You are on page 1of 10

Academic Writing

Master´s Degree
International Project Management
(Building, Real State and Infrastructure)

Project Management 2.0-Is There really need for Modern
Management methods in Construction?

Submitted by:

Javier Escobar
Student Matriculation No. 810524

Lecturer:

Dr. Selim Tugra Demir
University of Applied Sciences Stuttgart

Submission Date:

22/12/2015

Word Count:

1438

................................................................ 2 2......................................................................... References .........................................-1 - Table of Content 1.4 Limits of Project Management 2..................................................................... 6 3...............................................1 Issues of Construction Project Management ................................................ 8 .............................3 Change of Philosophy............... Mindmap ................................................................................................................................... 2 2..........................................2 Project Management 2... 6 4.................0 ................................................................................................................. 7 5...................... Introduction ....................................0 . Conclusion .............................................................. 2 2..................... 3 2.............................. 4 2....................... Literature Review .......................

2003. Finally. Bertelsen. 2005. Koskela and Howell. cost overruns and poor safety conditions (Koskela. the industry is characterized by a series of issues like low quality. Tezel and Nielsen. 2008). specially with projects with high complexity and uncertainty where traditional project management methodologies might have difficulties to deliver (Tripathi and Goyal.0 [PM 2.-2 - 1.0] as a new method will be introduced along with some of the benefits of this particular modern approach in construction projects. Project Management 2. Hence. After. and fail to propose the tools and means to facilitate such improvements. In this new globalized market the pressure of competition forces the industry to improve its performance (Tezel and Nielsen. 2013). an understanding of some of the possible causes of the current issues in the industry. will be presented. according to the existing literature. Hence. is necessary to investigate the underlying causes of the problem (ibid. extensive research has been conducted by different authors identifying planning and managerial issues as the main cause (AlSehaimi and Koskela. 2008. 2005). Tezel & Nielsen. The aim of this essay is to discuss the need of modern management methods in construction. Bertelsen and Koskela. 2000. the need of improving the performance in the industry is urgent (Koskela and Howell. Literature Review 2. 2000. 2013). Paradoxically. . 2002.). Introduction Construction industry plays an important role in almost any economy (Bertelsen and Koskela. 2002.1 Issues of Construction Project Management Historically. 2. provide non-practical recommendations. As Alshehaimi and Kosela (2008) point out. First. time delays. 2013). most of these studies are mainly explanatory. AlSehaimi and Koskela. In order to achieve a practical solution. Bertelsen and Koskela. the author aims to discuss some of the main differences between modern approaches with traditional project management and its consequences on the industry. 2005). construction industry has been plagued by several problems (Koskela. 2014).

2010). unpredictable and non-linear system (Bertelsen.).. et al. every project has to be seen as a temporary organization (ibid. Furthermore. 2000). Proponents of this approach argue that both practical and theoretical advances can result of studying the concrete actions of project participants. there is a school of thought that argues that traditional research that focus on finding principles and models is rarely translated in substantial tools for practitioners (Blomquist. Turner and Müller (2003) suggest that the definition of projects must be reconsidered.). social relations and human aspects become the primary instrument of project management and suggest that the use of social theories on the study of project management might be more appropriate (Floricel.). In a similar way. 2003). new forms of .0 In modern constructions projects the number of participating stakeholders is constantly increasing and consequently new project management standards are gradually moving towards methods where cooperation and collaboration has a central role (Kähkönen. social and temporal context (ibid. Bertelsen and Koskela (2005) state that the underlying understanding of the construction process is not complete.-3 Koskela and Howell (2002) state that the origin of the issues in the industry is that the underlying theory of project management is deficient and not clearly defined. Hence. On the other hand. a change of paradigm based in new theories is necessary to really recognize the reality and complexity of projects (ibid. however.). 2. 2013). However. situated in their individual.. The authors argue that traditional assumptions of construction management are based on an understanding of construction from a transformation point of view of production. Traditionally. With this new definition. Effective communication is. 2013). projects managers assume that projects can be treated as an ordered. the most crucial of all. (Project Management Institute. among the factors that influence the success of a project. project management must be able to perceive the project as a complex. Recently. a holistic theory of construction should include in addition the flow view and the value generation view of production (Koskela.2 Project Management 2. In addition to the classical functional definition. 2014). simple and predictable phenomenon ignoring in the process the dynamics of external factor inherent to every project (ibid. et al.

2. 2014). according to Pollack (2007) there is a growing acceptance in the field towards the use of the soft paradigm in project management. This new tools have had a big impact on society and business. 2015). This implies deep differences in how project management is understood and applied in practice (ibid. The relationship between both paradigms and how they interact with project management is described in figure 1. Levitt. 2011).0] can be defined as the evolution of project management practices enabled by the use of Web 2. Bertelsen. Kerzner. Kähkönen. 2008. Floricel. This enhanced collaboration approach translates into improved alignment among stakeholders assuring that everyone is connected to a common set of goals and actions as well as increased productivity by the reduction of resources spent on organizing (Nicoletti. 2008). This method was developed with the objective of bring order and discipline to a big group of participants involved in a joint endeavour (Levitt. Furthermore. 2005. including the construction industry where the way of managing projects is changing (Levitt.3 Change of Philosophy Project management had its roots in the aerospace.)..).0. 2002. Pollak. like Web 2. 2015). defense and construction industry on the decade of 1970´s (Levitt. Project management works with the basic assumption that planners can develop detailed plans that will remain valid for the entire duration of the project (ibid. Bertelsen and Koskela. is allowing people to interact in new ways and communicating more closely than in the past (Kerzner.-4 communication. 2007. 2011. 2011. 2003. 2015).0 [PM 2. . 2013). Project management is deeply rooted in hard and rational paradigms (Koskela and Howell. 2013). et al. Project Management 2. Kerzner. 2011. this approach ensures that the right information is available at the right time to the right team member (Nicoletti.0 technologies that allow distributed collaboration and open communication among all stakeholders to better share information and empower teams to get things done (Andres. However.

traditional methodology follow the top-down approach for decision-making achieving less transparency in the project (Andres. are already . 2013) and thus not taking advantage of the creativity and competences of the members of the team (Tripathi and Goyal. Kähkönen. Moreover. (Pollack. PM 2. PM 2. Agile Project Management (Tripathi and Goyal. Interrelationship between the attributes of the hard and soft paradigms. 2007.0 works with self-organized teams where change is embraced and continuous modifications are welcome in order to maximize the value deliver to the client (ibid.). 2011. In accordance with the discussed before. making this approach unappropriated for projects with uncertain conditions (Tripathi and Goyal. 2012).-5 - Figure 1. In contrast. 2014). as the whole organization is responsible for the success or failure of the project and not only the project manager (Nicoletti. 2013). many new methods like Lean construction and Last Planner (Ballard and Tommelein. On the other hand.). 2014). p. 266) The centralized planning and hierarchical structure of traditional project management makes the method rigid and unable to adapt to changes. 2014) or Integrated Project Delivery (Levitt.0 uses highly motivated and experience employees that are empowered and encouraged to find innovative solutions (ibid. 2008).

. Additionally. especially in bigger and more complex projects where traditional approaches have proved being inadequate. In projects like this. 3.4 Limits of Project Management 2. Furthermore.0 has already prove itself successful in small projects.0 might be undesired.0 is based in the soft paradigm instead of the hard paradigm in which traditional project management is usually based. PM 2. according to Levitt (2011) there are some projects where its scope needs to be rigorously controlled to avoid risk to the public. there is who argues that is not effective for large projects (Kerzner. This change of philosophy on the field is result of the recent performance of the industry. Conclusion This essay has considered PM 2. 2. The issues of the industry have been studied extensively by several researchers identifying recurrently project management as the main reason making the need of change inevitable. change is already in motion and promises to increase considerable the productivity of the industry.0 as alternative to improve the performance of the construction industry.0 with the objective of increase the performance of the industry. Ballard and Tommelein (2012) state that traditional project management might still be the most appropriate choice when the grade of certainty and predictability of the project is high. 2015).-6 implementing concepts of collaboration of PM 2. the flexible and uncontrolled environment of PM 2.0 Although PM 2. Although the real value of this new style of management is yet to be proven. This new style of managing takes advantage of new tools and technologies to improve the productivity of the entire organization through collaboration y enhanced social dynamics.

-7 4. Mindmap .

A. (2013) Project management for Construction: towards methods and tools meeting demands of modern construction operations. L. References AlSehaimi. 2 (1-2). (2008) What can be Learned from Studies on Delay in Construction?. In: Tzortzopoulos. G. 11-23. In: Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction. R. Nilsson. 95-106. Koskela. 65-71. Floricel. Inc. UK. Project Management Journal. (1999) What is Lean Construction-1999?.. Jun 2002. Blomquist. Ballard. 7th. (2000) An exploration towards a Production theory and its Application to construction. Andres. . Bertelsen. Kerzner. pp. and Koskela. la città e l´architettura. Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction. (2005) Approaches to Managing Complexity in Project Production. 9-16. and Tommelein. C. (2013) Social Project Management @ Research and Innovation. and Sergi. 11th. 41(1). Hällgren. Helsinki University of Technology. S. L. Bertelsen. F. Hokkaido : Sanwa-Printing CO. Sydney. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. (2015) Project Management 2. Bonneau. A. pp. 1091-1107. L. 13th. P. S. A. USA. (2014) Extending project management research: Insights from social theories. and Söderholm. and Kagioglou. pp.0. A. In: Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction. (2012) Lean Management methods for complex projects. pp. 26-28 Jul 1999. USA. T. V. G. 85-96. Virginia. Howell. Austrialia. 19-21 Jul 2005.. K. 5-16. pp. S.. L. Berkley. and Koskela. Issue 32. M. H.-8 5. PhD Dissertation. G. (2003) Complexity-A New Way of Understanding Construction. pp. International Journal of Project Management. Engineering Project Organization Journal . USA. In: Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction. Koskela.. 293-302. and Howell. Manchester.. pp. In: The PMI Research Conference. (2002) The Underlying theory of project management is obsolete. 16-18 Jul 2008. (2010) Project-as-Practice: In Search of Project Management Research That Matters. 16th. M. Aubry. Seattle. Ricerche e progetti per il territorio. Kähkönen. 4(Special Issue 2). M. pp. I.

25(3). R. 1(3). V. In: IPMA Congress. J. (2003) On the nature of the project as a temporary organization. E. Tezel.-9 Levitt. pp. International Journal of Project management. pp. R. Rome. and Goyal. K. Y. (2013) Lean Construction Conformance among Construction Contractors in Turkey. 2(5). pp. 197-210. 1005-1009. A. pp. 1-8. J. The Changing Paradigms of Project Management. 266-274. Project Management Institute (2013) PMI´s Pulse of the Profesion In-Depth Report: The Essential Role of Communications. Journal of Management in Engineering. International Journal of Project Management. Pollak.0. (2014) Changing Roles and Responsabilities from Traditional project management to Agile project management. B. A. Italy.0. International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication. (2008) Project Management 2. 236-250. Tripathi. and Nielsen. 21(1). pp. The Engineering Project Organization Journal.. 2007. (2011) Towards Project Management 2. Nicoletti. Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute. and Müller. R. . 10-12 Oct 2008. 29 (3). Turner.