Has Nigeria Become the World’s Junk Yard of Abandoned and Failed Mega Projects worth Billions?
Dim1, N. U., Okorocha2, K. A., & Okoduwa3 V. O.
The Nigerian construction industry is mostly concerned with the development and provision of projects such as roads, bridges, railways, residential and commercial real estates, and the maintenance necessary for the socio-economic developments contributes immensely to the Nigerian economic growth (Bureau of Statistics, 2015). Butcher and demmers (2003) described projects as an idea which begins and ends by filling a need. However, a project fails when its idea ends without meeting the needs and expectations of its stakeholders.
Nigeria Has Become the World’s Junk – Yard of Abandoned and Failed Projects worth Billions of Naira!
Hanachor (2013), revealed that projects form part of the basis for assessing a country’s development. However, a damming report from the Abandoned Projects Audit Commission which was set up by the Ex-President Goodluck Jonathan in 2011 revealed that 11,886 federal government projects were abandoned in the past 40 years across Nigerian (Abimbola, 2012). This confirmed the assertion by Osemenan (1987) “that Nigeria has become the world’s junk –yard of abandoned and failed projects worth billions of naira”.
Abandoned projects including building and other civil engineering infrastructure development projects now litter the whole of Nigeria.
Physical projects do not only provide the means of making life more meaningful for members of the community where the projects are located, successful projects also result in empowerment and collective action towards self improvement (Hanachor, 2013).
This Issue of Abandonment Has Been Left Without Adequate Attention for Too Long, and Is Now Having a Multiplier Effect on the Construction Industry in Particular and the Nigeria’s National Economy as a Whole. (Kotngora, 1993)
PROJECT FAILURE
Project Failure might mean a different thing to different stakeholders. A project that seemed successful to one stakeholder may be a total failure to another (Toor and Ogunlana, 2008). Some stakeholders, more especially the project users and some private owners, think of failed projects as a situation where a completed building project collapsed, a situation where by a completed dam project stopped working after few days of completion, or a completed road project that broke down after few months of completion. Other experienced stakeholders, such as engineers and architects conform to the iron triangle by Atkinson (1999) which states that the most strategically important measures of project failure are “time overrun”, “cost overrun”, and “poor quality”.
Turner (1993) noted that a project fails when the project specifications are not delivered within budget and on time; the project fails to achieve its stated business purpose; the project did not meet the pre-stated objectives; the project fails to satisfy the needs of the project team and supporters; and the project fails to satisfy the need of the users and other stakeholders. Lim and Mohamed (1999) cited in Toor and Ogunlana (2009) clarified that there are two possible view points to project failure namely; the macro-level and the micro-level. They further explained that the macro view point reviews if the original objectives and concepts of the project was met. Usually the end users and the project beneficiaries are the ones looking at the project failure from the macro view point, where as the project design team, the consultants, contractors, and suppliers review projects from a micro view point focusing on time of delivery, budget, and poor quality.
In the early 1990s, the failure as well as the success of any project was determined by the project duration, monetary cost, and the performance of the project (Idrus, Sodangi, and Husin, 2011). Belout and Gauvrean (2004), also confirmed that the project management triangle based on schedule, cost, and technical performance is the most useful in determining the failure of a project. Moreover, a project is considered as an achievement of specific objectives, which involves series of activities and tasks which consume resources, are completed within specifications, and have a definite start and end time (Muns and Bjeirmi 1996, cited in Toor and Ogunlana, 2009). Reiss (1993) in his suggestion stated that a project is a human activity that achieves a clear objective against a time scale. Wright (1997) taking the view of clients, suggested that time and budget are the only two important parameters of a project which determines if a project is successful or failed. Nevertheless, many other writers such as Turner, Morris and Hough, wateridge, dewit, McCoy, Pinto and Slevin, saarinen and Ballantine all cited in Atkinson (1999), agreed that cost, time, and quality are all success as well as failure criteria of a project, and are not to be used exclusively.
FACTORS OF PROJECT FAILURE
Cookie-Davies (2002) stated the difference between the success criteria and the failure factors. He stated that failure factors are those which contributed towards the failure of a project while success criteria are the measures by which the failure of a project will be judged. The factors constituting the failure criteria are commonly referred to as the key performance indicators (KPIs).
Time and Cost Overrun
The time factor of project failure cannot be discussed without mentioning cost. This is because the time spent on construction projects has a cost attached to it. Al-Khali and Al-Ghafly, (1999); Aibinu and Jagboro, (2002) confirmed that time overrun in construction projects do not only result in cost overrun and poor quality but also result in greater disputes, abandonment and protracted litigation by the project parties. Therefore, focus on reducing the Time overrun helps to reduce resource spent on heavy litigation processes in the construction industry (Phua and Rowlinson, 2003). Most times, the time overrun of a project does not allow resultant system and benefits of the project to be taking into consideration (Atkinson, 1999). Once a project exceeds the contract time, it does not matter anymore if the project was finally abandoned or completed at the same cost and quality specified on the original contract document, the project has failed. Furthermore, Assaf and Al-Hejji, (2006) noted that time overrun means loss of owner’s revenue due to unavailability of the commercial facilities on time, and contractors may also suffers from higher over heads, material and labour costs.
Poor quality/Technical Performance
The word “Performance” has a different meaning which depends on the context it is being used and it can also be referred to as quality. Performance can be generally defined as effectiveness (doing the right thing), and efficiency (doing it right) (Idrus and Sodangi, 2010). Based on this definition of performance, at the project level, it simply means that a completed project meets fulfilled the stakeholder requirements in the business case.
CAUSES OF PROJECT FAILURE
A lot of research studies have investigated the reasons for project failures, and why projects continue to be described as failing despite improved management. Odeh and Baltaineh, 2002; Arain and Law, 2003; Abdul-Rahman et al., 2006; Sambasivan and Soon, 2007; all cited in Toor and Ogunlana, 2008, pointed out the major causes of project failures as Inadequate procurement method; poor funding and availability of resources; descripancies between design and construction; lack of project management practices; and communication lapses
The contract/procurement method
A result obtained from two construction projects which were done by the same contractor but using different procurement methods showed that rework, on the design part which occurs when the activities and materials order are different from those specified on the original contract document, makes it difficult for the project to finish on the expected time (Idrus, Sodangi, and Husin, 2011). This is as a result of non-collaboration and integration between the design team, contractor, and tier suppliers. The rework on the design portion has a huge impact on project failure leading to the time overrun. The traditional method of procurement has inadequate flexibility required to facilitate late changes to the project design once the design phase of the construction project has been concluded.
Nigerian most widely used procurement method is the traditional method of procurement (design-bid-construct) which has been confirmed to be less effective to successfully delivery of a construction project (Dim and Ezeabasili, 2015). And, the world bank country procurement assessment report (2000) cited in Anigbogu and Shwarka, (2011) reported that about 50% of projects in Nigeria are dead even before they commence because they were designed to fail.
The way the construction projects are contracted, in addition to the way the contracts are delivered, contributes to the causes of projects failure. Particularly, among the methods of project contracting is lump-sum or a fixed-price contracting method, in which the contractor agrees to deliver a construction project at a fixed price. The fixed-price contract can be low-bid or not however, once the contract cost has been agreed upon the contract award, it cannot be changed. And, contractors are expected to honor and deliver the contract agreement, failure to do so can result in a breach of contract which can result in the contractor being prosecuted.
Awarding a contract to an unqualified personnel also contributes to project failures. When a contractor places more emphasis on money and the mobilization fee after a construction project has been initiated instead of getting the right workforce and skilled professionals that will execute the project. Instead the workforce chosen will often not be base on competence and required skills rather it will be based on availability. Moreover, poor strategy and planning by contractors who have overloaded with work also contributed to one of the causes of project failure.
Poor funding/Budget Planning
A lot of public projects in the Nigerian construction industry failed as a result inadequate funding, and the difference between the national annual budget and the budget actual released. Most of the Nigerian public projects are signed even before the actual release of the national budget. The difference in budget of the contracted project and the actual budget release can get the contracted company stuck as a result of inflation of prices, scarcity of construction material at the time of the budget release and mobilization to site. Also un-planned scope of work which can be as a result of the contractor working on another contract when he is called back to mobilization to start work. Moreover, poor budget planning is a regular mistake made by some contractors by not undertaking feasibility assessments before starting the design. The construction project should be planned according to the available resources and not according to the unrealistic expectations a client has in mind.
Discrepancies Between the Design and Construction
Limited collaboration between the contractors, engineers, and the architect results in discrepancies between the project designs and construction on site, and further leads to rework. Changes on a project designs, and changing to the scope of work in the middle of construction processes on site can be dangerous, and can lead to time overrun, increase in cost, and most of all can lead to abandonment. Moreover, many cases have been seen where the designs from the architects are not buildable on site, while In some cases, most contractors are unable to adequately specify the scope of work for the construction processes on site. Therefore any default on the design by the architect can be an opportunity for the contractor to make more money which might cause the project duration to exceed the time specified on the contract document.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research starts with a general reasoning or theory which says that the major cases of project failure in the Nigerian construction industry are defined based on time overrun and cost overrun. The findings from the data analysis will help on the decision to accept the theory or not. The research data was collected from the progress report for the month ending of October, 2015 published by the Nigeria of Federal Ministry of works on thirty-nine on-going highway construction projects at the South-South geopolitical zone. The table 1 below shows the information on the data collected which comprises of the project title, contract Number, project description, the contractor that was awarded the projects, the date of project commencement, date of completion and the extended date if any. The scheduled time for each project was specified as follows: project commencement date labeled as “a”, project completion date labeled as “b”, and the extended date labeled as “c”.
DATA ANALYSIS
The data analysis was done with the use of Microsoft excel. The analysis started by obtaining the number of days between the date of commencement of each project and the date of completion to show the duration of each highway project. And, the number of days between the project completion date and the extension date showed the time-overrun. The project duration and the extended days were obtained with the use of NETWORKDAYS function in Microsoft Excel which calculates the number of working days between two dates excluding weekends and any dates identified as holidays.
The standard deviation between the specified project duration for each highway projects and the extended days was calculated to obtain the extent to which each highway project contract failed on its time of delivery. This was denoted as the degree of failure. The table 1 above showed the projects ranking which was done based on the degree of failure of all the highway projects. The highway projects that were ranked from one to sixteen have low degree of failure and are represented with green color, while the rest are those with high degree of failure and are represented with red color.
FINDINGS
The findings made showed that the successfully completed highway projects have no extended days or time overrun, and the successful on-going highway projects are still on schedule and have no extended days unlike the on-going highway projects that have already failed as a result of the extended dates. Other projects have been abandoned because they have exceeded the delivery date as specified on the contract document, and have no extended date of completion. Thus, no work is going on.
Figure 2 above showed that 14% of highway projects are still on-going projects because they have not exceeded the original date of completion as specified on the contract document. However, they are heading towards failure because they have been given an extended date of completion which can be as a result of some critical activities running behind schedule, causing delay on the critical path network of the projects. Moreover, the other 86% completely failed because they have exceeded their completion date specified on the contract document.
The figure 3 above showed that 63% of the successful highway projects are still on-going because they have not exceed their completion dates, and they are not yet completed. However, those on-going highway projects might end up as failed projects as a result of poor funding, discrepancy between the design and the construction on site, and conflict between the construction parties or stakeholders.
“Say what you will do, and do what you said” or “Say as you will do it, and do it as you said”
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The idea of knowing what a failed project is, the factors and the causes is very important in project management. Success in project management can neither be achieved nor measured without the knowledge of project failure, its factors, and causes in the Nigerian construction industries. This work has shown that project failure is as a result of exceeded time of delivery, cost overrun, and poor quality. However, the analysis was only done based on exceeded time of project delivery because of the nature of the data collected.
This work suggested a few approaches to help reduce the number of failed projects in the Nigerian construction industry if properly implemented. Firstly, Having good collaboration between the project stakeholders involved in a construction project at the early stage of project conception is most important in order to accomplish the project objectives, and deliver the project on time, within budget, and quality specified on the original contract document (Othman, 2006).
Secondly, Adopting the ISO 9000 technique which is used for quality management will also help in achieving a successful project delivery. This technique states “ say what you will do, and do what you said” or “say as you will do it, and do it as you said”. This technique is not an indication of high quality but it promotes control and consistency which leads to specialization, and improved productivity and quality. Also, adopting the principles of lean construction will help to reduce waste within the construction and stream-line activities in order to improve the on-time delivery of projects.
Thirdly, Learning from the precedent failed projects, how those projects failed, and the reason for their failures. This will help the project manager to plan and mitigate the risks of project failures in the future. And, finally, more seminars and workshops will help to educate and enlighten clients (the federal government representatives), users, contractors, engineers, and architects on what is project failure, the factors that contributes to abundant failed projects, and their causes.
REFERENCE
Abimbola, A. (Novermber 24, 2012). About 12,000 Federal Projects Abandoned across Nigeria. Premium times (November 16, 2015). Retrieved from www. Premium timesng.com/news/108450-about-12000-federal-projects-abandoned-across-nigeria.html.
Al-Khali, M.I and Al-Ghafly, M.A. (1999). Important Causes of Delays in Public Utility Projects in Saudi Arabia. Construction management and Economics, 17, 647-655
Aibinu, A.A and Jagboro, G.O. (2002). The Effects of Construction Delays on Project Delivery in Nigeria Construction Industry. International journal of Project management, 20(8), 593- 599.
Anigbogu, N. and Shwarka, M. (2011). Evaluation of Impact of the Public Procurement Reform Program on Combating Corruption Practices in Public Building Project Delivery in Nigeria. Environtech Journal, 1(2). 43-51.
Assaf, S. and Al-Hajji, S. (2006). Causes of Delays in large Construction Projects. International Journal of Project Management, 24, 349-357.
Atkinson , R. (1999). Project management: Cost, time, and quality, two best guesses and a Phenomenon, it’s time to accept other success criteria. International Journal of project Management, 17(6), 337-342.
Belout, A and Gauvrean, C. (2004). Factors Influencing the Project Success: The impact of human resource management. International Journal of project Management, 22, Pp. 1-11.
Butcher, N. and Demmers, L. (2003). Cost Estiumating Simplified. Retrieved from www.librisdesign.org.
Cookie-Davies, T. (2002). The Real Success Factors on Projects. International Journal of Project management, 20(3), 185-190.
Dim, N.U. and Ezeabasili, A.C.C (2015). Strategic Supply Chain Framework as an Effective Approach to Procurement of Public Construction Projects in Nigeria. International Journal of Management and Susutainability, 4(7), 163-172.
Hanachor, M. E. (2012). Community Development Projects Abandonment in Nigeria: Causes and Effects. Journal of Education and Practice, 3(6), 33-36.
Idrus, A., Sodangi, M., and Husin, M., H. (2011). Prioritizing project performance criteria within client perspective. Research Journal of Applied Science, Engineering and Technology, 3(10), 1142-1151.
Idrus, A. and Sodangi, M. (2010). Framework for evaluating quality performance of contractors in Nigeria. International Journal of Civil Environment and Engineering. 10(1), 34-39.
National Bureau of Statistics (January, 2015). Nigerian Construction Sector Summary Report: 2010-2012.
Kotangora, O. O. (1993). Project abandonment, Nigerian Tribune.
Osemenan, I. (1987). Project Abandonment. New Watch Magazine, Vol. 1, pp. 15.
Othman, M.,R. (2006). Forging main and sub-contractor relationship for successful projects. Retrieved from http://rakanl.jkr.gov.my/csfj/editor/files/file/projek/lessonslearned/MAIN&SUB_2.pdf
Phua, F.T.T and Rowlinson, S. (2003). Cultural Differences as an Explanatory Variable for Adversarial Attitude in the Construction Industry: The case of HongKong. Construction Management and Economics, 21, 777-785.
Reiss, B. (1993). Project Management Demystified. London: E and FN Spon Publishers.
Toor, S. R. and Ogunlana, S. O. (2008).Problems causing Delay in Major Construction Projects in Thailand. Construction management and Economics, 26, 395-408.
Toor, S. R. and Ogunlana, S. O. (2008). Critical COMs of Success in Large-Scale Construction Projects: Evidence from Thailand constructuction industry. International Journal of Project management, 26(4), 420-430.
Toor, S. R. and Ogunlana, S. O. (2009).Beyound the “Iron Triangle”: Stakeholder perception of key performance indicators (KPIs) for large-scale public sector development projects. International Journal of Project management, doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.05.005.
Toor, R. and Ogunlana, S. (2009). Construction Innovation: Information, process, management. 9(2), PP. 149-167.
Turner, J. R. (1993). The Handbook of project-Based Management: Improving the process for achieving strategic objective. London, McGraw-Hill.
Wright, J., N. (1997). Time and Budget: The twin imperatives of a project Sponsor. International Journal of Project Management, 15(3), 181-186.
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of Requirements Management
Most project managers know the importance of requirements management. Without a solid foundation and grounding in the subject, requirements management quickly turns towards the complex and difficult side.
Why Manage Requirements?
In the final analysis, all projects are completely driven by requirements. Requirements are usually not cast in stone. Stakeholders gather insights and more knowledge of their true needs with time. This means that they can change their minds about requirements, no matter how late in the game. Requirements should therefore be managed proactively in anticipation of change.
However, if requirement definitions are not set up properly in the first place, expect that the quality of delivery will suffer, along with more schedule delays than imagined, and a big drain on the budget.
Broad project requirements help to establish a baseline for objectives. Subsequent change requests would thus require approval by the right authority; a change control board is usually set up to investigate and approve changes to requirements. The objective of baselining is not to prevent or discourage changes, but to ensure that approved changes are relevant and deserve the priorities assigned to them.
The simplest way for project managers to reduce the probability of missing critical requirements is to hold requirements review sessions to ensure that stakeholders understand the requirements and that any ambiguities, inconsistencies and omissions are identified and addressed to facilitate requirements approval or sign-off.
However, when inaccurate requirements are in play, team members end up reworking those activities multiple times. The only sensible course of action is to deliver requirements up front in an accurate manner. That way team members will be able to immediately identify any missing components early in the project lifecycle.
It’s vitally important to employ tools designed to assess requirement quality at the beginning of the project. These tools will help to identify any requirements that are vague or missing early enough to improve the changes of success for the project. Even simple tools like guidelines and checklists can solve major problems later on. You may also consider automated tools, depending on your level of technical expertise.
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of Requirements Management
Good Requirements
Requirements that meet the “good” standard are ones that anyone can easily evaluate to quickly and clearly determine that all the needs have been accurately met by the project.
The common criteria used by project teams to properly evaluate requirements is as follows:
Verifiable: Ensure that all deliverables are able to be evaluated to ensure they have met all necessary requirements. Verification techniques such as modelling, analysis, review by experts, simulations, and demonstrations or testing.
Testable: Requirements are able to be assessed using the most basic of all criteria. This includes quantitative measurement like “pass or fail.”
Traceable: Requirements should be tagged to specific sources. Examples are compliance requirements, best practices, industry standards, and use cases.
Clarity: All statements should be presented in unambiguous ways so the cannot be interpreted differently by different team members.
Bad Requirements
Bad requirements are marked by their incompleteness and lack of clarity. They are hard to understand and implement. They generally possess these characteristics:
Inconsistency: Without clarity, you’ll find requirements that are in conflict with other requirements! This is very frustrating because there’s no way that either one will ever be satisfied.
Non-valid: These are requirements that team members simply cannot understand. They will never be able to accurately assess or approve non-valid requirements.
Non-ranked: These requirements have not been correctly prioritised. Without proper ranking, it’s difficult for team members to be able to assess them properly.
The risk to the project not meeting the clients expectations is not something that will ever be entirely removed. However, having a specific criteria upon which to benchmark a project is a great way to reduce this risk.
Risks fall into two main categories. Systemic risk is inherent to the nature of the work and cannot be avoided. The non-systemic risk is a bit different and relates from the activities in the project itself. One of the greatest of all non-systemic risks is that of bad requirements management.
Teams that wish to reduce the risk of the project not meeting the clients expectations substantially are best served by establishing specific requirements in the initial stages. Common goals like being “on time and on budget” while maintaining a high level of quality will require dedication from teams members who have eliminated as much non-systemic risk as possible.
When you’re next involved in a project where requirements come up in a discussion, always pay careful attention to the good, the bad, and the ugly that could result without proper due care and attention.
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of Agile Methodologies
The “agile” buzzword has really taken hold among a myriad organisations worldwide. That result is not particularly surprising. Who wouldn’t love to employ light and fast tactics that allow them to respond to rapidly changing challenges? Despite all the optimism about agile methods, the bigger question is how well companies are actually doing when it comes to employing these methodologies in the real world. Without understanding what the core objectives of embracing agile methods are, it’s not going to be easy to gain results.
Agile methodology is employed in order to reduce the time, risk, and cost that is associated with a project. However, these massive benefits are not going to materialise out of thin air. They are the result of the dedicated work of a team who is well versed in implementing the methodology.
To become “agile” will require organisations to take a quantum leap in their culture. They will have to embrace the entire philosophy behind these methods or no real change will take place. Truly agile companies are the ones that have gone through a transformative process in order to implement brand new processes that say goodbye to the past. This takes a lot of work and effort and not all organisations are willing or able to do this.
Ugly Agile Implementations
Project teams that are solely focused on results and who don’t do their homework end up with very ugly agile implementations. These teams are so excited about agile as a concept that they convert everyone in their organisation into adopting the methods. The problem is, they do not spend the requisite time getting everyone on board with exactly what needs to be done.
Because of this oversight, the projects are plagued with poor communications and engagement. The project team and others in the organisation are each working on their own tasks with no thought to how the pieces fit together in the “big picture.” This is a major problem because agile methods really only shine when the whole organisation works as one well-oiled unit. In this scenario, major issues at the core of the project are neglected and the entire project goes off the rails. This leaves a bad taste in the mouths of managers, who are no longer excited about agile methods.
Really ugly agile implementations have the wrong focus. Because of this myopia, the true benefits of agile employment are never realised. Before long, things, unfortunately, go back to “normal.”
Bad Agile Implementations
Some businesses completely miss the boat when it comes to agile deployment. They’re interested in receiving the benefits of reduced costs, faster time to market, and cutting “red tape.” Despite this knowledge, they’re not truly committed to the all of the values that are espoused by the Agile Manifesto. Without this commitment, they cannot possibly hope to fully embrace a functional implementation.
Organisations like to invest in education and communications, but they ignore important concepts like utilising the tools that help them truly embrace agility. They even form teams that understand cross-functionality, but without empowerment they are unable to make vital decisions.
Lastly, organisations that do poor agile implementations perform project reviews regularly enough, but the input from the meetings is never acted on by anyone. The key issues that are preventing proper implementation are never properly addressed and the project fails on its promise. Organisation members swear off the agile methods forever at this point.
Good Agile Implementations
When business personnel and IT staff work together, good implementations of agile are the result. These units work together so that a project delivery methodology is presented to the organisation that meets its needs. They also spend the time to create the cultural changes needed to ensure the methods are successful.
In organisations like this, team members, business end users, along with senior management and key stakeholders received a continuous education that empowers them all. Cross-functional teams that excel are the results. These organisations also invest in the techniques and tools that fully support agile. That includes test driven development, continuous builds, new standards, and more. With these in place, a platform that ensures long-term success will be installed.
Particularly telling, these businesses conduct regular project reviews which they conceptualise as opportunities to improve instead of something that simply has to be done. When change is needed, they embrace it and plan for it. When it arrives, they are ready and the organisation continues to excel. A sign of a good agile implementation is when the organisation is commits to making long-term changes that will benefit the methodology in the long run.
It doesn’t pay to underestimate just how difficult implementing good agile really is. Since major internal changes to how project delivery is done need to be embraced, the road ends up being a challenging one. Traditional managers will be challenged because empowered teams now have more input than ever before.
Once a good agile implementation is in place, the benefits are obvious and plentiful. An energised, cross-functional community of empowering people who are all focused on common goals get more done than ever before. Good implementation put platforms into use that improve project delivery because they allow for test-driven development, continuous integration, standards implementation, and best practice design applications.
Top 10 Project Management Myths Debunked
Since the dawn of time, mankind has used myths to make sense of the uncertainty that surrounds us. In the early 1990s a lot of people believed that project management was the best kept secret in business. However, because project management was not seen as a prevailing profession at that time, it suffered from a lack of awareness which was in a sense, a double edged sword. Those who were knowledgeable in the practice of project management became extreamly valuable to organisations and pioneers for the profession.
These early adopters were able to convince organisations that project management practitioners were needed. Myths around project management began to form in the business community and as the role of the project manager was unclear, questions were raised as to what project management was and what it could offer organisations.
The definition of the word myth is a “widely held, but false belief or idea.” Here, we’re going to examine 10 of the most pervasive PM myths that have emerged.
Myth #1 – Contingency pool is redundant
This is one of the most ‘mythical’ myths that has plagued the industry for a long time. Coupled with the tendency to presume that ‘real work’ is tantamount to implementation or building something concrete and you have the perfect recipe for project disaster. The thought pattern behind this approach typically originates from budget constraints and/or having unrealistic expectations. As we all know, or should know, the unexpected happens quite regularly. An effective contingency plan is important as it aims to protect that which has value (e.g., data), prevent or minimise disruption (e.g., product lifecycle), and provide post-event feedback for analysis (e.g., how did we fare? did we allocate funds correctly?).
Myth #2 – Project Management software is too expensive
If your idea of project management software involves purchasing servers, and purchasing a software application from a major vendor for a small practice with 10 practitioners then, yes, it is too expensive. If, however, you have gone cloud and elected to use a powerful web-based project management solution (such as Smartsheet), then you are likely to save thousands of pounds while reaping the benefits of a pay-as-you-go price structure. The present, and future, lie in cloud solutions that provide equal, or superior, functionality at a fraction of the cost.
Myth #3 – Project Management methodologies will slow us down
Project managers have a reputation of using process-intensive methodologies that favour ideology over pragmatism. In some instances this may, indeed, be the case when there is a mismatch between a specific project management approach and the organisation’s acutall needs (e.g., a process-driven method, such as PRINCE2, may not be appropriate for a slightly chaotic environment that favours an adaptive approach, such as Scrum). So, in sum, put down the paint roller (“Project Management isn’t for us!”) and take out your fine-bristled brush (“The Critical-Chain method may not be our cup of tea, but Agile on the other hand”¦”).
Myth #4 – Facts and figures are more important than feelings and perceptions
While facts are very important, projects are often derailed and sabotaged because of false perceptions. The PM must pay attention to both fact and fiction to navigate through turbulent organisational change.
Myth #5 – Project managers need to be detail oriented and not strategic in nature
While it is of the utmost importance for the project manager to understand how to read the details of the project, they must also understand how the project supports organisational objectives. Having a strategic perspective adds great value to the skill-set of the project manager.
Myth #6 Rely on the experts in everything that you do
It is true, we do need to rely on the experts but our trust can not be a blind faith. The job of the project managers in this area is twofold. First we must extract information and second we must verify that the information is accurate. A good example of this is asking a planner to provide an estimate on the effort required to perform a task. In some instances team members forget to include tasks which ultimately results in a faulty estimate.
Myth #7 All the battles have to be fought and won so that we can succeed
Project managers sometimes make the assumption that they need to stand firm to get the job done, however, coming to compromise on a particular issue is often a better course of action in order to win the war.
Myth #8 Project Managers can wear multiple hats
Wearing different hats can be extremely confusing. This is especially true if the project manager is asked to be a business analyst or technical expert on top of serving in their PM role. They end up doing both roles with mediocrity. When we “wear two hats” we essentially tell ourselves that both hats fit on one head at the same time. However, what happens if the demands of two roles conflict and what assurances do we have that we’re managing the inherent conflict of multiple roles and the risks the roles introduce? Sadly, multiple roles become more common as we move up the management hierarchy in an organisation, and that’s exactly where potential conflicts of interest can do the most harm.
Myth #9 Once the risk register is created, it’s full speed ahead
Risk management provides a forward-looking radar. We can use it to scan the uncertain future to reveal things that could affect us, giving us sufficient time to prepare in advance. We can develop contingency plans even for so-called uncontrollable risks, and be ready to deal with likely threats or significant opportunities. Too often, it’s not until a catastrophic event occurs and significantly impacts project progress that ongoing risk reviews are conducted.
Myth #10 Project managers can not be effective in their role unless they have specific technical expertise in the given field that the project falls within
You don’t need to be an engineer to manage a construction project or a IT technician to manage a software development project. All you need is a fundamental understanding with strong PM skills to manage the team. Experience in the field helps but does not guarantee success.
Project management is challenging enough without the myths. The profession has come a long way since the 1990s and some of these myths are fading. However, we still see remnants of them in one form or another. Great projects cut through false assumptions and confusion, allowing their teams to make smart decisions based on reality.
These are just 10 project management myths, what are yours?
Are Women Better Project Managers Than Men?
Can the Real Project Manager Please Stand Up?
Why Do Projects Fail?
Momo Apartments
Zero defects are the primary battleground between traditional and modern construction methods. A relative concept, zero defects is, however, a target that the construction industry has set for itself. Primary considerations are structural stability and keeping the water out. Proper functioning of services, components, fixtures, and fittings are essential.
Energy and sound performance are also vital, as well as issues of safety, access, and security. This is a campaign which will be fought in years to come… and in the meantime here is another prefab scheme which feature’s in these skirmishes.
Mobile Modular (MoMo) is a research development project for a relocatable system of mass housing constructed from specially fabricated shipping containers. This type of system allows flats to be erected speedily on short-life sites and to be demounted and re-assembled in different configurations on other sites in the future.
The key objectives:
Remove MoMo apartments from a site where housing has been provided for 5 years.
Refurbish Each module at the supplier’s yard or an alternative temporary site.
Re-locate The apartments in any new configuration to provide decanting, short-term housing, permanent apartments. This type of system can also become a permanent housing solution.
Originally commissioned by the Peabody Trust, after feasibility stage, the team was invited to take the project forward with their own initiative. The team formed a consortium with the aim of developing a prototype to demonstrate the principles, and to market the MoMo scheme as a one-stop shop package to interested parties.
