I’m a strong proponent for making sure that project management discipline, process, plans and overhead is commensurate with the size and/or complexity of a project. Also, those who are good at small projects can struggle in larger projects, and vice-versa. I’ve been looking at various publications and reviewing my past experiences to help me better articulate some of the key success factors that are often different in larger projects than those that are found in smaller projects (size being subjective and relative to your environment). An analogy that I’ve used is that somebody building a small birdhouse will use project management differently than somebody building a major office building.
I thought that I would start a list and see what others have to add to it.. or disagree with. I have not found any great articles that have been of much help. For very large projects, here are some of the key things that I’ve seen that require more attention.
The larger projects require:
- Expedited means of communications
- More structured planning, WBS, and scheduling
- Metrics that can provide advance warnings of slippage
- More clearly articulated roles and responsibilities
- Regular review and governance
- Better defined requirements and management of scope
- More parallel activities
(I know that earned value methods have potential in larger efforts. We’re not quite ready for that). To some extent, all of the processes such as those found in the PMBOK are really the same in the small and large project, but the effort, extent and emphasis placed on the processes is quite different. That seems to me to be a fair conclusion, but my audience needs something more substantive than that type of conceptual statement. .. thus my list. Input?
Saving Changes...
Sort By:
Mark Price PerryBusiness Driven PMO Evangelist| BOT InternationalOrlando, Fl, United States
Hi Rich, great post! And, I think your conclusion, "to some extent, all of the processes such as those found in the PMBOK are really the same in the small and large project, but the effort, extent and emphasis placed on the processes is quite different", is spot on. Regarding providing your audience something more substantive, a couple of thoughts come to mind.
First, it would be interesting to know who your audience is and what kinds of points of view they might have. For example, is your audience typically IT project managers and is their view of project management focused on (and maybe limited to) the formal projects of the IT department or PMO. Or, is your audience a wider collection of folks (in and outside of IT) who may view project management, not as an endeavor limited to formal or certified project managers, but as a core competence and valued skill set for business professionals throughout the enterprise to have and utilize commensurate with their business needs.
Second, rather than suggesting to your audience and being a proponent for "making sure that project management discipline, process, plans and overhead is commensurate with the size and/or complexity of a project", you might consider that all of that needs to be commensurate with "the needs of the project" rather than just size and complexity. Now, having read many of your posts, it is clear that you are an expert in project management with years of experience, so I suspect that when you refer to project size and complexity, you intuitively are referring to "the needs of the project". But the idea that the project process needs to be commensurate with the needs of the project helps to introduce and establish the notion of project types vis a vis classification and guidelines. This extends upon size and type and can address such needs of the project as domain knowledge (market, industry, business, technical, etc,) speed, human and other considerations, etc. Your example of building a small birdhouse vs. building a major office building is excellent and anyone who has built a small birdhouse (or something like that) for the first time without the benefit of a project plan (or how to instructions) will no doubt, after completion, reflect upon all of the things that could have been done better such as choice of materials, tooling, and technique (painting before nailing together, etc). The idea being that the needs of the project drive the project type classification scheme.
Third, for your audience, set the PMBOK aside for a moment. Rather than suggesting that the PMBOK processes are the same for small and large projects with the extent, effort, and emphasis being different (which all of this is true especially when emphasis can include omission), suggest that for each project classification type an optimized project management approach is required as one shoe does not fit all sizes. And, optimized project management approaches can simplify and/or extend upon such things as bodies of knowledge and de facto standards to provide commonly omitted things such as continuous improvement, compliance, reusability, etc.
Perhaps, the large vs. small project list of things may be problematic and difficult for your audience to relate to. By having the needs of the project drive the project type classifications and having the project process (approach) optimized for those classifications, the resulting list of "things different" might be more substantive and easier to for the audience to relate to.
Great post and good luck..! I hope we hear and learn from others.
Saving Changes...
Steve HillPrinciple Consultant| LiquidHub IncReading, Pa, United States
Clear and well stated both with little left to add. I have seen many PM's struggle with making the leap to large projects based upon their limited experience and basic project templates.
Another analogy that comes to mind... When planning a trip across town, one might check directions. If going to another country, directions are still required but the planning and execution requires a markedly higher level of diligence. Saving Changes...
