Applying an Integrated Systems Perspective to the Management of Engineering Projects

doi:10.15302/J-FEM-2015004

Front. Eng

2015, Vol. 2

Issue (1) : 19-30 https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FEM-2015004

ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT TREATISES

Applying an Integrated Systems Perspective to the Management of Engineering Projects

Simon P. Philbin(

)

Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK

Download: PDF(227 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

Engineering projects can be subject to significant complexity, which may result in a number of issues and challenges that need to be addressed throughout the project life-cycle. Traditionally projects have been viewed according to the so called “iron triangle,” i. e., achievement of project milestones according to schedule, cost and quality targets. While these targets are fundamentally important to the performance of engineering projects, it is possible to view projects on a systemic level in order to allow an adequate focus on all the underpinning factors that have the potential to influence the performance of projects. Consequently, a management framework has been developed that is based on an integrated systems perspective of engineering projects, where the performance of projects is a function of six contributing sub-systems that are: process, technology, resources, knowledge, culture and impact.

Keywords integrated systems perspective engineering projects management

Corresponding Author(s): Simon P. Philbin

Issue Date: 21 August 2015

Cite this article:

Simon P. Philbin. Applying an Integrated Systems Perspective to the Management of Engineering Projects[J]. Front. Eng, 2015, 2(1): 19-30.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/10.15302/J-FEM-2015004
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/Y2015/V2/I1/19

Critical success factor	References from literature review	Definition of critical success factor
Process	Jha & Iyer, 2007	Management processes undertaken in a structured manner in order to enable delivery of the project requirements according to specified project management guidelines or protocols
	Jin, Chai, & Tan,2014
	Chan , Scott, & Chan, 2004
	Reyck,2005
	Raz & Michael, 2001
Technology	Liberatore ,Pollack-Johnso, & Smith, 2001	Information and communications technology (ICT) employed across the project to support delivery of project milestones as well as knowledge management including related IT systems accessed by project team members
	Ahuja, Yang, & Shankar,2009
	Froese, 2010
	Pena-Mora &Dwivedi, 2002
	Ntithamyong & Skibniewski, 2006
Resources	Turner & Muller, 2005	Project staff and infrastructure required to undertake management and technical work to support project delivery. This includes project management and other staff involved in project governance and where necessary other project stakeholders
	Brill, Bishop, & Walker, 2006
	Sunindijo, Hadikusumo,& Ogunlana ,2007
	Jaselskis &Ashley, 1991
	Engwall & Jerbrant, 2003
Knowledge	Schwalbe, 2013	Data and information that is processed and generated by project resources through use of project technology and according to processes used across the project. Knowledge includes management and engineering information as well as the insights and understanding gained from delivery of the project
	Yang, Chen, & Wang, 2012
	Alhawari, Karadsheh, Talet, & Mansour,2012
	Johansson , Moehler, & Vahidi, 2013
	Reich, Gemino, & Sauer, 2012
Culture	Yazici, 2009	The patterns of working across the project, including the level of openness and sharing of project knowledge by the project resources. This includes the social dimensions of the project and its surrounding environment, such as trust and norms of reciprocity between team members
	Firth&Krut, 1991
	Kadefors, 2004
	Sabherwal, 1999
	Munns, 1995
Impact	Frow &Payne, 2011	The overall outcomes generated by the project, which includes delivery of the project milestones as well as wider (holistic) benefits arising. The benefits can include new business generation, societal, environmental as well as skills enhancement and human resources development
	Griffin, 1997
	Sivarajah, Lee, Irani, & Weer-akkody, 2014
	Straus, Tetroe, & Graham, 2013
	Ayas & Zeniuk, 2001

Tab.1 Summary of Critical Success Factors for Engineering Projects Identified by Literature Review

Fig.1 Conceptual model for integrated systems perspective of engineering projects.

Sub-system	Key activities
Processaa	Project was managed according to PRINCE2TM international project management standard
	Project reporting to senior management was via periodic highlight reports as well as deviations beyond the scope of the project communicated via exception reports
	Use of standardized project documentation, such as project initiation document (PID), which was approved by the university portfolio review board
	Business case assembled for the project, which included recognized business and financial practices, such as Net present value (NPV) calculations for the expected investment by the project funder using the discounted cash flow technique
	Other planning included resource profiling and project scheduling, which was undertaken at periodic stages during the project
	Project risk register developed at start of project and updated periodically
Technology	Microsoft Project TM used for Gantt chart preparation (project scheduling) to capture overall schedule, critical path analysis and key project dependencies
	Project costing software used to develop initial budget and enterprise resource planning (ERP) software used to monitor and control project costs against the budget
	Technical risk management via failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) approach was administered through a Microsoft Excel TM spreadsheet template developed for use across the project
	Regular video-conferencing between United Kingdom partners and suppliers based in USA
	Other technologies used by engineering design team in support of the project
Resources	Project resourcing included a project director with overall responsibility for project delivery. Project managers were assigned to manage the project at both the university and main industrial partner
	Technical working group formed, which provided a multidisciplinary team of project members to support the project. The group included consultant engineering team (mechanical, electrical and structural engineers as well as quantity surveyor), technical staff (technician and academic staff from university as well as industrial staff), safety engineers, management representatives and administration staff
	Project governance achieved through regular meetings of a project board, chaired by the project director but with other senior management representatives from the university
Knowledge	Initial technical assessment of the project carried out by independent structural engineer contracted to undertake feasibility study of the facilities development project
	FMEA technique developed to ensure engineering risks were captured from the early part of the project and necessary process controls were implemented in the final engineering design. FMEA process supported by multidisciplinary inputs from technical working group. FMEA worksheets used to formally capture engineering data and information related to the facility design, including operating conditions for the high-pressure equipment and infrastructure engineering specifications
	Systems integration exercise to ensure compatibility of procured equipment with laboratory services
	Technical analysis and equipment operational modeling carried out to ensure compliance of equipment with European Union’s Pressure Equipment Directive (PED)
Culture	Initial meetings of technical working group hampered by lack of agreement on technical direction of project and social norms as well as poor team dynamics, which had not been fully established. Further meetings designed to have more overall direction from the meeting chair as well as structured discussions, which enabled social norms to be established
	Trust was developed within the team due to the common approaches used as well as a shared sense of the technical challenges faced
	UK team also established trust with suppliers based in USA, initially through face-to- face meetings and thereafter through regular video-conference meetings
	Overall culture developed within the project was characterized as being open and honest, with regular sharing of information and communication across the project and with key project stakeholders
Impact	• Balanced scorecard approach adopted for the business planning stage of the project. Scorecard included financial perspective (based on NPV calculations on project investment), customer perspective (based on the number of PhD and MSc level students that would be able to use the new facility for research), internal process perspective (based on the availability of new equipment and related processes) and learning and growth perspective (based on the scientific areas to be investigated using the experimental research facility)
	• Wider impact for the industrial sponsor through supporting improved technical capabilities for new engineering systems
	• Establishment of the new research facility allowed the academic team to undertake research in new areas, which is analogous to company’s developing new business areas. The teams involved with the project were able to develop new skills and competencies, for instance related to the engineering design process as well as the use of structured engineering risk tools such as FMEA

Tab.2 Summary of Case Study # 1 Findings According to Sub-systems Areas

Sub-system	Key activities
Process	Project was managed according to PRINCE2TM international project management standard
	Project reporting to senior management through regular meetings with key project stakeholders
	Feasibility and design project approved by the university’s portfolio review board
	Business case assembled for the project, which included recognized business practices, such as business modeling based on revenue generation from medical scanning activities
	Other planning included project scheduling and bench-marking studies, which compared modeled scanning costs with comparable data streams
	Project risk analysis carried out on broad range of risk areas
Technology	Microsoft Project TM used for Gantt chart preparation (project scheduling) to capture overall schedule, critical path analysis and key project dependencies
	Project costing and other financial management through Microsoft Excel TM spreadsheets
	Technical team employed various clinical related technologies (including diagnostic and testing systems) to support feasibility study.
	Other technologies used as part of facilities design process
Resources	Project resourcing included a project director supported by a facilities project manager. The project director reported to a steering group that provided guidance on strategy
	The project director provided overall leadership and was responsible for the business modeling while the project manager was responsible for operational management of the engineering feasibility study
	Steering group was a multidisciplinary team representing different areas, such as senior leadership, facilities planning, finance, health S safety as well as general administration
	Liaison with academic faculty members was through a series of individual consultations and this allowed a broad range of clinical academic staff to be engaged in the engineering design process
	External engineering teams engaged to support detailed design, including M&E engineers, quantity surveyor and safety engineer
Knowledge	Improved understanding developed on how the clinical scanning facility would complement other facilities operated by the university, thereby allowing an overall view to be established for the entire scanning services offered across the university
	Knowledge generated on the clinical research areas investigated through use of the medical scanning facility. This knowledge was acquired from the academic faculty consultations and covered areas such as neuroscience, cardiology, pharmacology and oncology.
	Information relating to sponsor needs was obtained, including potential scanning funding opportunities with research councils and charitable foundations
	Data and information also acquired relating to the operation of the medical scanning equipment including operating conditions, throughput levels and maintenance regimes
Culture	During the initial meetings of the steering group a common understanding was developed of the project requirements including high-level technical details related to the medical scanning facility.
	Regular meetings allowed trust to be developed within the team and communications within the team were generally open and honest.
	The academic faculty consultations were conducted in an open manner, which enabled faculty members to share their needs in regard to current and future clinical research avenues being pursued and the corresponding medical scanning requirements
	Overall culture developed within the project that was characterized as being supportive, with regular sharing of information and communication across the project and with key project stakeholders at the university
	Impact completion of the feasibility and design stage project enabled an improved understanding to be gained on the need for medical scanning to support clinical research in several academic departments at the university
	The project team developed enhanced skills and competencies, especially relating to business modeling techniques, including profiling different business scenarios and financial sensitivity analysis
	The scanning facility was designed to provide an efficient and cost-effective clinical scanning service, which can be included as part of research proposals submitted to a range of medical funding organizations
	Potential long-term societal benefits associated with improved health-care delivery arising from research projects that utilize the scanning facility

Tab.3 Summary of Case Study # 2 Findings According to Sub-system Areas

Project sub-system	Research questions	Data and information requirements
Process	How can the optimal balance of procedures be identified at the outset of a new project?	Project schedule, financial and performance data Process configurations and related protocol information Data and information relating to the overall project requirements as well as environmental and organizational constraints Probability data on likelihood of external events impacting projects (for deterministic studies)
	How can process adoption for projects be adaptive to emerging issues and opportunities?
	What processes need to be designed to support an integrated systems perspective of engineering projects?
Technology	Can project life-cycle technology be used to track the overall impact delivered for projects?	Data and information on wider impact generated by projects Architectures and specifications of web-based project management systems. Architectures and specifications for mobile technologies (i.e. “apps”) to support management of projects
	How can web-based technology solutions be configured to support engineering projects?
	How can mobile technologies (i.e. “apps”) be integrated with ERP based project technologies?
Resources	What is the project leadership skills needed to manage according to an integrated systems perspective?	Information on project leadership skills and competencies related to the integrated systems perspective of project management. Data and information on resource types for planning methodologies Project decision related data and information along with systems modeling techniques
	How can resources be more effectively allocated across projects that have competing needs?
	Can project decisions be modeled in real-time as a decision support tool?
Knowledge	How can the project management knowledge be integrated with organization-level knowledge management systems?	Project-related data and information correlated with appropriate organizational data and information Data and information on social characteristics of projects in addition to traditional hard (technical) data for engineering projects Data and information to allow improved knowledge management systems to be designed for projects
	How can knowledge from projects be configured to incorporate a socio-technical systems approach (i. e. managing hard and soft data)?
	What knowledge needs to be understood to support the integrated systems perspective of project management?
Culture	How can the level of trust be measured for engineering projects?	Data and information on the different drivers for trust within a project Project cultural characteristics and determinants correlated with data and information for organizational cultures Data and information on working pa– terns and behaviors, levels of openness and norms of reciprocity for certain project instantiations
	How are projects influenced by organizational cultures?
	Are certain types of cultures more, or less, suited to particular types of projects?
Impact	How can metrics be developed to address the integrated systems perspective of engineering projects?	Data and information relating to systemic impact and benefits for engineering projects, including long-term, societal or broader stakeholder benefits Knowledge architectures to support translation of research projects and evidence-based outputs to improved practice and operational management Data and information on project skills and competencies generated from adopting an integrated systems perspective
	How can achievement of “iron triangle” targets be reconciled (or balanced) against long-term, societal or broader stakeholder benefits?
	What are the optimal mechanisms to support translation of research projects into societal benefits, i. e. environmental, sustainable energy or health-care

Tab.4 Future Research Areas And Suggested Data And Information Requirements

1	V. Ahuja,, J. Yang,, & R. Shankar, (2009). Benefits of collaborative ICT adoption for building project management. Construction Innovation: Information, Process. Management, 9, 323–340
2	S. Alhawari,, L. Karadsheh,, A.N. Talet,, & E. Mansour, (2012). Knowledge-based risk management framework for information technology project. International Journal of Information Management, 32, 50–65
3	K. Ayas,, & N. Zeniuk, (2001). Project-based learning: building communities of reflective practitioners. Management Learning, 32, 61–76
4	T. Brady,, & A. Davies, (2010). From hero to hubris-reconsidering the project management of Heathrow’s Terminal 5. International Journal of Project Management, 28, 151–157
5	J.M. Brill,, M.J. Bishop,, & A.E. Walker, (2006). The competencies and characteristics required of an effective project manager: A web-based Delphi study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54, 115–140
6	A.P. Chan,, D. Scott,, & A.P. Chan, (2004). Factors affecting the success of a construction project. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 130, 153–155
7	D. Dvir,, & A. Shenhar, (2007). Reinventing project management: The Diamond Approach to Successful Growth and Innovation. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press
8	M. Engwall,, & A. Jerbrant, (2003). The resource allocation syndrome: the prime challenge of multi-project management. International Journal of Project Management, 21, 403–409
9	G. Firth,, & R. Krut, (1991). Introducing a project management culture. European Management Journal, 9, 437–443.
10	M. Frank, (2000). Engineering systems thinking and systems thinking. Systems Engineering, 3, 163–168
11	T.M. Froese, (2010). The impact of emerging information technology on project management for construction. Automation in Construction, 19, 531–538
12	P. Frow,, & A. Payne, (2011). A stakeholder perspective of the value proposition concept. European Journal of Marketing, 45, 223–240
13	J. Gharajedaghi, (2011). Systems thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity: A Platform for Designing Business Architecture. Netherlands: Elsevier
14	A. Griffin, (1997). The effect of project and process characteristics on product development cycle time. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 24–35
15	E.J. Jaselskis,, & D.B. Ashley, (1991). Optimal allocation of project management resources for achieving success. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 117, 321–340
16	K.N. Jha,, & K.C. Iyer, (2007). Commitment, coordination, competence and the iron triangle. International Journal of Project Management, 25, 527–540
17	D. Jin,, K.H. Chai,, & K.C. Tan, (2014). New service development maturity model. Managing Service Quality, 24, 86–116
18	T. Johansson,, R.C. Moehler,, & R. Vahidi, (2013). Knowledge sharing strategies for project knowledge management in the automotive sector. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 74, 295–304
19	A. Kadefors, (2004). Trust in project relationships—inside the black box. International Journal of Project Management, 22, 175–182
20	H.R. Kerzner, (2013). Project Management: a Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc
21	M.J. Liberatore,, B. Pollack-Johnson,, & C.A. Smith, (2001). Project management in construction: Software use and research directions. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 127, 101–107
22	P.E.D. Love,, G.D. Holt,, L.Y. Shen,, H. Li,, & Z. Irani, (2002). Using systems dynamics to better understand change and rework in construction project management systems. International Journal of Project Management, 20, 425–436
23	J.M. Lyneis,, & D.N. Ford, (2007). System dynamics applied to project management: a survey, assessment, and directions for future research. System Dynamics Review, 23, 157–189
24	A.K. Munns, (1995). Potential influence of trust on the successful completion of a project. International Journal of Project Management, 13, 19–24
25	P. Nitithamyong,, & M.J. Skibniewski, (2006). Success/failure factors and performance measures of web-based construction project management systems: professionals’ viewpoint. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132, 80–87
26	F. Pena-Mora,, & G.H. Dwivedi, (2002). Multiple device collaborative and real time analysis system for project management in civil engineering. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 16, 23–38
27	S.P. Philbin, (2008a). Managing complex technology projects. Research-Technology Management, 51, 32–39
28	S.P. Philbin, (2008b). Big management: A systems engineering approach. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 19, 114–127
29	S. P. Philbin, (2010). Developing an integrated approach to system safety engineering. Engineering Management Journal, 22(2), 56–67
30	S.P. Philbin, (2011). Application of Systems Engineering and Systems Thinking to Project Management. In R Collins J. , (Ed.), Project Management. New York: Nova Science Publishers
31	S.P. Philbin,, & D.A. Kennedy, (2014). Diagnostic framework and health check tool for engineering and technology projects. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 7, 1145–1166
32	T. Raz,, & E. Michael, (2001). Use and benefits of tools for project risk management. International Journal of Project Management, 19, 9–17
33	B. H. Reich,, A. F Gemino,, & C. Sauer, (2012). Knowledge management and project-based knowledge in it projects: A model and preliminary empirical results. International Journal of Project Management, 30, 663–674
34	B.D. Reyck,, Y. Grushka-Cockayne,, M. Locket,, S.R. Calderini,, M. Mour,, & A. Sloper, (2005). The impact of project portfolio management on information technology projects. International Journal of Project Management, 23, 524–537
35	M.J. Ring, (2000). A billion-dollar big big blunder. Tech, 120, 5–7
36	R. Sabherwal, (1999). The role of trust in outsourced IS development projects. Communications of the ACM, 42, 80–86
37	A. Sadeh,, D. Dvir,, & A. Shenhar, (2000). The role of contract type in the success of R&D defence projects under increasing uncertainty. Project Management Journal, 31, 14–22
38	A.P. Sage,, & W.B. Rouse,, eds. (2009). Handbook of Systems Engineering and Management. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc
39	D. Schon, (1983). The reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. [sine loco]: Basic Books, Inc
40	K. Schwalbe, (2013). Information Technology Project Management. [sine loco]: Cengage Learning
41	U. Sivarajah,, H. Lee,, Z. Irani,, & V. Weer-akkody, (2014). Fostering smart cities through ICT driven policy-making: Expected outcomes and impacts of DAREED project. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 10, 1–18
42	Standish Group. (1995 and 2009). The CHAOS report.
43	S. Straus,, J. Tetroe,, & I.D. Graham,, eds. (2013). Knowledge Translation in Health Care: Moving from Evidence to Practice. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc
44	R.Y. Sunindijo,, B.H. Hadikusumo,, & S. Ogunlana, (2007). Emotional intelligence and leadership styles in construction project management. Journal of Management Engineering, 23, 166–170
45	J. R. Turner,, & R. Muller, (2005). The Project Manager’s Leadership Style as a Success Factor on Projects: a Literature review. [sine loco]: Project Management Institute
46	K.E. Weick,, K.M. Sutcliffe,, & D. Obstfeld, (2005). Organizing and the process of sense making. Organization Science, 16, 409–421
47	L.R. Yang,, J.H. Chen,, & H.W. Wang, (2012). Assessing impacts of information technology on project success through knowledge management practice. Automation in Construction, 22, 182–191
48	H.J. Yazici, (2009). The role of project management maturity and organizational culture in perceived performance. Project Management Journal, 40, 14–33

[1]	Kaile ZHOU, Zenghui ZHANG, Lu LIU, Shanlin YANG. Energy storage resources management: Planning, operation, and business model[J]. Front. Eng, 2022, 9(3): 373-391.
[2]	Zoltán A. VATTAI, Levente MÁLYUSZ. Negative weights in network time model[J]. Front. Eng, 2022, 9(2): 268-280.
[3]	Qian SHI, Chenyu LIU, Chao XIAO. Machine learning in building energy management: A critical review and future directions[J]. Front. Eng, 2022, 9(2): 239-256.
[4]	Fuwen TAO, Shengqiang WANG, Qingwu SONG. Management innovation and construction integration technology in Brazil’s superlarge deep-water offshore oil and gas unit project (FPSO P67/P70)[J]. Front. Eng, 2022, 9(2): 349-353.
[5]	Qianwen ZHOU, Xiaopeng DENG, Ge WANG, Amin MAHMOUDI. Linking elements to outcomes of knowledge transfer in the project environment: Current review and future direction[J]. Front. Eng, 2022, 9(2): 221-238.
[6]	Atilla DAMCI, Gul POLAT, Firat Dogu AKIN, Harun TURKOGLU. Use of float consumption rate in resource leveling of construction projects[J]. Front. Eng, 2022, 9(1): 135-147.
[7]	Lieyun DING, Weiguang JIANG, Cheng ZHOU. IoT sensor-based BIM system for smart safety barriers of hazardous energy in petrochemical construction[J]. Front. Eng, 2022, 9(1): 1-15.
[8]	Lu ZHEN, Haolin LI. A literature review of smart warehouse operations management[J]. Front. Eng, 2022, 9(1): 31-55.
[9]	Lu WANG, Tianhu DENG, Zuo-Jun Max SHEN, Hao HU, Yongzhi QI. Digital twin-driven smart supply chain[J]. Front. Eng, 2022, 9(1): 56-70.
[10]	Jizhong LIU, Hao HU, Zhaoyu PEI, Qiong WANG, Qiang MAI. Management innovation of Chang’e-5 project[J]. Front. Eng, 2021, 8(4): 620-626.
[11]	Guanwen ZENG, Zhiyuan SUN, Shiyan LIU, Xiaoqi CHEN, Daqing LI, Jianjun WU, Ziyou GAO. Percolation-based health management of complex traffic systems[J]. Front. Eng, 2021, 8(4): 557-571.
[12]	Karina B. BARTH, Carlos T. FORMOSO. Requirements in performance measurement systems of construction projects from the lean production perspective[J]. Front. Eng, 2021, 8(3): 442-455.
[13]	Ningshuang ZENG, Yan LIU, Pan GONG, Marcel HERTOGH, Markus KÖNIG. Do right PLS and do PLS right: A critical review of the application of PLS-SEM in construction management research[J]. Front. Eng, 2021, 8(3): 356-369.
[14]	Bo FENG, Qiwen YE. Operations management of smart logistics: A literature review and future research[J]. Front. Eng, 2021, 8(3): 344-355.
[15]	Changfeng YANG. Innovation and development of BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BDS) project management mode[J]. Front. Eng, 2021, 8(2): 312-320.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed