International Journal of Project Management Vol. 17, No. 1, pp.

39±45, 1999
# 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
0263-7863/99 $19.00 + 0.00

PII: S0263-7863(97)00072-0

Managing the project management

process in Aerospace and
Construction: a comparative
approach
Richard Graham
Project Management Division, WS Atkins Consultants Ltd, London, UK

This paper explores, in a practical setting, in¯uences on project managers created by their pro-
ject and business environments. The author carried out a study of project management practice
within two large companies operating in two di€erent industry sectors. The paper explains the
central theme and ®ndings of the study. The ®ndings show that managers on the projects sur-
veyed were in¯uenced by their project environment. Some of the major comparisons observed are
illustrated together with suggestions as to broader links and best practice within the construction
industry. # 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved
Keywords: project management, project management accounting system, comparative case study, aerospace, con-
struction

Introduction the idea that contingencies exist in project management

Many project management texts discuss the subject
from a broad general perspective. Cleland,1 for
example, describes the major elements that underpin
project management. Such works rarely o€er advice
however on how managers may apply project manage-
ment theory in `live' contexts nor do they seek to
address the question as to whether techniques are
applied uniformly or in response to their environment.
A number of researchers have however explored
such issues and have generated some interesting ®nd-
ings. Mintzberg in his studies on the structuring of or-
ganisations acknowledges the importance of their
work2 in the development of management best practice
and general management theory. He summarises the
work of Woodward, Burns and Stalker, Lawrence and
Lorsch, and Khandwalla who all suggest that there are
relationships between organisational structure and the
environment. They coined the term contingency to
describe the existence of particular relationships. The
author referred to their ®ndings in structuring this
study and uses contingency in the context of `it all
depends', as de®ned by Handy,3 to explore the hypoth-
esis that project managers' use of techniques and gen-
eral approach are contingent upon the variable project
operating conditions.
Peter Morris,4 in a practical industry study carried
out at Templeton College, Oxford describes the use of
project management at a strategic level on a number
of major projects. These descriptions lend support to
methodology when related to the project environment
and that an appropriate response is necessary to
achieve project `success' under the particular project
conditions. However, the author found few practical
studies that highlight any particular contingent issues
at an operational level. The lack of available data in
the public domain is supported by other researchers
working in this area.5 Bu-Bushait6 o€ers one practical
study. In this he identi®es a number of distinct project
area groupings. He groups projects under the headings:
Construction, Research and Development, Maintenance,
and Administrative. To these we should add Industrial/
Manufacturing. He surveyed the usage of project man-
agement techniques across these project areas and
found that while certain techniques, such as Work
Breakdown structure, are adopted uniformly, support-
ing the general project management `body of knowl-
edge' he also found that ``the application of project
management techniques varied considerably among the
sampled projects''.6 His conclusions infer that contin-
gencies may be expected between the management of
projects and particular project areas.
Mintzberg2 o€ers a paradigm to de®ne a link within
a project between product variables (limited in this
study to ¯ows of materials) and process variables
(de®ned here as ¯ows of information). He sets out the
relationship between what he calls Independent (con-
tingency) variables; that cover product, material ¯ow
and environmental issues, and Dependent (structural)
39
Project management practices: R. Graham
variables: that relate to project management practice
and accountancy systems. These he links by
Intermediate (work related) variables: aspects of infor-
mation ¯ow. The author linked Mintzberg's paradigm
to work by Winch7 on the study of product processes.
Winch describes an heuristic production model that
highlights ¯ow sequences at a number of di€erent
levels. He states that contingencies at higher levels de-
®ne factors at levels beneath and that these lower
levels have further levels of contingency factors within
them. The author concluded Mintzberg's paradigm
could be applied at di€erent management levels in a
project with issues at lower management levels a€ected
by higher decision levels. The author chose for the
purpose of this study to focus on one level, the im-
plementation phase of a project: a focus area which is
important for many project managers. In this way this
study represents a subset of the broader Mintzberg
paradigm. The author viewed Bu-Bushait's work out-
lined above in relation to these issues and used his
®ndings to set the practical scope of this study.
Bu-Bushait's study has a broad scope in that he
seeks to compare projects from four di€erent project
areas. Hence the project contexts vary widely and this
creates a problem of scope and comparative measure-
ment. Comparison becomes dicult because of the
large number of unde®ned and interdependent project
variables. For this reason the study upon which this
paper is based compares only four projects within only
two of Bu-Bushait's project areas: Industrial/
Manufacturing and Construction. The author adopted
a case study approach, sought to look at the question
of contingency in more depth and did not attempt to
generalise the ®ndings beyond the particular set of pro-
jects studied. The advantage of this approach is to
make the broad comparisons clearer. The ®ndings
establish that contingencies do exist and they suggest
some particular reasons as to why the two di€erent
project areas adopt di€erent approaches.
The advantage of this type of study is that compari-
son of di€erent project areas may lead to a better
understanding of the major contingencies and in the
adoption of `appropriate' management techniques.
Potential bene®ts for individual managers lie in a bet-
ter understanding of the practical in¯uences that a€ect
their decision-making. At the level of the ®rm an
awareness of these issues may result in project manage-
ment organisations becoming better providers of ser-
vice to their clients and to clients in receiving better
value products. And at an industry level bene®ts exist
through an awareness of how relevant best practice in
one industry may be appropriate for adoption by
another if the conditions are suitable. Such issues have
all been highlighted in the construction industry by Sir
Michael Latham8 as relevant to the future needs of the
industry.
Comparative study
The study is summarised below and drawn from data
gathered by the author. The four projects were selected
from two companies operating in two di€erent project
areas: aerospace and construction. The author invited
participants on the basis of known reputation with the
intention that the management of these projects rep-
resented `best practice' within both project areas.
40
The main objective was to compare project manage-
ment practice between the projects of both companies.
The Aerospace company is a major UK employer that
seeks competitive advantage through long term client
relationships on major projects, through maximising
the skills of its labour force and in close partnerships
with its suppliers. It competes within an international
market. The Construction company is a well-known
UK contractor and a company within a UK conglom-
erate. It diversi®ed into management of projects,
importing ideas and expertise originally from America.
Their competitive advantage lies in the eciency and
e€ectiveness of the management service that it provides
to its clients. It is not directly a major UK employer.
It competes within both a national and international
market.
De®ning the study
This study adopted a qualitative case study approach.
The author designed a questionnaire to gather the ma-
jority of the data. This questionnaire was tested with
impartial third parties prior to carrying out the main
interviews. A Semi-structured interview approach was
used as the means to encourage the participation of
the informants. The author interviewed a number of
di€erent informants actively engaged on each project
and case studies of each project were written primarily
using this data. Secondary data from project docu-
ments and company literature supported the primary
data. These case studies formed the basis for compari-
son. By adopting a similar format to each interview
the data gathering was repeatable and uniform
between projects. Discussion focused on cost and time
issues to reduce subjectivity inherent in project per-
formance and quality.
Each company selected two projects that were sig-
ni®cant within the company and representative of the
company's workload. In order to make any compari-
sons easier to observe a number of simpli®cations were
made to the study. These were:
. a focus on production;
. discussion limited to the quanti®able parameters of
cost and time;
. to look at only a few possible variables; project
structure, product material ¯ow and project infor-
mation ¯ow.
Assessment of project structure was made with refer-
ence to the matrix link between function and project
objectives, described by Clark and Fujimoto9 as light-
weight versus heavyweight project management. The
author identi®ed other broad project factors such as
project size and duration, and the number of observa-
ble project levels. Winch7 describes production ¯ows
within a project in terms of the ¯ow of materials that
go to embody the ®nished product and the ¯ow of
project information that is used to manipulate the ma-
terial ¯ow. The author considered these ¯ows in the
context of the producer as a service provider to the cli-
ent with focus on the process and not just the product.
The author sought in each case study to describe the
underlying process ¯ows in the project rather than the
accountancy process the project managers used to de-
®ne such ¯ows. Figure 1 illustrates the materials ¯ow
and Figure 2 the information ¯ow for one of the
 Project management practices: R. Graham

Figure 1 Material Flow through project

projects. Respondents were able to explain these ¯ows to de®ne dependent variables for comparison between
in a practical way, illustrating them as diagrams. case studies. Bu-Bushait o€ers a list of techniques6
Respondents were asked to describe their manage- which the author used as a basis for the description of
ment accounting system. This data enabled the author the management accounting system on each project.

Figure 2 Information Flow through project

41
Project management practices: R. Graham

Table 1 Key di€erences in project structure between industry case studies

Attribute Aerospace Construction
1 Matrix Type Heavyweight Lightweight
2 Size Magnitude larger Large
3 No. of major levels in the project structure Five Four
4 Operating levels of the project structure At levels three and four At levels two and three
5 Degree of centralisation Centralised Decentralised
6 Approach to suppliers Relational Contractual
7 Resource bases in relation to PM Internally oriented Externally oriented
8 Duration Around 60 months Around 20 months

Respondents explained the extent to which particular
techniques were used or gave reasons why any were
not used. They also described how they viewed the
relative importance of these techniques in the success
of the project when set against other factors such as
managerial experience and a knowledge of the pro-
duct.
Findings
The relational ®ndings between the two sets of projects
form the basis of the discussion below. The analysis is
split into project structure, material ¯ow and infor-
mation ¯ow and the relationships with the manage-
ment accounting system and respondents attitudes.
Structure
Both Construction projects were lightweight oriented.
Their matrices formed by independent trade contrac-
tors acting as pro®t centres and creating project co-
alitions. The projects were large scale and of medium
duration. Many of the functional specialists had not
worked with each other before and their relationships
were de®ned purely by the contracts drawn up speci®-
cally for the project.
Both Aerospace projects were heavyweight oriented.
Their matrices formed between internal functions act-
ing as cost centres and external repeat suppliers. The
projects were a magnitude larger than for construction
and of longer duration. Closer links appeared to be
forged between functional specialists over a period of
time and on previous projects. This included a focus
on improving the productivity of suppliers. Contracts
included targets set from previous similar projects.
The aerospace ®rm exerted a strong in¯uence on the
project structure. The author did not perceive this to
be the case for the construction ®rm. The project man-
ager on the aerospace projects operated within the
same ®rm as a number of the project functions.
However on the construction projects all the functions
were contracted externally.
The scale of operation within the projects was
re¯ected by the size of the respective ®rms and the
amount of capital resource that they possessed. The
aerospace ®rm was directly larger and possessed
greater capital resource. The author perceived the
aerospace ®rm as placing a greater emphasis on the
ecient use of their resources. This was seen in their
formal statements on investment in their employees
skills, capital equipment, partnering and accountability
to their clients. For the projects selected, the project
durations were signi®cantly longer and the number of
levels of structure greater in aerospace when compared
to construction. Table 1 summarises these points.
Material ¯ow
Aerospace o€ers a manufactured product as opposed
to a quasi-manufactured product o€ered by construc-
tion. The aerospace product is tightly controlled and
fabricated from a large number of assembled com-
ponents. Tight tolerances are achievable and necessary
due to the type of product, to the extensive use of
metals with high manufacturing tolerances, to oper-
ation within a controlled environment and with a pro-
duct that is reproduced over a large number of
repetitions. There are many levels of production from
the assembly of an internal bracing element (a detailed
component) to the assembly of a wing or the com-
pleted aircraft. This o€ers many levels at which moni-
toring and control of the process is possible.
Continuous learning may be achieved by the large
number of repetitions that occur at all levels of pro-
duction. The assembly sequence is well-de®ned and
e€ort is expended to limit variability.
The construction product by contrast is subject to
vagaries within the external and site-speci®c environ-
ment. Tight control and tolerances are often only
achievable within speci®c manufactured sub-assem-
blies. Repetition was limited to within particular sub-

Table 2 Key di€erences in material ¯ow between industry case studies

Attribute Aerospace Construction
1 Focus of e€ort Major sub-assembly Final assembly
2 Product acceptance of ¯ow variability Low Variable
3 Need to "interface" sub-assemblies High Medium to low
4 Tolerance in changes to the ¯ow sequence Low to medium Medium to high
(network)
5 Quantity of material used Small High
6 No. of levels of assembly Higher Lower
7 Direction of ¯ow Toward ®nal assembly Both directions
8 Final assembly Small batches Unique
9 Repetition At ®nal assembly At sub-assembly
10 Production process Manufacture Quasi-manufacture

42

Table 3 Key di€erences in information ¯ow between industry case studies
Attribute
1 Information system
2 Source of baseline time and cost Internal production and supplier database
information
3 Centralised control over material ¯ow
4 Information systems standardisation
5 Flexibility within system
6 Degree of production information exchange
between actors
7 Information complexity
assemblies and the uniqueness of the product is often
cited as a factor limiting continuous learning and
therefore a strategy based on productive eciency.
The construction product used a wide range of ma-
terials, many such as in-situ concrete having wide toler-
ances. The product is relatively accepting of these
wider tolerances in comparison to aerospace. There are
fewer levels of sub-assembly when compared with
aerospace products. This limits measurement, monitor-
ing and control. The limited number of manufactured
sub-assemblies is the reason the author believes con-
struction to be a quasi-manufacturing process. The
material ¯ow direction occurs in two directions with
removal and addition to the site This indicates the in-
¯uence that the site has on the construction product.
Table 2 summarises these points.
Information ¯ow
All the case studies followed generally the pattern of
the project lifecycle discussed by Clelend.1 There are
however critical di€erences. The construction infor-
mation ¯ows are based on an heuristic information
plan. The actual system is applied based on the com-
pany system and the actual project. Aerospace projects
operate a formal system de®ned over a large number
of repetitions. Computers generate much of the aero-
space systems and procedures de®ning information
stages and catering for change in a formal way. The
company structure also formalised information ¯ow.
By contrast, construction managers develop `appropri-
ate' systems speci®c to each project and developed clo-
ser to the point of use.
Construction relies on `generic' cost information at
the initial stages. By contrast, Aerospace can look at
data from previous ®nal assemblies and talk directly
with their major suppliers. Baseline budgets may be
established at an earlier stage.
This di€erent approach in¯uenced work package
breakdown between the two industries. Construction
tenderers receive detailed speci®cation and time infor-
mation within tender enquiry documents. They then
supply prices. Interfaces must be clearly de®ned within
the priced contracts. By contrast, aerospace require
only generalised project information at this stage. The
interfaces are already accepted between actors and
detailed information exists within the internal systems
or within previous supplier prices. Aerospace nego-
tiates budgets with the functions prior to contract sign-
ing. The directorates then become cost centres with
value assigned through the directorate. Construction
allocates value through the pricing of the tender
Project management practices: R. Graham
Aerospace Construction
Planned systems exist Heuristic models
Individual project systems developed
Generic industry data and supplier
quotations
High Medium to low
High Medium to low
Low High
Broadly de®ned Tightly de®ned
High High
packages. A number of di€erent outside agents could
win these contracts.
The aerospace projects used an automated pro-
duction system to centralise the ¯ow of information.
The construction projects by contrast relied on a
decentralised ¯ow of information between a number of
actors and levels. Because these actors were external
the procedures that each adopted varied.
Construction managers used the packaging of infor-
mation as a way to adjust project value. Project man-
agers rede®ned downstream packages to mitigate the
e€ect of upstream variances. This ¯exibility did not
appear to exist within the aerospace projects observed.
Table 3 summarises these issues.
Discussion of the main comparisons
The discussion above summarises key di€erences
observed between the two project areas. The remainder
of the discussion focuses on the di€erent ways that
managers in both sets of projects related to these
¯ows. The discussion concludes by drawing together
patterns and suggesting that broad contingencies in
approach do exist: contingencies which would be
apparent through comparison between other areas.
Production project managers in aerospace were
in¯uenced by tightly de®ned budgets and programmes
at an early stage. The accounting system appeared to
be set up to minimise variances from the baseline bud-
get and cost information. Formal systems existed,
often as computer systems, to monitor and control the
product process. These systems used rigid methods
that limited the scope for managers to operate in a
¯exible way. This related to a desire to operate a stable
production process and to deal with variances in a
planned and formal manner. Change control formed
an important and highly systematised part of this
approach.
Construction project managers appeared to operate
a ¯exible, more varied and locally adapted manage-
ment accounting system. Managers spent signi®cant
time at the early stages de®ning the structure of the
system. These systems appeared tailored to the particu-
lar project and although based on the same heuristic
model had di€erent elements. The systems also
appeared to be ¯exible to changes within the assembly
of materials forming the product. The change control
process was looser, less mechanistic and the in¯uence
of the programme and budget baselines looser. The
packaging of work between the external functional
suppliers was used as a means to adjust the project
content downstream. This provided for greater project
43
Project management practices: R. Graham
¯exibility which to some extent the material ¯ow and
the product itself can support.
These di€erences were observed in elements of the
accounting system and summarised here.
The Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) existed as an
important means to break up the work into manage-
able elements on all the projects. In Aerospace the
WBS was in¯uenced by the project structure while in
construction other variables such as `packaging' cre-
ated by functional divisions and geography, indicating
the in¯uence of the site upon the process.
Network analysis techniques. Network Planning and
Critical Path Analysis featured in both construction
projects. These indicated managers need to de®ne the
process path for each particular project from scratch.
In Aerospace the network is much better de®ned
within the system due to the number of product rep-
etitions and managers appeared to expend more of
their resource to control against this network rather
than to try to rede®ne it. Bar charts featured heavily
on all projects as a means to illustrate progress and to
control activities and used at all levels. However at all
levels a discontinuous split was observed in the stra-
tegic level and operational level information ¯ows
which suggested imperfect junctions. In Construction,
site operatives are often left to establish their own
methods of working at a task level. In Aerospace the
strategic plan measures the general progress, however
managers appeared to be using other ways to resolve
details: issues were resolved through informal meetings
and face-to-face discussion. This relied upon manage-
rial experience to resolve unforeseen events rather than
through recourse to the accounting system. Predictive
methods such as PERT was used on one construction
project re¯ecting the iterative nature of this construc-
tion process.
Resource levelling was left to functional centres.
Aerospace appeared to place greater emphasis on this
part of the system than Construction. This related to
the manufactured product as well as the project orien-
tation of the matrix which allowed stronger in¯uence
over the cost base.
Computers were seen to play an important part on
all projects. However in Aerospace the computer was a
mainframe and held process data, such as previous
costs, as well as the accounting system. In construction
the computer sometimes appeared to be used more as
a presentational tool.
Some methods within the accounting system
appeared too unwieldy, primarily the Linear
Responsibility Chart (LRC). Managers assigned
responsibility and accountability through other
methods appropriate to the scale of the projects.
Meetings and reporting formed essential control tech-
niques on all projects. This re¯ected the need for man-
agers to receive information in an organised way and
for face-to-face regular contact between the main func-
tional and project elements. Again di€erences were
observed. The need for meetings appeared related to
the project size, to the degree of task complexity and
to the number of variances requiring swift resolution.
Construction used di€erent reporting methods and
forms did not appear to be standardised between
levels. This related to the management systems being
less formalised and being not carried forward between
projects.
44
Progress measure highlighted another contingency
inherent in the products. Measuring progress in terms
of cost and time requires a measured standard. This is
harder to achieve in Construction and was re¯ected in
statements from managers that their measures were
subjective. In Aerospace managers achieved a degree
of objectivity by using natural milestones that exist
within the product assembly process and the greater
experience gained through repetition at higher product
assembly levels.
Cost structure also highlighted the functional separ-
ation within construction of cost and time manage-
ment centres, presented within the Organisational
Breakdown Structures on these projects. Construction
appeared to use a less formal change control process
than Aerospace. Both project areas used Earned Value
Analysis. However the author suggests that this
accounting system could be employed to greater e€ect
in Aerospace where the measuring standards are physi-
cally and historically easier to de®ne.
Trend analysis occurred in both project areas re¯ect-
ing the need on all projects to predict the a€ect of cur-
rent activity on the end date and out-turn cost. All
projects exist within a wider business environment.
However it is possible that contingency exists here too
in the sensitivity of cost and time variance for business
objectives. The projects exhibited di€erent sensitivities
and this a€ected the project managers main area of
focus for each project.
Conclusions
The above discussion highlights detailed contingencies
between project characteristics and project manage-
ment approach. Examination of the practical data
gathered for the two sets of projects suggests strongly
that for these projects at least the way that managers
operate is contingent upon the project conditions. The
®ndings in this study supports Bu-Bushait's ®ndings in
that project managers in aerospace and construction
adopted di€erent techniques in response to di€erent
Independent and Intermediate variables. However
whilst Bu-Bushait's ®ndings suggest this result gener-
ally, the data in this study allowed the author to exam-
ine possible reasons for these di€erences in more
detail. These issues together with the case studies are
described by the author further in a report on the
study ®ndings.10 The author believes that further study
data would con®rm more of the contingent Dependent
variables and provide a better understanding of par-
ticular contingencies between di€erent project areas. In
conclusion:
1. The large size of all these project requires that for-
mal techniques are adopted if these projects are to
be successful.
2. The higher number of levels of product assembly
and the greater degree of repetition within the
Aerospace projects appears to require highly for-
malised systems to manage the required project
structure and information ¯ows.
3. The light/heavyweight orientation of the project
matrix structure strongly in¯uences the way that
managers operate between the two areas and the
way that production is organised.

4. The nature of the material ¯ows observed within
the Aerospace projects, seen as the larger number
of production levels and greater repetition, places a
di€erent emphasis on the management accounting
system used when compared to Construction.
5. All projects required a management accounting sys-
tem and made use of important elements within
planning, reporting and control.
Other factors should not be discounted. The inter-
views in both project areas strongly suggested that
managerial experience and knowledge of the product
play as important a role in de®ning project managers
actions as does adherence to a particular management
accounting system. The author gained the strong im-
pression of a good level of managerial expertise with
the resources available to managers necessary to man-
age these projects competently. Without these two el-
ements a management accounting system even if
appropriate would be unlikely to control process and
product ¯ows adequately.
Further research
The author chose to assess only a limited number of
variables and the study did not attempt to generalise
the ®ndings to all projects within these two industries.
A wider study would establish more of the variables
and con®rm the contingency that appears to exist
across the project areas. Despite these issues being a
rich area for research and worthy of wider study, there
appears to be a neglect: re¯ected by the lack of exist-
ing information. Perhaps it is time for organisations to
consider issues highlighted by research such as by
Peter Morris, to assess their work activities and practi-
cal management from a wider perspective.
Acknowledgements
The Author wishes to acknowledge the contribution of
Dr Graham Winch at the Bartlett School of Graduate
Studies, University College London for his guidance in
the writing of this paper.
Project management practices: R. Graham
References
1. Cleland, D. I., Project management, strategic design and im-
plementation Tab Books Inc. Blue Ridge Summit, PA, 1990.
2. Mintzberg, H., The Structuring of Organisations: a synthesis of
research Prentice Hall Inc. Englewood Cli€s NJ, 1979.
3. Handy, C., Understanding Organisations, 4th edition Penguin
Books, GB, 1993.
4. Morris, P. W. G. and Hough, G. H. The Anatomy of Major
Projects: a study of the reality of project management John
Wiley, UK, 1987.
5. Bu-Bushait, K. A., Relationships between the applications of
project management techniques and project characteristics.
International Journal of Project Management, 1988, 6(4), 235±
240.
6. Bu-Bushait, K. A. (1986) A survey of the practices of project
management techniques in di€erent industries. Project
Management International (PMI) seminar, September 20±25th,
131±138.
7. Winch, G. M., Managing Production: Engineering change and
stability, OUP, Oxford, Chapter 4, 1994.
8. Department of Environment (DoE) Constructing the team, by
Sir Michael Latham: ®nal report of the government/industry
review of procurement and contractual arrangements in the UK
construction industry, HMSO, London, 1994.
9. Clark, K. B. and Fujimoto, T., Product Development
Performance: Strategy, Organisation and Management in the
World Auto Industry, Harvard Business School Press, Boston,
Massachusetts, Chapters 8 and 9, 1991.
10. Graham, R., Contingency Approach to Project Management: A
Comparison of Aerospace and Construction MSc Architecture
Report. University College London, 1995.
Richard Graham trained as an engin-
eer and gained his chartered engin-
eering status in the construction
industry. He worked for several
years in design practice in the UK on
a number of high pro®le projects
which led to a number of manage-
ment assignments within various pro-
ject teams. He holds a master's
degree in construction management
and economics from University
College London, UK and now works
within the Project Management
Division of WS Atkins. His current
role is to provide consultancy advice
on the appropriate structuring of Private Finance Initiative and
BOOT projects, and has completed a number of private and public
sector assignments.
45