Sustainable Greenhouse

1 LITERATURE REVIEW
Today, project managers have to incorporate into their projects: client requirements, business necessities and environmental implications to achieve effective project goals within schedule, budget and project objective. This document has as a main reason to develop a literature review of the different tools and techniques that help us establish a framework of the best practises related to the project case “Queensland Health Automated Payroll System Project Analysis”. Accordingly, our research focus is on the Project Briefing Process, Project Business Case, Project Governance, Performance Assessment and Health Check, which are the key points to state the bases of a successful project.
1.1 Project Briefing Process
Yu, Shen, Kelly and Hunter (2003) introduced the project briefing as the phase of the project when the specifications for the projects are identified, clarified and articulated. It is said to be one of the most important parts of the project, and the success of the deliverables depends on if this phase was well investigated and if best practices were used. Important researchers (Smith et al. 1998; Barrett and Stanley 1999; Kamara et al. 2002, Yu et al. 2005) identified that some briefing practices were not the best for the success of the project, so the authors of the same article found that small researches has been conducted to identify the best practices with briefing variables. Addis (2001) also added that briefing is an evolutionary process of understanding an organisation’s needs and resources, and matching these to its objectives and its missions. It is about problem formulation and problem solving, it is also about managing change.

This phase is executed by the Manager, Space and Project Planning, in consultation with the Project Manager and the Principal Consultant. This phase will include consultation with all internal and external stakeholders to prepare the project brief to be endorsed by the PCG. Note: The Principal Consultant is engaged for the commencement of the briefing phase and manages the design through to completion of the defects/liability phase. (Fisher, 2011)
Addis (2001) proposed that the briefings are taken in short meeting when someone is given a short description of the background of the project and an explanation about the brief, and is asked to deliver a solution. As Heagney (2012) added, the briefing process is divided in three different parts: the pre-project stage, when the needs of the client are identified, the practices are chosen and the Strategic Brief is done; after the project stage starts, when the team which is going to be responsible for the design, validates and takes acknowledgement about the client’s expectations and prepare the requirements and performance criteria in the technical terminology.

According to Young (2013), the briefing phase is the phase when the project manager will understand the needs of the customer and after this phase the project will start to have an objective, strategy and a plan to deliver the final product. Sometimes the process of understanding the customer needs can be hard, and a good open relationship with the customer will help the entire project to be successfully accomplished with minimum errors regarding to objectives, what is in or out of scope and the correct time to deliver the final product. This kind of attitude from a project manager will give to the customer an obligation to participate in the project, being one of the main reasons for the success or failure of a project.

Last but not least, a well define project brief would help the project manager to structure the appropriate approach for the business case. (Yu, Qiping, Kelly and Hunter, 2008)
1.2 Project Business Case
The project business case (BC), by PMBOK definition, is a document that presents a “economic feasibility study” (Project Mangement Institute, 2013b) used to uncover the benefits of a project option often characterised with uncertainty and that ultimately authorises the project manager to proceed with project activities (Project Mangement Institute, 2013b). In their Business Case Guidelines, the NSW Premier’s Department, defines a BC to be a justification of a required resource investment for a proposed project, thus providing guidance to decision making executives (NSW Premier’s Department, 2000). Similar to a business plan, a BC describes the business need and identifies costs, benefits and risks of the intended project to substantiate the funding. As an input to the project charter, the BC is therefore a tool used by senior management to assess the proposal and to make decisions accordingly (Project Mangement Institute, 2013a). A BC may also be used to analyse the options of a project that has already been funded (Department of Premier and Cabinet Tasmania, 2003). Ultimately, a BC is a vision of the optimal end solution. Comparable documents are project proposals, funding submissions, feasibility plans and value management studies (NSW Premier’s Department, 2000). Many large companies have templates to present their BC as a structured document, but project business cases can also be in the form of presentations, slide shows or written documents to be presented to management (Karen). Even though business cases vary depending on the type of project or program, all have common elements (NSW Premier’s Department, 2000). As the basis for project initiation and planning, a project BC defines what product or system the project will deliver and its corresponding economic size, configuration, development, application and recycling (Lock, 2012).

The following diagram depicts the process context of business case development set by NSW Business Case Guidelines. Business cases may be developed throughout several months, especially in cases where the project is multi-functional and involves many stakeholders. (NSW Premier’s Department, 2000)

Figure 1 – Context diagram of business case process (NSW Premier’s Department, 2000)
First, the problem or issue at hand should be described, i.e. the reason for the project. The organisation’s business need may derive from an organisational need, market demand, technological advance, legal requirement, government regulation, an ecological consideration or a social need (Project Mangement Institute, 2013a). The following step involves extensive research in order to provide a substantiated needs and requirement analysis, which will define the response criteria of any project proposal. Aspects under analysis would include end users’ and stakeholders’ requirements, anticipated cost, scale and technology, regulatory requirements, market segmentation and timing, among others. In order for the project to respond to all needs, a balance should be found between broad stakeholder needs and requirements and more specific end user needs. Also, the analysis should cover whole of business life. Overall, it is important to evaluate the social, political, economic and regulatory environment and sustainability.(Jaafari, 2007) The next stage is the generation and determination of potential options that will comply with the project and stakeholders needs and requirements. The development and appraisal of promising options is best performed by a multi-disciplinary team that brings innovation and creativity to play. In order to ensure novel ideas, the group must consider what has been achieved previously in the field and promote blue-sky thinking. Usually, several options will end up satisfying business goals. The next step, the appraisal of options generated should be as thorough as possible and based on accurate data in order to avoid adverse consequences. The appraisal consists of quantifying the contribution or impact each option has on specific goals (feasibility), scope, time, cost, financing, cash flow, risks and benefits, etc.(Jaafari, 2007) The cost-benefit analysis is normally completed by a business analyst who employs inputs from several stakeholders (Project Mangement Institute, 2013a). The most widely appraisal technique used is the financial (IRR, ROR, NPV, etc) which models sponsors’ discounted cash flow over project life but does not consider impact on other stakeholders. Although subjective to some extent, a scoring matrix may also be used to select the best option. Based on the selection, project planning begins by developing an implementation plan.(Jaafari, 2007) Ultimately, the business case is documented. The executive summary may be considered the most important component since it provides concise arguments for the case and a big picture overview (NSW Premier’s Department, 2000).

Although the BC is created during project initiation, large and complex projects require revision of BC throughout project phases and the PM is responsible for ensuring business benefits are delivered and stakeholder’s requirements are met.(Project Mangement Institute, 2013a) A sound business case is important for good management and ultimately a critical factor for project success (Lock, 2012). Tony Street, a leading strategist and consultant on capital expenditure management, delineates the importance of good business cases, after a 2010 KPMG report published that 70 percent of companies experience failure of at least one major project per year and only one out of three companies actually prepare a BC (Street, 2013). Street’s premise is based on a 2010 study by See et al, which found that most senior executives experience the adverse effects of power and thus fail to effectively incorporate advice and input from others, leading to a disrupted business case infrastructure (Street, 2013). With the objective to improve decision making, the NZ Treasury published a series of guidelines, ‘Better Business Cases’, which aid stakeholders to develop BC with high quality analysis based on a five case model. The BC is evaluated across strategic, economic, commercial, financial and management considerations.(National Infrastructure Unit – NZ Treasury, 2013) In this manner, confidence of investment is obtained if the project proves to be a “strategic fit for business needs, optimises value for money, is commercially viable, affordable within available funding and achievable and can be successfully delivered”(National Infrastructure Unit – NZ Treasury, 2013). Following Treasury’s approach, many executives recognise the value of upgrading their capex and business case infrastructures (Street, 2013).

After an approval for the business case has been signed, the project manager has to develop the project governance to establish a project structure that allows effective project team performance within the sponsor’s guidelines and administrative system.

1.3 Project Governance

By definition of PMBOK, project governance is the framework in which the project teams perform. It provides structure, processes and tools for managing project and supporting and controlling the project for successful delivery.(The Project Management Institute, 2013). D Lynn Crawford expands this definition of principles, structures and processes for management of the project.(Hazard & Crawford, 2004). Both, PMBOK and Hazard break down project governance for the smaller structures. They include: process to deal with issue, define roles and responsible relationship among project team, boundary management, organisational chart, communication and information procedures, decision – making process, life cycle approach, processes beyond authority of PM, coordinate project relationship, and process to align internal stakeholders and requirements. Hazard and Crawford outline that there is a strong connection between project governance and corporate governance. Projects need to align with corporate strategies and ensure it fits coherently with the corporate governance of the organisation. Project governance can stand internally within the organisation or independently of the organisation, i.e. controlled by contract. (Hazard & Crawford, 2004).

Rodney Turner (2009) described in the Handbook of project-based management, three levels of governance in project-based organisations:
• Level at which the board operates, and the extent to which they take an interest in the project
• Context within which project takes place
• Level of individual project
His understanding of governance of project management is different to that defined by PMBOK. “A project needs governance because it is considered as a temporary organisation. ”(Turner, 2009)

Project governance in Japan has a different history than governance in the traditional western organisations. Nakamura Kaoru studied the use of project governance in Japanese companies. Project governance in Japanese companies was first utilised in pharmaceutical companies when an IT investment in a company was considered. Nakamura finds out that project governance for these projects was critical for their strategy because the cost of a new system of the project was huge. Under these conditions, many companies try to understand and integrate system development projects to view the effectiveness of governance in IT investment. Nowadays, most of the operations related to a project adapted project governance. Project governance is not only the governance of project investment as substantial investment but also the root of every investment management at a company. (Kaoru, 2005)

Tasmania Government Project Management Guidelines encourage establishing the management structure for the project that identifies the roles, responsibilities, and the interaction between members of the team for the life of the project. It also defines objective of project governance as planning and managing the project through its life.(Department of Premier and Cabinet, 2005)
The Tasmania Government also defined that the project is managed through the project governance structure; operational activities are managed through the existing line management structures. In her study, Yvonne Butler provides more detailed insight into the relationship between project and corporate governance. She said that project governance is the link between corporate governance and project management. Project governance aligns project portfolio with the organisation’s objectives, optimises portfolio of the project, focuses support, improves communication and maximises benefits of a project.(Butler, 2007) Another part of her study points to the issues why project governance is not effective as it should be. Those are:
• Not aligned to corporate governance
• Missing connection between portfolio management and organisational strategy
• It is not common term in the Boardroom at the executive management
(Butler, 2007)
In 2011, Ben and Coks researched best practice framework for project governance and like Butler in 2007, they revealed some limitation of project governance:
• Focus on operations rather than strategy
• No holistic approach ( disconnect from business performance and management)

Their research also defined opportunities for improvement:
Focus on high importance and poor performance
Good performers should focus on several factors: balancing needs in selection, organisational learning, adapting to change, reaction to external factors, strategy and flexibility in project.
And The 9 elements of the winning wheel framework that can be applied to identify opportunities to improve the current best practices in project governance:

Project alignment, adapts rapidly, a clear fuzzy strategy, leadership no leader, looking out looking in, right people, manage the downsides, and balance everything.(Begg, 2011) Ross Garland suggests that good project governance should follow 4 key principles:
• Identify a single point of accountability
• Ensure project governance is service delivery focused
• Separate project and organisational governance
• Separate stakeholders management and project decision making
He also suggests that the PM and his team will make the majority of project decisions, 95% for the sake of argument and the remaining 5% will be made by the project board level. (Garland, 2007)
Jackson (2005) described the positive and negative aspect of project governance. By his definition, key aspects of good project governance are: credibility, logic, practicality, scalability that are supported by suitable documentation and suitable for culture of the organisation. In contrary, aspects to avoid are: technically complex, technically dependant, under or over-controlling, making big governance changes early after implementation, underestimate importance of training and communication and key person dependant. He also defined aspects to avoid in implementation process: to believe that another governance system will work fine for this project, to believe that everyone is committed, to believe that some compromise won’t be required, and to trail governance system framework on large project. (Jackson, 2005)

One last thing regarded to project governance is innovation in governance mechanism. In their study, Sagitta and Postma point to lack of governance innovation in a cooperative project. They said that most organisations do not provide a context supportive of innovation since they prioritise efficient management of the project. “Most cooperation focuses on contracting relationship instead of on trust based relationship.”(Bosch-Sijtsema & Postma, 2009).

The Project Governance is imperative for establishing the way in which the project has to perform but also is it important for developing some tools that help to check that the project is being executed within the objectives, time and budget. Consequently, the use of Performance Assessment and Project Health Check during the project life can assist us checking that the project is accomplishing expectations and also setting up or redefining objectives.
1.4 Performance Assessment and Health Check

In their research of how to evaluate organisational performance, Kaplan and Norton (1993) introduced the concept of “Balanced Scorecard” which contains four different perspectives: financial, clients, internal business process, and goals. Nowadays, this methodology has been applied to projects because it allows project managers to link short term activities with the strategic goal of the project. In fact, balanced scorecard possesses performance assessment function and also strategic management functions that enable evaluating the project by different performance indicators on the basis of project success factors. This methodology has also a financial focus that helps to face and satisfy clients and stakeholders needs. Guo and Tanaka(2001) proposed Fuzzy Data Envelopment Analysis Method (Fuzzy DEA) as an application of linear programming that could be used with the purpose of measuring the efficiency of performance indicators with multiple goals. Fuzzy DEA is currently used to develop one efficient result under environments with multiple inputs and outputs. Fuzzy DEA allow the project manager to find an optimum output and integrate performance indicators. Fuzzy DEA model is a dependent performance model that estimates the efficiency of pre-established indicators. According to that, Kuang-Hua (2005) proposed the combined use of balanced scorecard with fuzzy data envelopment analysis method (Fuzzy DEA) to generate objectives performance indicators. While the balanced scorecard can be used as a tool to turn project strategies into measurable indicators, fuzzy DEA can evaluate the performance of the balanced scorecard and measure the efficiency of these indicators, creating a relationship between input and output. As a result, the combination of these two methodologies provides the project manager with a mechanism to identify the most suitable indicators for the project and gives the stakeholders and clients reliable measures that show the success of the project based on financial control.

On the other hand, to develop a project many factors have to be taken into consideration such as the cost of employing the right people, level of external approval, organisational structure, agreement, complexity, level of risk, consistency, usability, credibility, etc. Currently, the impact on health, safety and the environment is gaming importance. From Gido and Clements (1999) view, the principal performance factors to success in a project are costs, time, quality and utility and customer satisfaction. They established that these three combined factors can be grouped together, using these as a key for the success of the human resources project. Rad and Levin (2002) applied these factors as indicators that can be developed into a work breakdown structure (WBS) to present the client a method of evaluating project success that is more objective and consistently. In order to develop a project that meets the required performance criteria, Rad and Ginger (2002) proposed to separate the issues related to the project manager and the team and the issues related to the project factors from the client perspective, giving ratings to each factor according to the client’s perception. This methodology also provides the project manager with a tool to assist them to achieve the success of the project.

Cates and Mollaghasemi (2007) developed the project assessment by Simulation Technique which reinforces stakeholders credibility, giving to them clarity of project uncertainty and a clear project schedule. The Simulation technique consists of managerial controls, modelling, input analysis and output analysis where the components are interconnected. The project schedule is recreated in the simulation model with deterministic elements as a project plan, project activities and requirements and stochastic elements based on similar past projects as activity duration and probabilities for events that can impact the project plan with Cates and Mollaghasemi (2007) premise of “past performance can be used to help predict future behaviour”.

According to Qureshi, Warraich and Hijazi (2008), “for the Success of a project the satisfaction of different stakeholders can only be achieved by Quality management”. Furthermore, they proposed the use of Total Quality Management Systems (QMS) to develop a Project Management Performance Assessment Model because it helps to synchronize the requirement and achieve the project goal. The methodology tends to focus on areas with higher priority and develop key performance indicators based on PM leadership, PM staff, PM policy and strategy, PM partnership and resources, Project life cycle Management process. Humaidi and Asarani (2012) proposed a new methodology named Knowledge Project Management Performance Assessment (KPMPA) model that has as principal factors Project leadership, project teamwork, project life cycle, and project knowledge. The model uses key performance indicators that tend to be aligned with stakeholder’s requirements and discusses the interrelationship between factors and project success. The methodology also shows that projects can have independent variables when the project has a high level of complexity.
Sung (2009) conducted a research on the project critical factors and how these could impact to whole life performance assessment (WLPA). Even though these are based on construction projects, the approach can apply to any kind of project. Thus, WLPA is based on client’s perspective, contractors and subcontractors. According to that, the critical factors influencing whole life performance of projects are time, cost, quality, administration, human resources, risk and health and safety. Sung (2009) proposed evaluating these factors and ranking them to determine the relative importance across the project and it helps to “achieve best value for a project over the whole life”.

Connecting project performance assessment with the importance of a project health check, Humphreys, Mian and Sidwell (2004) identified that construction project health can be associated in many ways with human physical health because project health is synonymous with project performance. Poor physical health compromises performance and quality of life and identifying the symptoms allows finding a remedy. According to that, health influences performance, symptoms can be used as a reference point to determinate the best practice and correct, accurate and timely diagnosis help the project manager to obviate small issues that can often turn into large problems. From the view of stakeholders, poor project performance or lack of any important aspect of a project would be perceived as unhealthy. Therefore, a project manager has to be aware of the symptoms to quickly assess project health.

1.5 Literature review conclusion

To conclude, the initiation phase of a project carries different steps that have to be clearly defined with enough information of the project and the business. The project brief should document needs and requirements of the project and also would give the project manager the different approach that can be developed to achieve the project goal. The business case should be the predecessor for any intended project; it is the “sales pitch” that argues value for invested resources and is presented to management to obtain approval for project initiation. The project governance is the first step after the project is approved and should contain a clear structure of the project that would help to manage, support and control the project during the project life cycle and The Project Performance Assessment and Project Health Check should provide the project manager with a tool to ensure that the project is performing according to the expectations. This literature review gives us the guideline and methodologies that will be developed for the project case “Queensland Health Automated Payroll System Project Analysis”.

Last Completed Projects

Are you looking for a similar paper or any other quality academic essay? Then look no further. Our research paper writing service is what you require. Our team of experienced writers is on standby to deliver to you an original paper as per your specified instructions with zero plagiarism guaranteed. This is the perfect way you can prepare your own unique academic paper and score the grades you deserve.

Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.

[order_calculator]