THEORY OF CONSTRAINTS PROJECT TIME MANAGEMENT IN MULTIPLE, CONCURRENT PROJECTS: INVESTIGATION OF ASSUMPTIONS REGRADING HUMAN BEHAVIOUR DURING PROJECT
J. C. Kago1 and P. J. Viljoen2 Masters in Project Management, Department of Engineering and Technology Management, University of Pretoria, Pretoria 002, South Africa.
Formerly Department of Engineering and Technology Management, University of Pretoria, Pretoria 002, South Africa.
ABSTRACT CCPM has attempted to account for certain human behaviour patterns during project planning and execution which other time management techniques neglect. CCPM gives this human behaviour as a major influence on amount of contingency provided in activity duration estimates. The human behaviours however are assumptions and justification of CCPM relies heavily on these assumptions. The problem is that we do not know if the human behaviours assumed are an important influence on contingencies provided in activity duration estimates during project planning. The main objective of this research is therefore to determine, using empirical data how stakeholders in the construction industry rate the influence of human behaviour on contingency provided in activity duration estimates. Other factors that influence contingency provided have been identified and their relative importance investigated.
1.2 Historical Development and Current State of Knowledge
The problem of allocation of resources in multiple concurrent projects can be broadly defined as one that involves determining how to allocate resources to. Critical Chain assumes that a task time is not a deterministic number. These projects compete for the limited and finite resources within the organisation thus calling for prudent management of the available resources. Every theory or methodology is based upon assumptions. what
. The first application is scheduling of a single project to reduce project duration and simplify project control. In making this estimate. But. a new project that is added to the existing set of ongoing projects (Meredith and Mantel 1995:389). Time management techniques normally neglect human behaviour that could be expected during project planning and control (Steyn 2000:364). That estimated activity durations do allow for contingencies is an axiom and is inherent to techniques such as PERT (Steyn 2000:364). organisations are finding themselves saddled with multiple.1
As competition increases. Critical Chain is no exception. CCPM. organisations survival will be determined by their ability to make profits and grow. This multitasking impacts negatively on the productivity of the organisation. When new projects are identified. In their effort to survive (make profits and grow). they are pushed into the system and routed to appropriate resources where they join a queue of other projects that entered in the system at earlier times. According to Turner (in Steyn 2002:77 it is estimated that up to 90% by value of all projects are carried out in the multi-project context. people do make considerable provision for contingencies. This leads into the resources being forced to work in a time sharing manner in different projects at the same time to satisfy the constant demand of the project managers who want to see progress in their individual projects. This observation is more so in the construction industry where it is the norm for organisations to have multiple projects running concurrently. The results are that all projects don’t meet their time schedule. concurrent projects. Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM) is a way to manage all of an organisation’s projects holistically and is developed using the Theory of Constraints (TOC) improvement methodology (Kendall. It is an estimate. Some of these assumptions are on human behaviour during project planning and execution. Resource allocation and resource scheduling amongst the projects is therefore becoming critical for the survival of the organisation. and set a completion time for. Multitasking of resources across projects slows down the flow of work on every project due to set up time required every time the projects are switched. on the other hand attempts to account for certain typical human behaviour patterns during project planning and execution. The other application is to allocate resources that are shared by concurrent projects.1. CCPM has found application in two areas within project management. The resources manage the queues by adopting either a first come first served method or urgent projects are first tracked at the expense of other projects whose tasks are pre-empted. Pitagorsky and Hulett 2001:2).
the new behaviours required and the benefits (Kerzner 2003:837). This will benefit project managers using TOC project management practice in arriving at appropriate buffers in their schedules.determines the amount of safety imbedded in activity duration estimates? According to Kendall (2005:72). 1.
. Further. The research results will contribute in validating these assumptions thus strengthening the case for TOC project management. using empirical data how stakeholders in the construction industry rate the influence of human behaviour on contingency provided in activity duration estimates. so they give a promise date well beyond the level of effort. Critical Chain gives this human behaviour as a major influence on amount of contingency provided and has given a number of assumptions of the human behaviour. 1. team members. Other objective was to identify other factors that influence contingency provided and determine their relative importance. Justification of TOC project management relies heavily on these assumptions. CCPM nevertheless relies heavily on logic reasoning and a number of assumptions regarding human behaviour during both project planning and execution. The study will be a first step towards this study by identifying factors that influence the safety margin provided. Scientifically acceptable evidence to prove the validity of these assumptions will therefore be of value. Critical Chain implements major behavioural changes in project managers. resource managers. Barnes and Dvir (2003:27) have argued that the behavioural aspects of identifying the precise amount of safety margin and taking it away from the task owner are dealt with only superficially by CCPM literature and still require empirical support. no one wants to be seen as unreliable. to account for the combination of uncertainty and their multiple responsibilities. The research will contribute in understanding some of the behaviours. when our reputation is on the line.5 Research Objectives
The main objective of the research was to determine.4 Problem Statement
The problem is that we do not know if human behaviours assumed in critical chain methodology are an important influence on contingencies provided in activity duration estimates during project planning. 1. Raz. it is natural for us as human beings to remember the worst-case scenario and cushion ourselves with a large amount of safety. and executives and the only way that so many people in an organisation can accept such fundamental changes is through a deep understanding of the current behaviours.3 Importance of the Study
The effectiveness of CCPM has been acknowledged by several authors (Leach (1999:40) has given a number of organisations that have demonstrated the effectiveness of Critical Chain Project Management).
Mechanisms influencing resource demand are. When multiple projects share resources. The projects are integrated into the management control and reporting system of some common resource pool owner e. If an organisation is missing just one important aspect of a system. effect of opportunistic project management behaviour within the organisations. The links are interdependent on each other to satisfy a need. (i). within a class. departments and functions. both within individual projects and across the entire collection of an organisation’s projects. horse trading. Concurrent Projects and Resource Allocation
Cohen. (i). in a series of interdependent actions.e. the historical realisations of activity times fit a common distribution function.e. Theory of Constraints (TOC) is a holistic or system-oriented approach to process improvement (Kendall et al 2001:2). accounting systems and other deeply embedded features on the organisation. Engwall and Jerbrant (2003:406) give two underlying mechanisms behind resource allocation problem in multiple concurrent projects. The environment is random (stochastic) in that uncertainty plays a significant role. the mix of projects must be planned and scheduled such that they not only satisfy their individual objectives and requirements but in combination do not exceed resources available in the shared pools. a general manager. Mandelbaum & Shtub (2004:39) consider an environment of multiple concurrent projects to be one where projects compete for the same set of scarce resources. 2. the
. Finding and strengthening the weakest link (system constraint) gives the greatest opportunity for measurable improvement. too many projects in relation to existing level of resources. The allocation of resources to and between simultaneous and successive projects is a process of politics. (Nicholas 2000:253). interpretation.2 Critical Chain Project Management
Goldratt (1997:230) has in his novel Critical Chain given a methodology to deal with resource constrained scheduling problem based on the Theory of Constraints. A project operates the same way. effect of failing project scheduling. for each activity. (Engwall and Jerbrant 2003:408).2. effect of management accounting systems that are dysfunctional for multi-project management and (ii). mechanisms influencing resource demand and mechanisms influencing resource supply. i. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. precedence relations between projects’ activities can be identified and.0 2. and (ii) effect of over commitment. Although the projects might in other ways be entirely independent. Yet. and sense making that is far more complex than traditionally discussed and research on multi-project management has to go beyond resource allocation and start addressing incentive structures. projects are also “non-unique” in that they share common characteristics that enable their classification. TOC assumes that a system is like a chain. (Engwall and Jerbrant 2003:403).1
Current Theory and Models Multiple. the fact that they share resources means that they cannot be managed and scheduled independently. for example.g. Projects are unique in that their operational requirements and activity durations differ. i. To achieve the project’s goals requires the cooperation of many different people. Mechanisms influencing resource supply are.
not only due to the need to justify the percentage reduction chosen. This factor is created by the current system of pushing work (in the form of new projects. According to Kendall et al (2001:3). but also due to the fact that not all people overestimate by the same amount. or its performance degrades significantly. it should have been used in the first place. Critical Chain analysis shows that within single projects. Within the multi-project environment. The first issue is on how the project manager determines safety factor that the task owners presumably built into the duration estimate. They take the position that such an approach is problematic. typically 33%. Goldratt (1997:118) gives four different mechanisms by which safety is inserted into the time estimates of almost every step of a project. 2. If such a method was available. Critical Chain methodology aims at developing a sound schedule using buffer management in order to avoid project overruns (Cohen et al 2004:40). irrespective of the capacity of the most critical resource – the one that impacts the cycle of all projects. etc) into the organisation. and nature of the task. The use of the mean activity duration provides the safest estimates of the project duration. Critical Chain highlights the importance of dedicating effort to streamline and optimise the cycle time. Critical Chain brings together and educates management on all aspects of the system that must exist in order to get the best results.
. workload. With this methodology many projects can be effectively synchronised around the schedule of one or a few key resources. the biggest factor impacting cycle time is the practice of estimating tasks according to non-dedicated elapsed time. Leus and Demeulemeester 2002:50). job experience. the biggest factor impacting cycle time is the resource bottleneck.3 Assumptions Regarding Human Behaviour during Project Planning
People make considerable provision for contingencies when estimating activity duration. They see the behavioural aspects of identifying the precise amount safety margin and taking it away from the task owner as being dealt with only superficially by CCPM literature and still require empirical support. There are bound to be variations based on personality. two important issues that Critical Chain Project Management does not address satisfactorily. or other reasons. however. There is a lack of consensus in the Critical Chain Scheduling/Buffer Management literature about the activity duration estimates to be used for generating the initial baseline schedule. Raz et al (2003:27) discuss on task duration and safety margins. Critical Chain addresses both the single and multi-project factors in the reduction of duration. CCPM suggests reducing the estimate by a certain percentage. managing the execution of those tasks to a due date. and the issue therefore remains.entire system fails. (Herroelen. and subsequently. They opine that the only way for obtaining the correct answer is to have another method for estimating task durations that provides an accurate estimate and to subtract that estimate from the one provided by the task owner. Project work is consciously delayed and released only according to the resultant staggered project schedules (Viljoen 2005:2).
They further show that if for a specific activity 15% reserve has been built in at each of five levels of the work breakdown structure. 2. According to Bushy and Payne (1999:299) people vest high confidence in anchor project outcomes and often. 2. setting completion dates is often seen as a negotiation process.4 People Take Pride in Reliable Estimates Often there is little incentive to finish an activity ahead of schedule while not meeting a deadline normally reflects negatively on the individual.3. 2. PMBOK (2000:72) gives analogous estimating as a tool frequently used to estimate project duration. The result is that estimates often are distorted based on the individual experiences and negotiating skills of management and team members.
2.3.1. because each level adds its own safety factor. Should planners foresee an overall schedule cut.1 Time Estimates are based on Pessimistic Experience Time estimates are impacted in a major way by the last overrun the programmer had (Goldratt 1997:116). with managers pushing back on what they consider to be unreasonably protected estimates.3. the higher the total estimation.
Time estimates are based on a pessimistic experience. Estimators also protect their estimations from a global cut. Thomas and Allen (2000:14) also give estimating by analogy as one of the models used to estimate cost durations.3 Estimators Protect Their Estimations from a Global Cut Estimators protect their estimates from a global cut (Goldratt 1997:118). Rational people
. they could be expected to add additional reserve in order to protect their schedules from such a cut. the higher the total estimation because each level adds its own safety factor. the person co-ordinating the sub-project then typically builds in some reserve as well. there is extensive discussion about the estimates. Kerzner (2003:841) argues that task estimates are not created in a vacuum. According to Steyn (2000:364). Often. Steyn et al (2003:122) describes it thus: Typically the person responsible for performing an activity builds in some contingency reserve. and finally the project manager does the same. In addition. team members expecting management to push back often inflate their estimates to take this into account. 3. the total amount of reserve for that activity would be approximately 100%. The larger the number of management levels involved. 2. Hill. PMBOK further states the analogous estimating is most reliable when (a) the previous activities are similar in fact and not just in appearance. In negotiations it is common practice to make an opening bid that allows for cuts later on in the negotiation process. engineers estimate a new project by adjusting the recorded cost from a single past project of a similar kind. On the one hand. 4. (Steyn et al 2003:122). It influences people to build in even more reserve in future.3.2 Each Level Adds Its Own Safety Factor Goldratt (1997:117) shows how the larger the number of management levels involved. The practice of cutting estimates is often counter-productive. and (b) the individuals preparing the estimates have the needed expertise. People take pride in reliable estimates.
and considering that this project is not the only work that the engineer is doing. the errors tended to be greater. and (vi) loss of focus. people take pride in reliable estimates. When estimates of the durations are made. common cause variation theory and statistical laws governing common cause variation theory to eliminate the causes of above effects. It is not good for anyone’s career to repeatedly be way off on estimates. it is an estimate (Kerzner 2003:838). People estimating activity times for a project usually believe that the project manager wants low-risk activity times. but if they underestimated. (iii) failure to pass on positive variation. each task is unique and somewhat unpredictable in terms of how long it will take. In a study on how accurate experts’ subjective estimates of the durations of tasks are in a software project. (Leach 1997:42). 2. Critical chain project management uses TOC. involving a number of staff and a large number of subtasks. Considering that an engineer can never predict exactly what kinds of problems he or she may run into. (v) multitasking. the engineer provides an estimate that takes all of these considerations into account. Hill et al (2000:13) came out with the following conclusions: 1.4 Uncertainty. and feel bad if they overrun the due date thus reinforcing their attempts to estimate high probability completion times. The major over estimates came in tasks involving setting requirements or analysis. 2. Leach (1999:42) defines contingency as the difference between 95% probable estimate and the 50% probable estimate. Steyn et al (2003:120) has identified managing uncertainty. contingency reserves are built in to take care of the uncertainties. the activity duration estimates. Project managers tended to overestimate the majority of the tasks (around 60%). perhaps a probability of 80% to 95% completion on. (Steyn 2000:365). (iv) project delay caused by activity path merging. Tracking of the tasks seemed to have little effect and the learning effect over time was to tighten up the estimates.
3. Goldratt (1997:41) identifies the core problem leading to most project failure as failure to effectively manage uncertainty. This effect might have as much to do with pressure within the organisation for projects to be done as efficiently as possible as any learning effect on what really happens in projects. or less than. The existence or the amount of the contingency time in task duration estimates is not usually specified (Leach 1999:42). He further shows that “low risk’ duration estimates can be two or more times the 50% probable estimate. People feel good if they complete an activity by the due date. Contingency and Duration Estimates
A task time is not a deterministic number.responsible for project activities therefore attempt to make commitments that they could meet with a high level of certainty. (ii) little actual positive variation. Kerzner (2003:838) argues that in most companies. Estimators made the largest underestimating average errors on tasks that were not clearly defined or were complex. Goldratt (1997:46) defines the difference between the median of the probability distribution and the actual estimate as the safety put in. as a core challenge project managers have to face.
. The failure to effectively manage uncertainty result in the following undesired effects in projects: (i) excessive activity duration. (Leach 1999:42). By the nature of projects.
There are confounding goals and predictions at the organisational level. 2. Organisation and Individual Factors in Task Duration Estimates
2. People in more junior. given the prevailing specification and prevailing productivity levels. An estimate can be interpreted either as a prediction of development effort. They took this to suggest that a careful use of work breakdown structure approach to identify the packets of work at the lowest level is not just useful for smooth management of the project. Bushy and Payne (1999:296) found reasons for inflating estimates included.1 Judgement Strategies of Individuals In many situations in which people make estimates they have motivations to bias their estimates. and nature of the task. but is also one of the most useful thing experts can do to estimate the times of the tasks better. and the longer-term goal of increasing productivity.2 Organisation Activities Bushy and Payne (1999:297) came up with organisational activities that bear on these individual strategies. People in planning support functions had the goal of demonstrating that they had learned from past projects. since the task estimator often become the task performer on successful bids. Both goals were served by their strategy of estimating top-down with target costs as an anchor. (2) Knowledge that one’s job was threatened if the contract was not won because the price was too high. or other reasons that will influence task duration estimates.4. in the bidding process. (2) Knowledge that one would be held to account against one’s estimate. or as a goal that the engineering
. that people downstream would cut estimates to win contracts. (1) Pressure from others in the organisation to submit low estimates in order to win contracts. This was found to be the best estimate of the likely time of the task. People in senior. operational roles often preferred bottom-up strategies because other people wanted them to justify their estimates by breaking them down into detail. 2.5. operational roles typically had the immediate goal of winning a contract.
There is a strong relation between task time and the number of subtasks involved in the task.5. Reasons for deflating estimates were. Raz et al (2003:27) state that there are bound to be variations from one individual to the other based on personality. workload. (1) Expectations. and could identify material risks: they therefore preferred top-down strategies that drew heavily on past outcomes.5
Bushy and Payne (1999:293) state that human cognition suffers from critical limitations when making predictive judgements and the problems seem to actually arise from the strategies we use to form our beliefs. job experience. They have identified two judgement strategies of engineers involved in estimation of task durations and staffing levels into (i) judgement strategies of individuals and (ii) organisational activities that bears on these individual strategies. People’s preferred strategies for making estimating judgements differed because they had different goals. and these goals arose from their organisational roles.
The three segments identified offered good case studies for investigating identified human behaviour as they included a complete range of players involved in estimating activity duration in construction project environment. (Page and Meyer 2003:125). while retaining the holistic and meaningful characteristics of the event. 3. organisational and managerial processes. The organisation was mandated with carrying out construction and maintenance of all government buildings in the country. research variables and their operational definitions. 2.
. but as the bid preparation process continued it became a demanding goal in an attempt to make the bid price competitive. An estimate tended to start off as a best prediction. The methodology applied was based on the logic for theory-based empirical research. Methodology Research Strategy
3. contractors. Factors such as uncertainty. consultants. Data analysis was by classification and correlation analysis. thus providing literal replication of the findings (Yin 2003:47). Case Study B and Case Study C. A multiple case design was adopted. Case Study B was an architectural consulting firm registered in Botswana.1
For this research a case study approach was selected. 2. The advantage of a case study is that this allows investigators to study real-life events such as individual.6 Research Propositions
The following propositions are offered for consideration: 1. Qualitative research methods were used to develop research prepositions. The three companies identified to take part in the study represented the various industry players from three segments of the industry i.organisation had to try to achieve if it was to be commercially successful. Human behaviour is the single most important factor that influence contingencies provided in activity estimates in the construction industry. The three organisations that participated in the study were identified as Case Study A. Case Study A was the Botswana subsidiary of an international multi-disciplinary construction and engineering group anchored in South Africa. organisational and individual motivations are either singly or in combination the most important factors that influence contingencies provided in activity estimates in the construction industry. Case Study C was a department within the Government of Botswana. and government agencies. Three organisations participated in the study with each case predicted to test research prepositions. It was an international company with offices in East and Southern Africa. The Botswana operation that took part in the study concentrates on civil engineering construction. Both qualitative and quantitative research methods were adopted in carrying out the case studies.e.
Table 1 – Summary of Scores
Safety Human Behaviour Uncertainty Organisational Factors Individual factors Case Study A 3.50 4.87 3. all interviews were held at the participants work environment.85 3. It also helped in having a predetermined coding system that was uniform for all participants. This however was hampered by limited occasions encountered where actual time duration estimation activities were ongoing.63 3. 3. These data is presented in a bar chart in Figure 1.00 2.50 4. Target observations were recorded in a predetermined coding system adopted for personal interviews. All interviews and observations were conducted between January and February 2006.88 3.3 Data Collection
Two methods were used to collect primary data: personal interviews and direct observations. Direct observations of estimators in their natural environment were carried out where possible.33 Case Study B 3. A group interview consisting of six participants was conducted in Case Study C while the rest were individual interviews. Two instances where actual estimation activities were taking place were observed in Case Study C. This format was adopted as it gave the interviewees the opportunity to qualify their responses. Specific items were asked of all participants and responses were restricted to a pre-determined range.80 3. In both Case Study A and Case Study B.24 Case Study C 3. Brief on issues to be discussed in the interview were given to the participants before the appointed interview dates to enable them acquaint themselves with the issues.72
. 3. Individual interviews were conducted in both Case Study A and Case Study B.4 Data Analysis
Table 1 below shows a summary of scores for the three case studies.67 3.80 3.75 3.92 3. Personal interviews were carried out with participants from the three Case Studies. Predicted patterns espoused in the research propositions were compared with the empirically derived patterns thus strengthening the case study internal validity (Yin 2003:116). A structured interview format was adopted. To allow for direct observations. five in Case Study C while ten participants took part in Case Study C.Case study analysis strategy adopted was using rival explanations as patterns. Three participants took part in Case Study A. there were no estimation activities ongoing at the time of carrying out the interviews.
The proposition that human behaviour is the single most important factor that influence contingencies provided in activity estimates in the construction industry is thus not supported by the empirical data. Case Study A has uncertainty as the most important influence.Individual f actors
Case Study A
Case Study B
Case Study C
Figure 1 – Scores for the Three Case Studies Table 2 below shows the ranking in importance of the four factors that influence contingency added for the three case studies.00 0. Table 2 – Rank Order of Factors that Influence Safety/Contingency
Uncertainty Human Behaviour Individual factors Organisational Factors Case Study A 1 2 3 4 Case Study B 2 3 1 4 Case Study C 2 1 3 4
Table 3 – Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficients
Case Study A Case Study B Case Study C Case Study A 1.20 Case Study C
1.2. while Table 3 shows Spearman rank correlation coefficients for ranking in Table .80 Case Study B 1.00 0.00
. Case Study B has individual factors while Case Study C identifies human Behaviour.5
Reporting the Findings
The different case studies ranked different factors as the most important factors that influence safety added to activity duration estimates.40 0.
The research results show that all the three case studies agreed that human behaviour is an important influence in determining contingency provided. individual and organisational factors have been identified in the research as factors that influence contingency reserves built in to take care of uncertainties. This may be an indication that there is no unanimity among the three case studies on the most important factors that influence safety/contingency provided in activity estimates in the construction industry. Human behaviours assumed in CCPM. organisational and individual motivations are either singly or in combination the most important factors that influence contingencies provided in activity estimates in the construction industry is thus supported by the empirical data. The other objective – to identify other factors that influence contingency provided and determine relative importance – has also been achieved. Architecture is a profession that deals with creation of concepts and calls for great individual creativity and skills. The architectural firm rated individual factors very highly. The three construction industry sectors rated different factors as the most important influence on contingency provided. The proposition that factors such as uncertainty. middle to weak positive correlation between Case Study A and B and a weak positive correlation between Case Study B and C. The causalities between them supports the premises of CCPM on
. Projects are unique endeavours. These differences in perceptions were attributed to organisational processes in place in the different organisations. Research results however show that there were differences in perception in some of the items investigated.2 further gives organisational activities that bear on judgement strategies of individuals thus strengthening the case for causal relationship between the factors. Case Study A rated uncertainty first while Case Studies B and C rated it second. The results however do not rate human behaviour as the most important influence.1 Conclusion Research Results
The main objective of the research – to determine how stakeholders’ rate influence of human behaviour on contingency provided in activity duration estimates – has been achieved. The organisation main role is a coordinating one between the client ministries. thus suggesting the three factors may have some causal connections. Paragraph 2. 4 4. There is strong positive correlation between Case Study A and C. Uncertainty was rated the number one factor with the civil engineering contractor rating it highest. Individual factors thus become very important influence on contingency provided in activity duration estimates.5. This is best exemplified in the environment of the civil engineering contractor which normally involves carrying out projects in areas that have not been worked on before. The public body rated all factors more or less the same.A close look at the ranking in table 2 shows that uncertainty was the most highly rated factor overall by the study. consultants and contractors. There is therefore some uncertainty regarding the duration of most activities.
By identifying the factors.. This research results is a point of departure for such a study.. M. Further empirical study should be carried out to determine contribution of each of the factors identified to overall safety margin provided. J.4 Recommendations
Raz et al (2003:27) has urged for empirical support to determine precise amount of safety margin impeded in activity duration estimations. K. Mandelbaum. S. International Journal of Project Management.. A. 21: 403-409
3. 4. Issues of organisational behaviour in effort estimation for development projects. Multi-Project Scheduling and Control: A Process-Based Comparative Study of the Critical Chain Methodology and Some Alternatives.provision of contingency reserves built into task duration estimates and the need to manage the reserves. A.3 Self-Assessment
The research rated the influence of human behaviour on contingency provided in activity duration estimates for the different stakeholders. the research has taken the first step towards carrying out further research to identifying the precise amount of safety margin provided. Bushy. 35(2): 3950 Engwall.
. 4..2 Implication for and/or Contribution to Theory and Practice
The research has confirmed using empirical data a number of factors that influence contingency provided in activity duration estimates in the construction industry. The resource allocation syndrome: the prime challenge of multi-project management? International Journal of Project Management. (2003). This research has suggested that players in the construction industry rate different factors differently on their influence on contingency provided. Payne. The research has therefore achieved the objectives envisaged. (1999). Jerbrant.. These factors have been identified and rated for each industry sector. Human behaviour has been confirmed as one of the important factors. A.. These results will to certain extend help in justifying TOC project management which relies heavily on assumptions on human behaviour. Project Management Journal.. References 1. (2004). Shtub. Raz et al (2003:27) have argued that behavioural aspects of identifying the precise amount of safety margin and taking away from the task owner are dealt with superficially by CCPM and still require empirical support. 2. Cohen I. 17(5): 293-300. Project managers will then be in a position to know amount of safety to take away from task owners during Critical Chain scheduling process. The research has also identified and rated the different factors that influence contingency provided in activity duration estimates. 4.
Project Management Institute. Steyn H. R. Dvir. Kendell. Integrating Critical Chain and the PMBOK Guide. L. Wiley. D.. Viljoen P. 5. (2005).. 14. et al (2003). McGraw-Hill Education: Australia. Increasing productivity of project portfolio delivery systems. 18: 13-21. (2002). In Investigation into the Fundamentals of Critical Chain Project Scheduling. E.. Leus. 1st Edition. Applied research for business and Management. R. A critical look at critical chain project management.. Leach. Viable Vision – Transforming Total Sales into Net Profits. 3rd Edition. K. (2002).
. Raz. W. (2005). International Journal of Project Management 19: 363-369. 7. Rose Publishing Inc. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK). (2003). 9.. scheduling.. (2000). Project Management Applications of the Theory of Constraints Beyond Critical Chain Scheduling. Project Management Institute. Thomas.4. 13.. International Institute of Learning. 30(2): 39-51. and control. Project Management for Business and Technology. (1995). & Mantel. Prentice Hall: New Jersey. (2003). 11. 17. M. 16. Project Management Journal. 20.. J. 6. (2000). I. 12. H. (2000). Turner J. John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken. P. (2000).. Meredith.. FPM: Pretoria. 8th Edition. Steyn H. Project Management A Multi-Disciplinary Approach.. Vol. R. Allen. L. M.. Upper Darby.
Goldratt E. Case study research – Design and Methods. The handbook of project-based management. Kendell. 33(4): 48-60. (1997). International Journal of Project Management.. Creda Press: Cape Town. J. Project Management Journal. Experts’ estimates of task durations in software development projects.. Barnes.. Inc. E. C. 18. 19. (1999).. (2001). 20: 75-80.: Florida. D.. Yin. (2003). Critical Chain. T. 34(4): 24-32. G.. & Demeulemeester. J. S.. Steyn H. J. 8. D. D. & Meyer.. Herroelen. Critical Chain Project Management Improves Project Performance... Pitagorsky. PA 19082 USA. 1993. Critical Chain Project Scheduling: Do Not Oversimplify. Page. Project Management – a managerial approach. (1999).. Sage Publications: United Kingdom. J. Kerzner. C. Nicholas. R. Working paper submitted for publication in the IEEE Transactions for Engineering Management. 10. G. Hulett. Project Management: A systems approach to planning. R.. McGrawHill: UK. 21. New Jersey.. J. International Journal of Project Management. Hill.. 15. G.