Life cycle project management

Today's projects need to be formulated and implemented in an environment of uncertainty, change, and complexity, compared to the stable demand and relative certainty of the past when new and reconstruction projects were planned and implemented. Under the current conditions, traditional process-based and activity-driven models of project management are less relevant, indicating the need for a strategic approach. In this paper, the authors present a Life Cycle Project Management (LCPM) model that has been researched and developed as a strategic whole-of-life project creation, delivery, and business-achievement model. LCPM installs a set of business and strategic objectives, called Life Cycle Objective Functions (LCOFs), for decision-making throughout project life in place of traditional PM functions (time, cost, scope, and quality).

LCPM comprises 3 integrated systems: (1) an integrated business framework, aiding strategic management across all project phases; (2) a flexible system that encourages technical and technological innovation during conceptualization, definition, and delivery phases; and (3) an optimization and decision support system that facilitates holistic processing of information and optimization of the project outcome vis-à-vis strategic objectives.

LCPM creates and maintains a strategic view of the project that sits above the traditional delivery platform. It also accepts uncertain data and processes same to provide a measure of project uncertainty as well as aid decision-making under conditions of uncertainty. It does not negate the value of traditional delivery parameters, such as scope, time, and cost, as these are considered to be useful intermediaries for project progress monitoring, but not ultimate decision functions.

The authors believe that a major debate on the next generation of project management models is now timely. However, as with any new idea, it is important to assess how feasible a strategic platform is and what computing environments, tools, and competencies are required to apply a strategic project management model. The work by the authors has shown that shifting to a strategic platform requires far more sophisticated capabilities than those currently available. It is thus important that the debate be conducted within a realistic and pragmatic environment, not through theoretical pondering.

Introduction

The history of project management practice in its current form can be traced to projects in post-war reconstruction and industrial expansion. At the time, technology had already leapfrogged because of the war efforts. There was widespread demand across all sectors of the economy as post-war shortages had to be met. So, fast delivery of infrastructure, housing, industrial products and the like were the focus. It was in this environment that the United States (US) West Coast contractors led the way in creating the genesis of the current methods for efficient and orderly construction of large-scale projects. The origins of the current bodies of knowledge and practices can be traced to those times when delivery under budget and on time was of critical importance.

But with the change of time, markets have shifted from scarcity to oversupply; goods from mass production to customization; and competition from efficiency to ingenuity. Also, technologies underlying both project concepts and/or associated implementation methods have changed. Today's projects typically experience complexity for the following reasons: (i) presence of uncertainty and risks affecting virtually all aspects of project creation, delivery, and operation; (ii) complex project composition; (iii) complex network of relationships among the relevant players; (iv) multiple systems that need to work in harmony to furnish different functionalities within projects; and (v) a demanding regulatory environment and an alert public. When socio-economic-political environments undergo rapid changes, they cause shifts in project contexts. In extreme situations, these shifts may cause project obsolescence.

Given the profound changes in project environments and the increasing evidence of the inadequacy of the current project management models, the following questions need to be answered systematically:

• What will be the next-generation project management platform, given the diversity and complexity of projects today?
• How relevant will it be to the strategic existence of organizations?
• Will project management be seen as a core capability in delivering strategic advantage to host organizations, or will it be seen as an operative downstream activity relegated to sub-professionals?
• What will be the value-addition process upstream?
• How does project management relate to that process?

The authors have spent the last 10 years working on these questions, trying to define a new model of project management that can deliver strategic objectives of organizations in a proactive and explicit manner. We were prompted by the fact that 70 to 85% of project value is often locked in during its front-end phase. While the downstream side can account for up to 30% of project value, in practice this is not the case, as decisions made during the upstream phase are applied somewhat religiously and mechanistically during project implementation. Thus, the choice before the PM professional is stark: either position yourself to influence the whole project value chain (particularly its upstream), or witness your gradual demise as the skills for downstream delivery are gradually internalized by other professionals and project management, as we see it today, may disappear altogether. To influence the value upstream requires new competencies, as well as new platforms and strategic thinking coupled with risk-resilience capabilities. In addition, appropriate systems to facilitate this shift are necessary. The need for new competencies will be addressed in a separate paper; the focus of this paper will be on the actual platform and thinking models that are needed to achieve the paradigm shift in practice.

Needs for Reform

Using Figure 1 as a basis for characterization of projects, it can be seen that projects have moved from defined scope and stable environment in the post-war era to uncertain and complex positions within the defined project population space. Industries have advanced significantly since World War II because of the following influences: more demanding and exacting clients; a better-educated and trained professional and technical work force; increased competition; vastly-improved access to technical expertise; improved management information systems; instantaneous means of communication; improved relationships at contract and site levels; improved project monitoring and control systems; and a generally competitive supply and manufacturing support sector (Jaafari, 1997).

Figure 1. Project Population Space

In order to align project and organizational objectives, project processes need to be extended over the project life cycle, spanning the creation and optimization phase through to the operation and recycling phase. Furthermore, there is a need to link the project systematically to the various levels of corporate structure; otherwise, strategic alignment may be compromised (Artto, Martinsuo, and Aalto, 2001). Figure 2 depicts a schematic strategic integration framework for projects across various industries, such as construction, manufacturing, production, services, information technology (IT), etc. This Figure shows the project processes of a typical product development cycle with vertical integration to management level in the organizational hierarchy (Artto, Martinsuo, and Aalto, 2001).

Figure 2. Strategic Project Integration

The vertical and horizontal integrative view work as a catalyst in strategic project management philosophy. Integration of such functions is necessary for consideration of the project in its business context. The earlier the decisions are made in a systematic manner, the better the result. However, the criterion links to the vision on how the project will contribute in the dynamic competitive environment. This aspect emphasises the importance of the SWOT (Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis of the project success where the end deliverable will finally show its effectiveness in a competitive market environment.

The need for a strategic, flexible, and risk-resilient platform for management of complex projects is evident from the literature (Artto et. al., 2001; Grundy, 2000; Jaafari, 2001). Authors in this research sought to explore the feasibility of developing a new platform for project management based on the following main characteristics: (i) whole-of-life information integration; (ii) life-cycle objective functions (LCOFs) as the basis for dynamic decision-making; (iii) concurrent project management; and (iv) a new criterion for optimization; that is, a composite value, named “project worth,” that embraces not only financial measures, but also the environmental and social components of decisions on projects. Therefore, this paper attempts to discuss the formulation of a unique approach to project management, one that aims to maximize value for client-owners and stakeholders, on a “whole-of-life” basis (strategic perspective). The paper presents the Life Cycle Project Management (LCPM) philosophy and framework, as well as a prototype computing system that encapsulates the LCPM philosophy.

Shift of Project Management Paradigm

Emery and Trist (1965) have studied the influence of the environment on managerial approaches, as included in Table 1. Their study of environmental changes in the post-war United Kingdom (UK), and due to its then-anticipated membership in the European Common Market, was among the first to identify rapid rise in business uncertainties. They cite the case of a British food manufacturer who invested in production scale-up of a product line on the assumption that the demand would continue to grow for the product. They subsequently discovered that the reality was quite different and continuity was no longer the case.

These authors noted that environment has a profound impact on the way that business should operate. According to these authors, as the nature of the environment changes from a placid, randomized situation to a turbulent environment, the managerial approach has to change from a local perspective of relative efficiency in the use of factors of production, to a shift to self-management and autonomous teams. They stated: “A problem in the study of organization change is that the environmental contexts in which organizations exist are themselves changing, at an increasing rate, and towards increasing complexity” (p. 21).

Table 1: Environments and management methodologies (based on Emery and Trist, 1965)

As seen, a turbulent environment requires a much more flexible managerial, rather than a normative, approach of contemporary project management, as characterized by Project Management Institute's (PMI) PMBOK^® Guide (Project Management Institute, 2000), or similar publications. Thus, more and more companies are moving towards a project-oriented way of managing their operations (Turner and Keegan, 1999). Businesses are divided into projects, as opposed to using the traditional functional organization. In the traditional approach, the construction industry and other project suppliers managed their operations by using projectized or matrix organizations. Today, even companies with only a few projects with mixed clients are abandoning the functional organization and changing to a projectized approach (Artto, 2000). Earlier, a large industrial or construction project with an external client represented the most common project type, whereas, today, projects have become diverse, including many with intangible deliverables taking place in an environment of uncertainty and change. Many projects also take place within organizations, either for developing new capabilities, or for introducing new products or mergers and acquisitions as well as social and environmental projects. The need for strategic management in such situations is of paramount importance.

Formulation and implementation of a strategic management framework adopted for addressing such challenges depends on four fundamental elements: identification of opportunities and risks in external environment; determining the organization's resources and capabilities; value management and acknowledgement of non-economic responsibilities to society, or other ethical considerations. Future vision and business strategies should work as a compass, aligning individual innovation activities. In innovation management context strategies related to marketing, products, technology, and Research and Development (R&D) should be considered. Events of the front-end phases should be aligned with the business strategies in developing new products and adding value to the corporate business. Clark and Fujimoto (1991) emphasised coherent strategic plans facilitating smooth and speedy conception and planning of new innovations, and helping to maintain corporate identity and consistency across innovation in project competitiveness.

Organizational Complexity and Change Management

The world's political, economic, and social landscape is changing fast because of many forces and global drivers (Jaafari, 2004). The main drivers often discussed in the literature are:

• A rise in complexity and uncertainty;
• Globalization and the emergence of global networks or eco-businesses;
• A shift in the competitive equation, from the simple manufacture of mass-produced goods to complex, knowledge-based products and services;
• Advances in information and communication technologies (ICT) and networks;
• A rise in services as a major contributor to economic growth;
• The freeing of capital and labor markets;
• Socio-demographic changes in the world, particularly in western societies; and
• Customer-centered innovation.

Depending on the nature of the industry and the local business environment, economic, political, and social integration can be considered by the firms as a threat, an opportunity, or both. In the view of an integrated market, firm responses can be analyzed along two dimensions: the degree of static change associated with the response, and the level of internationalization of the market(s) in which the company aims to compete (Adamides, Stamboulis, & Kenellopoulos, 2003). Figure 3 shows a strategic response of domestic firms to the economic integration.

Figure 3. Strategic responses of domestic firms to economic integration
(Source: Adamides et. al., 2003)

Firms may choose either to reinforce their domestically successful strategic paradigm by improving their operations, or adopt a new strategic paradigm implying changes in many aspects of the organization. Some firms may concentrate on the domestic market, whereas others may view the integrated market as an opportunity for (further) internalization. Embracing such strategic renewal as depicted in the above Figure implies that the firm must take the risk of an internal organizational shakeout, developing new business practices, introducing new products, and forming new ventures in order to explore the new market opportunities (Jaafari, in press).

Clearly, domestic firms that view economic integration as a threat are more likely to embrace defensive strategies for the domestic market. However, a defensive strategy will succeed only if a company operates in an industry with very weak globalization characteristics, or if it has assets and capabilities specific to the domestic market that cannot be imitated by the foreign competitors (Dawar and Frost, 1999). This means that the adaptation of defensive strategies would be suitable only to the companies that have gradually established complex distribution channels specific to the domestic peculiarities, or to small enterprises which are positioned in the domestic niche markets; and to firms that intend to move these strategies along by developing assets and capabilities specific to domestic markets (upper left quarter of Figure 3). Other firms in the lower left corner are in danger of becoming dodgers; that is, of shrinking to a locally- oriented link in the value-chain or merging with--or selling out to--a foreign multinational. Alternatively, among those firms that consider economic integration an opportunity, some may start developing operations for selling their products to national market segments within the integrated market environment. The commonality of currencies and absence of trade barriers facilitate this strategy, which falls in the domain of analysis of traditional internationalization.

Mental Model and Dynamic organizations

There are causal relationships between national and organizational culture, managers’ mental models, environmental perception, and strategic drift. National culture shapes, conserves, and destroys mental models, which in turn filter environmental perceptions (Johnson, 1992). Perception of the environment distorted by such mental models leads inevitably to strategic drift. Mental models that exist among managers are the representation of reality that are used to understand, and apply in, specific situations. In effect, they are tools that managers employ to understand the dynamic environment by giving a meaning to a plethora of signals received by the environment.

In order to remain competitive and thrive in a chaotic world, both managers and organizations increasingly need to respond to changing business drivers and social dynamics, and routinely take on and deliver daring projects (Jaafari, 2003b). A daring project(s) is defined as the one that has a high business-case risk because of both project and environmental complexities associated with its development, delivery, and exploitation. On such projects, the goals tend to change during the currency of the project, depending on the magnitude of environmental shifts experienced. A collection of daring projects delivered successfully can change the fortunes of an organization and give it an edge when it comes to competing in a fast-changing world.

Dynamic organizations have evolved as a direct response to the rise in complexity (Kanter, Stein, & Jick, 1992; Porter, 1990; Jaafari, 2003a). These organizations are anathema to the traditional hierarchical organizations with centralized command and control, which tended to thrive in stable environments of the past. Growth of size and vertical integration were successful strategies for what Emery and Trist (1965) called placid, clustered environments. However, with a turbulent environment, large functional organizations, with considerable resistance to change, may not be effective. Dynamic organizations possess numerous characteristics, mainly: distributed leadership around a widely-accepted vision, customer/market centricity, project culture, speed and adaptability, focus on creativity and innovation, strategic partnerships and Information and Communication Technologies (ICT)-integrated business structures. Table 2 shows how these characteristics impact organizational design, people, and their competencies.

As seen, Table 2 shows ideal organizational capabilities and the corresponding professional competencies of relevant people in an idealized, empowered, self-adaptive organization. While such idealization assists the thinking process, and provides us with a high level model to benchmark against, in reality, and depending on the state of play in each environment, different stages of evolution can be discerned. Jaafari (2003a) has hypothesized an organizational typology covering 5 classes: Class I (alert); Class II (focused); Class III (responsive); Class IV (capable); and Class V (creative-dynamic). Figure 3 shows this classification.

If an organization does not meet the basic criterion of alertness, then it can be labelled as “stagnant,” with little potential to survive or grow in a competitive environment. Contrast this with a Class V organization, which is essentially in tune with the environmental complexities surrounding the business; it can sense the evolving needs ahead of its competitors, can conceive complex products, and masterfully craft the associated whole-value chains for optimal delivery. Such organizations can turn visionary ideas into reality, often through a globalized alliance of partners and suppliers. Project management, as a core capability, plays a key role in their quest for success (Table 2). Note that the focus is a whole organization, not just the project management section. Also, note that the above classification is different from that of process maturity models typically used in project-based organizations. Under the above classification, the focus is on project business as the main way of engaging the resources with the market to deliver return on assets (in particular, the intellectual assets).

Table 2: Dynamic organizations as a response to environmental complexities

Class V organizations demonstrate high capability for taking on risky innovative projects and bringing relevant business case risks down to a manageable level (Figure 4). However, the focus of project management in such an organization is not necessarily on process efficiency and the application of tools and techniques. It is on creativity and clever approaches to complexity reduction. Thus, the PM capability is about how well an organization can create or tap rich opportunities, and leverage its human (intellectual) capital to exploit the same optimally. This ability is due to competent creative people, optimum organizational systems, an autonomous culture, and a high degree of environmental synergy. In an autonomous culture, people, their mindsets, competencies, and motivations, plus the organizational synergy to function as a whole, will determine the success, or lack thereof, of an organization's drive to deliver daring projects (Geyer, 1998: Jaafari, 2003a).

Figure 4: Organizational typologies in terms of ability to sponsor and deliver daring projects
(Jaafari, 2003a)

While many authors refer to project management as the implementation of complexities, the real challenge for project management is of course its strategic relevance or optimal response to the mission of the project. Figueroa (2003) analyzes three major projects in Spain, applying a higher-level model with four cardinal points: object, values, standard behavior, and strategy (Jaafari, 2004). This model recognizes that the contemporary (normative) model of project management is incapable of responding adequately to project mission, values, and outcomes.

Often, life-cycle cost and performance are major issues, but the most critical aspect of a project is the way in which the business can be supported via the project. If the resultant system is not reliable, it can cost the operating company business. On most projects, there are so many unique needs and requirements that standard solutions seldom work. The focus of the project management team should be on developing breakthrough solutions, not just attempting to gather parts and assemble them in a quick makeover. Optimal solutions will be holistic, not only from the stand-point of technical performance and specification, but also in terms of life-cycle performance, strategic contribution to the business, market position, competitiveness, managerial and contractual issues, service performance requirements, risks, security, operating license, and other key life-cycle parameters. Arriving at such solutions requires considerable creativity on the part of the project teams.

Figure 5 shows an example of the project complexity; in this instance, it's due mainly to the involvement of multiple players in this project (Jaafari, 2004). Note the differing perspectives that players often have in terms of project goals, their own strategies, and what is best for the customer. Creating a shared view of the customer needs, and uniting all the players regarding the project mission and objectives, is a key aspect of project management. Yet this cannot be done without a real appreciation of the business context of the customer and his strategic goals.

This example does not show the full picture of complexity surrounding today's projects, yet it indicates the complexity of the project management approach to meet specific challenges of this case. It is self-evident from the case project that a project management approach is vital to the business success because of the involvement of multiple organizations, complexity of technology, customer's unique needs, time, cost, and other constraints. Without such a perspective, the risk of failure is far greater. If, however, we consider a more complex project, the magnitude of both project and environmental complexities will be many times higher, and the need for holistic breakthrough solutions will be indisputable, as the viability of the whole project will depend on it (Jaafari, 2000a).

Figure 5. An example of project complexity due to involvement of multiple players

Life Cycle Project Management (LCPM) Framework

How can we promote a project management methodology that allows creativity and flexibility, and enables us to redefine and realign project and business goals in the face of uncertainty? The PM culture has hitherto been that of control and order. Few project managers know how to define and apply a strategic “model” that systematically relates project decisions to business goals and strategies. Shifting from a pure process and control approach to a more holistic and creative platform is not easy (Jaafari, 2000b). It requires different competencies, frameworks, and tools. This realization leads us to the path for the development of a radically new approach we call Life Cycle Project Management (LCPM). LCPM is a strategic project management model that provides the following core functions:

• Installing project's core business objectives as the basis for decision-making throughout its life
• Integrating and utilizing all downstream and upstream information sets in decision processes
• Providing for the creation and promotion of consistent and fully integrated contractual relationships
• Promoting integration and concurrency of activities
• Promoting effective and instantaneous communication
• Enabling real-time evaluation of project status vis-à-vis the underlying business objectives
• Providing a framework for non-stop risk/uncertainty evaluation and value addition
• Furnishing maximum flexibility to accommodate change and achieve innovation
• Placing equal emphasis on stakeholders’ interests vis-à-vis the interest of project participants
• Improving efficiency through full utilization of the information technology

The following objective functions are employed as criteria for decision-making throughout the project life:

• Financial objectives: such as equity, internal rate of return, cost/worth ratio;
• Performance objectives: how the project outcome performs in relation to the strategic goals of the sponsor organization, including customer satisfaction, functionality, operability, aesthetics, quality; and
• Environmental objectives: including due diligence, reducing exposure to risks and liabilities, including compliance with statutory requirements, and so on.

The above criteria are referred to as Life Cycle Objective Functions (LCOFs). Provided that an appropriate system and due managerial infrastructure can be established for the project, the LCPM model can respond to the requirements stated earlier in full via continuous evaluation and realignment of the project vis-à-vis target LCOFs (Jaafari, 1997). The LCPM approach is opportunistic and driven by risk/rewards throughout the project life. It aims at internalizing and resolving uncertainties favorably, as far as possible.

LCPM advocates an integrated paradigm for the development of the project concept and its ongoing value addition/risk reduction. The main reason for advocating employment of a whole-of-life strategic model such as the LCPM approach is not just the potential for significant reduction in the delivery time and out-turn cost on projects without compromising project performance, but, more critically, to shift the emphasis of the entire project processes and decisions towards optimising business objectives. This is in contrast to the present practice of focusing on delivery phase via cost, time, and quality management. In LCPM, all project processes are thus integrated and proactively managed in real time to create a viable business outcome.

Realization of the LCPM concept (in practice) depends on the fulfilment of at least two requirements. First, there must exist a modelling method that reflects the complex and dynamic characteristics of projects. Second, a computer program to facilitate the application of the model must also be available. The research undertaken by the authors over the last decade aims to respond to both of these requirements.

Figure 6 shows LCPM information and decision support environment. LCPM framework has been developed in parts, from its conceptual stage to the current form over the last six years as a result of three completed PhDs and a number of ongoing research projects. All the modules appearing in Figure 6 are unique in concept, but integrated within the same platform.

Figure 6. Life-Cycle Project Management Information and Decision Support System

As seen from Figure 6, the overall system includes the following modules:

• SPMIS: Smart Project Management Information System to facilitate the evaluation of project decisions vis-à-vis target LCOFs (Jaafari and Manivong, 1998);
• VDM: Visual Design Management to assist in visualization/schedule simulation and management of design processes (Chaaya and Jaafari, 1999);
• CMIS: Construction Management Information System for project progress monitoring and control (Jaafari and Manivong, 1998);
• DSMS: Dynamic Simulation Modelling System to assess project functionality and operability vis-à-vis different operating scenarios (Doloi and Jaafari, 2002a, 2002b, 2002c); and
• IPMIS: Intelligent Project Management Information System to evaluate soft variables such as stakeholders management, safety and environmental management, and so on (Manivong, Jaafari, Gunaratnam and Doloi, 2004)

To facilitate realization of all these functions within a single platform, a system known as Integrated Facility Engineering (IFE) had to be developed (Figure 6). However, it must be emphasised that IFE is not just another piece of computer software. IFE framework has a back-end database system that automatically establishes a project databank for each subject project. It is an experimental system that establishes a multi-access Intranet configuration, allowing distributed information generation and entry, generation, and sharing of reports and other core functions that expedite real-time communication and decision processes. Its main features are:

• Setting up a project model that can be progressively elaborated over project phases, using integrated teams/decision approaches, incorporating concurrency concepts or utilizing other forms of collaboration;
• Providing a consistent and efficient platform for innovation, value creation, and risk reduction within a strategic business-focused framework that guides the development of the project from concept to completion, and through to operation;
• Integrating project information with teams across the project life cycle;
• Applying business (LCOFs) objectives as the basis for ongoing decision-making and evaluation (note that threshold LCOFs are redefined at each point of evaluation, depending on shifts discerned or expected in the project context and its environment);
• Providing for the holistic analysis of project variables and execution of project management functions, using business objectives as the basis for evaluation;
• Supporting scenario analysis and offering an integrated environment to effectively and interactively apply “what-if” planning;
• Providing graphical simulation of the proposed work plan that helps fast executability analysis and optimization of work plans;
• Providing a consistent framework for interdisciplinary communication and teamwork;
• Allowing early problem detection; and
• Integrating the processes of planning, documentation, procurement, and project management throughout the project life cycle.

IFE comprises 3 integrated systems: (1) an integrated business framework aiding strategic management across all project phases (SPMIS, the back-end database and the life-cycle databank); (2) a flexible system that encourages technical and technological innovation during conceptualization, definition, and delivery phases (VDM and Team Collaboration); and (3) an optimization and decision support system that facilitates holistic processing of information and optimization of the project outcome vis-à-vis strategic objectives. Figure 7 portrays the phase approach we have adopted in the LCPM research. While phases 1 and 3 are complete, phase 3 research is still progressing.

Figure 7. Progression of LCPM Research

As stated, turbulent environments (particularly shifting markets) and the rapid rate at which technology changes have accentuated the need for LCPM. Another factor is the increasing influence of host communities and stakeholders, as well as environmental, social, safety and legal implications of major projects (Hobbs and Miller, 1998). Thus, it is not desirable to close a project's options too quickly by freezing everything in the form of fixed scope or design/specifications and or lump-sum-fixed scope/price contracts. Decisions have to be analyzed and optimized continuously using the life-cycle objective functions as the basis of evaluation. Figure 8 illustrates the broad LCPM approach. As seen, a single phase is used for the whole project life cycle. All project life cycle information and the project team's expertise are combined. This forces the project to be continuously re-evaluated and adjusted to integrate effectively with the business and respond to the dynamics of its environment.

Figure 8. Representation of LCPM and Continuous Value Addition Mechanism

Holistic Analysis and Value Addition Framework

The LCPM enables the estimation of the probability for attaining the target values set for achieving LCOFs (project's strategic objectives). Capital cost and project duration variances can also be obtained from the system, although these may not be used as decision functions, particularly from a business perspective.

The LCPM model has been designed to facilitate non-stop value addition where opportunities present themselves throughout project life. A unique model for each project should be established from the outset. A model of this type will initially be a collection of parts or constituent sub-systems. It is an evolving model in the sense that new part and product configurations can be added or omitted from the baseline model in value creation and LCOF determination process. This occurs progressively as and when the project becomes better known and defined. Project parts are not just hardware and software parts, but are also downstream and upstream business systems and activities, such as marketing, operation, environmental and community management plans, and so on.

One fundamental departure from traditional project management structures is that of the integrated project team organization. The traditional hierarchical structures are ill suited to life-cycle objective-based project delivery systems. Concurrent project management is the right organizational structure for strategy-based project management. Jaafari (1997) has defined elements of this approach; suffice to state that integrated teams are formed and each is assigned complete responsibility to formulate, design, and deliver the part under consideration.

Notice under this structure that the project management team assumes a critical role for the eventual fate of the resultant project outcomes and its business success. It extends well beyond the traditional coordinating role, as the project manager must preside over the formulation and conceptualization of the project, its real time optimization in accordance with the LCOF criteria, and its efficient and effective development. This does not mean that the project manager should be an expert in every aspect of the project under consideration. The core expertise is to understand the client's business objectives and know the underlying business dynamics so that risk reduction/value addition can be pursued in earnest over the entire project life.

The need for concurrent communication will thus be acute, both at team-to-team and at discipline level. The team-to-team interactions are for proposing project parts/products and receiving endorsements or comments on these. The interactions at discipline level are for systems’ integration, such as ensuring that the system elements relating to a number of parts will form a coherent and whole system in compliance with the relevant codes and regulations.

Conclusion

This paper introduced a unique project management approach: Life Cycle Project Management (LCPM). The concept adopted in LCPM requires a shift in project management culture away from the traditional practices. Some traditional methods of project management still apply in this model for day-to-day project management. The rise in complexity has necessitated a shift in emphasis from traditional business models to newer approaches embodied in dynamic project organizations. The components that separate LCPM from traditional PM methods are: proactive decision-making, using LCOFs; a holistic or life-cycle view of the project; and integrated teamwork and collaboration. It was shown that proactive decision-making was facilitated by LCOFs, and holistic evaluation and integration was facilitated by the life-cycle project model.

The approach promotes close relationships among clients, contractors, and stakeholders. The project solutions resulting from adaptation of strategic approaches in complex project environment must be based on continuous evaluations vis-à-vis LCOFs. As such, the LCPM approach focuses on satisfying the client's business objectives, delivery of a product as per client and customer requirements, as well as tapping opportunities, reducing risks, and resolving uncertainties. It has also been made clear that a continuous strategic approach can add true values to risk management on projects. Strategies should be put in place for interactive and objective management of risks using a life-cycle project management model.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge major funding for this research by the Australian Research Council via two major grants covering 2001-2006, as well as small grants covering 1997-2000. The support of the Department of Civil Engineering has enabled the conduct of this research over the last decade. We are also indebted to many far-sighted professionals and executives who participated in the research dialogue. The LCPM model has been researched and developed through the following academic work: two Honors Theses, three PhD Theses and two Research Fellowships (2001-3, 2004-6). Some 55 journal and conference papers describe the LCPM research.