Toward Integration of Project management and systems engineering: A Comprehensive approach

Toward Integration of Project management and systems engineering: A Comprehensive approach

Toward Integration of Project Management and Systems Engineering:

A Comprehensive Approach

aMohammad R. Mavaddat

*,bAhmad Ebrahimi

a MA of industrial management, Shiraz, Iran, Email: [email protected]

b Faculty of economics, management and social sciences, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran,

Email: [email protected]

Abstract:

The main characteristics of complicated projects are uncertainty and complexity in technical

tasks and interdependency of them which highlights the need of systems engineering. In the current

paper, we tried to develop a framework that uses both systems engineering and project management

advantages to improve the probability of project success. In this regard after investigating the detailed

processes of project management lifecycle and systems engineering lifecycle, we introduce a novel

framework named PSLM (project system lifecycle management) that tries to show the detailed

interface between the two areas of knowledge.

Keywords:

Project management, systems engineering, lifecycle, complexity

1. Introduction

Nowadays project management has been used in several different areas. But it has proved that project

management techniques have some shortcomings in planning and controlling complex and complicated projects

(systems). Since recently overlapping project management has become popular in order to overcome these

shortcomings.

1.1 project management and complexity In the nineties, project complexity was already taken as one of the factors to classify engineering

projects (Shenhar, 1998; Shenhar and Dvir, 2004). Their classification method was based on four levels of

technological uncertainty and three levels of system scope. This method can be characterized by its strong focus

on technological complexity, primarily related to the content of the project under consideration. Recently, more

researches has been undertaken to better understand project complexity (Bosch-Rekveldt et al., 2009; Bosch-

Rekveldt and Mooi, 2008; Dombkins and Dombkins, 2008; Geraldi and Adlbrecht, 2007; Hass, 2007; Maylor et

al., 2008; Vidal and Marle, 2008; Williams, 2002). Complexity in projects could be considered to be related to

structural elements, dynamic elements and interaction of these; broader than the technical or technological

domain (Bosch-Rekveldt et al., 2009). The large number of recent project complexity related papers

demonstrates the evident importance of “complexity” in current project management researches. Here in this

paper we are emphasizing on the managerial complexity of projects that is clearly broader than other definitions.

1.2 project management and systems engineering At this point it is important to distinguish between systems engineering and project management. First,

systems engineering is fundamentally a capability that an organization does or does not possess. It may or may

not be a specific, identifiable entity within a company. Depending on the product being developed there may or

may not be a group with the term "Systems Engineering" in its title. Likewise, for a particular project, there may

or may not be someone with the title "project system engineer." But for managing complex and complicated

projects the aim of this paper, considering systems engineering is a vital issue. In the high technology industries,

the field of systems engineering (Sage, 1992; Kossiakoff & Sweet, 2003) has developed in order to help facilitate

the management of complex projects and scenarios (Philbin, 2008). For project-based organizations, systems

engineering can be strongly related to the management of projects (Kerzner, 2009). The distinction is that project


management is concerned with the process planning (e.g., scheduling) and control for all of the activities of the

project, whereas systems engineering is concerned with the technical activities of the product development and

sustainment. In these sense systems engineering is an agent of project management in this area of activity.

However, systems engineering is primarily concerned with the methods that will be applied to accomplishing

those tasks. In that sense system engineering goes beyond the traditional concerns of project management.

Consequently this paper seeks to explore the area of project management but in the context of systems

engineering and system development lifecycle (SDLC). In order to achieve this goal, literature studies have been

carried out on using systems engineering and SDLC in the area of project management.

2. literature review

Management of high technology projects can benefit from different approaches, such as risk

management and the management of uncertainty (Perminova, Gustafsson, & Wikstrom, 2008), the development

of new tools and techniques, e.g. technology road mapping (Phaal, Farrukh, &Probert, 2006) as well as the

adoption of systems engineering principals (Faulconbridge & Ryan,2003). Systems engineering has been defined

as ‘an interdisciplinary approach and means to enable the realization of successful systems’ where a system is

‘an integrated set of elements that accomplish a defined objective’ (INCOSE, 2004). As Harold Kerzner

emphasize in his book for project-based organizations, systems engineering can be strongly related to the

management of projects (Kerzner, 2009) and hence the management of organizational outputs that are required

for revenue generation. Correspondingly, an improvement in the underpinning systems engineering capabilities

should therefore have a positive effect on an organization's ability to manage projects. Previous studies about

system development lifecycle and project management lifecycle is numerous but few researchers have worked

on mapping systems engineering and project management. Brief history of these studies is as follow:

ANSI/PMI (2004) has explored the relationships between project lifecycle and product lifecycle

through assuming project management phases as a part of product lifecycle. In fact PMBOK considers the

project management lifecycle phases as part of product lifecycle. Summarization of this model has shown in

figure 1.

ISO/IEC 15288 and the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) explicitly refer to the enterprise

as an aspect of the overall lifecycle view. ISO/IEC 15288 establishes a common framework for describing the

lifecycle of a framework for systems created by humans. It defines a set of processes namely enterprise

processes, agreement processes, project processes and technical processes. Each process is defined by a title

followed by the purpose of the process, giving a high level description of the overall process goal. An

outcome is an observable result of the successful achievement of the purpose of the process. The

activities provide a structural decomposition of a process. However, ISO/IEC 15288 does not detail the life

cycle processes in terms of methods or procedures required to meet the requirements and outcomes of a

process and their associated terminology. This standard provides a comprehensive and integrated framework for

managing the entire lifecycle framework of complex systems as well as system of systems.

Figure 1: Relationships between the product and project lifecycle

The NYS project management guidebook first identifies a generic SDLC and emphasizes that while no

two developments efforts are exactly alike, all projects should progress through the same six phases, then by

Project Life Cycle

INITIAL INTERMEDIATE FINAL

Product

Op

era

tio

ns

Div

estm

en

t

Upgrade

IDE

A

Business

Plan

Product

Life Cycle


mapping the SLDC and project management lifecycle (PMLC) presents a model that integrates SLDC and

PMLC (NYS, 2003). In their model SLDC and PMLC are not totally compatible. The model has shown in

figure 2.

Figure 2: the system development and project management lifecycle

Project complexity and project management for IT projects has been addressed within a systems

engineering framework (Barker & Verma, 2003). This study describes a quantitative technique called the

complexity point model that allows estimation of both the schedule and cost of a project from an early stage as

well as an indication of the effectiveness of systems engineering methods for IT integration projects. The

complexity point model includes information on project costs, schedule and technical performance as part of a

historical database and when new project data is generated, the resulting analysis can reveal data trends or

possible areas for process improvement as well as potential problems. Use of the complexity point model

highlights that projects which utilize systems engineering methods generally achieve higher productivities, with

projects meeting schedule, cost and technical performance requirements.

Dasher (2003) also worked on the actual interface between systems engineering and project

management through consideration of the roles and responsibilities that exist within a project management team

as well as the integration responsibilities for systems engineering. His study highlights the need for members of

the project team, such as the project manager and lead engineering staff, to work as a cohesive unit in order to

ensure success of the project. Through a homogenous work frank et al. (2007) have identified types of jobs that

require a capacity for engineering systems thinking (CEST) and the resulting identification process can be used

to improve the staffing of projects and consequently increase project performance.

PMI also recognized the need for unique management principles for different project types with the

development of government, U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), and construction extensions to the Guide to

the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK®) [PMI, 2003a, 2002, 2003b]. DOD extended the

PMBOK through five additional defense acquisition knowledge areas namely Project Systems Engineering

Management, Project Software Acquisition Management, Project Logistics Management, Project Test and

Evaluation Management and Project Manufacturing Management. Flynn (2007) posits that managerial issues

account for 65% of project failure and technical issues for 35% of project failures and then claims that within the

context of complex and accelerated projects, strict application of project management techniques will not ensure

the success. Hence he adapts and integrates the SDLC approaches with the PMLC through an introductive

model, although he didn't mention which stage in SDLC relates to which phase in PMLC directly.

Philbin (2008) developed a four step process in order to provide a process based approach for managing

projects through systems engineering. His linear process builds on existing systems methodologies, namely

integrated system design; systems architecture development; systems integration; and system-of-systems

management. By providing a route map this process-based framework is designed to help project engineers and

managers reduce project complexity through consideration of the technical issues associated with the four stages

in the process. The process is also linked to two information levels, the systems theory level and the enterprise


level, which provide a conduit to these areas so as to facilitate integration of the project with broader

considerations. The mentioned studies do provide valuable theoretical insights and, in some cases, do link theory

and practice. In spite of a growing use of project management and systems engineering as a practice, most of the

studies have often advanced knowledge in a single focused area but we think that systems engineering not only

for complex and complicated projects, but also provides a useful foundation for managing projects with any

level of complexity. Therefore in the current study we are going to highlight the potential benefits that can be

sought from aligning project management with systems engineering and then introduce a comprehensive

approach to align project management and systems engineering through presenting a novel model that integrates

the potential strengths of previous models and presents new traits for managing projects.

3. Model development

Review of literature reveals that there has been few works on aligning project management with

systems engineering. As we noted before strict use of project management techniques cannot ensure the project

success, and there is enough evidences that adoption of systems engineering can improve managing process of

complex and complicated projects. Our basic assumption is that the identified gap between the two

interdependent fields of systems engineering on the one hand and project management on the other hand is a

root cause for the frequently failing projects. Hence in the light of previous studies we are going to present a

novel model on the basis of PMLC and SDLC in order to tailor project management processes with systems

engineering processes.

3.1 process groups of project management According to PMBOK project management is consist of five process groups i.e. project initiation,

project planning, project execution, project control and project closure. In spite of current belief, the five

mentioned processes are project management processes group not project management phases, as PMBOK has

emphasized. A summarization of activities that during each process group should be done is given in table 1.

Table 1: The five process groups of PMBOK

Closure Monitoring and

Controlling Execution Planning Initiation

- Close Project

or Phase

- Monitor and Control

Project Work

- Direct and Manage

Project Execution

- Develop Project Management

Plan

- Develop

Project

Charter

- Close

Procurements

- Perform Integrated

Change Control

- Perform Quality

Assurance

- Collect Requirements - Identify

Stakeholders

- - Verify Scope - Acquire Project Team - Define Scope -

- - Control Scope - Develop Project Team - Create Work Breakdown

Structure (WBS -

- - Control Schedule - Manage Project Team - Define Activities -

- - Control Costs - Distribute Information - Sequence Activities -

- - Perform Quality Control - Manage Stakeholders

Expectations

- Estimate Activity Resources -

- - Report Performance - Conduct Procurements - Estimate Activity Durations -

- - Monitor and Control

Risks - - Develop Schedule -

- - Administer

Procurements - - Estimate Costs -

- - - - Determine Budget -

- - - - Plan Quality -

- -

- - Develop Human Resource

Plan

-

- - - - Plan Communications -

- - - - Plan Risk Management -


- - - - Identify Risks -

- - - - Perform Qualitative Risk

Analysis

-

- - - - Perform Quantitative Risk

Analysis

-

- - - - Plan Risk Responses -

- - - - Plan Procurements -

3.2 systems engineering All systems engineering lifecycles can be depicted graphically on a Spiral diagram, a Waterfall model, a

V cycle, etc. Indeed, the V-shaped lifecycle is a sequential path of execution of processes. Each phase must be

completed before the next phase begins. Testing is emphasized in this model more so than the waterfall model

though. The testing procedures are developed early in the lifecycle before any coding is done, during each of the

phases preceding implementation. Figure 3shows the schematic diagram of systems engineering combined with

different phases based on the development of the building design (Yahiaoui and el., 2006). This illustrates a

complete understanding of applying systems engineering concept to building design process.

Allocation &

Design In

tegration &

Verification

Planning Execution

Figure 3: Building design process in form of V-shaped lifecycle

3.3 Project-system lifecycle management (PSLM) The project-system lifecycle approach is intended to improve managing complex projects. PSLM is a

combined research effort aimed at developing a methodology for tailoring the system lifecycle to the

project management framework. More specifically, the research is intended to develop an underlying

holistic conceptual model for an integrated project and system lifecycle support. The resulting comprehensive

model will enhance system and project lifecycle management capabilities, yielding significant decrease in

project failure.

In the section 3.1 and 3.2 process groups of project management and systems engineering processes

were presented. Now we are going to review this processes in detail and then we will try to identify which

process in systems engineering relates to which process in project management, or in a more applicable point of

view from the first stage in lifecycle which activities should be done in the both areas of PMLC and SDLC and

finally come up with PSLM. By considering process groups of project management, presented in table 1. And

also systems engineering processes presented in figure 3, now we are going to tailor these two frameworks. A

schematic presentation of it is given in figure 4.


Origination

Need assessment

Concept Exploration and benefits Analysis

Initiation

Develop Project Charter

Identify Stakeholders

Requirements Analysis

Planning

Develop Project Management Plan

Collect Requirements

Define Scope

Create Work Breakdown

Structure (WBS

Define Activities

Sequence Activities

Estimate Activity Resources

Estimate Activity Durations

Develop Schedule

Estimate Costs

Determine Budget

Plan Quality

Develop Human Resource Plan

Plan Communications

Plan Risk Management

Identify Risks

Perform Qualitative Risk

Analysis

Perform Quantitative Risk

Analysis

Plan Risk Responses

Plan Procurements

Develop SEMP

Develop TEMP

High Level Design

Component Level Detailed design

Execution

Direct and Manage Project Execution

Perform Quality Assurance

Acquire Project Team

Develop Project Team

Manage Project Team

Distribute Information

Manage Stakeholders Expectations

Conduct Procurements

Hardware/Software Development and Unit Test

Integration

Transition

Initial System Deployment

Monitoring and Controlling

Monitor and Control Project

Work

Perform Integrated Change

Control

Verify Scope

Control Scope

Control Schedule

Control Costs

Perform Quality Control

Report Performance

Monitor and Control Risks

Administer Procurements

Verification

Validation

Closure

Close Project or Phase

Close Procurement

Operation

Operation

Maintenance

Disposal

Figure 4: Systems engineering processes in project management process groups


Since the project management processes are discussed in several useful papers and guidebooks (for

example PMBOK), here the detailed activities of systems engineering for each phase in the PSLM framework

are presented in order to define a more clear and applicable framework :

Needs Assessment: - Identify stakeholders

- Elicit needs

- Document needs

- Validate needs

- Prioritize needs

- Perform gap

- analysis

- Compare costs

Concept Exploration and Benefits Analysis: - Define vision

- Define goals & objectives

- Identify constraints

- Define evaluation criteria

- Identify candidate solutions

- Identify alternative concepts

- Evaluate alternative concepts

- Document results

Requirements Analysis: Typical products of the systems requirements activity include:

- Functional Requirements

- Technical Requirements

- Operational Requirements

- Transitional Requirements

- System Specifications

- Interface Requirements Documents

- End Item Specifications

- Requirements Flow-down and Traceability

Systems Engineering Management Planning: - Assess project management activities and technical tasks

- Transitioning critic technologies

- Define needed systems engineering processes and resources

- Make procurement decisions and specify integration activities

- Prepare Systems Engineering Management plan and supporting plans (as needed)

High Level Design: - Develop, decompose, and evaluate project level architecture alternatives

- Identify and evaluate internal and external interfaces

- Evaluate industry standards

- Select & document the high level design

- Perform preliminary design review

Component Level Detailed design: - Perform detailed design

- Perform technical reviews

- Perform critical design review

Hardware/Software Development and Unit Test: - Support, monitor, and review development

- Develop system products

- Coordinate concurrent developments

Integration: - Plan Integration activities

- Define Integration activities


- Perform integration activities

Verification: - Plan Verification activities SEMP/Project Plan

- Develop Verification plan

- Trace between requirements and verification plan

- Develop verification procedures

- Perform Verification

- Document verification results

Initial System Deployment: - Develop Deployment strategy

- Write Deployment Plan

- Perform deployment activities

Test and evaluation master plan (TEMP): The TEMP documents the overall structure and objectives of the Test and Evaluation (T&E) program.

It provides a framework within which to generate detailed T&E plans and it documents schedule and resource

implications associated with the T&E program. The TEMP identifies the necessary developmental test and

evaluation (DT&E), operational test and evaluation (OT&E), and live fire test and evaluation (LFT&E)

activities. It relates the program schedule, test management strategy and structure, and required resources to

critical operational issues (COIs), critical technical parameters (CTPs), objectives and thresholds documented in

the capability development document (CDD), evaluation criteria, and milestone decision points.

Transition Process: This process installs a verified system, together with relevant enabling systems, e.g., operating system,

support system, operator training system, user training system, as defined in agreements.

- A system transition strategy is defined.

- A system is installed in its operational location.

- A system, when operated, is capable of delivering specified services.

- The configuration as installed is recorded.

- Corrective action reports are recorded.

- A service is sustainable by enabling systems.

Operation Process: The purpose of the Operation Process is to use the system in order to deliver its services.

- An operation strategy is defined.

- Services that meet stakeholder requirements are delivered.

- Approved corrective action requests are satisfactorily completed.

- Stakeholder satisfaction is maintained.

Maintenance Process: - A maintenance strategy is developed.

- Maintenance constraints are provided as inputs to requirements.

- Replacement system elements are made available.

- Services meeting stakeholder requirements are sustained.

- The need for corrective design changes is reported.

- Failure and lifetime data is recorded.

Disposal Process: The purpose of the Disposal Process is to end the existence of a system entity.

- A system disposal strategy is defined.

- Disposal constraints are provided as inputs to requirements.

- The system elements or waste products are destroyed, stored, reclaimed or recycled.

- The environment is returned to its original or an agreed state.

- Records allowing knowledge retention of disposal actions and the analysis of long-term

hazards are available.

At this point it is important to identify the data flow in the PSLM framework from system engineering

processes to project management processes. In other words we should clarify the actual outputs of

systems engineering processes that go to project management processes. In this regard figure 5 is

provided in order to show the outputs.


Figure 5: Systems engineering outputs for project management processes


4. Conclusions and future works

In the current paper we tried to provide a new framework that uses systems development lifecycle

processes and project management lifecycle to facilitate the process of managing complex and complicated

projects. Using project-system lifecycle helps that projects which utilize systems engineering methods generally

achieve higher productivities, with projects meeting schedule, cost and technical performance requirements, and

specially decreasing the failure rate of complex, complicated big projects.

However, system engineering introduction cannot be exclusively credited with the improvement in

project performance, due to factors such as the inherent complexity of the project integration and development

activities as well as the limited accuracy of the technical scope estimation that is deployed within the previous

studies. Nevertheless, in the following the potential benefits that can be sought from project-system lifecycle

management are highlighted:

- First, understand the problem to be addressed.

- View the problem and solution from the stakeholders’ point of view – walk in the

shoes of the system’s owner and stakeholders.

- Start at the finish line by defining the output of the system and the way the system is going to

operate.

- Address project risks as early as possible, when the cost impacts are lowest.

- Make technology choices at the last possible moment by defining what is to be done before

defining how it is to be done [form follows function].

- Focus on interfaces of the system and of the project [organizational, teams and process

interfaces].

- Understand the organization of the system’s owner and stakeholders to enable stakeholder

participation.

Other systems engineering benefits on PSLM framework include as follows:

- better system documentation

- higher level of stakeholder participation

- system functionality that meets stakeholders’ expectation

- potential for shorter project cycles

- systems that can evolve with a minimum of redesign and cost

- higher level of system reuse

- more predictable outcomes from projects

5. Future studies

Developed framework has been designed to be of benefit to project-based organizations that operate in

the complex and complicated industrial sectors. Therefore, this study can be extended by applying the developed

framework in some practical case studies in order to investigate its capabilities. The framework could be applied

to the management of big projects in a range of different sectors, such as the pharmaceutical, defense and

aerospace or general engineering areas. Also, the framework could be utilized within different types of

organizations, such as within large technology conglomerates (e.g. aircraft manufacturers), smaller technology

companies (e.g. biotech start-ups) or even within the university sector.

6. References

- A.J. Shenhar, One size does not fit all projects: Exploring classical contingency domains,

Management Sci (3) 47, (2001), 394–414.

- A.J. Shenhar and D. Dvir, “How projects differ, and what to do about it,” The Wiley guide to

managing projects, P.W.G. Morris and J.K. Pinto (Editors), Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2004, pp. 1265–

1286.

- Bosch-Rekveldt, M., Mooi, H., Verbraeck, A., Sjoer, E., Wolsing, B., & Gulden, C. 2009. Mapping

project manager's competences to project complexity. In K. Kakonen (Ed.), IPMA 23rd world

Congress, Research Track Human Side of Projects in Modern Business. Helsinki: Project

Management Association Finland (PMAF) and VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland.


- Bosch-Rekveldt, M.G.C., Mooi, H.G., 2008. Research into Project Complexity Classification

Methods, IPMA 22nd World Congress 2008: 104–108. Animp Servizi Srl, Rome.

- Dombkins, D., Dombkins, P., 2008. Contracts for Complex Programs: a Renaissance of Process.

Booksurge Publishing, Charleston.

- Geraldi, J.G., Adlbrecht, G., 2007. On faith, fact, and interaction in projects. Project Management

Journal 38 (1), 32–43.

- Hass, K., 2007. Introducing the project complexity model. A New Approach to Diagnosing and

Managing Projects—Part 1 of 2. PMWorld Today, IX (VII), pp. 1–8.

- Maylor, H., Vidgen, R., Carver, S., 2008. Managerial complexity in project based operations: a

grounded model and its implications for practice. Project Management Journal 39, S15–S26

Supplement.

- Vidal, L.-A., Marle, F., 2008. Understanding project complexity: implications on project

management. Kybernetes 37 (8), 1094–1110

- Williams, T.M., 2002. Modelling Complex Projects. John Wiley & Sons, London. Sage, A. P.

(1992). Systems Engineering. John Wiley & Sons.

- Kossiakoff, A., & Sweet, W. N. (2003). Systems Engineering Principles and Practice. John Wiley

& Sons.

- Philbin, S. P. (2008). Managing complex technology projects. Research Technology Management,

51(2), 32−39.

- Kerzner, H. (2009). Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling and

controlling (10th edition). John Wiley & Sons.

- Perminova, O., Gustafsson, M., &Wikström, K. (2008). Defining uncertainty in projects — A new

perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 26, 73−79.

- Phaal, R., Farrukh, C. J. P., & Probert, D. R. (2006). Technology management tools: Concepts,

development and application. Technovation, 26(3), 336−344.

- Faulconbridge, R. I., & Ryan, M. R. (2003). Managing Complex Technical Projects: A Systems

Engineering Approach. Artech House.

- International Council on Systems Engineering, INCOSE (2004). Systems Engineering Handbook.

Version 2a.

- PMI, Guide to the project management body of knowledge, Project Management Institute,

Newtown Square, PA, 2004.

- ISO/IEC 15288:2008(E) , IEEE Std 15288-2008

- The New York State Project Management Guidebook, Release 2, 2003

- Barker, B. G., & Verma, D. (2003). System engineering effectiveness: A complexity point

paradigm for software intensive systems in the information technology sector. Engineering

Management Journal, 15(3), 29−35.

- Dasher, G. T. (2003). The interface between systems engineering and program management.

Engineering Management Journal, 15(3), 11−14.

- Frank, M., Zwikael, O., & Boasson, M. (2007). Jobs requiring a capacity for engineering systems

thinking (CEST): Selection using an interest inventory. Project Management Journal, 38(3), 36−44.

- PMI, Government extension to a guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK®

guide), Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA, 2002.

- PMI, Construction extension to a guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK®

guide), Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA, 2003a.

- PMI, United States Department of Defense extension to: A guide to the project management body

of knowledge (PMBOK® guide), Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA, 2003b.

- Tom Flynn (2007). Integrating the Project Management Lifecycle and the System Development

Lifecycle in Accelerated Project Efforts. PMI Global Congress North America 2007 Atlanta, GA

- Yahiaoui, Azzedine; Sahraoui, Abd-El-Kader; Hensen, Jan; Brouwer, Paul (2006). A Systems

Engineering Environment for Integrated Building Design. INCOSE.

Toward Integration of Project management and systems engineering: A Comprehensive approach

Documents

Transcript of Toward Integration of Project management and systems engineering: A Comprehensive approach