Introduction
It is generally accepted that the project management profession exists within a spectrum of industries, ranging from engineering and construction to information technology and manufacturing. Of course, other industries engage in project management, but their practices may be less documented or publicized.
The motion picture industry, not often represented in the project management discourse, is an industry that is expected to provide a unique perspective for the study of project management. I chose to research film project management due to its wide appeal yet limited presence among project management references, academic sources, and published literature. This paper attempts to uncover and capture the significance of project management practices to the motion picture industry. My goal is to contribute these findings to a wider project management community.
While the motion picture industry includes mediums such as film, video, and television, this paper primarily investigated film production intended for cinematic screening. Production is the stage in which movie cameras are used to shoot all the scenes of the movie. Preproduction and postproduction stages are also parts of the production process.
My review of literary sources and data collection is presented before turning to analysis and discussion of findings from the research. Main areas of focus include the relevance of film production phases to project phases in the PMBOK® Guide, a summary of film industry history and status, an exploration of the project management roles and responsibilities of film production, and project management tools and practices used within the motion picture industry.
Literature Review
Few scholarly sources have surfaced within the last five years that have directly related the subjects of project management and filmmaking. This is expected, due to the exclusive nature of the motion picture industry (Rhys, 2004). Worley (2005) described how theory of constraints (TOC) and critical chain management concepts were used to analyze and improve film production. While Worley used TOC as a risk management tool for the project of creating a finished film, she described the objective of film production projects as more than delivering the production of a film reel, and as ultimately enabling the phases of film distribution and exhibition. Other authors stressed the importance of the broader economic market for films. Key to managing film production, Worley implied, was the planned anticipation of possible risk events.
Brook (2005) used television and film production practices as a basis for describing specific production activities that could negatively influence outcomes. Stamps (1997) highlighted the risks of film projects, based on a historical account of multiple financial failures, and related information technology projects to film projects. Other sources related information technology projects to film production projects, including the British Computer Society (2006), Katsiris (2007), McDonald (2006), Royce (2005), Simon (2005), and Zackariahsson, Walfisz, and Wilson (2006). DeVany (2007) also compared film production to pharmaceutical research, where both industries have had statistically similar results in producing successes.
A broader history of film projects was recounted by Miller and Shamsie (1996). They described Hollywood filmmaking's Golden Age as a time when it was strategically sound for a film studio to have its own film production operations. Alternatively, they described broadcast television as a cause of more unstable times for the film industry. The unstable, less predictable nature of modern filmmaking was found to explain why film production had become a separate enterprise, where production was contracted by film studios in order to mitigate the risks of their organization staffing a full-time and permanent production staff.
The project-centric nature of film production was thoroughly discussed by DeFillippi and Arthur (1998). They asserted that traditional management strategy was inadequate for explaining the existence of the motion picture industry, whose project-based and mobile structure left parent organizations such as film studios lacking long-term knowledge, experience, and permanence. In direct response to DeFillippi and Arthur, Phelan and Lewin (1999) argued that traditional management strategy was adequate for explaining film production and its transient states, since the production aspect was part of a much larger construct in which film production was merely one aspect of a studio's business. However, DeFillippi and Arthur (1999) replied in turn that the virtual enterprise, such as in film production, was a necessary and modern structure for business, as opposed to the traditional concept of the firm. Also contributing to the discussion of the film crew as project organization were Introna, Moore, and Cushman (1999). They used interviews with a small number of film professionals to show the importance of trust, available hierarchy, and trade jargon to the efficient operation of the film crew as a virtual enterprise. Jones, Lichtenstein, Borgatti, Hesterly, and Tallman (1999) affirmed the nature of the film production crew as a virtual and temporary enterprise, showing how the film studio worked with the film production company through contracting vehicles. The film studio, while not typically performing the hands-on work necessary to create the final film reel, participated in the broader process by making major initiating or guiding decisions concerning the film's finance, development, production, marketing, distribution, exhibition, and more. Sydow and Staber (2002) discussed the importance of the project network as a social construct that allowed film production crews to become experienced, knowledgeable, and connected, despite their lack of permanence as an organization.
Other sources in the literature focused on business environments related to film production, such as marketing, sales, and exhibition. In a study of more than 300 films to determine whether marketing could overcome poor quality, Hennig-Thurau, Houston, and Sridhar (2006) found that quality was the stronger driver of long-term revenue. Swami (2006), in a more extreme view, pointed to the subjective nature of an audience's reaction to screened films, challenging the assumption that film revenues could be predicted or controlled.
Continuing the focus on the economic perspectives of film projects, in studies by De Vany and Walls (1999, 2004), the commercial successes of films were assumed to be a primary indicator of film project success. Further, De Vany and Walls documented the unpredictable and extremely high financial risks of pursuing a film project. Eliashberg, Elberse, and Leenders also supported the assertion that filmmaking had unpredictable results in terms of profits (2005).
Simon (2005) explained that the management of creative projects such as film production involved specialized leadership skills. The element of managed creativity was further highlighted by Zackariahsson, Walfisz, and Wilson (2006) in their study of computer game development and other creative projects. Swami (2006) appeared to support the importance of film as creative art. In a controversial and more extreme position, Zackariahsson, Walfisz, and Wilson (2006) asserted that a formal project structure actually inhibited the natural creative process. This assertion wasn't adequately proven by their work in the area, which was limited to a single case study.
A primary source in the literature is the PMBOK® Guide (PMI, 2004). As the profession's published standard, this source described the knowledge areas and practices of project management, but it did not represent all areas of experience. No mention of motion picture industry practices was expressed. The same lack of citations for the motion picture industry was characteristic of other well-known texts that were focused on project management, including Whetten and Cameron (2007), Meredith and Mantel (2006), Leach (2005), Lewis (2005 and 2000), Kerzner (2003), Milosevic (2003), Turner (2003), Goldratt (1997), Martin and Tate (1997), Verma (1996), and Brassard and Ritter (1994).
Clevé (2006) is the most in-depth account of film production management reviewed. This book was important because it went into the greatest detail in describing film production management.
Most important of other sources in the literature, Cheklich (2002) offered a rare account of how she entered the profession of film production via a project management role. Because of her background in formal project management, Cheklich was able to bridge the two professions of project management and film production, drawing parallels and reiterating the importance of financing, scheduling, budgeting, and communications. Duvall (2006) and Heintz (2003) revealed glimpses of film production culture by journaling the experiences of modern-day and successful producers as they found new uses of technology that streamlined their filmmaking processes. The British Film Institute (2002), which provided critical reviews of movies and polled film professionals for their opinions, provided alternative criteria for the success of film projects: artistic, dramatic, and technical merit. Rhys (2004) showed how film schools expected to train producers, writers, and directors, while hinting at the exclusive and expensive nature of film production.
Relevance to the PMBOK® Guide
The PMBOK® Guide (PMI, 2004), a generic and standardized collection of recognized project management practices, knowledge areas, and processes, does not focus on industry-specifics. Instead, it unifies common project management practices and serves as a repository of professional knowledge based on consensus. Actual practice, of course, would be expected to reflect PMBOK® Guide contents, yet be tailored to varying degrees for each specific industry or organization. Table 1 shows how various film production phases map to the PMBOK® Guide. Sources define the phases slightly differently.
Table 1. What Film Phases Map to the PMBOK® Guide?
| Source | Film Phase | Project Phase | Comments |
| Cheklich, 2002 | Preproduction | Initiating, planning | Cost and staffing levels are lower |
| Cheklich, 2002 | Production | Executing | Cost and staffing levels are highest |
| Cheklich, 2002 | Wrap | Closing | Shortest phase before postproduction |
| Brook, 2005 Clevé, 2006 | Development | Initiating | Concept completed; financing secured |
| Brook, 2005 Clevé, 2006 | Preproduction | Planning | Preparation for film shooting |
| Brook, 2005 Clevé, 2006 | Production | Executing, closing | Overlap of production and postproduction, focused on cinematography |
| Brook, 2005 Clevé, 2006 | Postproduction | Executing, closing | Production and postproduction overlap; editing of raw film, sound, effects, printing, delivery |
| Worley, 2005 | Preproduction | Initiating, planning | Primary phase; depends on green light from executives |
| Worley, 2005 | Production | Executing, controlling | Primary phase; most costly and time-critical phase; change management |
| Worley, 2005 | Postproduction | Controlling | Primary phase; less risky synthesis stage |
| Worley, 2005 | Distribution | Initiating, planning, executing, controlling | Secondary phase; rights for licensing obtained at any phase, such as box office screenings, TV, cable; manager unable to control risk, time |
| Worley, 2005 | Exhibition | Closing | Secondary phase, after closing; manager not able to control risk and time |
Motion Picture History and Status
The following discussion is important to the study of film project management because it explains the reasoning for the project-centric nature of film production and frames the context for film production in what is a very risky business venture. As a primary concern of project management professionals, risk management appears to be a key and driving force behind the practices of today's film production projects. Additionally, the forces of marketing and the expectations of consumer satisfaction and financial returns are undeniable components of film project management, if only an undertone for everyday activities of production. The following history explains this situation more fully.
The motion picture industry has had its ups and downs (Stamps, 1997; Eliashberg, Elberse, & Leenders, 2005). A broad review of a 30-year history of film by Miller and Shamsie (1996) showed a shift in both film consumerism and the film business, where the Golden Age of film experienced a period of stable success and then a downturn.
The Golden Age of film, from 1936 to 1950, as described by Miller and Shamsie (1996), was not just a different era for film in terms of period styles, fascination with stardom, and overall popularity. The business of filmmaking was different as well. In this time of movie zeal, major film studios could readily support their own in-house production crews. Movie projects were produced one after another, were consumed by large audiences, and, it seems, were almost operationalized as an ongoing business process.
Cinematic movie popularity diminished after 1950, with the advent of and competition from other entertainment sources such as television (Miller & Shamsie, 1996). The primary evidence from the two opposing eras was in the form of diminished returns on ticket sales and profitability. Resources that film studios used, such as long-term contracts with stars and theater halls, were also reduced (Miller & Shamsie, 1996). Not only this, the cost of production rose as well. Table 2 shows more detail.
Table 2. Historic Movie Statistics (Miller & Shamsie, 1996)
| Evidence | 1936–1950 (Mean) | 1950–1965 (Mean) |
| Return on sales | .12 | .07 |
| Profits from films | 7.08 | 5.34 |
| Cost of production per film | 2.11 | 5.07 |
| Stars under long contract | 12.49 | 4.79 |
| Theaters owned or leased | 208 | 14 |
| Consumer spending (% of entertainment) | 19.53 | 6.61 |
Box office revenue losses were a problem for the film industry and the studios that were backing production. Their answer to the financial risks endured by remaining in a much less lucrative, unstable, and unpredictable movie market was to restructure the business of filmmaking into what it has primarily become today, a purely project-driven business (Phelan & Lewin, 1999). Film production was contracted out. Ownership of resources was reduced.
According to Brad Hoover, a cinematographer, film production instructor and Director of the Carolina Film Institute, (personal communication, July 25, 2007), other reasons for the shift of studio-owned resources to outsourced production were federal regulation, overall economic changes, and the high cost of specialized equipment and labor. Anti-trust suits caused the breakup of major studios and their theaters. Large studios that once owned in-house production resources could no longer afford to offer long-term contracts, buy and store equipment, and retain a full-time staff of highly specialized crew members. Additionally, the labor market became increasingly expensive while inflated prices made renting, contracting, leasing, and subcontracting a more efficient, mobile, and flexible choice for modern film production.
As studios contracted the major portion of filmmaking to production companies and crews, they gained some benefits (Jones et al. 1999). They were free to utilize a broader resource pool of talent, and they were free to control the amount and frequency of films they undertook (Jones, Lichtenstein, Borgatti, Hesterly, & Tallman, 1999). Both benefits theoretically would appear to mitigate the greater financial risks of film production experienced in today's business climate. However, Phelan and Lewin (1999) arguably claimed that this flexibility was more costly to the studio.
This history of the consumer market influencing the business of filmmaking went even further (Hennig-Thurau, Houston, & Sridhar, 2006). Aside from the business dramatically changing its model for production, the reactions of cinema audiences seemed to increasingly influence the creation of the films themselves. With fewer regular moviegoers available in the market, film studios focused on attempting better methods of delivering well-received films. In essence, the studios wanted to predict the profits from box office revenues, reduce the chances that they would lose money in the venture, and reward outside investors with shared financial successes (Farrell, 1995; Swami, 2006; Worley, 2005). Clevé (2006), writing on film production management, clearly stated that the criterion for success was financial returns. A studio, then, must deliver a product that audiences pay for. See Appendices A and B for all-time box office records in the United States.
According to the body of research reviewed here, and especially by De Vany and Walls (1999, 2004), no one factor can predict whether a movie will be profitable, however. These factors include the presence of Hollywood stars in films, the power of strategic marketing, the padding of the budget, the timely release of the film in theaters, optimized exhibition schedules, the reliance on existing stories and characters, and the artistic and technical quality of the film. On the other hand, Hennig-Thurau, Houston, and Sridhar, (2006) found that quality may be the best driver of success.
Given this history of high risk and instability in predicting profits, what are film project managers to do in order to ensure project success, beyond delivering the film within budget, on time, and of expected quality? How, where, and by whom is film quality defined and achieved? Is quality a measurable standard or a subjective element, such as when films receive industry awards, favorable poll results, or critical acclaim? See Appendices C, D, and E for film rankings based on opinions (British Film Institute, 2002; Internet Movie Database, 2007).
In more traditional projects such as construction or engineering, quality can be planned, built, tested, and delivered as part of a specification or requirement. But in film production, quality seems to be a much more complex and subjective criteria for success. If quality can be planned and controlled, who is responsible? Is it the producer, director, cinematographer, screenwriter, art department, production designer, or the film's project manager? Furthermore, who in the film production is the project manager? The next section looks at what the literature and personal communication sources have described as the project management roles and responsibilities of film production professionals.
Roles and Responsibilities
According to the body of research reviewed here, there were no formal “project manager” titles credited to film productions (Cheklich, 2002). Even more confusing, the sources reviewed for this paper did not clearly and consistently identify the same individual or title as having project manager roles and responsibilities in film projects. Table 3 documents the variances in project management roles found in the literature and other sources.
Table 3. Who is the Film Project Manager?
| Motion Picture Industry Title | Literary and Other Sources |
| Executive Producer | Marcello, 2007 |
| Producer | Marcello, 2007; Cheklich, 2002; Brook, 2005; Hoover, 2007 |
| Line Producer | British Computer Society, 2006; Brook, 2005; Hoover, 2007 |
| Director | Marcello, 2007; Farrell, 1995 |
| First Assistant Director | Cheklich, 2002; Hoover, 2007 |
| Production Manager | Katsiris, 2007; Clevé, 2006; Brook, 2005; Hoover, 2007 |
| Unit Production Manager | Cheklich, 2002; Hoover, 2007 |
| Script Supervisor | Cheklich, 2002 |
| Tech Scout | Cheklich, 2002 |
| Location Scout | Hoover, 2007 |
| Location Manager | Hoover, 2007 |
| Traffic Coordinator | Cheklich, 2002 |
| Production Co-coordinator | Brook, 2005 |
Five of the above eight sources inferred that the main project manager in a film's production is most equivalent to one or more types of producers. See Appendix G for a table of producer titles and descriptions supplied by the Producers Guild of America (2005). If the producer role embodies the role of the formal project manager, what specifically is the producer contributing to the film? The best explanation came from the Sector Skills Council for the Audio Visual Industries (2005), which described the producer as the one person who steers the film project from beginning to end, and was responsible for its success. They often became involved in initiating the film project, oversaw its production, and carried it into distribution and exhibition. “The producer's role is to turn story ideas into profitable cinematic entertainment, and to persuade others to share in his or her commercial and creative vision” (Sector Skills Council for the Audio Visual Industries, 2005). Another description from the Producers Guild of America (2005), says “a producer is involved throughout all phases of production from inception to completion, including coordination, supervision and control of all other talents and crafts, subject to the provisions of their collective bargaining agreements and personal service contracts.” In addition, an entire staff known as the production office is typically required to perform project management duties (Producers Guild of America, 2005; Sector Skills Council for the Audio Visual Industries, 2005).
Hoover (personal communication, July 25, 2007) noted that the producer may be largely focused on the financial aspects of the film, where funds and deals are raised and negotiated with investors. The producer, according to Hoover, was most active in preproduction work, while the unit production manager or line producer, which was often a combined role, was responsible for actually running the production phase. Table 3 also shows five sources who cited the unit production manager or production manager as having project management responsibility. In many cases, the unit production manager handled the logistics of production while the line producer worked to manage payments to contractors and vendors during production and served an accountancy role. Clevé (2006) stated that the production manager worked to safeguard the interests of the producer. Hoover noted that the delineation between roles is often blurred, depending on each film, but many individuals were responsible for the management of different aspects of production. For each of these roles and many more, Hoover claimed that the most important production management skills were excellent communication, decision-making, and timing.
The variance found above and described by Cheklich (2002), Brook (2005), and Hoover (2007) showed that project management roles and responsibilities in film production projects do not depend on one sole position or individual. Rather, project management responsibility is required among multiple roles and is distributed across the project. This is in stark contrast, for example, to the federal government's concept of project management, also known as product or program management, where a single individual is expected, by design and direction, to centrally and singly handle project management responsibilities for large programs (Defense Acquisition University, 2005).
Considering the complexity and difficulty of filmmaking, no one person could handle all project management, coordination and logistics tasks on a major film production (B. Hoover, personal communication, April 28, 2007). Instead, individuals were responsible for their own area of expertise. For example, the director was ultimately responsible for realizing the aesthetic and emotive quality of the film, while the production manager was ultimately responsible for controlling costs and schedule. Hoover noted that the entire process of producing a film, from concept to film canister delivery, could take many years, a further indication of the process's complexity and difficulty. Even in low-budget films, as Cheklich (2002) experienced, multiple people handled project management to varying degrees. As she explained, the requirements for precise scheduling and timing, financing, budgeting, and ongoing communications were high enough to warrant the management expertise of several individuals to ensure that all pieces fell into place.
Tools and Practices
Table 4 includes some of the specific tools and practices that filmmakers have developed or used to assist in their project management responsibilities. While at the simplest level the goal of film production is photography, the compact timelines, high costs of production labor and resources, and the complex coordination of talent, time, and resources require many tools and practices such as these. Note that unions dictate many practices, and the producer, director, and production manager must agree on many items.
Table 4. What Tools and Practices are Used in Film Project Management?
| Item | Description | Sources |
| Forecasting | Attempt to predict film's financial success. May be a less useful practice, since actual variation in film profit is unstable and models use only opinion or simple averages. | DeVany, 1999 DeVany, 2004 |
| Green-lighting | Official go-ahead to begin film production, awarded by select individuals. This follows the development phase. | Clevé, 2006 |
| Risk rating | Rating of risk to actors by insurance underwriters, based on expected performance and reliability, in relation to completing shoot. | Hoover, 2007 |
| Completion bond or guarantee | Financially ensures investors and lenders that a film will be completed with the specified script, budget, and schedule. Fee of 5%. Obtained by producer with reporting required. | Clevé, 2006 Hoover, 2007 |
| Deal memo | Legally binding document made prior to final contract. | Clevé, 2006 |
| Participation contract | Contingency where pay (to actors, directors, distribution fees, rentals) is undetermined until film revenues are known. Reduces financial risk for studios and producers. | DeVany, 2004 Clevé, 2006 |
| Required insurance and permits | Requirements and fees met prior to shooting, including liability, workers' comp, accident, work visas, city access. | Clevé, 2006 |
| Optional or as-needed insurance | For cast, stars, props, wardrobe, sets, extra expenses, third-party property, equipment, film, cameras, cash, office, errors, omissions, excess liability, aircraft, animals. | Clevé, 2006 |
| Producer's Insurance Policy | Combines multiple forms of insurance into an annual product. Premium of 2–3%, depending on risk exposure. | Clevé, 2006 |
| Union agreements and memberships | Screen Actors Guild /Screen Extras Guild structure much of film production practice. Paperwork, time, rules, fees, fines and compliance costs are substantial burdens. | Clevé, 2006 |
| Nonunion contracts | Employment contracts and releases may be unique. | Clevé, 2006 |
| Organizational structure | A standard expectation and hierarchy of production roles and responsibilities. Enables quick, efficient work and coordination among crew. However, actual working relations tend to be more complex. | Cheklich, 2002 Brook, 2005 Hoover, 2007 |
| Screenplay or script | The foundation and blueprint for all film scenes, the building blocks of film production, based on a story. Color coding is used to differentiate script revisions. Influences film scope and quality. Scriptwriting software offers the ability to electronically link the script to production elements for a more streamlined process. Script supervisor helps ensure quality. Script may be purchased and already developed well in advance of production. Script legal rights may need to be gained and purchased. | Cheklich, 2002 Brook, 2005 Clevé, 2006 Hoover, 2007 Katsiris, 2007 |
| Script breakdown sheet/form | A detailed decomposition of each scene planned in a film, derived from the screenplay. Used as a reference for all of the upcoming production. This is the most important form completed during preproduction. See Appendix H for an outline of contents. | Clevé, 2006 |
| Cast/scene breakdown form | A list of all actors and extras required in a scene, referenced by scene number and script names. For actor utilization on a scene. | Clevé, 2006 |
| Location/scene breakdown form | A list of all scenes, referenced by scene number and script location, required in a script, to see how many scenes planned per location. | Clevé, 2006 |
| Preliminary budget | Based on producer and director agreement on realistic estimates of scope and schedule, plus union-regulated rates/expenses/dues. Prior to negotiation and contracting. For unions, insurance, and bonding. | Clevé, 2006 |
| Production budget | Determines available financial resources that influence film scope and quality. Dependant upon financing and investment deals, with executive negotiations and control. Changes often. | Cheklich, 2002 Clevé, 2006 |
| Cash-flow chart | Weekly expenses and needed funds for production. | Clevé, 2006 |
| Storyboard | Sketches used to translate the script's textual descriptions of scenes into visual information. Provides initial artistic vision and working plans for art department. Reduces costs by establishing scope. | Katsiris, 2007 Clevé, 2006 |
| Technical storyboard | Diagram showing overhead position of cameras, actors, shots and dollies on the set. Shows actor and camera movement. Defines scope. | Clevé, 2006 |
| Tech scout | Location tours. Scene is described to the crew on each shooting site. Mitigates risks by saving time and money during shooting, an expensive part of production. Helps ensure artistic vision. | Cheklich, 2002 |
| Screen card or scheduling strips | Repositionable cards representing blocks of film shooting for scenes. Scene strips are usually grouped by location and time of day, in order to economize set, camera, prop, and lighting setup. Typically affixed to a production board or wall for ease of viewing, and rearranged to optimize and adjust shooting schedules as needed. | British Computer Society, 2006 Clevé, 2006 |
| Previz | Pre-visualization technique using computers and 3-D animation. Allows a rough draft of film footage and scenes to be created before filming. Mitigates risks by saving time and money during shooting. | Heintz, 2003 |
| Location survey | Assistance to location manager in finding shoot sites. | Clevé, 2006 |
| Cover set | Alternative, interior shooting location for planned, exterior shooting; in case of bad weather or other risk events. | Cheklich, 2002 Clevé, 2006 |
| Behavioral codes | “Filmmaker's Code of Professional Responsibility” helps minimize impacts of shooting in local communities. | Clevé, 2006 |
| Call sheet | Listing and detailed instructions (actors, meals, props, transportation, wardrobe, weather forecasts, and so forth) for all required resources needed for daily shooting, at each location and time. Distributed to all in the shooting sequence to aid schedule. | Cheklich, 2002 Clevé, 2006 |
| Cast and crew | Oversight of hiring and contracts with producer/director | Clevé, 2006 |
| Cross plotting | Method of assigning and managing human resources. Allows visual display of daily allocations and availability. | Katsiris, 2007 |
| Change control | Producer evaluates changes for impact on budget, schedule, and story. Sometimes informal versus formal. | Cheklich, 2002 |
| Production or shooting schedule | Baseline schedule of scenes to be shot based on the most efficient order possible, and not by linear progression of the storyline. First assistant director is involved. Uses a traditional production board or software equivalent as a display and change device. Usually derived from required locations, then by actor availability. | Cheklich, 2002 Clevé, 2006 Katsiris, 2007 |
| Production board | Industry standard method of creating a shooting schedule. Large, paper-based display for arranging scenes by daily sequence and required actors by repositionable scheduling strips. Uses screen breakdown sheets and location breakdown sheets as inputs. Digital version is more cumbersome to view. Aids in estimating production. | Clevé, 2006 Hoover, 2007 |
| Actors' day-out-of-days form | Brief version of the final production board, required by the Screen Actors Guild. Shows the flow of production and actor days worked. | Clevé, 2006 |
| Actors' production time report | Tracks actor's time throughout the day and used to compute compensation, fees, and fines. Required by the Screen Actors Guild. | Clevé, 2006 |
| Production report | Daily account by the assistant director of shooting, hours worked, script pages covered, and how much film used. | Cheklich, 2002 Clevé, 2006 |
| Dailies | Processed film reviewed by crew managers the day after film shooting. Helps ensure story and technical quality. | Cheklich, 2002 Clevé, 2006 |
| Phone, transaction, memo log | Used to record details of all aspects of production including when conversations occur, with whom, what was discussed and decided. | Clevé, 2006 |
| Critical chain management | Project management technique used to identify problems or causes that limit throughput of a system. Helps manage risks and schedule. | Worley, 2005 |
| Radio handsets and phones | Used to maintain constant communication and availability of personnel on the set. Facilitates mobility and logistics. | Cheklich, 2002 |
| Wireless monitors | Real-time, remote screening of live film shooting by key managers. Helps ensure artistic vision and quality. | Cheklich, 2002 Duvall, 2006 |
| Satellite video-conferencing | Allows directors to monitor and guide shooting remotely and at multiple sites. Helps ensure artistic vision and reduce costs. | Duvall, 2006 |
| Dekker TRAKKER® software | Software used for centralized scheduling, resource monitoring, costing, accounting, and earned value. | Dekker, 2007 Marcello, 2007 |
| SilverScreener and other software | Software used to predict attendance and optimize the scheduling of cinematic exhibition of films in theaters. See Appendix F for more. | Swami, 2006 Netscape, 2007 |
Conclusions and Future Direction
Motion picture production has been deemed similar to other industries such as software development and pharmaceutical research. The fundamental practices required to deliver a film production are well-defined and aligned to the processes and knowledge areas in the PMBOK® Guide. What makes motion picture project management different from many other industries, however, is the degree or intensity in which these fundamentals are applied, and by whom. Film production is unique because it is a logistically complex and difficult undertaking, much like waging a small war. It creates an innovative and subjectively evaluated product, the motion picture. It calls for constant communication during development, planning, negotiating, reporting, discussing, and directing. It depends on detailed scheduling and clockwork timing, such as with the tightly controlled and compact shooting schedule. It needs excellent decision-making, such as used during resource changes, unforeseen events, and artistic or financial decisions. It operates with direction from many highly specialized roles that share project management responsibility, like the producer, director, production manager, and others. Union agreements dictate many production and management practices, and every possible detail of the business is planned, recorded, and tracked. Project management responsibilities of film production are also meshed with the administrative, technical, and artistic skills of the professionals who control the project. Those with management and supervisory responsibility must be knowledgeable and talented in their respective filmmaking roles and departments, and have extensive experience.
Primary research in the form of a motion picture industry survey, with an adequate sample size, would help to clarify, expand, or dispute the findings in this paper. Broader questions concerning the business of motion picture production remain. If the ultimate criterion for film project success is financial return from the box office, how can the industry more accurately predict and modify its film products in order to meet expectations?
