:::

The suitability of PRINCE2 for engineering infrastructure

Stephen Keith McGrath, Stephen Jonathan Whitty

Abstract


The view that PRINCE2 was not suitable for application to infrastructure was identified in a study done for a separate purpose, namely to examine project governance and methodology, which is not reported in this paper. It was asserted by several participants in interviews conducted with a sample of experienced practitioners across a range of industries and disciplines. This paper follows up on those comments by conducting an examination of PRINCE2 from an engineering infrastructure perspective to investigate the validity of this assertion. It takes a deductive, definitional approach to determine if there are any features in it that would cause difficulty for engineering infrastructure use. 17 features were examined and 15 were found to have difficulty in application to the project management of engineering infrastructure. The remaining two found inconsistencies that were unlikely to cause too much difficulty. The features causing difficulty include non-generic terminology for the terms project, lifecycle and stage, using a product rather than a project based process, use of an iterative product delivery process unsuited to predictive projects, use of a  delivery process for all project phases, assumption of a board governance model with inappropriate accountabilities, lack of clarity around use of the project plan, and absence of a lifecycle appropriate for engineering infrastructure, with PRINCE2 effectively self-declaring its need for a higher-level project lifecycle/ methodology from somewhere else. The paper concludes that PRINCE2 is quite poorly suited to managing engineering infrastructure projects and identifies that some of the reasons for this are likely to also cause difficulty for many ICT projects as well.


Keywords


project management methodology implementation; project governance; change management; PRINCE2

References


Appelo, J. (2008). Top five reasons why PRINCE2 sucks. URL http://www. noop. nl/2008/05/top-five-reason. html.[Online.

Australian Standards. (2016). AS/ISO 21500:2016 guidance on project management. In. Sydney: SAI Global.

AXELOS. (2017). Managing successful projects with PRINCE2. In (pp. 430). Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com.ezproxy.usq.edu.au/lib/usq/detail.action?docID=4863041.

Calder, A. (2008). ISO/IEC 38500: The IT governance standard. In. Retrieved from http://common.books24x7.com.ezproxy.usq.edu.au/toc.aspx?bookid=34447

Delgado, M. d. l. C., Marcilla, J. S., Calvo-Manzano, J. A., & Vicente, E. F. (2012). Integrando PRINCE2 e ISO/IEC 38500 para la gestión y gobernanza de proyectos. (spanish). CISTI (Iberian Conference on Information Systems & Technologies / Conferência Ibérica de Sistemas e Tecnologias de Informação) Proceedings, 360-365.

Haugaard, M. (2010). Power: A ‘family resemblance’ concept. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 13(4), 419-438. doi:10.1177/1367549410377152

Haughey, D. (2014). A brief history of project management. Retrieved from https://www.projectsmart.co.uk/brief-history-of-project-management.php

Hobbes, T.-. (1996). Leviathan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hughes, D. L., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Rana, N. P. (2017). Mapping is failure factors on prince2® stages: An application of interpretive ranking process (irp). Production Planning & Control, 28(9), 776-790.

Joseph, N., & Marnewick, C. (2018). Investing in project management certification: Do organisations get their money’s worth? Information Technology and Management, 19(1), 51-74. doi:10.1007/s10799-017-0275-y

Joslin, R. (2017). Governance and project success. In R. Muller (Ed.), Governance and Governmentality for Projects : Enablers, Practices, and Consequences (pp. 159-172). New York: Routledge.

Joslin, R., & Müller, R. (2015). Relationships between a project management methodology and project success in different project governance contexts. International Journal of Project Management, 33(6), 1377-1392. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.03.005

Joslin, R., & Müller, R. (2016). The impact of project methodologies on project success in different project environments. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 9(2), 364-388. doi:10.1108/IJMPB-03-2015-0025

KnowledgeTRAIN. (2017). Knowledgetrain prince2online courses. Retrieved from https://www.knowledgetrain.co.uk/courses/prince2/elearning#how-many-people-have-taken-examinations

Łuczak, J., & Górzna, M. (2012). Evaluation of the effectiveness of the project management methodology PRINCE2 in the public administration. Research Papers of the Wroclaw University of Economics(264), 282-299.

McGrath, S. K., & Whitty, S. J. (2017). Stakeholder defined. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 10(4), 721-748. doi:doi:10.1108/IJMPB-12-2016-0097

McKenna, T., & Whitty, S. J. (2012). Reconceptualising project management methodologies for a post-postmodern era. Paper presented at the proceedings of the Annual Project Management Australia Conference Incorporating the PMI Australia National Conference (PMOz), Melbourne, Australia.

Mill, J. S. (1874). A system of logic, ratiocinative and inductive (Eighth ed.). New York: Harper & Brothers.

Muller, R., & Shao, J. (2013). A model of the dynamics in theory development. In N. Drouin, R. Muller, & S. Sankaran (Eds.), Novel approaches to organisational project management (pp. 136-161): Copenhagen Business School Press.

Murray, A. (2009). Managing successful projects with PRINCE2, 2009 edition manual. In N. Bennett & C. Bentley (Eds.). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.usq.edu.au/login?url=http://library.books24x7.com/library.asp?^B&bookid=41539

Office of Government Commerce. (2005). Managing successful projects with PRINCE2. London: TSO.

Oxford. Dictionaries online. Retrieved from http://oxforddictionaries.com

Project Management Institute. (2013). Guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide). In. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.usq.edu.au/login?url=http://library.books24x7.com/library.asp?^B&bookid=51356

Project Management Institute. (2017). Guide to the project management body of knowledge (pmbok guide) (Sixth ed.). Newtown Square PA: Project Management Institute.

Sadeanu, M., Candea, S., & Bodea, C. N. (2013). ISO 21500:2012 vs. Other project management standards. In N. Grau & C. N. Bodea (Eds.), ISO 21500 Project Management Standard: Characteristics, Comparison and Implementation. Aachen: SHAKER Verlag.

Sargeant, R., Hatcher, C., Trigunarsyah, B., Coffey, V., & Kraatz, J. A. (2010). Creating value in project management using PRINCE2. Retrieved from https://eprints.qut.edu.au/52853/

Słoniec, J. (2014). Study of applicability of using the project management methodology PRINCE2 in the management of a specific project. Innowacyjne metody w inżynierii produkcji, 167-179.

ThinkExist. (2018). Joseph goebbles quotes. Retrieved from http://thinkexist.com/quotation/-if_you_tell_a_lie_big_enough_and_keep_repeating/345877.html

Walker, D., & Lloyd-Walker, B. (2016). Rethinking project management: Its influence on papers published in the international journal of managing projects in business. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 9(4), 716-743. doi:10.1108/IJMPB-12-2015-0121

Wells, H. (2012). How effective are project management methodologies? An explorative evaluation of their benefits in practice. Project Management Journal, 43(6), 43-58. doi:10.1002/pmj.21302

Wideman, R. M. (2002). Comparing PRINCE2 with pmbok. Retrieved from Vancouver, BC, Canada:

Wittgenstein, L., & Anscombe, G. E. M. (1958). Philosophical investigations (2nd ed.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Xue, R., Baron, C., Esteban, P., & Zheng , L. (2015). Analysis and comparison of project management standards and guides. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the International Conference on Mechanics, Materials, Mechanical Engineering and Chemical Engineering (MMMCE 2015) Barcelona, Spain.

Zandhius, A., & Stellingwerf, R. (2013). ISO 21500 guidance on project management: A pocket guide Van Haren Publishing, Zaltbommel.


Full Text: PDF

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




______________________________________________________________________________

The Journal of Modern PM (ISSN: 2317-3963) | info@journalmodernpm.com