The Life Cycle Model
Figure 2 displays a generalized life cycle model consisting
of five major stages. The model is normative, not descriptive. It indicates how
a project should be managed. At the conclusion of each stage is a planned review
and approval checkpoint. Only when the results of the work performed in one stage
are formally accepted is authority granted for the project team to proceed with
the next stage. The client or project sponsor, and typically, representatives
of the users or beneficiaries of the project, are participants in the planned
Figure 2:The Evolution of Scope in the Project Life Cycle
The life cycle model is based on the writer's experience, communications with other practitioners and consultants, and the published literature as cited for individual sources below. This model has been applied to a variety of projects where the objective was the creation of a unique or "one off" end product: for example, buildings, oil and gas production facilities, pipelines, new social service delivery organizations and programs, computer based information systems, and renovations to smelting and refining plants. This generalized model is patterned after Smythe and others working through Woods Gordon, the management consulting firm., The model readily incorporates the steps of design development and construction in the Project Engineering Management (PEM) process presented by McCoy and Brodkorb.
Rogers suggests that each major project oriented industry group, of which there may be five to ten, may have a characteristic project-life cycle phase structure. To illustrate, he presents two examples. The one portraying a construction project is compatible with the one presented here. The second, dealing with a new product development and introduction, is similar to the model of the system acquisition process presented by Stephanou and Obradovitch. In this second case, both a new product and a new manufacturing capability must be developed, suggesting the possible addition of another stage to the life cycle model. The possibility of accommodating all project types and industry groups with a single normative life cycle model is a question for further investigation.
The diagram in Figure 2 portrays the kinds of intermediate deliverables that should be issued at each of the milestone review points. The items shown are documents that trace the evolution of the end product configuration, and are the basis upon which the project team's management of the project scope may be evaluated. Not shown on the diagram are other deliverable documents that describe the project team's strategy for managing the work effort in the subsequent stages of the project. Items such as cost estimates, working schedules, and staffing plans should be part of the same review process. These other intermediate deliverables are themselves components of the project scope. For simplicity, the illustration deals only with those items that describe the end product configuration.
63. Wawruck, W.A., Managing the Scope: A Neglected Dimension of Effective Performance on Diverse Projects, Proceedings of the 1987 Northwest Regional Symposium, Portland Oregon, Project management Institute, May 1987, p215
64. Smythe, E.B. The Project Management Process Copies of overhead transparencies used in a seminar, Vancouver, B.C.: Executive Programs, the University of British Columbia, 1981, p10
65. Woods Gordon, Management Consultants. Unpublished consulting reports, manuals, and recommendations on the management of projects prepared for a number of clients, Toronto, Ont.: 1977-1981. Note: The writer was a member of Woods Gordon's consulting staff during the period September 1977 to June 1981, and observed the work of E.B. Smythe, W.E. Allen, and D. Aird at that time. Many of the ideas and concepts regarding the management of scope and its evolution through the project life cycle, as presented in this paper, came to the writer's attention from this group.
66. McCoy, F.A, and Brodkorb, R. Enhancements in Measuring With a Project Engineering Management Process. Proceedings of the 1986 Seminar/Symposium Drexel Hill, PA: The Project Management Institute, 1986, pp191-194
67. Rogers, L.A. Defining a Professional Body of Knowledge to Encompass All Project Management Environments. Project Management Journal August 1986, XXII, pp109-110
68. Stephanou, M.S., and Obradovitch, M.M. Project Management Systems and Development and Productivity. Malibu, CA: Daniel Spencer Publishers, 1985, p240