Here are questions and answers from students regarding Chapter 1.

*** Q. My question deals with the idea that project management tends to increase the organizational complexity in a company. That idea seems counterintuitive; I would think that grouping individuals into distinct groups or projects rather than pulling individuals from different directions throughout the project would actually simplify things. When the book states this idea are they actually referring to matrix organizations where projects pull their team members from different departments within the company??

A.. Very good. Most engineering and construction companies are organized as matrix or projectized organizations. Most industrial companies are not organized that way so defining a project, with a project team and project manager, introduces something new into the organization.

Q. The text references the fact that some projects never seem to end. I have found this particularly true of Government construction projects. I've seen it where we just couldn't get that last one percent done no matter what kind of pressure we put on the contractor. More often than not we would just called it close enough and quit. Does this occur in the private sector as well?
A. I am most familiar, as you are, with construction projects. There are many other kinds of projects, such as software development, research, etc. But for construction, especially major projects, the last 1% does not get done. Or you might say, they approach completion asymptotically. At some point, the construction team leaves and the operations team takes over and that is the end of the project. Often there are odds and ends that are "contract" disputes that are settled. That is, the contractor did not finish something, but the owner agrees to accept it as is - perhaps in return for some other concession. So the contract is complete, the contractor gets paid 100%, but the work is not finished, or at least, not finished to the satisfaction of the operation department that has to run the facility.

Q. The text mentions that project effort does not necessarily fall to zero upon completion of the project (Quiz question 8). But the explanation offered does not really imply that the project is continuing, but that PM personnel are giving the impression that there is work to do until another project becomes available "rising like a phoenix". Is the author referring to companies that outsource for PMs or is he referring to the necessity for companies to give the illusion that there is work for PMs, while they are waiting for new projects to arise? Is this a problem because companies do not want to maintain employees that are not decisively engaged?

A. Good. First you have to define "completion." Projects are never complete; they approach completion asymptotically. So there is always an excuse to keep some people assigned to the project. Second, you realize there may be a difference between in-house and out-sourced project management team. It is theoretically easier to unload the outside contractors, but not always. Many bureaucratic organizations tend to keep outside contractors onboard, because then they do not have to go through a budgeting and selection process to get them back again.

Q. Also, in the Government, once a PM team has been assembled it is very difficult to get rid of them. This could be one reason our projects can drag out so long. In any case, because they are Government employees you can't just let them go at the end of the project. They usually sit idle until the next project comes along. Is this also an issue in the private sector? What do you do with your good employees between projects?
A. Whoops. You're not supposed to notice that. Often the "project management" or "construction" group is financed from a fixed percentage of the overall project budget, say 15%. As long as there are lots of projects, there is lots of 15% lying around. When the projects dry up, there are several options. One is to look at all the old projects, find some that have some money left in them, and do some work on these. This is often not exactly legal, since a government project has the money tied to some definite appropriation. But often it can be made to look legal by being creative about what the new work is called. Or outright dishonesty by telling employees to misreport on their timesheets can be resorted to. Another option is to use the project team to work to get new projects approved, hopefully before the money for the old projects dry up.

Q. My first question about Module 1 refers to problem 9 of the quiz. The problem asks you to choose which statement is true about project goals throughout the life cycle of a project. Answers b through d are clearly false, but answer a seems to be outdated. Chapter one explains (page 15) that it was generally thought that performance was the main focus in the beginning of the life cycle, cost was the main focus during the middle of the life cycle, and schedule was then the prime focus near the end of the life cycle. However, the book then goes on to state that this is now known to be untrue, and performance and schedule are more important than cost during the entire life cycle. Do you agree with the book that cost always takes a back seat? It seems in my limited experience that cost is usually the deciding factor rather than performance and schedule?

A. Good analysis. The purpose of the exercise is to get you thinking about the phases of a project, and how different goals might vary with the project life cycle. Think of a three-legged stool, with the legs: performance, cost, and schedule. Which of the legs is more important? Whichever leg is missing, that's the direction the stool will topple over. But in general, when a project is starting, you do not know HOW you will get it done. In that sense, you have to define performance - what you are trying to do - first. That's always almost true.

Q. My wife's main job at work involves the remediation of contaminated soil on Ft. Wainwright. Her boss is the project manager for the Army contract and my wife performs a majority of the testing and sampling. I made the argument that this is not really a "project" since the job is very routine; the remediation systems run, samples are taken, the systems adjusted, and the process repeated. Moreover, the responsibility for these systems just changed hands from one company to another; this signified to me that the Army was merely hiring an organization to do a job, not contracting out a project. Her argument was that the contract has defined goals; when these goals are achieved, the job will cease to exist-hence, it is a project. Now, I'm not asking that you settle this debate for us, but I was hoping that you could go into a little more detail about what makes a project a project.

A. A good, philosophical question. A "project" is a "temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product or device." In this case the work is "temporary" and is expected to end when the soil is clean. Her day-to-day work sounds "routine" rather than "unique," but then all projects have many mundane things to do. The work is unique because it involves a particular patch of soil.
After typical construction projects are built, say a new hangar, the building enters a "maintenance phase" (or M & O, maintenance and operations). I generally do not think of the M&O phase as a project. Then one day the hanger needs a new roof. That would be a project. For governments in general, and the military in particular, there is a vast legal difference between congressionally approved construction (always a project) and "repair" or "maintenance" which are not congressionally approved. The historical problem is that commanders would build new facilities by "repairs" which were really upgrades or complete new works. This is a felony.

Module 1 Index