Project tool divergence
BY CHRIS VANDERSLUIS, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR
Should you implement an integrated project management system across the enterprise or go with the best of breed? Does this mean inventing the enterprise project management model all over again?
It's not a new topic. The idea of integrated enterprisewide systems has persevered since long before the term enterprise resource planning (ERP) was coined. There was a time when companies were all small enough that the patriarchs who managed them knew everything about everything going on in their shops.
Business has moved on from that comfort level. Now, even in midsized firms, project activity tends to move so quickly that it is difficult for anyone to keep up with them all.
The desire for enterprisewide project management is almost universal now. Management perceives that having the data for every project in a single database managed in one way would provide almost real-time knowledge.
The big ERP vendors noticed this, of course. Every project management vendor seems to have a demonstration—and the demo data are persuasive.
Senior management finds the idea of linking all data in the organization from one spot compelling. Managers like the idea of seeing a range of perspectives, showing the impact on production, inventory, profits, hiring, resource availability and the capacity to take on more work. Marketing would like to be able to determine at-a-glance the delivery dates for existing clients and the capacity to do work for prospective clients.
So, why hasn't virtually everyone switched to some centralized ERP structure? What props up sales of products like Microsoft Project®? Why do third-party software vendors who offer only one or a few aspects of this total solution continue to thrive?
The answer is simple—but disturbing. First, it has become glaringly obvious to those who have selected corporate-wide ERP-type solutions that it is very difficult to be everything to everybody. Getting compliance up and down an organization is tougher than just instructing people to comply. Although management often is sold on the corporate-wide system concept, the middle managers who actually generate the work and the data that drive the company often can show that they can be productive only when they can use tools that are suited to the particular purpose.
Project management has many facets, and one type of tool often isn't suited to take care of all of them.
Imagine an organization where some project management occurs at the strategic level, looking forward in global terms to the kinds of projects the company should consider. In this same company, the IT department does its own project management, supporting resource-centric management of huge numbers of projects. Yet another group in the same company is doing shutdown management of the plant—creating a five- to six-day project where the opportunity cost can exceed $100,000 per hour of lost production. Nothing counts here but the schedule: How quickly the plant can be up and running.
Could one product support all these projects in one database? Maybe, but should it? The data is so different that merging it, even at a summary level, makes almost no sense. This holds true not just for a single company with diverse scheduling needs but for all kinds of firms in different industries.
No surprise then that even the largest ERP vendors are trying hard to verticalize their markets. No longer the omnibus project solution, partners like SAP and Oracle at the high end and Microsoft at the low end are finding a new, hot interest in partnering with smaller players. Software publishers of everything from document management to timesheets are linking up with much bigger partners to provide a more rounded project management solution. This is being fueled, in part, by a newfound interest of the large enterprise software vendors in the project management marketplace. Microsoft's latest entry, Project 2002 Server, coupled with Project Professional, has moved it up into the enterprise project management realm from its huge desktop presence. SAP's latest version of PS has it moving off a strictly cost-oriented project perspective down into a project-scheduling perspective.
This adjustment has many players going into more and more niche markets. Market software vendors who have been around for years find themselves working back into vertical markets even when they have been trying to diversify. They're back in aerospace, construction or engineering and selling tools and services in areas they know best and linking those tools to other aspects of a total solution.
It brings us back to an age-old conversation: Should you choose best-of-breed software or an integrated solution? The attraction to an integrated solution seems obvious. There is one vendor, and all data is tied together in one convenient location and can be maintained and analyzed at one time.
However, getting that data out of the system in real terms isn't always so easy. There can be many barriers to completing the deployment of an integrated project solution. The easy ones are technical, getting the database and network to cooperate. The tough ones often are the cultural barriers to having all data in one place managed in one way. Not everyone will share accurate data when it's to be managed centrally, and the resulting structure is almost certain to be less effective than linking multiple systems.
These cultural corporate barriers foster a best-of-breed solution. Department or division-level managers are willing to cooperate if they buy into the tools selected. Tools chosen by people close to the actual work are almost always better suited to their purpose. Determining how the data from these tools will integrate with the corporate systems could be more productive than spending time trying to convince these managers and their staff to adopt centralized software that is not perfectly tuned to their needs. PM
Chris Vandersluis is president and cofounder of HMS Software, based in Montreal, Canada. He is a member of PMI and the American Association of Cost Engineers. He has appeared in publications such as Fortune and Heavy Construction News and is a regular columnist for Computing Canada magazine's project management column.
Reader Service Number 223
Reader Service Number 163
Take Advantage of PM Network's Pass-Along Value!
Have you found an article in PM Network you'd like to use as a presentation tool?
Would you like to distribute a project management article as part of a newsletter?
Send comments on this column to email@example.com.
PM NETWORK | DECEMBER 2002 www.pmi.org
DECEMBER 2002 | PM NETWORK