard project plans in the form of Acceptance/Testing Management: Documentation of test runs templates. Time : Starting and termination date, milestone information and their results, linkage to tasks required to eradicate errors, workflow capabilities. Staff Appraisal: Personal curriculum vitae, structured project Resource Allocation: Search for adequate resources, member appraisals. assignment of resources to projects, resource levelling. Supplier Management: Store supplier information, contract Closure: Final reports, final cost calculation, archiving of project data. details including the controlling of their fulfilment. Budgeting: Time-dependent budget plan, denomination of project sponsors Personal Information Management Work Breakdown Structure : Subdividing a project task into a hierarchical structure of smaller units. Quality : Definition of expected quality, denomination of quality managers, scheduling of quality assurance measures. Scheduling and Network : Multiple dependencies and constraints, resource-dependent and task-dependent scheduling. Risk Management: Detailed risk planning, emergency planning, notifications. Cost : Cost and benefit categories, time-dependent planning, charging of cost centers. Dashboard, Personalized Start Screen: Personalized start screens with project data most relevant to a specific user. Contact Management: Contact information, contact journal. Personal Calendar: Personal calendars, personal appointments, personal tasks. 6. Controlling 12. Team Collaboration Issue Management: Recording of issues, estimation of their Document Management: Document storage, version history, project impact, initiation of necessary steps to resolve them, and check-in/check-out, classification, searching. notification of the staff involved (workflow support). Notifications and Alerts: Automatic notifications or alerts if Quality Controlling: Documentation of quality inspections, certain events arise. planning of resulting measures, controlling of such measures. Meeting Support: Support for the planning and performance of Expense/Travel Management:, acceptance and structured meetings. settlement of travel expenses or expenses in general. Discussion Threads: Exchange of ideas and arguments Timesheet: Timesheets and timesheet approval. regarding a specific topic regardless of time and place. Cost Controlling: Controlling of actual costs and benefits. Chatting: Communicate text-based in real-time. Pollings / Surveys: Structured, automatic survey of team members' opinions. Databases: Table-like structures with configurable columns and an infinite number of rows. Additional functionality such as workflow capabilities and automatic notifications. TABLE 1: EVALUATION CRITERIA

5 Basic Fuctionality Advanced Functionality Elaborate Functionality Number of Systems Evaluation Criteria 1 Idea Generation 1.1 Creativity Techniques 1.2 Employee Suggestion System 1.3 Idea / Classification 2 Idea Evaluation 2.1 Proposal Workflow 2.2 Resource Usage Estimation 2.3 Risk Estimation 2.4 Cost Estimation / Profitability Analysis 3 Portfolio 3.1 Appraisal 3.2 Selection 3.3 Performance Measurement Templates 4.2 Time 4.3 Resource Allocation 4.4 Supplier Management 4.5 Budgeting Work Breakdown Structure 5.2 Quality 5.3 Scheduling and Network 5.4 Risk Management 5.5 Cost 6 Controlling 6.1 Issue Management 6.2 Quality Controlling 6.3 Expense/Travel Management 6.4 Timesheet 6.5 Cost Controlling 7 Controlling 7.1 Status Reporting 7.2 Budget Controlling 7.4 Auditing 7.5 Monitoring 8 Portfolio Controlling 9 Termination 9.1 Knowledge Management 10 Termination 10.1 Acceptance/Testing Management 10.2 Staff Appraisal 10.3 Closure 11 Personal Information Management 11.1 Dashboard, Personalized Start Screen 11.2 Contact Management 11.3 Personal Calendar 12 Team Collaboration 12.1 Document Management 12.2 Notifications and Alerts 12.3 Meeting Support 12.4 Discussion Threads 12.5 Chatting 12.6 Pollings / Surveys 12.7 Databases FIGURE 2: FUNCTIONALITY IN PRESENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

6 4. TYPOLOGY OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS Since project management systems differ very much from each other with regard to their target group and their functional focus it does not make sense to compare all systems with each other. Instead, we created clusters of projects management systems with comparable functional focus and target groups. This was not done by applying statistical methods (the random sample is too small to come to a valid conclusion for the entire population). Instead we analyzed both the marketing message of the manufacturer and the functionality of the systems. In so we created four main product clusters: Portfolio Enterprise-PMS Portfolio Control Idea Evaluation Control Multi-PMS Termination Idea Generation Single-PMS Control Termination Personal Collaboration Computing / Groupware Functionality Platforms Administration / Configuration FIGURE 3: CLUSTERS OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS Collaboration Platforms This cluster contains systems that have limited multi-project support but offer a web-based team collaboration platform. collaboration platforms provide all kinds of functionality to enable collaboration in dispersed teams ranging from advanced document management, discussion threads and workflow mechanisms to instant messaging. Thus systems belonging to this group primarily target team members and project mangers to support their everyday work. To avoid the non-integrated coexistence of personal information managers like Microsoft Outlook and project data, many of the systems provide an interface to synchronize data between the project collaboration platform and task lists, dates and contacts in the personal information manager. Almost inevitably project collaboration platforms are characterized by a 3-tier architecture with a web browser as the frontend, a web server-based middle-tier and a database system in the backend. A well-know member of this cluster is eroom. Single- Management Systems Single-project management systems offer functionality for the planning and controlling of one or many projects independent from each other (see fig. 3). s are considered as isolated, unrelated initiatives with neither resource, financial nor strategic dependencies. Although many of the systems currently available have their roots in single-project management, almost all present systems have a shared resource pool and therefore belong the cluster of multi-project management systems described below. The functional focus of single-project management systems consists of the work breakdown structure planning and based on the work breakdown structure scheduling, resource allocation and cost controlling (mainly resource costs). The primary aim of their application is to create Gantt charts and network diagrams and to schedule the project. Users of single-project management systems are project managers and project controllers who are responsible for the planning and controlling of the respective project neither the top management nor project offices/team members are addressed. Single-project management systems typically have a file-based monolithic architecture, storing each project in an individual file that does not allow simultaneous access by different users. Multi- Management Systems ( Management Systems) In contrast to single-project management systems, multi-project management systems offer functionality to coordinate a set of projects, at least in terms of resources (see fig. 3). Multi-project management systems dominate the market for project management software (23 out of the 29 systems of the study belong to this cluster) and can be further sub-divided into three groups:

7 Plan-oriented Multi- Management Systems: Such systems have strong functionality in the field of scheduling and resource planning and are therefore suitable for large, complex projects which need detailed planning in advance. The centre of such systems is the work breakdown structure and the Gantt chart supplemented by resource information and capacity histograms. The target group consists of project managers and project offices responsible for resource allocation and the timely delivery of the project results in the desired quality on the allocated budget. Systems from this cluster include, for example, AMS REALTIME s, Actano RPlan, Sciforma Scheduler and Primavera P3e. Process-oriented Multi- Management Systems: In contrast to plan-oriented systems, the software systems from this cluster focus on quality and process management. Standardized project management with steady quality control and workflow support is the overall objective of these systems. As a result, the target group consists of team members, project managers and the project office. Very often the resource management and scheduling functionality is limited so that project management software with advanced scheduling functionality has to be applied in parallel. For this reason, many systems offer elaborate interfaces to such complementary software, especially to Microsoft. Systems from this cluster include, for example, Our, iplan and Teamcenter. Resource-oriented Multi- Management Systems: This cluster embraces those systems that concentrate on resource planning and offer almost no additional functionality. The objective is to manage a common resource pool, assign resources to projects and control the resource usage via timesheets. Thus the target group consists of project offices, and complementary project planning software for project managers is required. Systems from this cluster include, for example, ressolution and Explorer/WebTime. Due to the fact that multi-project management systems have to be able to store and analyze data from dozens or even hundreds of projects which in turn consist of hundreds of activities, the technical architecture is advanced in most of the cases. 2-tier or 3-tier client/server architectures can be considered as state of the art (only 4 out of 23 products have a monolithic 1-tier architecture) whereas 3-tier architectures are a characteristic of web-based solutions which can be used via the Internet. Systems with a 1-tier architecture are almost always positioned as entry level products for project manager beginners and limited fields of application. Enterprise Management Systems Systems supporting the entire project life cycle especially including portfolio planning and controlling, belong to this cluster (see fig. 3). Enterprise project management systems cover (almost) all project management processes by offering in-depth functionality and a high degree of configurability. Most of these require major implementation and deployment projects and an extensive training in order for their full potential to be tapped. The maximum integration of processes and information they offer is paid with by increased organizational efforts necessary for project process reengineering, configuration and user training. Enterprise project management systems offer elaborate functionality for almost all stakeholders that a project might have. This not only includes the project manager, the project office and team members. In addition, project sponsors, the management board (responsible for the strategic planning), suppliers and customers can also communicate using the system. All three enterprise project management systems that were analyzed in the study have a scalable 3-tier architecture that is web-enabled. One system even allows offline work on personal computers that are not connected to the central server and subsequent replication of the modified data back to the server. A well-known member of this cluster is the Artemis solution (Viewpoint/PortfolioDirector). Other suppliers include Cataligent (Cat4) and Planta (PPMS). 5. FORECAST Based on the findings we made throughout the study, we have formulated a set of hypotheses regarding how project management systems could develop in the future: (1) Virtualization and Distribution: Due to the globalization of present-day business, more and more projects span multiple locations covering various timezones. Future project management systems will help mitigate the lack of communication and coordination due to dispersed teams. Completely web-based architectures, offline work, data replication and distributed data storage will characterize the high-end solutions within the cluster of enterprise project management systems. (2) Emerging standards: Parallel to an ongoing globalization of today s project management, business standards will emerge to enable multiple parties to communicate with each other via the web and to exchange project data. We also expect progress in the standardization of project management system functionality and architecture. (3) Increasing support for (mobile) communication and collaboration: More than ever before, future project management systems will include functionality for mobile communication and collaboration. Support for distributed, structured meetings will be a standard functionality in the future. The use of mobile devices, especially in the construction and engineering industry, will also become the norm (ubiquitous computing). (4)

8 Increasing Specialization and Integration: management knowledge is no longer a field for specialists. As a result, partial or complete project management functionality will be available in applications which currently lack this kind of functionality. Examples are software development environments or computer-aided design systems. management functionality will be available in components and can easily be plugged into larger software systems. On the other side, central data processing and aggregation will still be required for project coordination and top management reporting. 6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS It has been shown that project management systems have been adapted to the new opportunities that the emerging technologies offer and that they provide a wider spectrum of functionality than a decade ago. Progress has especially been made in the areas of web-based team collaboration and program management. As a consequence, project management software systems are no longer restricted to individual project managers and specialists in the project office. Instead, they have become an everyday tool for team members, project managers and project offices. We assume that it is only a question of time until even top managers realize that (enterprise) project management systems can help to close the gap between strategic planning and strategy implementation and that the corresponding know-how that theoretically has been available for decades will further spread among project management professionals and managers in general. 7. REFERENCES 1. White, D., Fortune, K. Current practice in project management an empirical study. International Journal of Management, Volume 20, Number 1, 2002, p Dworatschek, S. and Hayek, A. Marktspiegel Projekt-Management Software - Kriterienkatalog und Leistungsprofile, 3rd edition, Cologne: Verlag TÜV Rheinland, Ahlemann, F. Comparative Market Analysis of Management Systems, Research Report of the Chair for Business Administration/Organisation and Information Systems, Osnabrück: University of Osnabrück, Dworatschek, S. and Hayek, A. Marktspiegel Projekt-Management Software - Kriterienkatalog und Leistungsprofile, 3rd edition, Cologne: Verlag TÜV Rheinland, 1992; Voss, H. Projektmanagementsoftware. Eine Studie zur Gegenüberstellung der Leistungsmerkmale von Projektmanagementsoftwareprodukten, 2nd edition, Berlin: T.A. Cook Consultants, Ahlemann, F. Das M-Modell Eine konzeptionelle Informationssystemarchitektur für die Planung, Kontrolle und Koordination von Projekten (Projekt-Controlling). Arbeitsbericht des Lehrstuhls für BWL/Organisation und Wirtschaftsinformatik, Osnabrück: University of Osnabrück, Morris, P.W.G. Managing Interfaces - Key Points for Success. In: Cleland, D.I., King, W.R. (Eds.): Management Handbook, New York et al.: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1983, pp Morris, P.W.G. Managing Interfaces - Key Points for Success. In: Cleland, D.I., King, W.R. (Eds.): Management Handbook, New York et al.: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1983, pp Ahlemann, F. Comparative Market Analysis of Management Systems, Research Report of the Chair for Business Administration/Organisation and Information Systems, Osnabrück: University of Osnabrück, 2002, pp