Abstract
There are many project planning tools which can aid in project execution and ultimate success. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) – Fifth Edition (PMI, 2013) names several planning tools, to include: risk, human resource, procurement, cost, communication, work breakdown structure (WBS), scope, stakeholder, budget, quality, and schedule, which have all been found to be value-adding to project success outcomes. However, we were interested to learn from a group of 58 current project management professionals representing diverse project sizes, industries, and years of experience which tools they found to be the most useful to their organizations. Through simple poll ranking, we determined that the planning tools containing the most promise for current practitioners were in descending order of perceived value (1) WBS, (2) scope, (3) risk and (4) stakeholder management. Further, utilizing qualitative methods for discovery into “themes” as to why these practitioners held these tools in such regard, we found that WBS received the rank it did because of the “structure” and “accountability” it provides. Secondly, we found that scope was highly regarded because of the “clarity” and “reflectiveness” it offers. Risk management was placed near the top of the list due to its relationship with “uncertainties” and its offering of perceived “insurance.” The soft skills of stakeholder management completed the top four with its prescriptive offering of “identification” and “influence,” which can prove valuable when considering the impact stakeholders can have on a project. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, when considering all the coding from the four risk planning tools, an aggregate theme emerged, which seemed to suggest “assurance” as the primary motivation for project planning activities.
Keywords: planning; stakeholders; WBS, risk management; scope
“Plans are nothing; planning is everything.” – Dwight Eisenhower
Former U.S. President and Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in World War 2
Introduction
Best practices in project management have been widely discussed since 1960 (Crawford, 2006; Kloppenborg & Opfer, 2002; Shenhar, Levy, & Dvir, 1997; Gibson, Kaczmarowski, & Lore, 1995; Webster, 2004). In its guidelines, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) – Fifth Edition strongly recommends the importance of project planning (PMI, 2013). Cleland and Ireland (2002) state that project decisions made early in the planning process will “set the direction and force with which the project moves forward as well as the boundaries within which the work of the project team is carried out” (p. 74). There have been a number of empirical studies examining the direct positive effect of project planning on subsequent project success (Murphy, Baker, & Fisher, 1974; Dvir & Lechler, 2004; Lechler, 1997; Pinto & Slevin, 1987). As stated by George, Bell, and Back, “in the planning phase, many potential problems are identified proactively, before they can greatly affect project cost and schedule. Furthermore, successful planning identifies areas within the project that need greater definition” (2008, p. 66).
Considering the number of planning tools at a manager’s disposal and the importance of planning prior to a project’s successful execution, George et al. (2008) conducted a survey of engineers to determine which planning tools were deemed most valuable to project professionals. They reported that these seven planning activities were believed to be the most important: start up, quality and safety, project execution plan, project scope definition, public relations, cost estimating and creation of a funding plan. As an extension of this work and with specific focus on project management, our team’s aim was to highlight the most important planning tools as deemed by current project managers. Similar to Kloppenborg and Opher (2002), our team “wanted to involve more academics and practitioners in the interpretation process to validate information from a ‘real world’ perspective” (p. 11). The purpose of this research study was to uncover the top three planning tools perceived to be the most highly utilized and value adding by current project management professionals, and through qualitative discovery, understand their rankings.
Our paper is structured as follows: 1) literature review, 2) research methodology, 3) planning tool ranking and discussion, 4) qualitative findings and discussion, 5) summary and future research.
Literature Review
An effective, integrated project plan has long been assumed to be associated with project success. Project success, however, is a difficult variable to define (Thomas, Jacques, Adam, & Kihneman-Wooten, 2008) as evidenced by the various definitions in the literature. Pinto and Slevin’s (1987) “Ten Critical Success Factors” or Shenhar, Levy, and Dvir’s (1997) four “Dimensions of Project Success” exemplify the range of diverse descriptions of project success. Lewis (2001) defined project success as satisfying the client or completing the project on schedule and budget. Similarly, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) – Fifth Edition (PMI, 2013) defined project success as completing the project within the constraints of scope, time, cost, quality, resources, and risk as approved between the project managers and senior management. Although defining project success remains complex, it is widely accepted in project management circles that effective project planning is a critical step if a project team wishes to deliver a quality project on schedule and budget. The project planning phase consists of those activities performed to establish the total scope of the effort, define and refine project objectives and strategies, and develop the course of action required to attain those objectives (PMI, 2013). By developing a plan, the project team can align project strategies with organizational goals, breakdown and prioritize tasks, establish project schedules, and track the budgets. For this study, qualitative analysis identified words in participant submissions that mentioned or indicated project success (in terms of scope, cost, time, and quality).
The PMBOK® Guide – Fifth Edition (PMI, 2013) highlights 24 planning processes, which represents about 51% of all processes the project team will undertake during a project’s life cycle. Since the present study focuses on the project planning phase, the following section introduces the relevant project planning literature highlighting top planning components. Project planning components include scope, time, cost, communications, human resources, risks, procurements, stakeholder engagement, WBS, and so on (PMI 2013). Among these components, some are “soft” (people oriented), while others are “hard” (technical or things oriented). However, according to Zwikael (2009), there is limited literature summarizing the relative importance of planning components, as well as a disagreement among authors as to whether a soft, hard, or hybrid mix of planning components is critical to project success. Table 1 summarizes the various planning components prior research has identified as critical for project success, and categorizes the finding as a soft, hard, or hybrid component.
Table 1: Most important planning components from literature
| Authors | Findings on the most important planning components | Category | |
| 1 | Zwikael (2009) |
•Knowledge areas with greatest impact on project success are time, risk, and scope management •Results are sensitive to industry type |
Hard |
| 2 | Cooke-Davies (2002) | •Risk management and human resources management are critical for project success. |
Hybrid |
| 3 | Ibbs & Kwak (2000) | •Cost management and communications management |
Hybrid |
| 4 | Collyer, Warren, Hemsley, & Stevens (2010); Maylor (2001) |
•Resisting change, scope reduction, emergent planning, and competing experiments |
Hard |
| 5 | White & Fortune (2002) | •Project management software and Gantt charts |
Hard |
| 6 | Dvir, Raz, & Shenhar (2003) |
•Clearly defined project goals and deliverable requirements |
Hard |
| 7 | George (2008) |
•Public relations, quality and safety management, and scope definition |
Hybrid |
| 8 | Bryson & Bromiley (1993) | •Authors identified two groups of planning activities having impact on success: internal project communication (positive influence), and forced project goals (negative influence) |
Hybrid |
| 9 | Tatikonda & Rosenthal (1999) |
•Detailed network scheduling |
Hard |
| 10 | Hartman & Ashrafi (2004) |
•Early agreement on success criteria with stakeholders |
Soft |
| 11 | Laufer, Woodward, & Howell (1999) |
•Project team’s decision-making processes |
Soft |
Given the various planning knowledge, tools, and approaches, the question becomes: Which planning component (or tools) should a project manager pay more attention to for project success? There is a need for the project manager to identify the most important project planning components to which they should devote their limited time and resources.
Research Methodology
Data Collection
The subjects for this study were drawn from an online Masters in Project Management program from an Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) accredited business school in the eastern United States. Enrolled students have a minimum two years of active project management experience. Data collection took place from 2010-2012 and included 58 subjects, generating a rich stratified sample consisting of US and international project managers with position titles ranging from Senior Project Manager and below. Since these subjects are wrestling daily with project planning challenges within their own organizations, they are appropriate subjects and present a clear picture of modern project planning. Of the 58 subjects: 67% were male, 51% had 6 years or more of project management experience and 73% of the samples were identified as project managers.
Data Coding and Analysis
As part of the course instruction in project planning, subjects were asked to describe the most important planning components during the planning phase of project management from their experience. The question was asked as follows:
Select the top three planning components that you feel are essential to the successful completion of any project in your organization.
Responses were collected and analyzed to determine which project planning components were deemed most relevant. After organizing and tabulating the sample data, the top four planning tool responses were identified. Two of the four response categories came in as a tie; hence, we will discuss four components. The development of the coding schema was based on the open coding methods developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967). A randomly selected response document was then drawn from each response area, which was then independently reviewed by the researchers to determine key concepts and develop an initial coding schema. Once complete, the researchers came together to discuss the documents and collectively settled on an interim coding schema for the remaining data. One interview transcript was then independently coded by the researchers using the coding schema and refinements reflecting ideas emerging from the pilot coding were discussed. A finalized schema was then constructed to code the remaining dataset.
Planning Tool Ranking and Discussion
George, Bell, and Back (2008) posited that there were seven important components to project planning, which they concluded were: public relations, start up, quality and safety, the project execution plan, project scope definition, cost estimating, and a funding plan. Those participating in that investigation were given opportunities to choose from among 33 planning tool options. Differing from that approach, our team did not predetermine a specified list from which to choose. Rather, we asked our participants to name the three most utilized, value adding project planning tools within their organization. The list included a work breakdown structure (WBS), change management planning, scope planning, etc. Figure 1 below illustrates the complete list of tools chosen as well as those four that were most popular.
Most of these selections deal with some type of project planning. For example, change management planning concerns itself with proactively preparing and having protocols in place for managing stakeholder initiated change. Other selections concern themselves directly with teams and specifics within planning for a project, such as communication, resource allocation, risk management, stakeholder, scope, and requirements. Organizational structure is normally not considered a planning tool within a project manager’s tool kit, but structure can certainly have an effect on project outcomes. It was nonetheless included in our report as a participant’s response.
While initially aiming to uncover the top three planning tools from among these practitioners, because of a tie-score between two options, our final list of four most utilized planning tools in descending order of popularity were: (1) Work breakdown structure, (2) Scope planning, (3-tie) Project risk management and analysis, and (3-tie) Stakeholder analysis.
Figure 1 – Polled ranking of planning tools.
While all of these tools have merit and have been found to be positively associated with successful project outcomes by practitioners and academicians, this list is supported by project management literature. By ranking it number one, our sample found a great deal of worth in constructing a WBS. According to the PMBOK® Guide – Fifth Edition, a WBS subdivides project deliverables into manageable components: “the key benefit of this process is that it provides a structured vision of what has to be delivered” (PMI, 2013, p. 125).. Other investigators have found a WBS to be helpful as a planning tool (Lechler, Edington, & Gao, 2012; Buchtik, 2010) and as such offer justification for this lofty ranking. With this and the other tools identified, we will discuss the specific themes and merits of each tool as mentioned by the sample practitioner group in the qualitative section.
Project scope planning was ranked second in the list of most value-adding planning tools by our sample. The PMBOK® Guide – Fifth Edition defines project scope as “the work performed to deliver a product, service, or result with the specified features and functions” (p. 555). Scope has been found to be vitally important to project health, with Zwikael (2009) reporting: “The study revealed that the Knowledge Areas with the greatest impact on project success were Time, Risk, Scope, and Human Resources” (p. 94). Incomplete scope definition was cited by Jergeas (2008) as a significant factor in cost and schedule overruns and was further ranked as third most important by Turner (1993) when evaluating project success factors—labeling it “the raison d’être of project management”(p. 101). The significance placed upon project scope planning by researchers in this area seems to justify the sample’s ranking of this planning tool. The last two tools which tied for the third highest vote totals for planning importance were risk management and stakeholder planning.
Because unexpected events will occur during a project (Turner, 1993; Pinto, 2007), the importance of project risk management by project sponsors has received a great deal of attention in the literature (Kloppenborg, Tesch, Manolis, & Heitkamp, 2006; Bryde, 2008; Cooke-Davies, Crawford, Hobbs, Labuschagne, & Remington, 2006; Crawford & Cooke-Davies, 2007; Helm & Remington, 2005). Project risk management is defined by the PMBOK® Guide – Fifth Edition as “the processes of conducting risk management planning, identification, analysis, response planning and controlling risk on a project” (p. 309). As stated by Bakker, Boonstra, and Wortmann (2011), “risk management is considered to be a tool that limits the impact of these unexpected events, or prevents these events from happening” (p. 75). Considering these and further support offered by Olsson (2007), our sample of practitioners seems accurate in strongly suggesting that risk management planning contributes to the successful outcomes of most projects.
Stakeholder interest within the project management domain started almost 30 years ago, with Cleland (1986) introducing stakeholder and stakeholder management to the project management community by emphasizing the importance of stakeholder identification, classification, analysis, and management. Beringer, Jonas, and Gemunden (2012) posited that “Stakeholder behavior and stakeholder management are key success factors for project portfolios. Furthermore, stakeholder management must not only focus on single stakeholders but also account for stakeholders influencing one another in fairly complex interactions” (p.16). In consideration of the above, our sample of current project management practitioners seems to realize the effect of poor stakeholder management on project outcomes and thus explains their planning tool preferences. In the last few years, the importance of stakeholder management within projects has been examined by several investigators (Dervitsiotis, 2003; Jergeas, Williamson, Skulmoski & Thomas, 2000; and Freeman, 2002). Littau, Jujagin and Adlbrecht (2010) posit, “Stakeholder management has become an important soft-skill in projects” (p. 17). In this and proceeding discussions regarding project management planning tools, it seems our group of managers’ beliefs regarding planning tools coincides with those held by project management researchers.
Qualitative Findings and Discussion
Structure and Accountability – The Foundational Attributes of the WBS
According to the PMBOK® Guide – Fifth Edition, the WBS is a hierarchical decomposition of all work that will be completed by the project team in order to meet the goals of the project and create the desired deliverables. An accurate and finely developed WBS helps ensure that a project is organized properly and that planning processes can be carried out effectively and ties project goals to project resources in a coherent fashion (Tausworthe, 1980).
Structure
As stated earlier, participants identified WBS as the most important planning component in a project. Seemingly, the idea of structure being provided by the WBS is one of the main reasons for its high classification. Nearly all participants in the study developed a description of the WBS as a logical structure from which the project team could carry out their duties. Participant 11 may have said it best by stating the following:
When the work is defined [in the WBS], it provides a common framework for the natural development of the overall planning and control of a project and outlines the division of work into definable increments.
One participant compared the WBS to the “spokes on a wheel” that supports the processes of the project, while another referred to the WBS as a “platform” from which the project can be built. Most vividly, Participant 21 stated that the WBS serves as “the backbone to our project…ignore the development of a work breakdown structure, and there will be no form to our project.” In addition, some participants found the WBS to be a focusing agent for the project team, allowing them to organize their efforts where the project needed support.
The idea of structure also came through as participants referenced work packages within the WBS. Participants noted how work packages allowed for better planning and scheduling of the project; the systematic organization and breakdown of project work pieces defined the “big rocks” that must be completed, and “componentizes” the work to be carried out. The following statements also point to the importance of the WBS in participants’ minds:
Participant 44: “[The WBS is a] good starting point and reference for organizing work.”
Participant 8: “[The WBS is the] basis for which to estimate project schedule, cost and risk.”
Participant 23: “[The WBS is a] key input for project schedule and budget.”
Participant 39: “[The WBS is] the cornerstone for project planning.”
We believe participants view the WBS structure as a strategic planning tool, critical for successful project outcomes. An inherent feature of the WBS is its tangible linking of project work to overall deliverables, giving the project its structure. Although projects are replete with ambiguity and risk, (Lechler et al., 2012) the WBS is a bit of ‘reality’ amidst the uncertainties. By providing definitions of project work that must be performed, some amount of certainty is brought forth. Perhaps this degree of confidence explains why the WBS is viewed in a strategic light and given such importance by participants. Project team members can point to the WBS structure and say with confidence ‘we must do these things.’ Participant 4 summed up the importance of the WBS as it relates to the structure and strategic importance to the project by painting the following picture:
Trying to establish a budget, schedule, network diagram, quality, and human resource plans without a WBS would be like throwing darts with a blindfold covering your eyes.
Accountability
In addition to the structure found within the WBS, participants also strongly identified with the notion of accountability. A recurring accountability impression throughout participant responses was that of the WBS as an inhibitor of overlooked key project elements and neglected deliverables, both of which could compromise project outcomes for the client. Participant 2 noted the potential accountability issues the WBS helps prevent:
There is potential to miss specific project requirements in the budget and schedule; potential to overlook key elements of the project scope. Project deliverables may be overlooked by lack of identification in the WBS.
Participant 22 followed this same line of thinking when speaking about the non-use of the WBS within his organization:
Currently we are not able to actually measure progress in the project or reduce the likelihood that important work is missed and not planned. If we utilized a WBS we would be able to positively affect these problems.
Participant 34 expanded further on this theme by saying:
Ignoring its potential [the WBS] and choosing not to embrace it would leave [the organization] in the current position of managing projects on the basis of ’shoot-from-the-hip and hope it all comes together.
Study participants also linked the WBS and accountability when developing the project schedule. Participant 38 said that “without the work breakdown structure, it will be nearly impossible to complete the schedule effectively.” Accurate and descriptive work packages allow for better estimation of schedules. In turn, milestones developed from the schedule keep the project team accountable to their stakeholders. Clearly, the WBS keeps the project team accountable to the work that must be performed, helps define who is responsible for the work, and provides a visual and measurable definition of successful task completion. When speaking of the WBS, Participant 12 best summarized how it provides accountability across multiple facets of the project:
Time and cost estimates are mapped back to it, work is measured against it, and deliverables are ultimately compared to it. A comprehensive WBS encourages a systematic planning process, reduces the possibility of omission of key project elements, and simplifies the project by dividing it into manageable units.
Haugan (2009) and Abdomerovic (2000) have stressed the importance of the WBS as a planning tool in their work. This further supports the elevated status of the WBS ranking by our professional project manager sample group.
Clarity and Reflectiveness – The Two Views of Scope
Proper scope definition is critical to attain successful project outcomes. Scope definition allows project tasks, and only those tasks, to be worked on and completed through the life of the project (PMI, 2013). Therefore, good scope definition is essential during the planning phase of any project. Incomplete or improper scope definition can lead to a myriad of problems throughout the life of the project, including cost and schedule overruns (Jergeas, 2008).
Project scope can be affected by many organizational elements such as organization structure, command and control schemas, information and communication technologies and capabilities, as well as leadership buy-in and support (Ward, 2005). These elements can affect project scope in positive ways encouraging successful project outcomes, or can act as roadblocks to good scope definition and, in turn, result in poor project execution or outright project failure (Atkinson, Crawford, & Ward, 2006). Not surprisingly, participants within the current study rated scope to be a critical part of the planning phase.
Clarity
Within discussions of scope, an issue that many in our participant group seemed to key in on was the importance of clarity within the scope statement. Thiry (2002) points out that uncertainty in projects can be remedied through sense-making and better clarification of problems that need to be overcome. Bringing further clarity to the project through the scope statement was a strong theme in coding and resonated in many ways. Most visible was that clarity in scope creates a common understanding among the project team, sponsor, and client. As stated by Participant 12:
The scope statement offers a common understanding of the project for the purpose of facilitating communication among the stakeholders and for setting authorities and limits for the project manager and the project team.
The phrase “on the same page” was often used in descriptions of scope or in relating its importance to the project. Likewise, “clear direction,” “clear ideas” (of boundaries, objectives, and deliverables), and “clear focus” were phrases used throughout the descriptions of scope.
Several participants related scope and clarity in a metaphorical fashion, creating images of scope as leading a traveler on a safe and successful journey. Participant 32 spoke to the clarity that a properly defined scope statement brings between the customer and the project team:
[The scope statement] provides the initial roadmap of an agreed upon position between the customer and the provider. A proper scope gives one a straight line to get from point A to point B when each side of the line has differing views on how to get there. If you do not have a defined end with a means to get there, how will you get to where you want to go?
In a similar metaphorical fashion, Participant 49 related scope to a wayfinding device:
A project without a scope statement is like taking a complicated expedition without a map or compass. In other words, a project manager uses the project scope statement like a captain or travel guide uses a map to reach the ultimate destination in the predefined amount of time.
Participant 30 said the scope statement was useful for “dispelling assumptions” and a “guiding light” without which the project team “will be lost.” It seems that a perceived lack of common ground, uncertain direction, and ambiguous priorities in projects, is why a properly defined scope is so valued among these participants.
Lack of clarity within scope was commonly seen to have negative consequences for the project. Participant 24 called for “explicit articulation” in the scope statement in order to prevent scope creep, and interestingly, to create a way to “politely” disapprove additional scope embellishments by stakeholders. When speaking on scope creep, Participant 15 emphatically stated:
The project will not be clearly focused if [the scope statement is] not clearly written, which can lead to added costs and delays.
An additional clarity related consequence was confusion about the outcomes of the project, and whether the project team’s interpretation is different than what the client is expecting. As stated by Participant 18:
[without a clear scope statement]…team members will not have a clear direction regarding the purpose of the project, and there is a risk that project team members can interpret the final deliverables and or project product different than what the project sponsor and or client envisioned.
Reflectiveness
Interestingly, another area within the scope discussion that resonated with participants was the idea of scope having reflective properties. Descriptions of the reflective nature of scope created the sense of a mirror reflecting how project components should look once the project began. Participant 47 spoke of how a project’s scope will “prepare the project for what is going to happen and how it’s going to be accomplished.” Similarly, Participant 10 believed the scope statement created “visions of what the end result is” and enabled the visions to “be synchronized from the outset” of the project.
One common reflective theme was that the scope statement echoed what the WBS would contain in order to successfully implement the project. Participants pointed to a properly defined scope statement as providing guidance for creating a meaningful WBS. Although this is not surprising, since a detailed WBS provides clear documentation of deliverables in terms of scope (Buchtik, 2010). In addition, scope statements were said to identify the performance pieces needed to meet success criteria and client expectations for the project. One other noteworthy item discussed was how the scope statement can reflect issues in risk management. If an area of the scope statement is left ambiguous or ill-defined, it leaves the project open to scope change and scope creep, both of which will create risk scenarios the project team will have to address. Participants seem to support in their practice what scholars have asserted, that clear articulation of project components, including scope, is critical for project success (Hartman & Ashrafi, 2004; George et al., 2008).
Uncertainty and Insurance – the “What” and “Why” of Risk Management
Risk management was considered very highly by our participant group and is an important tool in project planning. As Bakker et al. (2011) posited, “Risk management is considered to be a tool that limits the impact of unexpected events, or prevents these from happening” (p.75).
Uncertainty
Petit and Hobbs (2010) emphasize an element of uncertainty when they offered, “A typical classification of risks is based on the level of knowledge about the possibility to foresee the risk (known or unknown) and the level of knowledge about the impact (known or unknown)” (p. 46). If events are expected, one plans accordingly (carry umbrella when it looks like rainy weather). However, unexpected events lead to uncertainties, which our group of practitioners dislike. To describe the objectionable nature of uncertainty, Laufer, Woodward and Howell (1999) commented “teams must contend with the insidious elements of uncertainty” (p.79). When coding participants’ comments about their use of risk management tools and explanations for the ranking they chose, unexpected events or uncertainties seemed to be a theme which explained its necessary use. This combination of risk management and “uncertainties management” were examined by Atkinson, Crawford and Ward (2006). Examples of comments from our sample members regarding this combination were:
Participant 3: “All projects have an existing degree of uncertainty. By assessing the uncertainties and identifying the risks that could result, a proactive risk management plan is developed that mitigates or prevents negative impact to the project scope, schedule, cost and/or quality.”
Participant 14: “Allowing for uncertainties within estimates helps set contingency levels for the outcome targets… an absence of it will de-rail a project completely.”
Participant 25: “Enables us to populate our toolkit to deal with known and even unknown risks that we will inevitably encounter.”
Having to manage projects around uncertainties or “unknowns,” whether risk or impact, presents challenges which require a proactive response. It appears that the unease posed by dealing with uncertainties under time, cost, scope and/or quality constraints is the factor that ranked this planning tool higher than other options. Uncertainty, or as others have quipped, “the misery of not knowing,” apparently is what is driving risk management labors within projects. Even for those who may be reluctant to engage in the work required for proper risk management, the “fear of the unknown” is motivation enough. As one participant explains when discussing the use of risk management planning tools:
Participant 42: “Simply evaluating what might happen and having an idea about what to do if it does happen will improve our ability to react to changes or mishaps.”
Insurance
The PMBOK® Guide – Fifth Edition defines risk transference as “a risk response strategy whereby the project team shifts the impact of a threat to a third party” (p. 344). People transfer risk, via purchased policies, to insurance companies for a variety of risk perceptions explained in large part by “utility theory” (Cather, 2010). Interestingly, people seem to engage in risk management activities for some of the same reasons. As some of our participants offer, they consider a project risk management plan a form of “insurance” and thus have transferred the risk of “not knowing” to a plan for risk management (“policy”).
Participant 11: “We purchase all kinds of insurance to protect our organization from risks. Why wouldn’t we want to invest time in risk planning to ensure our project’s success?”
Participant 31: “Risk planning provides a form of insurance for the project’s schedule and budget through anticipating and planning for potential impacts from various risks.”
Participant 52: “Incorporating risk planning into the project planning process insures the sponsor against risks….”
It appears that a sense of insurance against uncertainties is provided by project risk management activities. Contingencies (“buffers”) are also a form of insurance (Kouvelis & Li, 2012). Within project management, risk management appears to be similar psychologically to time and cost contingencies, as one participant offered his insight:
Participant 8: “When risks are unavoidable, but known, the project manager can build in proper buffers to ensure that the project runs smoothly.”
The need for protection, through the insurance of planning against the unavoidable, unknowns, or uncertainties offers a partial explanation for why risk management planning is so highly valued among project management practitioners. As Dvir and Lechler (2004) offer, “The main purpose of planning is to reduce uncertainty” (p. 5). Risk management planning seems to address this project challenge.
Identification and Influence – The Two “I”s of Stakeholder Management
Stakeholder management received enough attention from our sample group of project management practitioners to rank it in the top four planning tools. This ranking seems to be justified when investigators such as Hartman and Ashrafi (2004) posited that “meeting or exceeding stakeholder requirements and expectations is a pre-requisite for perceived project success” (p. 500) and Beringer, Jonas and Gemunden (2012) asserted that stakeholder management and project performance are strongly connected, while commenting “research on project portfolios in general indicate that stakeholders and their management are key success factors for the management of project portfolios” (p. 17).
Identification
Stakeholders have been defined in the PMBOK® Guide – Fifth Edition as “an individual or group, or organization who may affect, be affected by, or perceive itself to be affected by a decision, activity, or outcome of a project” (PMI, 2013, p. 30). Krane, Olsson, and Rolstadas (2012) further elaborated when they defined an internal stakeholder as “one [who] is internal to the project owner organization or has a contractual relationship with the project owner” (p.57) and an external stakeholder as one who “will have less of an operational approach and more of a strategic approach” (p. 57) to the project. The process of stakeholder identification, with their classification type, was considered to be very important to project success and thus increased the rank of stakeholder management in the poll. When considering the importance of stakeholder management, comments given justifying the ranking were identification based:
Participant 41 – “Properly identifying stakeholders for a project helps ensure project success.”
Participant 17 – “A successful stakeholder analysis identifies both internal and external stakeholders.”
Participant 18 – “Identifies the phase(s) of the project when the stakeholder will be involved.”
Participant 34 – “Identifying stakeholders and gaining their involvement and support is critical to the success of any project.”
Influence
Our sample took the stakeholder identification process a step further, classifying those who were a “positive” or “negative” stakeholder—meaning those that could influence the project toward or away (respectively) from project success. In regards to stakeholder management, they offered:
Participant 3 – “Identifies all project stakeholders. Identifies individuals who support and those who oppose the project….”
Participant 49 – “Identification, qualification, and proper handling of negative stakeholders are the key to success of any project.”
Participant 11 – “Of even greater consequence is the possibility of not having considered a stakeholder who has high interest in stopping the project and enough power to make that happen.” “
Participant 52 – “Particular attention should be given to recognition and management of negative stakeholders as they can significantly influence the potential success of the project.”
From our project management sample group, stakeholder management includes activities which identify constituents as stakeholders (or not), then classifies them as “internal” or “external” and further distinguishes them as “positive” (supporting the project or goals) or opposed and therefore “negative.” This effort to place stakeholders in various categories is done to then determine the influence these stakeholders can have on the project, as voiced by one of our sample participants:
Participant 36 – “Once the stakeholders have been identified, the next step is determining the stakeholders’ influence on the project.”
This effort to determine influence seems to be justified in the literature. Beringer, Jonas and Gemunden (2012) suggest, “With respect to the actual behavior of stakeholders and connected interactions …stakeholders are able to influence other stakeholders and thus indirectly influence organizations” (p.19). These sentiments in regard to influence were shared by many of our sample participants, some of whose comments are offered here:
Participant 4 – “Stakeholders have a significant influence to the project. If they are not identified or their needs are not met, then they can prevent the project from moving forward.”
Participant 16 – “The stakeholder’s analysis can be used by the PM [project manager] to identify subversive behavior and re-align those stakeholders with project goals and objectives.”
Participant 22 – “Determine the influence. Look at each stakeholder and document their anticipated influence within the project.”
Participant 31 – “It is clear that stakeholder attitudes and influence have the ability to drive the success or failure of a project.”
Efforts by project managers to control the influence of negative stakeholders and leverage positive stakeholders appear to be demanding and constant. When discussing stakeholder management, Hartman and Ashrafi (2004) posited that “Stakeholders’ expectations need to be met or managed from the outset and throughout the life of a project. Alignment of stakeholders is key and should be confirmed and tested” (p. 504). Summarizing then, it appears that project management professionals use stakeholder management tools to identify whether they are / are not a stakeholder; whether they are an internal / external stakeholder, and further, if they are a positive or negative stakeholder. Once that task is complete, the next step is to determine the level of influence the positive and negative stakeholders wield over the project, thus triggering the project manager’s response. In conclusion, one of our participants offers the following in support:
Participant 25 – “Through the use of this technique, we can anticipate the kind of positive or negative influence these groups will have on the project. Thus, proper planning can take place to get the most effective support from the positive stakeholders in order for the project to be successful. In tandem, we can also mitigate and reduce obstacles from the negative stakeholders in order to improve the rate of success to the project.”
Summary and Future Research
This research study uncovers the top four planning tools perceived to be the most highly utilized and value adding by current project management professionals, and through qualitative discovery, understands their rankings. Below we offer a summary of our qualitative analysis. By examining all of the planning themes and codes offered by our sample of professional project managers, it appears the central theme or code is one of a need for assurance—the project manager’s need for assurance of success.
This research finds that a WBS offers structure and accountability, without which the likelihood of project success would be in jeopardy. The WBS seems to be the psychological foundation upon which assurance of successful project outcomes may be built. We also believe that scope definition is considered to be a key element of project success because of the clarity and reflectiveness it brings to the project manager and team during the initial stage of project creation, and subsequently within the monitoring and controlling processes. The four coded themes of these two tools help assure a project’s success. Upon evaluating the rationale behind the selection of risk management by our professional sample group, the two themes that became evident were uncertainty and insurance. These two themes seem to be directly related to assurance: one being the polar opposite (uncertainty), and one being a strong advocate (insurance). The last most favored tool, stakeholder management, contained two primary themes that were revealed in coding: identification and influence. To increase the assurance of a project’s success, stakeholders should be both identified and classified. Subsequently, their influence on the project is evaluated to determine its weight.
According to the sample results then, Figure 2 exhibits the tension that project managers feel between the top four planning tools and the need for the assurance of project success. To increase the probability and assurance that the project will be successful, project managers are pulled in multiple directions through the use of these planning tools, both internally and externally. Scope and the WBS are categorized as “internal” because they deal primarily with issues internal to the project team. While stakeholder management and risk management mutually have internal components related to the project team, one could argue the majority of the efforts in these areas are external to the team.
Project managers are not just “handymen” with a collection of tools and a computer: they must be a liaison between internal and external constituencies, navigate politics, overcome departmental challenges, and facilitate with limited resources. In order to achieve a relative degree of assurance that the project will produce the desired outcomes, we posit that project managers view planning tools, specifically the ones discussed here, as tools of assurance and not necessarily planning. The subject of project manager assurance and project planning tool use appears to be a ripe area for future theoretical investigation.
Figure 2 – Project manager tensions to improve assurance of project success.