Recommended First Stage Improvements
As a result of the foregoing, the 2004 Edition should be improved in two stages.
First stage improvements should focus on correction of lesser deficiencies, e.g.,
correction of several figures. This stage should not deal with any conceptual or textual
modification, which should be tackled from a systems view in the second stage.
- The 2004 Edition contains several figures that should be modified on the following
The 2004 Edition contains figures where many entries can be included, or excluded
because they show a very narrow difference between incidental and usual application.
There are some important reasons to do this:
- Figures should present only necessary information and nothing more. For example,
Figure 3-4 contains an excessive number of relationships that should be deleted to
make this figure useful. If we study process
relationships at the output/input level, we can find out that this figure should not
contain feed back relationships from the Planning Process Group to the Initiating
Process Group. This is because there is no output from the Planning Process Group
to feed back as an input to the Initiating Process Group.
There are other relationships in this and other figures that can be deleted.
- The figures should be more reliable. For example, Figure 3-7 shows that Process
6.5 (Schedule Development) does not have an output that feed as an input to other
processes within the Planning Process Group.
However, if we analyze relationships at the output/input level we find that Output
220.127.116.11 (Project schedule) goes as an input to Process 7.2 (Cost Budgeting).
There are other relationships in this and other figures that are substantial and have
to be shown.
- Figures should be simpler. For example, Figure 4-2 is loaded with lists of outputs/inputs
that are related to the Project Integration Management knowledge area.
As those lists do not help explain this figure, they should be deleted, or better,
reduced to a list of outputs that make direct relationships to succeeding processes.
If we look at outputs from Process 4.4 (Direct and Manage Project Execution), we could
get the impression that relationships between processes 4.4 (Direct and Manage Project
Execution) and 4.5 (Monitor and Control Project Work) have been established throughout
the listed outputs. However, if we study those processes at the output/input level,
we find that relationship between processes 4.4 and 4.5 has been achieved only through
Output 18.104.22.168 (Work performance information) and eventually through outputs 22.214.171.124
(Requested changes) and 126.96.36.199 (Deliverables). Other outputs from the list, from
188.8.131.52 (Implemented change requests) to 184.108.40.206 (Implemented defect repair), relate
as inputs to Process 8.2 (Perform Quality Assurance).
There are other relationships in this and other figures that share similar characteristics.
- Figure illustrations should be reduced to only substantial relationships
that can be supported by text or can be proved at the output/input level. For example,
let us have a look at Figure 3-8. The
Executing Process Group shown in this figure contains relationships to all other process
groups. If we study process relationships at the output/input level, we cannot find
any direct relationships from the Executing Process Group to the Planning Process
Group. This is because feed back information
from the Executing Process Group to the Planning Process Group has been directed throughout
the Monitoring and Controlling Process Group, i.e., "updated and revised through the
Integrated Change Control process". There
are other relationships in this and other figures that should contain distinctive
and provable relationships only.
- There should also be more consistency between figures. For example,
Figure 3-6 and Figure 4-2. If we look at the Initiating Process Group we can see that
this process group has feed back relationships with the Executing Process Group. However,
if we look at the Project Integration Management Process Flow Diagram, we do not see
a drawn or a textual specification at the output/input level that feeds back from
the Executing Process Group to the Initiating Process Group. There are other relationships
in those and other figures that should be modified to achieve consistency between
14. Ibid, p42
15. Ibid, pp45-55, 79
16. Ibid, p47
17. Ibid, pp143, 167
18. Ibid, p80
19. Ibid, pp79, 182, 183
20. Ibid, p55
21. Ibid, pp183, 202, 223, 273
22. Ibid, p88
23. Ibid, pp44, 80