Project Lifecycle Management Processes: The PMAA Model

5. Project Lifecycle Management Processes:

The PMPA model criterion focuses on “project life cycle management processes”.

PM literature testifies to a broadening of the conceptual base of the project life cycle to incorporate processes in the pre-initiation and post-delivery stages (Turner,

1993b). There is an emphasis on “upstream” activities (Barnes and Wearne, 1993), such as attention to defining customer expectations and “downstream” activities, such as reviewing customer perceptions. Central to the development of models of the project life cycle is the need to focus on the customer and other stakeholders.

Not only will models incorporate processes for involving the project participants upstream and downstream, they will also provide a

It has been posited that the overall performance of a project, in terms of delivering something that is fit for purpose whilst at the same time achieving the goals of client and contractors, is a function of the PM Practices undertaken. (Serpell and Alarcon, 1998) which is consistent with the notion that having a QMS is crucial to success. The importance of QM, with its emphasis on managing the processes, is evident in the PM literature and guidance given to PM practitioners (Freeman and Beale, 1992; PMI, 2008).

A study of the projects performance in Hong Kong found that increased client satisfaction with quality can be achieved by better PM Practices (Chan and Tam, 2000). Given that ISO

9001 is used to assure the quality of the management processes, with these processes relating to the PM Practices of projects, it is expected that having ISO 9001 will result in enhanced practices.

Project Success:

Projects differ in size, uniqueness and complexity, thus the criteria for measuring

In the context of the defense industry, Lipovetsky et al. (1997) propose measuring project success across four dimensions of: meeting design and planning goals; customer benefits; benefit to the developing organization; and benefit to the defense and national infrastructure. Lim and Mohamed (1999) group project success by the use of micro and macro criteria. Whereas, Atkinson (1999) divides project success into three categories: doing the process right; getting the system right and getting the benefits right Informed by previous literature, Shenhar et al. (2001) advocated a comprehensive four dimensional framework for assessing project success which is cited in many PM studies (Bryde, 2008;

Dvir et al., 2006; Jugdev and Muller, 2005). Shenhar et al. (2001) argue that projects are strategic and project success should be assessed according to short-term and long-term project objectives. Their framework links project success with competitive advantage and includes: Efficiency (meeting schedule and budget goals); Impact on customers (customer benefits in performance of end products and meeting customer needs); Business