INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 277–279

PROJECTMANAGEMENT

Editorial

Towards a theory of project management: The natureof the functions of project management

In my editorial in the last three issues of the journal, Ihave been trying to develop a theory of Project Manage-ment. Through a series of premises and lemmas, I have at-tempted to derive a structure of Project Management, andidentify inherent elements of Project Management:

� In the first article, I looked at the nature of projects� In the second article, I looked at the nature of project

management� In the third article, I showed that what I in my books (1,2)

call the five functions of project management are inherent

In this article, I want to show that the tools required tomanage some of those five functions should have inherentfeatures. The five functions are:

1. managing scope2. managing project organization3. managing quality4. managing cost5. managing time

The steps of management

Premise 3 defined governance as the structure throughwhich we

� define the objectives� define the means of obtaining the objectives� define the means of monitoring progress

This defines the three basic steps that have to be fol-lowed to manage each of the five functions. At Lemma 7,I also said the steps of management could be defined as:

� planning what has to be done� organizing by deciding who is responsible for what� implementing by getting people to take on that

responsibility� controlling progress as the work is done

0263-7863/$ - see front matter � 2006 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights rese

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.03.002

Scope management

Scope management is the management of the work ofthe project. At Premise 1, I said a project is a temporaryorganization to which resources are assigned to do workto deliver beneficial change. So that work needs to bemanaged.

Define the objectives

The first step is to define the objectives of scopemanagement. The objectives of the project are to deliverthe beneficial change, and so we need to define the change,and the benefit. I previously showed that projects are frac-tal (Lemma 8) and that breakdown structure, and particu-larly here product breakdown structure, is an inherentcomponent of project management (Corollary 8). So weuse product breakdown structure (PBS) to define the objec-tives of the project, and hence scope management, and tobreak those objectives down to components and sub-com-ponents. Product breakdown is the start of scopemanagement.

Define the means

The work is the means of obtaining the objectives. Sothe next step of scope management is to define the work.That is done through the work breakdown (WBS), alsoidentified at Corollary 8 as an essential tool. The toolsfor managing scope must therefore combine productbreakdown and work breakdown. So far we have reachedthese conclusions by theoretical means. To identify appro-priate tools we need to turn to experience, and that tells usthat configuration management is a tool which combinesproduct and work breakdown which is useful for managingscope. I called this Empiricism 1.

Defining the means also includes defining the peoplewho will do the work. So we have to define (some of) theproject organization. Corollary 8 also tells us we can useorganization breakdown (OBS) for that.

rved.

278 Editorial / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 277–279

Combining the product breakdown and organizationbreakdown at a given level defines the work breakdown.It tells us who will do what to deliver what products. Expe-rience tells us that responsibility charts (1,2) are a usefultool for doing that.

Empiricism 3: Responsibility charts are a useful tool forcombining product, organization and work breakdownand for defining project organization.

Now I depart for a bit from the theoretical discussion to

express my own views. The way many people talk you might

be forgiven for thinking that the work breakdown was some

fundamental property of the project which exists indepen-

dently of the people doing the work. I disagree. If anything

is a fundamental property it is the product breakdown; thedefinition of the work is influenced by the people doing it.

It is a social construct. Thus the work breakdown and the

organization have to be developed together and iteratively.

If there is an order we should define these things it is PBS

then OBS then WBS. Many people do it in the reverse order.

But you might argue that product breakdown is itself influ-

enced by the people doing the work and so all three should

be developed together and iteratively.

Quality management

Next we turn our attention to quality management.

Define the objectives

First, we need to consider what we want to manage thequality of. Premise 1 (and the above discussion) tells us wewant to manage the quality of the project’s product, andCorollary 8 (and the above discussion) suggests we can

Quality AssuranceRight first time

Quality ControlZero defect

Quality of Product

Quality ofManagement

Process

Attitudes

Fig. 1. Five element model of good quality.

do that through the product breakdown. We also wantthe project to be managed well, so we want to managethe quality of the management process, so we need to de-fine objectives for that.

Thus, we have derived the first two elements of my fiveelement model for managing quality in projects, Fig. 1(1,2). We need to manage the quality of

� the product� the management process

Corollary 18a: On projects we need to manage the qualityof the product and the management process.

Define the means of achieving the objectives

This Quality Assurance. We define how we will achievegood quality on projects. This is the third element of myfive element model.

Corollary 18b: Quality Assurance is an inherent element ofquality management on projects.

Define the means of monitoring performance

This is Quality Control, and is the fourth element of myfive element model.

Corollary 18c: Quality Control is an inherent element ofquality management on projects.

Corollary 18d: There are four inherent components of qual-ity management on projects:

� assurance of the quality of the product� control of the quality of the product� assurance of the quality of the management process� control of the quality of the management process

The best way of achieving these four things mainlyderives from empirical evidence. We can say from controltheory that control should follow a classic feed backloop:

� plan for the desired results� monitor the results that are actually achieved� calculate the difference� take action to eliminate the differences

But again how those four steps are best achieved canonly be determined empirically.

The fifth and final element of my five element model,that we should maintain good attitudes to achieve qualityalso only derives from observation.

Empiricism 4: Good attitudes are essential for achievinggood quality on projects.

Editorial / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 277–279 279

Managing time and cost

Similar arguments apply for managing time and cost.We need to define

� the objectives� the means of achieving the objectives� the means of monitoring progress

Controlling progress will follow a classic feedback loop:

� define the objectives� monitor performance� calculate variances� take action to recover the plan

I suggested at Lemma 9 that 500 years of accountingtheory suggests that to manage cost we should plan forthe amount of work to be performed and the cost of thatwork. Then we should calculate the difference betweenthe amount of work planned and the amount of work per-formed. In accounting theory this is called the volume var-iance, but in Project Management has become known asthe Schedule Performance Index, SPI. We should also cal-culate the difference between the cost of the work per-formed and the plan. In accounting theory this is called

the cost variance, but in Project Management has becomeknown as the Cost Performance Index. When applied toProject Management this standard accounting practice be-comes Earned Value Analysis. So we see how accountingtheory enlightens Project Management Theory.

Similarly the more recently developed theory of Opera-tions Research suggests how we can manage and controltime on projects. Because this theory is more recently devel-oped than the accounting theory from which Earned ValueAnalysis derives, I was only willing to say it is based onempirical evidence (Empiricism 2) rather than being theo-retically derived.

In the next issue I am going to look at programme andportfolio management and the management of the project-based organization.

References

[1] Turner JR. The handbook of project-based management. 2nded. London: McGraw-Hill; 1999.

[2] Turner JR. The management large projects and programmesfor web delivery. Aldershot: Gower; 2004.

J. Rodney Turner 1

Lille School of Management

E-mail address: rodneyturner@europrojex.co.uk

1 Present address: Wildwood, Manor Close, East Horsley, Surrey KT246SA, United Kingdom. Tel./fax: +44 1483282344.