© Dr Duro Kolar 1

ENGG2855 – Understanding the Management of Projects
Group Assignment

Using a project selected by your team and approved by your lecturer, describe how the front-end was
planned and your perception on how it should have been planned reflecting on the readings below.
Specifically:

• the context of the project;
• how was project value assessed;
• how was the project shaped for sponsor approval;
• how were decisions make on the project, were they informed decisions.

Aim: For you to better understand, identify and evaluate the front-end of projects.
Output: Approximately 10,000 words

Understanding the Management of Projects Group Assignment
Project management is traditionally seen as execution oriented i.e. deliver on time, in budget, to scope,
which is also commonly known as the ‘iron-triangle’ of project management. This view tends to cause
significant project failure as project managers may not be delivering the ‘right’ project. This is a
fundamental issue. Over the last decade or so, project management has changed its ethos to the
‘management of projects,’ namely, managing the front-end of projects i.e. ensuring the ‘right’ project
is approved, and thus, executed the ‘right’ way.
This aims to keep you abreast of leading-edge management of projects thought and practice - having an
open mind about PM possibilities is vital.
Required Readings for the Group Assignment

The following readings should assist you:

1. Edkins, A., Geraldi, J., Morris, P. & Smith, A. 2013, 'Exploring the front-end of project
management', Engineering Project Organization Journal, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 71-85.
This paper is a multi-case study exploratory investigation into the earliest stages of projects and their
management. We refer to this throughout the paper as the ‘front-end’. We provide a definition of this
phase of the project life cycle and conduct a literature review of the various topics that would suggest
themselves to be apposite to the front-end. This includes governance and strategy; requirements and
technology; estimating; risk and value; people and learning and development. Following this review
of literature, we set out the approach taken in the empirical study. The context for the study was the
UK, although many of the organizations investigated had a global presence and some of their projects
were multinational in nature. We detail the research methods, the multi-case study route taken and
the nature of the in-depth interviews with senior project management representatives from nine
extremely credible organizations experienced in managing projects. Our findings are presented so as
to identify the key set of findings determined after multiple passes of the interview details. These
findings reflect both what comprises the front-end of projects and what management does in the
front-end. Some of this would be expected of project management, but we found aspects of the front-
© Dr Duro Kolar 2

end management that are not within the normal remit of what is considered to be traditional project
management. These findings both reinforce the literature and offer new insights, for example,
showing the strong influence of the commercial and economic non-project players in leading or
influencing the front-end of projects. A considered set of conclusions are presented together with
recommendations for further research.
2. Smith, C. & Winter, M. 2010, 'The craft of project shaping', International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 46-60.
Purpose – This paper aims to look closely at the actuality of project formation to investigate the
performance of project shaping – those acts performed by individuals to make that form of “sense”
that constitutes a new project, and to propose a framework for mapping the skills of those individuals
who are directly involved in shaping projects.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper uses a sensemaking approach from illustrative narratives
in order to propose a model of how a project outcome is shaped. The analysis is based on thinking
that emerged from the Rethinking Project Management Network and other academic communities.
Findings – Significant factors in project formation are: the timing of the conversion of work into
controlled project form (the control model of projects), the role of factional interests and power
structures (tribal power), the alignment of project scope with a need for transformation
(transformation and value), the fast production of tangibles such as project mandates that embody
the project essentials (enacted reality), and responsiveness to the dynamics of the wider social context
(external dynamics – peripety).
Research limitations/implications – It is apparent that the process of project formation, and the shape
each project takes, is highly dependent on the actions of key individuals (shapers’ volition). There is
further scope for expanding the understanding, within the structure of the framework, of the full array
of activities performed by individuals in action as “project shapers”.
Practical implications – The framework developed is of immediate value to those individuals who
use their skills to mould a project, providing a conceptual basis they can use to learn and extend their
skills.
3. Green, S. D. & Sergeeva, N. In-Press, 'Value creation in projects: Towards a narrative perspective',
International Journal of Project Management.
It is contended that value is a social construct, and that the processes of social construction are rooted
in language. On this basis we argue that value creation is a process which lends itself to interpretation
from a narrative perspective. Previous attempts at value creation have been promoted under the label
of ‘value management’. There are two approaches which are identifiable in the literature. The first is
based on the traditional narrative of value engineering (aka Hard VM) and is primarily directed
towards cost reduction. The second more recent variant is labelled ‘soft’ value management (Soft
VM) and is primarily directed towards the achievement of a shared understanding of the value criteria
relating to an individual project. The two approaches are critiqued in terms of their underlying
assumptions and it is suggested that they are best understood as different forms of narrative. The
emerging literature on value creation is similarly critiqued in accordance with the adopted narrative
perspective. The distinction is made between formalised narratives of value on the level of the
organisations involved in the project coalition and the anecdotal stories which individuals use to
make sense of their own lived experiences. Emphasis is given to the ways in which different
narratives interact, and to the way in which they remain contestable over time. Particular attention is
given to the confluence between storytelling and identity work.
4. Steen, J., Ford, J. A. & Verreynne, M.-L. 2017, 'Symbols, Sublimes, Solutions, and Problems: A
Garbage Can Model of Megaprojects', Project Management Journal, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 117-131.
In this article, we deploy Cohen, March, and Olsen’s (1972) garbage can model of decision making
to produce a different lens on the performance of megaprojects. Using a sample of firms involved in
hydrocarbon megaprojects, we show that the problems given the most public attention by the industry
are different from those responsible for budget overruns. Furthermore, the attribution of reasons for
© Dr Duro Kolar 3

exceeding project budget differs between project owners and supply chain firms. This is consistent
with garbage can model predictions around problem latency when the multifaceted symbolism of
these projects drives divergent prioritization of problems in project execution.
5. Williams, T. & Samset, K. 2010, 'Issues in Front-End Decision Making on Projects', Project
Management Journal, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 38-49.
The importance of the front-end decision-making phase in projects is being increasingly
recognized—the need to “do the right project” is on a par with “doing the project right.” This area is
underrepresented in the literature, but there are a number of key themes that run throughout,
identifying key issues or difficulties during this stage. This article looks at some of these themes and
includes: the need for alignment between organizational strategy and the project concept; dealing
with complexity, in particular the systemicity and interrelatedness within project decisions;
consideration of the ambiguity implicit in all major projects; taking into account psychological and
political biases within estimation of benefits and costs; consideration of the social geography and
politics within decision-making groups; and preparation for the turbulence with in the project
environment, including the maintenance of strategic alignment.
6. Flyvbjerg, B. 2013, 'Quality control and due diligence in project management: Getting decisions
right by taking the outside view', International Journal of Project Management, vol. 31, no. 5, pp.
760-774.
This paper explores how theories of the planning fallacy and the outside view may be used to conduct
quality control and due diligence in project management. First, a much-neglected issue in project
management is identified, namely that the front-end estimates of costs and benefits – used in the
business cases, cost–benefit analyses, and social and environmental impact assessments that typically
support decisions on projects – are commonly significantly different from actual ex post costs and
benefits and are therefore poor predictors of the actual value and viability of projects. Second, it is
discussed how Kahneman and Tversky's theories of the planning fallacy and the outside view may
help explain and remedy this situation through quality control of decisions. Third, it is described what
quality control and due diligence are in the context of project management, and an eight-step
procedure is outlined for due diligence based on the outside view. Fourth, the procedure is tested on
a real-life, multibillion-dollar project, organized as a public private partnership. Finally, Akerlof and
Shiller's recent discussion in economics of “firing the forecaster” is discussed together with its
relevance to project management. In sum, the paper demonstrates the need, the theoretical basis, a
practical methodology, and a real-life example for how to de-bias project management using quality
control and due diligence based on the outside view.

About the Readings for the Group Assignment
The readings selected should provide you with only a starting point. The whole topic of understanding
the management of projects has been gaining increasing attention. It is interesting to see how this debate
has moved on over the decades with substantial shift in pace over the last few years. This shift has
moved from projects being seen as execution oriented, or do the ‘right’ project, to front-end oriented,
or doing the ‘right’ project. Project management per se is being increasingly perceived as an art or craft
rather than science. This is due to the concept of ‘projectification’ gaining popularity among theorists
and practitioners alike.
It is interesting to reflect and think about what the management of projects really means. Is it delivering
to the sponsor’s requirements? Is it about achieving outcomes? What about the expectations of those
involved (stakeholders), are their expectations taken into account? Can we ‘truly’ implement a project
of value? These confront you with interesting aspects of this assignment that forces you to reflect upon.
© Dr Duro Kolar 4

The context of a project is very important in understanding how the management of projects was applied
to that particular project. Part of context is classification so it is important to have some way of
describing project types so that their contexts can be better described.
Some brief aspects of the readings I draw to your attention. Fundamentally, project acceptance links to
the shaping of projects. The first paper focuses on understanding the front-end of projects and what
management does in the front-end. The second paper takes a closer look at project formation,
investigating the performance of project shaping. It explores five elements through narratives for
making sense of projects. Such as the control model of projects, tribal power, transformation and value,
enacted reality, and shapers’ volition. Although there are many ways to shape projects, the authors
objectives are to improve our awareness of how projects are actually formed in the social world. The
third paper takes a similar view in that it explores the concept of value creation in projects. Here the
authors argue that the strategic value in projects is rooted in language. Emphasis is given to the ways in
which different narratives interact, and to the way in which they remain contestable over time.
Fundamentally, value creation is socially constructed, where people make sense of project value. The
remaining papers deeply explore decision-making on projects. Project managers will continuously make
decisions. However, how do you make the ‘right’ decision? Well, this comes down to achieve a state
as a rational agent. To achieve such state requires quality control and due diligence and understanding
cognitive biases that can and will impact our decision-making processes. Information is the key
ingredient on making highly informed decisions, particularly, taking an outside view. All in all, if the
project is shaped ‘right’ it will optimise our chances of delivering ‘the right project, the right way.’
Although the papers make a rich contribution to your understanding of the management of projects, it
is recommended that you also explore other ways to argue your case. The project filed has entered a
new paradigm, being technology. The rapid pace of technology i.e. artificial intelligence, machine
learning, gaming etc., has made us think on better ways to manage projects. The paper by Rumeser, D.
& Emsley, M. In-Press, 'Can Serious Games Improve Project Management Decision Making Under
Complexity?', Project Management Journal, introduces gaming to improve project management
decision making. This brings to fruition the concept of cobots i.e. collaborative robots in the
management of projects. Considering cobots are driving innovation and growth, how will this impact
the shaping of projects?