APMA Differentiation
We talk a lot about scope, quality, time and cost, teams, risk and so on.
Recently we've begun to talk more about 'success factors', but we talk very
little about the work involved. Yet surely it is the process of successfully
conducting the work to produce a successful product that is
the ultimate aim of the project management process? So, for purposes of APMA
differentiation, Shenhar and Wideman established a simple basic premise:
"For the project to be successful, different types of project work, associated
with different types of product, need to be managed differently" (Shenhar
1997).
The distinguishing features of the work to produce the project's product seem
to be governed by craft versus intellect (work), and tangible versus intangible
(product). If the work under consideration represents the primary purpose (or
work package) of the project, then this 2x2 matrix results in four basic types
of project as follows.
- Tangible-Craft - Projects whose products are tangible
and the result of craft work. Example ø most construction. We might label
this group Classical Construction Projects (CCP)
[Note: in Wideman's set of Issues and Considerations, this group is
referred to as 'EngCon'.]
- Intangible-Craft - Projects whose products are intangible
and the result of craft work. The main value of the product is intangible
but the effort to accomplish it is effectively routine 'craft' work. Examples
ø maintenance shutdown, update of a procedure. We might label this group Corporate
Operational Projects (COP) [Admin]
- Tangible-Intellect - Projects whose products are tangible
and the result of intellect work. The product is tangible but the main effort
is intellectual. Examples - new invention, original art. We might label this
group Product Development Projects (PDP) [NewProd]
- Intangible-Intellect - Projects whose products
are intangible and the result of intellect work. The main value of the product
is in its intangible content and which is the result of intensive intellectual
work. Examples - new theory, new software, writing a book. We might label
this group Research, Development Projects (RDP) [NewTech]
While the distinctions are clear, the examples and labels suggested could be
arguable and subject to further examination of specific commonalities. It is
interesting, however, that listed in this way from (a) to (d), these APMAs appear
to align with environments of increasing technological risk to cost and schedule.
That is, ranging from 'well established and relatively certain' to 'new ground
and very uncertain'. Undoubtedly, different people's experience in different
APMA environments accounts for much heated argument over what constitutes project
management and what constitutes good practice.
|
Progress
