I work in a Civil Engineering Consultancy designing transport infrastructure. My company is usually instructed by public/private sector entities to produce or support on specific parts of the design.
I have been debating how the first stages of our projects should be considered to fit in the process groups (Initiation, Planning, Execution, Monitoring, Closing). I am referring to Project from my company perspective and my work managing the scope and deliverables instructed to my company only rather than the entire infrastructure project.
I have always thought that when we receive a request for proposal, those first activities until the Go/NoGo decisión would be considered the Initiation, then preparing the proposal would be the Planning Stage and if we were successful we would almost jump to Execution (I admit that some elements from the proposal may need to be revisited, refined or expanded). Is this the correct approach?
Alternatively I could consider the proposal within Initiation, functioning like a project chart and the client approval would lead to detailed Planning and Execution.
I have seen that some people consider the proposal a project by its own right with all the process groups and cycle, which I understand but then from after project commissioning it would move directly to Planning or even Execution if the proposal is detailed enough.
Process groups are separate from project phases. You could have a project phase where processes from all process groups are performed - a large multi-phase project following a rolling wave approach is one example. Saving Changes...
I find it very interesting that when I just Googled the process groups, the very first result said they were the same as lifecycle phases, which as Kiron points out, they are not. Clearly it's a common misconception and taught by some "expert" practitioners.
To give an example of why they are distinct, consider a large change order once the project is well underway. The project is "executing" but the processes required to incorporate that on top of the project baseline still require initiating the change through closure. Initiating the change may require less effort, but it still needs a business case through approval. They can be projects within larger projects.
The PMBOK specifically organizes them by the types of processes, not where they occur in the lifecycle for this very reason. Project lifecycles are iterative by nature because we start out with many unknowns, and as we learn more, we realize our plan isn't optimal so we adjust accordingly. Saving Changes...
Thomas WalentaGlobal Project Economy ExpertHackenheim, Germany
Oliver,
there are different views and needs on the market regarding how to cut projects. At IBM services, we clearly defined separate projects to proposal and delivery, with different lifecycles. Both mostly had different project managers and sponsors! I have been on proposal projects that took 18 months.
More in general, people talk about pre-project and post-project 'phases'. Pre-project would typically include creating a business case or a proposal plus negotiated contract. You cannot initiate a project based on a proposal, because the proposal is just an offer from one side and you a need mutually agreed base for the charter.
For each project and each phase you have all 5 process groups. And even within a phase they not only come in sequence but may and often do iterate.
