Project

Management
Journal
The Professional Journal of the Project Management Institute
Volume 33, Number 4 | December 2002

PAPERS

4 2002 Student Paper Award Winner

Project Management Maturity Models: The Silver Bullets
of Competitive Advantage?
Kam Jugdev and Janice Thomas

15 Project Schedule Uncertainty Analysis Using Fuzzy Logic

Matthew J. Liberatore

23 Toward a Dynamic Simulation Model for Strategic

Decision-Making in Life-Cycle Project Management
Hemanta Kumar Doloi and Ali Jaafari

39 A Taxonomy of Internet Applications for Project

Management Communication
Steve D. Giffin

48 Critical Chain Project Scheduling: Do Not Oversimplify

Willy Herroelen, Roel Leus, and Erik Demeulemeester

61 Journaling: A Learning Tool for Project Management

Training and Team-building
Robert Loo
 Project
Management
Journal
The Professional Journal of the Project Management Institute
Volume 33, Number 4 | December 2002

3 From the Editor

Parviz F. Rad, PhD, PMP

4 2002 Student Paper Award Winner

Project Management Maturity Models: The Silver Bullets
of Competitive Advantage?
Kam Jugdev and Janice Thomas

15 Project Schedule Uncertainty Analysis Using Fuzzy Logic

Matthew J. Liberatore

23 Toward a Dynamic Simulation Model for Strategic

Decision-Making in Life-Cycle Project Management
Hemanta Kumar Doloi and Ali Jaafari

39 A Taxonomy of Internet Applications for Project

Management Communication
Steve D. Giffin

48 Critical Chain Project Scheduling: Do Not Oversimplify

Willy Herroelen, Roel Leus, and Erik Demeulemeester

61 Journaling: A Learning Tool for Project Management

Training and Team-building
Robert Loo

67 Cover to Cover—Book Reviews

Kenneth H. Rose, PMP

71 Calendar

71 Correspondence

72 Advertisers Index
 Project Management Journal
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
JOURNAL EDITOR
Parviz F. Rad, PhD, PMP
Stevens Institute of Technology
Book Review Editor
Kenneth H. Rose, PMP
PMI PUBLISHING STAFF
Publisher
Linda Cherry; linda.cherry@pmi.org
Editor in Chief
Dan Goldfischer; dan.goldfischer@pmi.org
Publishing Support Specialist
Natasha Pollard; natasha.pollard@pmi.org
EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARD
John R. Adams, Western Carolina University; Frank T.
Anbari, PMP, The George Washington University; Bud
Baker, Wright State University; Rick Bilbro, The Innova
Group, Inc.; David Christensen, Cedar City, UT; David
Cleland, University of Pittsburgh; Helen S. Cooke,
Cooke & Cooke; Dan H. Cooprider, Creative People
Management; Jeffrey Covin, Indiana University; Steven
V. DelGrosso, IBM; Deborah Fisher, University of New
Mexico; Vipul Gupta, Saint Joseph’s University; Kenneth
O. Hartley, PMP, Parsons Brinckerhoff; Francis T.
Hartman, The University of Calgary; Gary C.
Humphreys, Humphreys & Associates; Lewis Ireland,
PMP, Project Technologies Corp.; Peter Kapsales,
Bellcore; Young Hoon Kwak, The George Washington
University; Lee R. Lambert, PMP, Lambert Consulting
Group, Inc.; Alexander Laufer, Technion-Israel Inst.
of Technology; Bill Leban, Keller Graduate School
of Management; Robert Loo, The University of
Lethbridge; Kenneth G. Merkel, PMP, University of
Nebraska; Michael D. Okrent, Agilent Technologies
Inc.; Peggy C. Poindexter, Great Falls, VA; Tzvi Raz, Tel
Aviv Unversity; Paul B. Robinson, The Eastern
Management Group; Arnold M. Ruskin, PMP, Claremont
Consulting Group; Avraham Shtub, Tel Aviv University;
Richard L. Sinatra, PMP, Potomac, MD; Dwight Smith-
Daniels, Arizona State University; James Snyder,
Springfield, PA; Paul Solomon, PMP, B-2 Earned Value
Management Systems; Robert G. Staples, Monroe, VA;
Charles J. Teplitz, University of San Diego; Veljko M.
Torbica, PMP, Florida International University; Walter
A. Wawruck, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Itzhak
Wirth, Saint John’s University; Janet K. Yates, San Jose
State University
PUBLICATIONS ADVISORY BOARD
Linda C. Cherry, PMI Publisher; Greg Hutchins, Quality
Plus Engineering; William V. Leban Jr., PMP, Keller
Graduate School of Management; Charles J. Teplitz,
PMP, University of San Diego School of Business
Administration; John Sullivan, Reynolds & Reynolds
© 2002 Project Management Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
“PMI” is a trade and service mark registered in the United States and other nations; “PMP” and the PMP logo are registered certification marks in the United States and other nations; “PMBOK” is a
trademark registered in the United States and other nations; and the PMI logo, “PM Network”, “Project Management Journal”, “PMI Today”, and “Building professionalism in project management.” are
trademarks of the Project Management Institute, Inc.
2 Project Management Journal
Book Development Editor
Richard Schwartz; richard.schwartz@pmi.org
Permissions Coordinator
Insuk Choe; insuk.choe@pmi.org
Bookstore Administrator
Regina Madonna; regina.madonna@pmi.org
Book Publishing Planner
Danielle Moore; danielle.moore@pmi.org
Administrative Assistant
Dotti Bobst; dotti.bobst@pmi.org
General e-mail:
pmipub@pmi.org
PUBLICATION & MEMBERSHIP
The Project Management Journal (USPS 8756-9728/
02) is published quarterly (March, June, September,
December) by the Project Management Institute. PMJ
is printed in the USA by Cadmus Magazine, Richmond,
VA. Periodical postage paid at Newtown Square, PA
19073 USA and at additional mailing offices.
Canadian agreement #40030957. Postmaster: Send
address changes to Project Management Institute,
Headquarters, Four Campus Boulevard, Newtown
Square, Pennsylvania 19073-3299 USA. Phone +610-
356-4600, fax +610-356-4647.
The mission of the PMJ is to provide information
advancing the state of the art of the knowledge of pro-
ject management. PMJ is devoted to both theory and
practice in the field of project management. Authors
are encouraged to submit original manuscripts that
are derived from research-oriented studies as well as
practitioner case studies. All articles in PMJ are the
views of the authors and are not necessarily those of
PMI. Subscription rate for members is $14 per year
and is included in the annual dues.
Claims for undelivered copies must be made no
later than two months following month of publication.
The publisher will supply missing copies when losses
have been sustained in transit and when the reserve
stock will permit.
PMI is a nonprofit professional organization whose
mission is to serve the professional interests of its col-
lective membership by: advancing the state of the art
in the leadership and practice of managing projects
and programs; fostering professionalism in the man-
agement of projects; and advocating acceptance of
project management as a profession and discipline.
Membership in PMI is open to all at an annual dues of
$119 U.S. For information on PMI programs and mem-
bership, or to report change of address or problems
with your subscription, contact:
Project Management Institute, Headquarters,
Four Campus Boulevard, Newtown Square, Pennsylvania
19073-3299 USA; tel: +610-356-4600; fax: +610-
356-4647; e-mail: pmihq@pmi.org
EDITORIAL & ADVERTISING SERVICES
Address manuscripts and other editorial submissions,
advertising and mailing list rental inquiries, and
requests for reprints/bulk copies/reprint permission to:
PRODUCTION SERVICES PROVIDED
BY IMAGINATION PUBLISHING,
CHICAGO, IL, USA
Senior Editor
Ross Foti; rfoti@imaginepub.com
Assistant Managing Editor
Lauren Strandquist; lstrandquist@imaginepub.com
Art Director
Doug Kelly; dkelly@imaginepub.com
Associate Art Director
Tonya Weiland; tweiland@imaginepub.com
Associate Art Director
Theresa Rogulic; trogulic@imaginepub.com
Publications Services Manager
Angela Kramer; akramer@imaginepub.com
Project Management Institute, Publishing
Department, Four Campus Boulevard, Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania 19073-3299 USA. Phone +610-356-4600,
fax +610-356-4647; e-mail: pmipub@pmi.org
Unless otherwise specified, all letters and articles
sent to the PMI Publishing Department are assumed
for publication and become the copyright property
of PMI if published. PMI is not responsible for loss,
damage, or injury to unsolicited manuscripts or other
material.
READER SERVICES
Photocopies. PMJ has been registered with the
Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. Consent is given for
copying of articles for personal or internal use, or for
the personal use of specific clients. This consent is
given on the condition that the copier pays through the
Center the per copy fee stated in the code on the first
page of each article for copying beyond that permitted
by Sections 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. The
appropriate fee should be forwarded with a copy of the
first page of the article to the Copyright Clearance
Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923
USA (tel: +508-750-8400; fax: +508-750-4744). The
fee indicated on the first page of an article in this issue
will apply retroactively to all articles published in the
journal, regardless of the year of publication. This con-
sent does not extend to other kinds of copying, such as
for general distribution, resale, advertising and promo-
tion purposes, or for creating new collective works.
Special written permission must be obtained from the
publisher for such copying.
Permissions. Requests to reprint articles pub-
lished in PMJ must be made in writing to the publisher.
Reprints. Individual articles may be purchased
through the Knowledge & Wisdom Department
(www.pmi.org/k&wc) at a cost of $10.00 per article
for members and $15.00 per article for nonmembers.
Glossy Reprints. Requests for glossy reprints of
individual articles in quantities of 100 or more can be
sent to pmipub@pmi.org.
Bulk Copies of Current Issues. Copies of the cur-
rent PMJ can be obtained in quantities of 25 or more.
Orders must be placed 40 days prior to date of issue.
The cost is $5.50 per copy plus shipping.
Back Issues. Back issues are available on request
at $20 each. Call +610-356-4600 for availability.
December 2002
 From the Editor
Parviz F. Rad, PhD, PMP

P roject management is approaching the presence, stature,

and recognition of well-established professions such as
engineering, law, and medicine. This comparison is prompted
would be a unique blend of scheduling techniques and statis-
tics to create concepts such as PERT or critical chain. The
premise would be that project management practices need
by fundamental similarities between all these applied profes- specific and unique schemas. The second approach is to
sions: They all depend on their allied basic sciences for the directly import an expanded but unaltered subset of the allied
information that is necessary to solve problems encountered in disciplines into the project management practice. Examples of
professional practice. In the same way that medical and this approach would be to use more advanced treatments of
engineering professionals apply principals of physics and project risk through sophisticated statistical analyses, or to
chemistry to create solutions for practical situations, project conduct more advanced observation of people behavior in the
managers apply accounting principles to develop project cost host disciplines of psychology, sociology, and organizational
estimates and behavioral science principles to formulate behavior. The premise for the latter approach is that the growth
recommended best practices for project team-building. of project management knowledge areas can best be accom-
Therefore, independent of the fact that project manage- plished with an in-depth treatment of allied disciplines and
ment is a relatively young profession, one of the interesting not with development of more specialized tools.
facets of the project management body of knowledge is that it As always, on behalf of the editorial board, I invite our
draws from a lot of allied disciplines. As such, the foundation readers to reflect on their professional experiences and
for the project management body of knowledge will come empirical observations and to share these observations with
from the appropriate basic scientific specialty. In broad terms, the project management community by way of submitting
project management covers behavioral, quantitative, and articles dealing with any facet of the project management body
business areas. Behavioral areas, as applicable to project of knowledge.
management, include subspecialties of psychology and
sociology such as motivation, leadership, and conflict man-
agement. Quantitative areas include accounting, statistics, and
economics. Business areas include organizational theory,
enterprise planning, and strategic management.
Throughout the years, and as the project management pro-
fession has matured, specialized subsets of and customized
additions to the basic allied disciplines have been created.
Because the quantitative area of project management was the
first one to be developed, a larger set of examples of such
improvements are available. The quantitative specialty areas
in project management practice include conceptual estimating,
range estimating, bottom-up estimating, basic scheduling,
PERT scheduling, and project risk management. The behavioral
specialty areas in project management include team spirit,
team building, team conflict management, communication
techniques, and leadership issues. The business specialty areas
include program management, project portfolio management,
and project management office.
Even mature professions tend to continue to expand the
body of knowledge through applied research, customization of
recommended practices, and refinement of best practices.
There are two avenues through which new knowledge areas
can be developed specifically for the project management
profession. The first approach is to continue the development
and implementation of customized and focused subsets of the
basic allied disciplines to situations and problems that are
unique to the project management environment. An example

December 2002 Project Management Journal 3

2002 Student Paper Award Winner
Project Management Maturity
Models: The Silver Bullets of
Competitive Advantage?
▼ them improve their project management practices. Firms are turning to project man-
Abstract
Project management maturity models are
important assessment tools for the profes-
sion. Maturity models identify organizational
strengths and weaknesses as well as pro-
vide benchmarking information. They cap-
ture explicit, codified practice (know-what),
but do not include the intangible assets of
project management (know-how). Some
have made the claim that project manage-
ment maturity models (MMs) can lead to a
competitive advantage for firms. This paper
uses four resource-based frameworks to
assess whether or not maturity models lead
to a sustained competitive advantage. In
the context of the strategy domain, the
authors conclude that MMs can result in a
temporary competitive advantage but not
a sustained competitive advantage. Clearly,
a sustained competitive advantage is rooted
in a combination of know-what and know-how.
Keywords: resource-based view; project
management maturity models; competitive
advantage; strategy
©2002 by the Project Management Institute
2002, Vol. 33, No. 4, 4–14
8756–9728/02/$10.00 per article + $0.50 per page
4 Project Management Journal
Kam Jugdev, University of Calgary, Faculty of Civil Engineering, 2500 University Dr. NW, Calgary,
Alberta T2N 14N Canada
Janice Thomas, Athabasca University, Center for Innovative Management, #301 Grandin Park
Plaza, 22 Sir Winston Churchill Ave., St. Albert, Alberta T8N 1B4 Canada
W orldwide, firms are in a race to create value and survive in the increasingly
competitive marketplace. They combine various organizational assets in
unique ways to create value. In turn, value creation involves tangible assets, such as
financial, physical, and technological ones, and less tangible ones, such as human,
organizational, and social assets (Brush, Greene, Hart, & Haller, 2001).
This paper explores project management maturity models (MMs) as a project
management construct and assesses them as sources of competitive advantage.
With the widely publicized project failure rates and related cost overruns
(Standish Group, 2001), more companies are turning to approaches that may help
agement as part of their competitive advantage strategies. This is evident in the expo-
nential increase of membership in project management associations such as the
Project Management Institute (PMI). In addition, the billions of dollars invested in
projects, along with the increasing attention on MMs, quantifying the value of pro-
ject management, and developing classification systems for the discipline exemplify
support for project management (Bounds, 1998; Ibbs & Kwak, 1997; PMI Standards
Committee, 2000; Schlichter, 2000).
Because investments are time, cost, and resource intensive, firms are willing to
take only a critical interest in those practices that will improve their competitive
positions. Projects are an essential building block of business value. However, we
have yet to understand the complex ties between project management and its
value as a strategic asset.
Over the past decade, MMs emerged in the literature as concrete, tangible ways of
assessing aspects of a firm’s project management maturity. They help firms compare
explicit competences at the project and program level relative to a standard. The
models are gaining interest as companies and academics strive to make sense of why
some projects succeed and others do not. Companies and academics are questioning
project success rates as well as the returns from an investment in project manage-
ment. Proponents claim that the MMs enable firms to achieve a competitive advan-
tage. However, no thorough exploration of this claim has been made.
The purpose of this paper is to rigorously explore the foundations of these
claims. The authors posit that the essence of a firm’s competitive advantage rests
in its resources (strategic assets) that are valuable, rare, inimitable, and involve
organizational focus (Barney, 2002). The authors begin with an overview of com-
petitive advantage and competitive convergence and then introduce MMs. This is
December 2002
followed with a brief introduction to the resource-based
view (RBV)—a strategy perspective—and its concepts. Then,
the authors assess MMs using several RBV frameworks. The
paper concludes with a brief discussion on contributions
and areas for further research.
Strategy, Competitive Convergence,
and Competitive Advantage
Planning and deploying strategy is a complex undertaking
for firms. In practical terms, strategic management is about
“the direction of organizations” and deals with firm success,
failure, and competition (Rumelt, Schendel, & Teece, 1994,
p. 9). Implementing strategy involves setting direction for
the firm to achieve performance targets, making long-range
plans, and managerial decisions (Barney & Zajac, 1994).
This is increasingly important in the global economy as com-
pressions of distance and time intensify competition and
focus managerial attention on multiple internal and external
factors (Thomas, Pollock, & Gorman, 1999).
Both formally and informally, companies conduct strate-
gic planning exercises using variations and combinations of
internal assessments (strengths and weaknesses) coupled
with environmental assessments (opportunities and
threats) to plan their market positions and strategies
(Porter, 1996). Companies generally under-appreciate mid-
dle managers, but firms that involve them in strategy devel-
opment achieve better performance (Floyd & Lane, 2000;
Floyd & Woolridge, 1992a; Floyd & Woolridge, 1992b; Floyd
& Woolridge, 1994; Floyd & Woolridge, 1997). Executives
are keenly aware that it is an ongoing, iterative process to
understand the rapidly changing micro and macro environ-
ment and adapt through organizational strategies for
improving the firm’s financial picture.
For the most part, companies focus on the cost, quality,
customer service, and time-to-market advantages. But few
stop to study why some firms develop a competitive advan-
tage and others do not. “Understanding the what of compet-
itiveness is a prerequisite for catching up … Understanding
the why of competitiveness is a prerequisite for getting out in
front” (Hamel, 1995, p. 24).
Competitive Convergence
and Competitive Advantage
Companies strive to avoid situations of competitive con-
vergence or parity, where no one firm has a distinct advan-
tage. Competitive convergence means competing to do sim-
ilar activities better than rivals. This is insufficient in
achieving a competitive advantage because after some time,
firms begin to look alike and do the same things. This ulti-
mately leads to diminishing returns (Porter, 1996).
Common strategies such as quality improvement, empow-
erment, and outsourcing help firms keep up with each
other but do not enable them to excel (Ala, 1997; Jonker,
2000; Tippett & Waits, 1994).
Such practices are a necessary intensive part of manage-
ment but are not strategy. Because rival firms undertake sim-
ilar practices, the standard of performance continues to rise
December 2002 Project Management Journal
across the industry. Firms unable to maintain operational
effectiveness have short life spans.
In contrast, a competitive advantage allows for market
dominance or strategic advantage. It involves doing different
activities from rivals or similar activities differently (Porter,
1996). Competitive advantage involves a focus on the firm’s
internal assets and connotes innovation and creativity in
terms of market positioning. Strategic assets offer long-term
competitive advantages, and they generate long-term rents
(profit) (Amit & Schoemaker, 1993). Strategic assets are the
crux of a management perspective called RBV.
As firms focus on competitive advantage strategies, they use
a number of performance indicators to determine whether
they are meeting their goals. Generally, these indicators are of
the efficiency type (financial, accounting, or economic mea-
sures) that emphasize tangible asset measures. Efficiency mea-
sures are useful but they do not encompass the breadth of a
firm’s assets. They downplay the intangible assets that focus
on the customer, supplier, staff, and partners, such as those
addressed by the balanced scorecard (Sveiby, 1997).
Intangible assets reside within the company’s knowledge
base and are represented by its intellectual, organizational, and
social capital. Project management is one such knowledge-based
asset. However, project management has evolved as a tactical
construct with value at the operational level, and this approach
makes it more difficult to think of it as a strategic construct.
Operational Value of Project Management
Only recently has the project management literature
expanded its focus to cover areas beyond the applied
sciences, such as strategic planning (Ulri & Ulri, 2000).
The success body of literature in project management typ-
ically focuses on the operational level, whereby project-
related success and failure characteristics are emphasized
in terms of time, cost, and scope.
Over the past 30 years however, we have moved beyond
simple critical success factor lists to more comprehensive,
holistic frameworks (Belassi & Tukel, 1996). We have yet to
identify a framework that allows us to measure a project’s suc-
cess in terms of its strategic value. Furthermore, the
literature on project success (performance) is not empirically
linked to the literature on MMs (Jugdev & Thomas, 2002b).
Recent research on selling project management to execu-
tives confirms that most project managers and consultants
understand it to be a tactical but not strategic asset (Thomas,
Delisle, & Jugdev, 2002). According to Dinsmore (1998), as
building blocks in the formulation and execution of corporate
strategy, projects also contribute to organizational success in
terms of competitive positioning in the global marketplace.
However, the strategic impact of project outcomes has been
ignored largely in the literature.
Models
MMs are based on the Software Engineering Institute’s
Capability Maturity Models (CMMs), and they assess prac-
tices against standard criteria (Carnegie Mellon Software
Engineering Institute, 2002; Dymond, 1995). According
5
to Dinsmore (1998), variations of CMMs and MMs gener-
ally involve five linear stages:
■ Level 1: Initial (ad hoc);
■ Level 2: Repeatable (abbreviated, planned);
■ Level 3: Refined (organized, managed);
■ Level 4: Managed (integrated);
■ Level 5: Optimized (adaptive, sustained).
The MM levels portray a firm’s evolution from immature
project management practices to solid practices and the
related infrastructure necessary to support projects at an
organizational level (Dinsmore, 1998; Kerzner, 2001). Most
models provide structured objective criteria to be met at each
level of maturity.
MMs typically are aligned with national project manage-
ment bodies of knowledge. They can be administered in a
paper or electronic survey format using Likert scales or with
consultants conducting the assessments. The questions
generally focus on knowledge areas as per the national project
management bodies of knowledge, such as A Guide to the
Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) (PMI
Standards Committee, 2000).
“Companies demonstrate behaviors that reflect their
maturity levels,” according to Dinsmore (1998, p. 24). MMs
identify project or organizational strengths and weaknesses
and benchmarking information. In addition, most focus on
incremental improvements based on quality improvement
practices. The five levels enable repeatability in terms of
assessments and permit a measurement of progress over
time. Most companies are at a MM1 or MM2 level
(Dinsmore, 1998; Ibbs & Kwak, 2000; Kerzner, 2001;
Pennypacker, 2001).
However, some have criticized the MMs from a
practical perspective (Cabanis, 1998; Compass Fact Based
Consulting, 2001; Dinsmore, 1998; Kujala & Artto, 2000;
LSM-International, 2001):
■ Models are inflexible when a flexible model is required
for managing change and in keeping with quality improve-
ment principles;
■ MMs are typically geared toward identifying problem and
raising awareness but not solving problems. The firm must
develop a plan, implement, control, and adjust it;
■ The models do not account for the rapid pace of change
with which firms adopt new technology and change processes,
practices, management systems, or policies;
■ The five maturity levels do not offer enough granularity to
measure progress over time;
■ Models are overly disciplinary, impractical, and overwhelm-
ing as methodologies;
■ Models focus on the work processes and some ignore the
human resource or organizational aspects;
The MMs also have some limitations from a theoretical
perspective. They are based on software maturity models
that lack a theoretical basis. The field of MMs is
relatively young and lacks empirical support for determin-
ing which competencies contribute most to project
success (Skulmoski, 2001). In addition, no one model has
achieved acceptance at a worldwide level. Some of the MM
6 Project Management Journal
literature is misleading because it purports to offer a com-
petitive advantage but does not define what a competitive
advantage means or ground it theoretically (Association
of Project Management, 2000; Australian Institute of
Project Management, 2000; Hartman & Skulmoski, 1998;
International Project Management Association, 2000;
Lambertson, 2001; LSM-International, 2001; Pennypacker,
2001; Schlichter, 1999). Although MMs emphasize explicit
knowledge that can be codified and transferred readily, they
do not assess implicit knowledge or the intangible asset mix
within a firm.
Despite these shortcomings, MMs have made a
significant contribution to the field. They have heightened
awareness on competences and offer an initial paradigm
with which to assess organizations and their project
management maturity. The growing emphasis on MMs also
reflects an increasing desire to link project management
competency to corporate achievements (Birnberg, 2001;
Cabanis, 1998; Compass Fact Based Consulting, 2001;
Cooke-Davies, 2002; Dorling, 1993).
Introduction to the RBV
The RBV is an evolving perspective. It blends the external view
of strategy (industry and environment assessment) as popu-
larized by Porter with the internal assessment of the firm
(Barney, 2002; Porter, 1996). The RBV assesses a firm’s capa-
bilities in relation to competitors and goes beyond a “feel
good” assessment of strengths and weaknesses. It involves an
assessment of the breadth of a firm’s capital (human, physical,
organizational, and social) including tangible and intangible
capital to identify strategic assets. In particular, the RBV exam-
ines intellectual capital (knowledge, skills, and know-how)
that stems from complex human interactions and involves
tacit knowledge that is rooted in action. It is hard to codify
and resides within the relationships between people and with-
in a firm’s routines (Nonaka, 1994).
Two empirical generalizations of the RBV are that systemat-
ic differences exist across firms and that these differences are
relatively stable (Schulze, 1994). An implication is that firms
can achieve stronger performance by building upon or acquir-
ing certain resources. The RBV emphasizes the creation,
maintenance, and renewal of a competitive advantage through
resources, their characteristics, and how they change over time
(Barney, 1986; Chandler, 1962; Foss, 1997; Penrose, 1959;
Peteraf, 1993; Prahalad & Hamel, 1990; Rumelt, 1984;
Selznick, 1957; Teece, 1980; Wernerfelt, 1984).
Strategic assets (or core competencies) differ from basic
or generic competencies and assets. Only strategic assets are
considered vital to develop a long-term strategic advantage, as
they involve specific resource characteristics and organization-
al practices. Because the RBV is in the process of theory build-
ing, it involves a breadth of frameworks and streams of
thought (and debate) that, over time, converge into conceptu-
al models and theories. This is evident in the range of terms
used by different authors.
A strategic asset includes features such as: valuable; rare
(unique); inimitable (difficult to copy due to firm history,
December 2002
 Unique
Advantage

Strategic Assets

Core Competencies

Capabilities

Generic Resources

Source. Brush, C.G., Green, P.G., Hart, M.M., & Haller, H.S. (2001). From initial idea to unique advantage: The entrepreneurial challenge of
constructing a resource base. The Academy of Management Executive, 15 (1), 64–78.

Figure 1. Resource Pyramid of Value Creation

social complexity, and ambiguity); immobile (firm specif-
ic); nonsubstitutable; durable (long lasting); low tradabili-
ty; and organizational focus (corporate attention) (Amit &
Schoemaker, 1993; Barney, 2002; Collis & Montgomery,
1995; Grant, 1991; Jugdev & Thomas, 2002a; Peteraf, 1993;
Priem & Butler, 2001a).
In economic terms, value is measured through decreasing
product/service costs or differentiating it to charge a premium
price (Barney, 1998; Duncan, Ginter, & Swayne, 1998).
Valuable resources are more worthy. A resource has value when
it exploits opportunities and neutralizes threats in the
environment (Barney, 1991). Common or generic resources
are not sources of competitive advantage; at best, they are a
source of competitive convergence.
However, rare resources can offer temporary competitive
advantages and are sources of strength (Mata, Fuerst, & Barney,
1995). Rare resources are heterogeneously distributed between
firms. If a resource is rare and a firm does not have it, the lack
is perceived to be a weakness (Duncan, Ginter, & Swayne,
1998). Imperfectly mobile resources are “sticky” to the firm,
meaning that they are not tradable as commodities and do not
leave a company when people leave (Priem & Butler, 2001a).
These resources are characterized as:
■ Nonsubstitutable—Those resources for which other
resources cannot fulfill the same function (Priem & Butler,
2001b);
■ Nontransferable—Firm-specific resources that fall in value
when they are transferred (Grant, 1991). This is a synonym for
imperfectly mobile resources;
■ Embedded—Engrained resources within the company’s
routines and processes in contrast to assets that are specific to
individuals (Grant, 1991).
Isolating mechanisms are a blend of resource characteris-
tics and managerial practices (Barney, 1989; Grant, 1991).
They make some resources more firm specific and less mobile.
Some examples include copyrights, patents, trademark laws,
invisible assets (the features or organizational practices that
one takes for granted and are the unspoken or tacit attributes),
and small decisions such as the micro steps involved in
quality improvement practices (Collis, 1994; Grant, 1991;
Itami & Roehl, 1987). Strategic assets incorporate isolating
mechanisms as:
■ Inimitable—Resources are difficult to copy, and firms may
undertake practices to keep competitors from mimicking
them. If resources can be copied, a firm stands to only achieve
competitive parity through resource value and rarity (Collis &
Montgomery, 1995);
■ Path Dependency—History matters. A firm may develop
or acquire resources in low-cost ways by being, for example, in
the right place at the right time. It becomes expensive for rival
firms to recreate the conditions as they developed over time
(Mata, Fuerst, & Barney, 1995). Because the paths companies
take are unique, firms have idiosyncratic assets (Barney, 1991).
■ Socially Complex—Resources are the result of the interre-
lationships between skills and assets. Social complexity can
refer to a firm’s culture, relationships, and reputation. These
attributes are related to a firm’s history and cannot be acquired
quickly or changed rapidly. They can provide firms with tem-
porary advantages from low-cost imitators. “In complex, high-
ly interdependent human and technological situations, the
causes of success and failure are often difficult to assign” (Reed
& DeFillippi, 1990, p. 12).
■ Causally Ambiguous—Resources that competitors may not
fully understand to be able to copy them. It is costly and time

December 2002 Project Management Journal 7

 Organizational
Complex
Technological
Simple
Physical
Utilitarian
Source. Brush, C.G., Green, P.G., Hart, M.M., & Haller, H.S. (2001). From initial idea to unique advantage: The entrepreneurial challenge of construct-
ing a resource base. The Academy of Management Executive, 15 (1), 64–78.
Figure 2. Resource Development Pathway
consuming for rival firms to figure out the sources of the
advantage or what makes some resources strategic.
Last, the organizational focus aspect of strategic assets is least
developed in the RBV literature. It refers to the breadth of
managerial commitment and support.
These terms reflect the complexity within the perspective.
Several RBV frameworks draw on the concepts and reflect the
features of strategic assets.
RBV Frameworks
Because the RBV is an evolving perspective, a unified model on
the concepts and processes of strategic assets is not in place.
However, a number of frameworks have been proposed in the
literature, and they have merit for project management. Of the
four frameworks discussed, the first two are classified as frame-
works on type, complexity, and use of organizational assets, and
the latter two reflect competitive advantage pathways.
Brush developed two RBV frameworks: the Resource
Pyramid of Value Creation and the Resource Development
Pathway (Brush, Greene, Hart, & Haller, 2001).
Resource Pyramid of Value Creation. In the pyramid
(Figure 1), generic resources (supplies and materials) are at
the base and often are easy to identify and access. Once com-
bined with other resources, generic ones become capabilities
that enhance a firm’s ability to deploy resources. Capabilities
are combinations of proprietary resources, knowledge, and
skills that become institutionalized into operating routines
and tacit knowledge.
Beyond this, collections of specialized core competencies
that allow a firm to outperform rivals combine into strategic
8 Project Management Journal
Social
Human
Financial
Instrumental
assets. The unique advantages for the firm occur when these
assets are valuable, rare, inimitable, and nonsubstitutable
(Brush, Greene, Hart, & Haller, 2001). Not all RBV sources dis-
tinguish between core competences and strategic assets as
Brush does. Many sources treat these terms as synonyms.
The pyramid indicates that companies have many resources
but few strategic assets. It is a simple, two-dimensional por-
trayal of resources that helps us begin to think of MMs in the
RBV context as well as where they may fit in the hierarchy.
MMs focus on the know-what within the firm. They cap-
ture project management competences in the form of docu-
ments and procedures. MM competences consist of generic
resources, capabilities, and possibly some core competences.
The generic resources include technology, supplies, and
materials necessary to plan and execute on the methodology.
These resources could be the hardware, software, communica-
tion technology, manuals, templates, and so forth. The
capabilities refer to the individual, team, and organizational
abilities supporting project management. Some examples
include individual knowledge and experience, effective
teamwork, good communication routines, and organizational
support for project management methods.
Most MMs typically capture explicit knowledge as docu-
mented in the five levels. They do not capture the intangible
assets. MMs do not appear to fit at the apex of the pyramid
where unique advantages or strategic assets are found.
Resource Development Pathway. Another framework by
Brush addresses resource complexity and use (Figure 2). It
groups resources into six categories based on function (Brush,
Greene, Hart, & Haller, 2001). The two axes map a company’s
December 2002
 No Yes
Is a Resource
or Capability
Valuable?

Is It
No Heterogeneously Yes
Distributed Across
Competing Firms?

No Yes
Is It Imperfectly
Mobile?

Temporary Sustained
Competitive Competitive Competitive
Competitive
Disadvantage Parity Advantage
Advantage

Figure 3. Mata’s Resource-Based Model of Competitive Advantage

resource development pathway. Simple resources are tangible,
discrete, and property based. Complex ones are intangible, sys-
temic, and knowledge based.
Within the framework, resources are characterized by their
application to the productive process (utilitarian to instru-
mental). A firm applies utilitarian resources directly to the pro-
ductive process or combines them to develop other resources.
For example, machinery is a physical, utilitarian resource
because it produces services or products. However, financial
resources are instrumental as they provide access to other
resources. They also are flexible resources because they are
needed to purchase other resources. Proprietary technology is
either instrumental or utilitarian depending on if it resides
within a person (intangible), in which case it is instrumental,
or it is a patented process applied directly to a production
process, in which case it is utilitarian (Brush, Greene, Hart, &
Haller, 2001).
The matrix portrays complex-instrumental resources as
most intricate. These resources include the human, social,
and organizational resources. Human resources are complex
and intangible because they are harder to identify and mea-
sure (Brush, Greene, Hart, & Haller, 2001). Complex
resources and knowledge assets are not like normal tradable
commodities that firms exchange on the market (Priem &
Butler, 2001a; Wernerfelt, 1984). In general, the characteris-
tics are engrained within the firm’s learning routines making
them harder for competitors to duplicate. Such resources are
embedded within the firm.
The resource development pathway is a more complex
representation than the pyramid of value creation. It also can
be used to map a firm’s resources over time and compare firms
in terms of their pathways as well. With respect to MMs, a
firm’s project management resources may fit the simple-utili-
tarian or complex-utilitarian quadrants. MMs involve explicit
codified documents that describe competences. MMs are
as utilitarian because, unlike financial resources, they do
not provide access to other resources. Instead, their use
is straightforward and geared toward improved project man-
agement processes and practices.
MM assets are tangible because they are in the form of doc-
uments, surveys, guidelines, templates, or manuals. Although
MMs may assess a department’s or firm’s skills (competence)
within certain project management knowledge areas, the
assessments are based on documented practices. Moving to the
next level within a MM often depends on having more
extensive documentation, project management procedures, or
codified processes in place. Moving to the next level does not
take organizational know-how into account.
In contrast, strategic assets typically fit the complex-instru-
mental quadrant. Complex-instrumental resources are those
that often are more intricate and connote dynamism and
regeneration. These involve human, social, and organizational
resources. An excerpt from a MM instrument describes the
competences at MM5:
“Level 5: Optimizing Process. Processes are in
place and actively used to improve project man-
agement activities. Lessons learned are regularly
examined and used to improve project manage-
ment processes, standards, and documentation.

December 2002 Project Management Journal 9

 Question Valuable? Rare? Difficult Supported
to imitate? by firm
1 No — —
2 Yes No — Normal
3 Yes Yes No
4 Yes Yes Yes
Source. Mata, F.J., Fuerst, W.L., & Barney, J.B. (1995). Information technology and sustained competitive advantage: A resource-based analysis.
MIS Quarterly, 19 (4), 487–507.
Table 1. VRIO Framework
Management and the organization are not only
focused on effectively managing projects but also
on continuous improvement. The metrics collect-
ed during project execution are used to understand
the performance of not only a project but also for
making organizational management decisions for
the future” (Pennypacker, 2001, p. 3).
The excerpt reflects consistent practices, incremental
improvements, and some managerial support but lacks a clear
explanation of how practices are dynamic or regenerational. In
particular, it does not address project management know-how.
The Brush matrix underscores a key limitation of MMs in that
they cover the know-what of project management but not the
know-how. If the MMs covered both kinds of knowledge, they
could fit the complex-instrumental quadrant.
Unlike the two Brush frameworks, the next two frameworks
move beyond classifying resources by type, complexity, and
use. They assess the extent to which resources lead to a com-
petitive advantage. Both are variations of Barney’s framework
for a strategic asset that is called the VRIO model—valuable,
rare, inimitable, and organizationally focused (Barney, 2002).
Resource-Based Model of Competitive Advantage. Mata’s
framework evaluates assets using three key RBV features: value,
heterogeneity, and immobility (Mata, Fuerst, & Barney, 1995).
It is a decision flow chart (Figure 3).
In assessing MMs according to Mata’s model, the first ques-
tion asks if the resources are valuable. MMs are valuable and
have worth. In part, their worth is evident when companies
purchase and conduct maturity assessments, pay the consul-
tant fees, software licensing fees, and provide staff training. The
contribution of MMs is evident through some efficiency and
10 Project Management Journal
Competitive Performance MM
implications assessment
Competitive
Below normal —
disadvantage
Competitive
Yes
parity
Temporary
competitive Above normal Yes/No
advantage
Sustained
competitive Above normal No
advantage
financial metrics indicating that firms with higher MM scores
perform better and achieve more savings that those with lower
MM scores (Ibbs & Kwak, 1998; Ibbs & Kwak, 2000).
The second question of the framework asks if the resource
is heterogeneously distributed among competing firms.
Heterogeneous resources connote rarity as not all firms
have the same assets. Although MMs can be considered
heterogeneously distributed because not all firms use them,
they are widely available to all firms, and it could be argued
that they lead to competitive parity.
The third and final question queries if the resource is
imperfectly mobile. Recall that imperfectly mobile resources
are characterized as being nonsubstitutable, nontransferable,
and embedded. Going on the assumption that MMs are
heterogeneously distributed between firms, an assessment of
them at this step of the flow chart leads to the decision that
they are mobile and lead to a temporary competitive advantage
but not a sustained competitive advantage.
MMs are designed to be implemented in a variety of
organizations. They involve codified knowledge that makes
them transferable between firms. The knowledge staff gains
from using the models is readily transferable to other firms.
MMs are substitutable as there are a number of such products
on the market that all serve very similar functions. MMs also
are not embedded within firms as they can leave a company
with staff turnover.
Although MMs have merit, according to the Mata frame-
work, they appear to result in a temporary competitive
advantage for some firms and competitive parity for most.
According to this flowchart, MMs do not lead to sustained
competitive advantages as purported in the literature
(Association of Project Management, 2000; Australian Institute
December 2002
of Project Management, 2000; Hartman & Skulmoski, 1998;
International Project Management Association, 2000;
Lambertson, 2001; LSM-International, 2001; Pennypacker,
2001; Schlichter, 1999).
This leads to the fourth and final assessment of MMs
according to the RBV criteria of being valuable, rare, inimitable,
and organizationally focused (Barney, 1998).
VRIO Framework of Competitive Advantage. Table 1
portrays Barney’s criteria and indicates that meeting them leads
to various competitive implications. The last column reflects
an assessment of MMs according to the questions identified by
number in the first column.
Thus far, this paper described MMs as being valuable, so
MMs, at a minimum, lead to competitive parity (question 2).
But, are MMs rare (question 3)? Yes and no. Recall that MMs
are widely available. They consistently mirror the software
capability maturity model and follow a linear five-stage
approach. Many consulting firms and professional
associations offer MMs or are in the process of developing
them. However, it could be argued that MMs are somewhat
rare as not all companies use them. It doesn’t take long
for rivals to mimic documented practices or institute project
management procedures for staff to follow. Assessing MMs
according to this framework classifies them as offering a
competitive advantage.
Are MMs difficult to imitate? MMs are relatively straightfor-
ward, are not in short supply, and are products that can be
purchased (Association of Project Management, 2000;
Australian Institute of Project Management, 2000; Hartman &
Skulmoski, 1998; International Project Management
Association, 2000; Lambertson, 2001; LSM-International,
2001; Pennypacker, 2001; Schlichter, 1999).
The lack of protective mechanisms underscores that MMs
do not offer an enigmatic ambiguity protecting them from
competing firms. In fact, the ability to imitate is a feature that
MM vendors highlight when they state that their models were
created from best practice databases. Because MMs have been
in existence for about 10 years, they have not been used long
enough to offer the causal ambiguity and social complexity
advantages that path dependency (history) offers. MMs are
known for their concrete nature and codifiable knowledge. The
degree of tact is not a feature expounded on in the literature.
MMs also face a substitution threat as customers have choices
and can selectively pick the one they want. According to the
Barney framework, MMs are not difficult to imitate and do not
lead to a sustained competitive advantage.
To summarize, similar to the Mata framework, Barney’s
VRIO framework places MMs as leading to a temporary com-
petitive advantage for some firms and competitive parity for
most. Further support for this statement comes from other
characteristics of strategic assets with respect to isolating or
protective mechanisms and the characteristics of inimitability,
history, social complexity, and causal ambiguity.
MMs are not firm specific and can be duplicated. They are
not idiosyncratic assets. Because MMs involve little path
dependency, they are not causally ambiguous. Competitors do
understand the resource characteristics that contribute to the
December 2002 Project Management Journal
advantage and are able to replicate them. Because MMs are
tradable, they lack some of the durability characteristics. As
the rents from MMs are not long lasting, the advantage is not
sustained or durable.
Concluding Comments
Strategic assets offer long-term competitive advantages and
underpin a firm’s cost advantage (Markides & Williamson,
1994). Based on the aforementioned overview of MMs and
assessment with the four RBV frameworks, MMs meet some
strategic asset features, but do not fit the profile in all areas.
MMs are a component of project management but not a holis-
tic representation of the discipline.
This paper indicates that if firms focus mainly on explicit
project management knowledge elements such as those
measured by MMs, they may achieve competitive parity but
miss out on capitalizing on their intangible assets. Project
management is a complex asset. However, we currently lack
instruments with which to assess the tangible and intangible
assets that comprise project management.
Although there are no silver bullets, there are silver linings.
Understanding, developing, and sustaining strategic assets is
key to long-term survival and growth (Porter, 1991). The
authors’ intent in writing this paper was to promote dialog
on project management as a strategic asset by assessing MMs
and their merits toward a competitive advantage. The authors
welcome further discussion on the topic, as it is fosters
learning and theory building.
Contributions and Directions for Future Research
Practical areas for future research are well under way with
studies quantifying the value of project management (Ibbs &
Kwak, 1997; Ibbs & Kwak, 2000). This paper makes a
practical contribution to the field as it discusses the strengths
and some of the weaknesses of MMs.
A research area for further study could examine
the connection between successful projects and corporate
strategy. This year, PMI funded a research project entitled
“Investigation of the achievement of corporate strategy
through successful projects.” The research project can be
found at http://www.pmi.org.research/externalprojects.htm.
An area for future research relates to the study of social
complexity within organizations in terms of culture and its
influence on project management.
To gain the interest and commitment of senior executives,
we must show project management to contribute to
shareholder value and a sustainable competitive advantage.
A recent study sponsored by PMI on the challenges of
promoting the value of project management to executives
confirms that many executives view project management as
having worth at the operational and tactical rather than
strategic level (Thomas, Delisle, & Jugdev, 2002). Senior exec-
utives are unlikely to view project management as a strategic
imperative as long as the primary criteria used to judge
project success fall within the operational realm.
The authors currently are analyzing data from four interna-
tional companies exploring their use of project management as
11
a strategic asset. The authors based the study on the RBV and
used a MM instrument to corroborate findings. The results
should be available in 2003 and include a model depicting the
paths firms take in developing and sustaining project manage-
ment as a strategic asset. The study also assesses firms using a
RBV framework the authors developed based on strategic asset
characteristics and management practices. It is called the VRIO-
LDN framework, and it represents the following features: valu-
able, rare, inimitable, organizational focus, low-tradable,
durable, and nonsubstitutable. Future research using the
wealth of qualitative data on the know-how within these four
companies will allow project managers to develop additional
instruments with which to assess intangible assets in project
management to complement MMs.
From a theoretical perspective, the authors’ aim in this
paper was to convey the complexities of the RBV and relate it
to project management. An area for further theoretical work
could focus on a RBV taxonomy. This also would have practi-
cal implications as it could enable firms to assess their assets
within such a categorization scheme.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the PMI® Educational
Foundation for its generous support that continues to “light the
lamp of knowledge.” For further information on this topic, inter-
ested readers may contact the lead author at kjugdev@shaw.ca.
References
Ala, M. (1997). Keys to success in today’s business envi-
ronment. Business Forum, 22 (1), 24–28.
Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P.J.H. (1993). Strategic assets
and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14
(1), 33–46.
Association of Project Management. (2000). What is
Prince2? Retrieved 15 May 2002, from http://www.
prince2.org.uk/introduction.htm
Australian Institute of Project Management. (2000).
National competency standards for project management.
Retreived 15 May 2001 from http://www.prince
2.org.uk/introduction.htm
Barney, J.B. (1986). Types of competition and the theory
of strategy: Toward an integrative framework. Academy of
Management Review, 11 (4), 791–800.
Barney, J.B. (1989). Asset stocks and sustained competi-
tive advantage: A comment. Management Science, 35 (12),
1511–1514.
Barney, J.B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained compet-
itive advantage. Journal of Management, 17 (1), 99–120.
Barney, J.B. (1998). On becoming a strategic partner: The
role of human resources in gaining competitive advantage.
Human Resource Management, 37 (1), 31–46.
Barney, J.B. (2002). Gaining and sustaining competitive
advantage (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-
Hall Inc.
Barney, J.B., & Zajac, E.J. (1994). Competitive organizational
behavior: Toward an organizationally based theory of com-
petitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 15 (1), 5–9.
12 Project Management Journal
Belassi, W., & Tukel, O.I. (1996). A new framework for
determining critical success/failure factors in projects.
International Journal of Project Management, 14 (3), 141–152.
Birnberg, H. (2001). Association for project managers: Project
manager certification. Retrieved 15 May 2002, from
http://www.constructioneducation.com/apm_project_
manager_certification_program.htm
Bounds, G. (1998). The last word on project manage-
ment. Institute of Industrial Engineers Solutions, 30 (11), 41–43.
Brush, C.G., Greene, P.G., Hart, M.M., & Haller, H.S.
(2001). From initial idea to unique advantage: The entrepre-
neurial challenge of constructing a resource base. The
Academy of Management Executive, 15 (1), 64–78.
Cabanis, J. (1998). Show me the money: A panel of
experts dissects popular notions of measuring project man-
agement maturity. PM Network, 12 (9), 53–60.
Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute. (2002).
Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute: Capability matu-
rity models. Carnegie Mellon University. Retrieved 15 May
2002, from http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/
Chandler, A.D. (1962). The concept of corporate strategy.
In N. Foss (Ed.). Resources, firms, and strategies: A reader in the
resource-based perspective (1st ed., Vol. 1, pp. 52–59). Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Collis, D.J. (1994). Research note: How valuable are
organizational capabilities? Strategic Management Journal, 15
(1), 143–152.
Collis, D.J., & Montgomery, C.A. (1995). Competing on
resources: Strategy in the 1990s. Harvard Business Review, 73
(4), 118–128.
Compass Fact Based Consulting. (2001). Making a case for
the capability maturity model. Retrieved 15 May 2002, from
h t t p : / / c m p c o m . n e w c o m w e b. d e m o n . c o m / h o m e _
whitepapers.htm
Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). Establishing the link between pro-
ject management practices and project success. Paper presented
at the Frontiers of Project Management Research and
Application Conference, Seattle, WA.
Dinsmore, P.C. (1998). How grown-up is your organiza-
tion? PM Network, 12 (6), 24–26.
Dorling, A. (1993). SPICE: Software process improve-
ment and capability determination. Software Quality Journal,
2 (4), 209–224.
Duncan, W.J., Ginter, P.M., & Swayne, L.E. (1998).
Competitive advantage and internal organizational
assessment. The Academy of Management Executive, 12
(3), 6–16.
Dymond, K.M. (1995). A guide to the CMM: Understanding
the capability maturity model for software. Annapolis, MD:
Process Transition International Inc.
Floyd, S.W., & Lane, P.J. (2000). Strategizing throughout
the organization: Management role conflict in strategic
renewal. Academy of Management, 25 (1), 154–177.
Floyd, S.W., & Woolridge, B. (1992a). Managing strategic
consensus: The foundation of effective implementation. The
Executive, 6 (4), 27–42.
December 2002
 Floyd, S.W., & Woolridge, B. (1992b). Middle manage-
ment involvement in strategy and its association with strate-
gic type: A research note. Strategic Management Journal, 13
(Special Issue), 153–167.
Floyd, S.W., & Woolridge, B. (1994). Dinosaurs or
dynamos? Recognizing middle management's strategic
role. The Academy of Management Executive, 8 (4), 47–59.
Floyd, S.W., & Woolridge, B. (1997). Middle manage-
ment’s strategic influence and organizational perfor-
mance. The Journal of Management Studies, 34 (3),
465–485.
Foss, N.J. (Ed.). (1997). Resources, firms, and strategies:
A reader in the resource-based perspective (1st ed., Vol. 1).
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Grant, R.M. (1991). The resource-based theory of com-
petitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation.
California Management Review, 33 (3), 114–135.
Hamel, G. (1995). Reinventing the company. Executive
Excellence, 12 (10), 9–13.
Hartman, F.T., & Skulmoski, G. (1998). Project man-
agement maturity. Project Management, 4 (1), 74–78.
Ibbs, C.W., & Kwak, Y.H. (1997). Measuring project
management’s return on investment. PM Network, 11
(11), 36–38.
Ibbs, C.W., & Kwak, Y.H. (1998). Benchmarking
project management organizations. PM Network, 12 (2),
49–53.
Ibbs, C.W., & Kwak, Y.H. (2000). Assessing project
management maturity. Project Management Journal, 31 (1),
32–43.
International Project Management Association.
(2000). IPMA Certification. Retrieved 15 May 2000,
http://www.ipma.ch/site/certification.htm
Itami, H., & Roehl, H. (1987). Mobilizing Invisible
Assets. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jonker, J. (2000). Organizations as responsible con-
tributors to society: Linking quality, sustainability and
accountability. Total Quality Management, 11 (4.6),
S741–S748.
Jugdev, K., & Thomas, J. (14–17 July 2002a). Blueprint
for value creation: Developing and sustaining a project man-
agement competitive advantage through the resource based
view. Paper presented at the Project Management Institute
Research Conference 2002: Frontiers of Project
Management Research and Application, Seattle, WA.
Jugdev, K., & Thomas, J. (3–10 October 2002b). From
operational process to strategic asset: The evolution of project
management’s value in organizations. Paper presented at the
Project Management Institute 33rd Annual Symposium
and Conference, San Antonio, TX.
Kerzner, H. (2001). Project management: A systems
approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling (7th ed.).
New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Kujala, J., & Artto, K. (2000). Criteria for project
performance in business context. Project Management, 6
(7), 46–53.
December 2002 Project Management Journal
Lambertson, L. (2001). Personal communication.
Arlington, VA: ESI-International.
LSM-International. (2001). Enterprise improvement
platform (EIP1). Retrieved 15 May 2002, from http://
www.lsmzone.com/Default.htm
Markides, C.C., & Williamson, P.J. (1994). Related diver-
sification, core competences, and corporate performance. In
N. Foss (Ed.). Resources, firms, and strategies: A reader in the
resource-based perspective (1st ed., Vol. 1, pp. 327–344).
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Mata, F.J., Fuerst, W.L., & Barney, J.B. (1995). Information
technology and sustained competitive advantage: A resource-
based analysis. MIS Quarterly, 19 (4), 487–507.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational
knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5 (1), 14–37.
Pennypacker, J. (2001). Project management maturity bench-
mark: A Center for Business Practices (CBP) research report
(Published manuscript). Havertown, PA: Project
Management Solutions Inc.
Penrose, E.T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm.
In N. Foss (Ed.). Resources, firms, and strategies: A reader in the
resource-based perspective (1st ed., Vol. 1, pp. 27–39). Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Peteraf, M. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive
advantage: A resource-based view. In N. Foss (Ed.). Resources,
firms, and strategies: A reader in the resource-based perspective
(1st ed., Vol. 1, pp. 187–203). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
PMI Standards Committee. (2000). A guide to the project
management body of knowledge. Newtown Square, PA: Project
Management Institute.
Porter, M.E. (1991). Towards a dynamic theory of strategy.
Strategic Management Journal, 12 (Winter Special Issue), 97–117.
Porter, M.E. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business
Review, 74 (6), 61–78.
Prahalad, C.K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence
of the corporation. In N. Foss (Ed.). Resources, firms, and
strategies: A reader in the resource-based perspective (1st ed., Vol.
1, pp. 235–256). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Priem, R.L., & Butler, J.E. (2001a). Is the resource-based
“view” a useful perspective for strategic management
research? Academy of Management Review, 26 (1), 26–40.
Priem, R.L., & Butler, J.E. (2001b). Tautology in the
resource-based view and the implications of externally deter-
mined resource value: Further comments. Academy of
Management Review, 26 (1), 57–66.
Reed, R., & DeFillippi, R.J. (1990). Causal ambiguity, bar-
riers to imitation and sustainable competitive advantage.
Academy of Management Review, 15 (1), 88–102.
Rumelt, R.P. (1984). Towards a strategic theory of the
firm. In N. Foss (Ed.). Resources, firms, and strategies: A reader
in the resource-based perspective (1st ed., Vol. 1, pp. 131–145).
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Rumelt, R.P., Schendel, D.E., & Teece, D.J. (1994).
Fundamental issues in strategy. In R.P. Rumelt, D.E.
Schendel, & D.J. Teece (Eds.). Fundamental issues in strategy
(pp. 9–47). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
13
 Schlichter, J. (1999). Surveying project management capa-
bilities. PM Network, 13 (4), 39–40.
Schlichter, J. (2000). Personal communication with Kam
Jugdev. Upper Darby, PA: Project Management Institute.
Janice Thomas, PhD, is the program director for
Schulze, W.S. (1994). Two resource-based theories of the
Athabasca University’s Online Executive MBA in
firm: Definitions and implications. In P. Schrivistava, A. Huff, project management. She also is an adjunct professor
& J.E. Dutton (Eds.). Advances in Strategic Management, (Vol. 10, in project management specialization at the University
pp. 127–151). New York: JAI Press. of Calgary where she supervises masters and PhD research students.
Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration: A socio- Before becoming an academic, she was a project manager in the
informational technology and organizational change realms for
logical interpretation. In N. Foss (Ed.). Resources, firms, and
10 years. Her main focus is on understanding the underlying reasons
strategies: A reader in the resource-based perspective (1st ed., Vol. 1, project management works. The main focus of her research is the
pp. 21–26). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. “softer” side of project management.
Skulmoski, G. (2001). Project maturity and competence
interface. Cost Engineering, 43 (6), 11–19.
Standish Group. (2001). The CHAOS chronicles, Retrieved
15 May 2002, from http://standishgroup.com/chaos_
chronicles/index.php Kam Jugdev is a PhD candidate in the project management
specialization at the University of Calgary’s Faculties of
Sveiby, K.E. (1997). The balanced score card (BSC) and the Engineering and Management. Her dissertation is on
intangible assets monitor: A comparison. Retrieved 15 May 2002, strategic project management, and Janice Thomas is
from http://www.sveiby.com/articles/BSCandIAM.html her supervisor. She also is an experienced researcher with more than 20
Teece, D.J. (1980). Economies of scope and the scope of the publication credits. Jugdev has taught at the undergraduate and graduate
enterprise. In N. Foss (Ed.). Resources, firms, and strategies: A level in project management and management. With more than 15
years of project management experience in a range of industries, she
reader in the resource-based perspective (1st ed., Vol. 1, pp. has managed both high technology and information technology projects.
103–116). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Thomas, H., Pollock, T., & Gorman, P. (1999). Global
strategic analysis: Frameworks and approaches. The Academy of
Management Executive, 13 (1), 70–82.
Thomas, J., Delisle, C., & Jugdev, K. (2002). Framing the
moves that matter: Selling project management to senior executives:
A research monograph (1st ed., Vol. 1). Newtown Square, PA:
Project Management Institute.
Tippett, D.D., & Waits, D.A. (1994). Project management
and TQM: Why aren't project managers coming aboard?
Industrial Management, 36 (5), 12–20.
Ulri, B., & Ulri, D. (2000). Project management in North
America: Stability of the concepts. Project Management Journal,
31 (3), 33–43.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. In
N. Foss (Ed.). Resources, firms, and strategies: A reader in the
resource-based perspective (1st ed., Vol. 1, pp. 117–130). Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.

This article is copyrighted material and has been reproduced with the permission of PMI. Unauthorized reproduction of this material is strictly prohibited.

14 Project Management Journal December 2002

Project Schedule Uncertainty
Analysis Using Fuzzy Logic
▼ However, there is an alternative approach for measuring schedule uncertainty
Abstract
There is continuing interest by academics and
practitioners alike in measuring and coping
with project schedule uncertainty. Fuzzy logic
has been proposed as an alternate approach
to probability theory for quantifying uncertainty
related to activity duration. However, the fuzzy
logic approach is not widely understood, and
generally accepted computational approaches
are not available. This paper describes the dif-
ferences between the probabilistic and fuzzy
approaches and the advantages of the latter.
The paper also illustrates a straightforward
approach for applying fuzzy logic to assess pro-
ject schedule uncertainty.
Keywords: activity duration estimating;
critical path; schedule development; risk
management; fuzzy logic
©2002 by the Project Management Institute
2002, Vol. 33, No. 4, 15–22
8756–9728/02/$10.00 per article + $0.50 per page
December 2002
Matthew J. Liberatore, Department of Decision and Information Technologies, Villanova
University, 800 Lancaster Ave., Villanova, PA 19085–1478 USA
T here is continuing interest in measuring and coping with project risk and uncer-
tainty by both academics (Fernandez, Armacost, & Pet-Edwards, 1998; Tavares,
Ferreira, & Coelho, 1998; Van Dorp & Duffey, 1999) and project management
(Hulett, 2000; Jones, 2000; Royer, 2000; Ruskin, 2000). Program evaluation and
review technique (PERT) and Monte Carlo simulation have been the traditional
approaches used to address project schedule uncertainty. Both methods are based on
critical path analysis and apply the probability theory to quantify the uncertainty
related to the time required to complete project activities. Concerning the use of
these methods, a recent survey of project management professionals (Pollack-
Johnson, & Liberatore, 1998) found that, of the respondents using analytical tech-
niques, nearly 90% used critical path analysis, and more than 20% used probabilis-
tic analysis and/or simulation. A 1999 software survey showed that about 20% of
project management software packages had Monte Carlo simulation capability
(Project Management Institute, 1999).
based on fuzzy logic. Fuzzy logic is an approach for measuring imprecision or vague-
ness in estimation and may be preferred to probability theory in capturing activity
duration uncertainty in some situations. Several authors have proposed or investi-
gated the fuzzy logic approach as applied to project schedule uncertainty (Buckley,
1989; Chanas, 1982; Chanas, 1987; Chanas & Kamburowski, 1981; Chanas &
Kuchta,1998; Chanas & Zielinksi, 2001; Chang, Tsujimura, Gen, & Tozawa, 1995;
Dubois & Prade, 1979, 1980; Hapke, Jaszkiewicz, & Slowinski, 1994;
Kamburowski,1983; Lootsma, 1989; McCahon, 1993; McCahon & Lee, 1988; Prade,
1980; Rommelfanger, 1994; Shipley, de Korvin, & Omer, 1997). The dominant
approach presented in the literature is the fuzzy extension of the standard critical
path method algorithm, where forward and backward passes are taken in the net-
work to compute earliest and latest start times and slack. However, the backward pass
has been reported to yield incorrect results when the minimum and subtraction
operations are replaced by their fuzzy counterparts (Chanas & Kuchta, 1998;
Kamburowski, 1983; Rommelfanger, 1994).
The direct use of the fuzzy backward pass was used commonly in some of the
early work on fuzzy critical path analysis and is still employed by some authors
(Hapke & Slowinski, 1996; Mares, 1994). Rommelfanger (1994) offers an alter-
nate approach for computing the fuzzy backward pass that has some limitations.
A recent article by Chanas and Zielinski (2001) presents a method for analyzing
Project Management Journal 15
 1
Degree of
Membership
0
175 180 185
Height in Centimeters
Figure 1. Fuzzy Set of Tall People
the degree of criticality of the fuzzy paths in the project net-
work but does not present a method for determining the
fuzzy criticality of project activities.
The fuzzy logic approach for project schedule uncertainty
analysis is not widely understood, and as is evident, generally
accepted computational approaches are not available. This
paper describes the differences between the probabilistic and
fuzzy approaches, the advantages of fuzzy approaches, and
illustrates a straightforward approach for applying fuzzy logic
to assess project schedule uncertainty.
Background on Fuzzy Logic
Fuzzy logic is not fuzzy thinking. Zadeh (1965) introduced
fuzzy sets to represent knowledge that is vague or imprecise,
that is, “fuzzy.” In a classical set theory, an element either is or
is not a member of a set. In contrast to the sharp or “crisp”
boundaries of classical sets, fuzzy sets allow degrees of mem-
bership in a set, as expressed by a number between 0 and 1.
For example, suppose we wish to define membership in a
set of tall people. In classical set theory, we might define the
set of tall people as those individuals who are 195 cm (about
6'4 3/4'') or taller. But what if a person is 194 cm? This indi-
vidual might naturally be described as somewhat tall, as
would the person who is 193 cm. Yet, neither individual
would be a member of our set of tall people. This example
demonstrates that tallness might be better represented as a
vague or imprecise concept, without sharp borders separating
the tall from those not tall.
In a fuzzy set theory, we can accommodate this imprecision
by associating a degree of membership in the set of tall people
for individuals of varying heights. For example, we might asso-
ciate a value of 0.95 to represent the degree to which the 194
cm person is a member of the fuzzy set of tall people and a
lower value, 0.90, for the degree to which the 193 cm is a mem-
ber. For the person who is 200 cm tall (nearly 6'7'') we would
assign a membership value of 1.00, implying certain member-
ship in the set. For the person who is 175 cm tall (about 5'9''),
16 Project Management Journal
190 195
we might assign a 0, implying certain exclusion from the set. Of
course, because the meaning of the term “tall people” can vary
by situation, a fuzzy set must be defined in context.
Formally, we could define the membership function
mT(194 cm) = 0.95 to represent the degree to which the indi-
vidual with a height of 194 cm is a member of the set of tall
(T) people. Using “x” to represent height, we could specify that
mT(x) = 1 if x ≥ 195 cm, and mT(x) = 0 if x ≤ 175 cm. For those
values in-between, we could assess specific values for each
height or use a formula such as mT(x) = [(x–175) / 20], if 175
< x < 195. For x = 193 cm, applying the formula yields 0.90.
This membership function is shown graphically as Figure 1.
The theory and application of fuzzy sets has seen extensive
development (Dubois & Prade, 1980; Klir & Yuan, 1995; Yen &
Langari, 1999; Zadeh & Kacprzyk, 1992). There are many suc-
cessful applications of fuzzy logic in control systems, including
water treatment, subway systems, washing machines, automo-
tive transmission systems, and vacuum cleaners (Yen & Langari,
1999). Applications in management systems include project
selection (Machacha & Bhattacharya, 2000), multi-
criteria decision-making (Chiadamrong, 1999; Siskos, Lochard,
& Lombard, 1984), cash flow analysis (Chiu & Park, 1994), and
job shop scheduling (Fortemps, 1997), to mention a few. The
articles by Bagnoli and Smith (1997) on real estate decision-
making and Hutchinson (1998) on financial applications are
especially useful introductions to fuzzy business applications.
Fuzzy Logic vs. Probability
Probability theory often is used to model the uncertain dura-
tion of a project activity. We might say that the probability that
a given activity will take seven days to complete is 0.8 and the
probability that it will take eight days is 0.2. Because these two
probabilities sum to 1.0, no other activity durations are possi-
ble in this example. The interpretation of these probability
statements is that after repeating this activity many times, the
activity time was seven days in 80% of the cases, and the activ-
ity time was eight days in 20% of the cases. In essence, there is
December 2002

Activity Predecessors Membership
function
A — 3/1.0
B A 1/0.3, 2/1.0, 3/0.5
C A 4/1.0
D B, C 1/0.1, 3/1.0, 4/0.1
E C 5/0.3, 7/1.0, 10/0.3
F D 1/0.5, 2/1.0, 4/0.4
G E, F 2/1.0
Table 1. Immediate Predecessors and Activity Duration
Membership Functions by Activity for Fuzzy Critical
Path Example
an 80% chance it will take seven days and a 20% chance it will
require eight days. This example shows that randomness
describes the uncertainty of event occurrence in the future: The
event “activity time takes seven days” does or does not occur,
and the event “activity time takes eight days” does or does not
occur. After the activity is completed, randomness dissipates
because the activity is known to have taken a specific amount
of time; that is, one of these events occurred.
Unlike the probability theory, fuzziness does not assume
randomness. Fuzziness is concerned with event ambiguity. It
measures the degree to which an event occurs, not whether it
occurs. Using fuzzy logic, we might say that the given activity
takes “approximately seven days” to complete. This statement
reflects the imprecision or vagueness of our time estimate.
Here, we define “approximately seven days” as a particular type
of fuzzy set called a fuzzy quantity. The membership of seven
within this set is 1.0, because seven certainly is a member.
Other possible times such as eight are assigned membership
values, also called beliefs, based on our meaning of the vague
notion of “approximately seven days.” Note that the beliefs are
not required to sum to 1.0. Fuzziness remains after the event
occurs because the actual time is one of the possible times in
our fuzzy set and still is “approximately seven days.”
It is evident that, depending upon the situation, both the
probability and fuzzy approaches can be applied to model
uncertain activity duration. The probabilistic approach seems
best suited for those situations where the same or a very
similar activity has been completed several times in the past
and some historical information on the activity’s duration is
available. The fuzzy logic approach may be suitable in those
situations where past data is either unavailable or not
relevant, the definition of the activity itself is somewhat
unclear, or the notion of the activity’s completion is vague. Of
course, there are situations that lie between these cases, where
perhaps both of these approaches either individually or in
tandem can be applied.
For a concise introduction to fuzzy models and the
relationship of fuzziness to probability read Bezdek’s (1993)
editorial and comments on it by Woodall and Davis (1994)
and a rejoinder by Bezdek (1994). For a more in-depth discus-
sion, read Kosko (1990) and Yen and Langari (1999).
December 2002 Project Management Journal
A Fuzzy Logic Approach to Critical Path Analysis
Let’s begin with a summary of the essentials of critical path
analysis. A project network is defined as a set of nodes
representing activities that are connected by directed arcs to
represent precedence relationships. A precedence relationship
between two activities means that the predecessor activity must
be completed before its immediate successor can begin. We
assume that the project has a unique start activity (no prede-
cessor activities) and a unique finish activity (no successor
activities). If the project network does not have unique start
and finish activities, we add dummy activities (which have zero
duration) for this purpose. A path is a finite sequence of
activities that connects the start activity to the finish activity.
The length of the longest path is the minimum project
completion time and is called the critical path, and the activi-
ties along it are called critical path activities.
Suppose that fuzzy logic is used to describe uncertain activ-
ity duration. Let the set of project activities be A1, A2, through
AN, and their activity times t1, t2, through tN, can be fuzzy quan-
tities with membership functions mi(tI). Also, let mCP(L) be the
membership function for the fuzzy critical path length (L). We
define f(t1, t2, through tN|S) to be the function that determines
the critical path length given a set of specific activity times t1, t2,
through tN and a specific network structure S (nodes and prece-
dence relationships). Using the extension principle initially
developed by Zadeh (1975), we can generalize the nonfuzzy or
“crisp” concept of critical path length to the situation where
fuzzy logic is used to represent the activity times as follows:
Max Min{ mi(ti)}
mCP(L) = (t1, t2, through tN) i = 1,2, through N
f(t1, t2, through tN|S)= L
The previous equation is Zadeh’s extension principle where
the function f has been specified to represent a mapping of
a project network with specific activity times (t1, t2, through tN)
and given project network with structure S to a critical path
length (L).
This equation can be applied as follows. For a given project
network, we identify all possible combinations of activity
times (t1, t2, through tN) that lead to a specific critical path
length. We need consider only those activity times that have
positive belief values from the associated membership func-
tions. The belief associated with each combination of activity
times leading to this critical path length is the minimum of the
beliefs of all the individual activity times in that combination.
Finally, the belief of this critical path length is the maximum of
the belief values over all combinations yielding L. This process
then would be repeated for all possible critical path lengths. In
a similar fashion, we can apply the extension principle to
obtain membership functions for all critical path lengths, the
belief that each path is critical, and the belief that each activity
lies on the critical path.
Note that the rules presented for processing beliefs,
called max-min composition, are different from the way
that probabilities are processed. In a probability analysis
of a project network, the probability associated with each
combination of activity times leading to a specific value
17
 B F
A D
C E
Figure 2. Network for Fuzzy Critical Path Example
for the critical path length is obtained by multiplying the
probabilities of all the individual activity times in that
combination. The probability of a specific critical path
length is the sum of the probabilities over all combina-
tions yielding that length. More importantly, the meaning
and interpretation of the results of the probability and
fuzzy approaches are quite different.
A Computational Approach
In this section, the author describes and illustrates a straight-
forward procedure for fuzzy critical path analysis using the
ideas from the previous section. A visual basic program has
been written to automate the enumeration procedure. This
enumeration algorithm is:
1. Enumerate all possible combinations of activity dura-
tions. Each combination is referred to as a case. The number of
cases is found by multiplying the number of possible positive
belief values across all project activities.
2. For each case, compute all path lengths and the case
belief value and identify the critical path. The belief value for
each case is the minimum of the activity beliefs comprising
this case. The longest path is the critical path for that case. The
path lengths and the critical path for this case all are assigned
the same case belief value.
3. Construct membership functions for the length of all
paths including the critical path. For a given path, all cases are
reviewed, and those having a particular path length are identi-
fied. The belief for this particular length is the maximum of the
beliefs of all cases having this length. This process is repeated
for all possible path lengths.
4. Determine the fuzzy criticality for each activity. For a
given activity, all cases are reviewed, and those having this
18 Project Management Journal
G
activity on the critical path are identified. The belief that this
particular activity is critical is the maximum of the beliefs for
all cases having this activity on its critical path.
5. Compute the center of area (COA) for all paths, includ-
ing the critical path to provide “crisp” values for their lengths.
The COA is a special weighted average whose numerator is
obtained by multiplying each path length by its belief and
summing over all possible path lengths, while its denominator
is the sum of the beliefs of all possible path lengths (remem-
ber that the beliefs will not sum to 1.0). The COA is our best
estimate of each path length.
Example
A simple project is chosen to illustrate the application of
the enumeration method and is explained with the help of
Figure 2 and Tables 1, 2, and 3. To avoid possible confusion
with activity duration, the activities were labeled using letters
without subscripts. Using the precedence information given in
Table 1, the project network shown can be drawn as in Figure
2. This network is displayed using activity on node (AON)
notation. Table 1 also provides data on the membership func-
tions for each activity. The data used are discrete, as contrasted
with the continuous approach described in our height example
and shown in Figure 1.
Note that the durations for activities B, D, E, and F can be
expressed as “about 2,” “about 3,” “about 7,” and “about 2,”
respectively. In this example, the author is using three possible
values along with their belief values to define the uncertainty
associated with each of these four activities. Three-point
estimates such as these are relatively easy to make. The infor-
mation on the membership function for B can be interpreted
as having possible values of 1, 2, and 3 with belief values of
December 2002
 Activities Paths Activities Paths
A B C D E F G P1 P2 P3 Belief† A B C D E F G P1 P2 P3 Belief†

3 1 4 1 5 1 2 14* 8 11 0.1 3 2 4 3 7 4 2 16* 14 16 0.4

3 1 4 1 5 2 2 14* 9 12 0.1 3 2 4 3 10 1 2 19* 11 13 0.3
3 1 4 1 5 4 2 14* 11 14* 0.1 3 2 4 3 10 2 2 19* 12 14 0.3
3 1 4 1 7 1 2 16* 8 11 0.1 3 2 4 3 10 4 2 19* 14 16 0.3
3 1 4 1 7 2 2 16* 9 12 0.1 3 2 4 4 5 1 2 14* 12 14* 0.1
3 1 4 1 7 4 2 16* 11 14 0.1 3 2 4 4 5 2 2 14 13 15* 0.1
3 1 4 1 10 1 2 19* 8 11 0.1 3 2 4 4 5 4 2 14 15 17* 0.1
3 1 4 1 10 2 2 19* 9 12 0.1 3 2 4 4 7 1 2 16* 12 14 0.1
3 1 4 1 10 4 2 19* 11 14 0.1 3 2 4 4 7 2 2 16* 13 15 0.1
3 1 4 3 5 1 2 14* 10 13 0.3 3 2 4 4 7 4 2 16 15 17* 0.1
3 1 4 3 5 2 2 14* 11 14* 0.3 3 2 4 4 10 1 2 19* 12 14 0.1
3 1 4 3 5 4 2 14 13 16* 0.3 3 2 4 4 10 2 2 19* 13 15 0.1
3 1 4 3 7 1 2 16* 10 13 0.3 3 2 4 4 10 4 2 19* 15 17 0.1
3 1 4 3 7 2 2 16* 11 14 0.3 3 3 4 1 5 1 2 14* 10 11 0.1
3 1 4 3 7 4 2 16* 13 16* 0.3 3 3 4 1 5 2 2 14* 11 12 0.1
3 1 4 3 10 1 2 19* 10 13 0.3 3 3 4 1 5 4 2 14* 13 14* 0.1
3 1 4 3 10 2 2 19* 11 14 0.3 3 3 4 1 7 1 2 16* 10 11 0.1
3 1 4 3 10 4 2 19* 13 16 0.3 3 3 4 1 7 2 2 16* 11 12 0.1
3 1 4 4 5 1 2 14* 11 14* 0.1 3 3 4 1 7 4 2 16* 13 14 0.1
3 1 4 4 5 2 2 14 12 15* 0.1 3 3 4 1 10 1 2 19* 10 11 0.1
3 1 4 4 5 4 2 14 14 17* 0.1
3 3 4 1 10 2 2 19* 11 12 0.1
3 1 4 4 7 1 2 16* 11 14 0.1
3 3 4 1 10 4 2 19* 13 14 0.1
3 1 4 4 7 2 2 16* 12 15 0.1
3 3 4 3 5 1 2 14* 12 13 0.3
3 1 4 4 7 4 2 16 14 17* 0.1
3 3 4 3 5 2 2 14* 13 14* 0.3
3 1 4 4 10 1 2 19* 11 14 0.1
3 3 4 3 5 4 2 14 15 16* 0.3
3 1 4 4 10 2 2 19* 12 15 0.1
3 3 4 3 7 1 2 16* 12 13 0.5
3 1 4 4 10 4 2 19* 14 17 0.1
3 3 4 3 7 2 2 16* 13 14 0.5
3 2 4 1 5 1 2 14* 9 11 0.1
3 3 4 3 7 4 2 16* 15 16* 0.4
3 2 4 1 5 2 2 14* 10 12 0.1
3 3 4 3 10 1 2 19* 12 13 0.3
3 2 4 1 5 4 2 14* 12 14* 0.1
3 3 4 3 10 2 2 19* 13 14 0.3
3 2 4 1 7 1 2 16* 9 11 0.1
3 2 4 1 7 2 2 16* 10 12 0.1 3 3 4 3 10 4 2 19* 15 16 0.3
3 2 4 1 7 4 2 16* 12 14 0.1 3 3 4 4 5 1 2 14* 13 14* 0.1
3 2 4 1 10 1 2 19* 9 11 0.1 3 3 4 4 5 2 2 14 14 15* 0.1
3 2 4 1 10 2 2 19* 10 12 0.1 3 3 4 4 5 4 2 14 16 17* 0.1
3 2 4 1 10 4 2 19* 12 14 0.1 3 3 4 4 7 1 2 16* 13 14 0.1
3 2 4 3 5 1 2 14* 11 13 0.3 3 3 4 4 7 2 2 16* 14 15 0.1
3 2 4 3 5 2 2 14* 12 14* 0.3 3 3 4 4 7 4 2 16 16 17* 0.1
3 2 4 3 5 4 2 14 14 16* 0.3 3 3 4 4 10 1 2 19* 13 14 0.1
3 2 4 3 7 1 2 16* 11 13 0.5 3 3 4 4 10 2 2 19* 14 15 0.1
3 2 4 3 7 2 2 16* 12 14 1.0 3 3 4 4 10 4 2 19* 16 17 0.1

* Indicates critical path

† Indicates computed as the minimum of the beliefs of all activity lengths for each case

Table 2. Case Analysis for Fuzzy Critical Path Example

December 2002 Project Management Journal 19

 1
1
0.8
0.6
Beliefs
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
14 15 16
Possible Critical Path Lengths
Figure 3. Membership Function for Critical Path Legend
0.3, 1.0, and 0.5, respectively. In contrast, there is only one pos-
sible time with a belief of 1.0 for activities A, C, and G. That is,
it is assumed that these three time estimates are certain. The
application of each of the five steps is:
1. There are 1 x 3 x 1 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 1 = 81 possible cases that
must be evaluated;
2. An examination of Figure 1 shows that there are three
possible paths in the network:
■ P1: A-C-E-G;
■ P2: A-B-D-F-G;
■ P3: A-C-D-F-G.
For each of the 81 cases, the lengths of each path are
computed, and the critical paths are identified. For example,
the belief for the case A = 3, B = 3, C = 4, D = 1, E = 7, F = 1,
and G = 2 is Min(1.0, 0.5,1.0, 0.1, 1.0, 0.5, 1.0) = 0.1. The com-
putations of the path lengths and beliefs, and the identification
of the critical paths are given in Table 2.
3. Using the information given in Table 2, we can form the
necessary membership functions. For example, there are 18 cases
where the critical path is 14. The beliefs over these cases are either
0.1 or 0.3, leading to a belief of 0.3 for a length of 14 because the
maximum value is selected. The complete results are given in
Table 3 and shown graphically for the critical path in Figure 3. In
a similar fashion, the path criticalities can be determined.
4. Using the information given in Table 2, we can determine
the activity criticalities. For example, D is on paths P2 and P3,
and an inspection of Table 2 shows that P2 is never critical and
that P3 is critical in 23 cases. The maximum of the beliefs of
these 23 cases is 0.4, and so this value is the fuzzy criticality of
D. This same result can be obtained by noticing that the beliefs
that P2 and P3 are critical are 0 and 0.4, respectively. Because
D lies on both of these paths, we take the maximum (0.0.4) =
0.4 to obtain its criticality. The same result holds for F. The activ-
ities along P1 (A, C, E, G) are all certainly critical because P1 is
20 Project Management Journal
0.3
0.1
0
17 18 19
certainly critical. On the other hand, B is certainly not critical
because it is only on path P2 and this path is certainly not crit-
ical. The complete results are given in Table 3.
5. The COAs for each path also are given in Table 3.
To further interpret the results, consider the case where all
activities assume the length associated with a belief of 1.0
(A = 3, B = 2, C = 4, D = 3, E = 7, F = 2, and G = 2). The critical
path for this case is P1 with a length of 16 and a belief of 1.0 as
shown in Table 2. The COA of 16.17 for the critical path is close
to the value for this case because the network is small and the
uncertainty is not that great. However, there is uncertainty in
completing this project, because P3 is moderately critical, and
as a result, D and F also are moderately critical. There also is
some uncertainty associated with the critical path length, which
has possible values ranging from 14 through 19 (Figure 3).
Summary and Conclusions
In this paper, the author has offered fuzzy logic as an alter-
native approach for modeling uncertainty in project sched-
ule analysis. The fuzzy logic approach has been compared
and contrasted with probability theory. Fuzzy logic may be
suitable in those situations where past data is either unavail-
able or not relevant, the definition of the activity itself is
somewhat unclear or the notion of the activity’s completion
is vague. An enumeration procedure for analyzing a project
network whose uncertainty is represented by fuzzy logic has
been presented and demonstrated. Future work is needed to
better identify those circumstances where project managers
prefer fuzzy logic to probability theory or where either
approach could be used. In addition, improved computa-
tional procedures are needed so that fuzzy logic can be
applied to projects of arbitrary size. These efforts should lead
to increased practitioner use of the fuzzy logic approach for
measuring project schedule uncertainty.
December 2002
 Chanas, S., & Kamburowski, J. (1981). The use of fuzzy
Critical variables in PERT. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 5, 11–19.
Length P1 P2 P3 path Chanas, S., & Kuchta, D. (1998). Discrete fuzzy optimiza-
tion. In R. Slowinski (Ed.). Fuzzy sets in decision analysis, opera-
<8 0 0 0 0 tions research and statistics (pp. 249–280). Boston: Kluwer
8 0 0.1 0 0 Academic Publishers.
9 0 0.1 0 0 Chanas, S., & Zielinski, P. (2001). Critical path analysis in
10 0 0.3 0 0 the network with fuzzy activity times. Fuzzy Sets and Systems,
11 0 0.5 0.1 0 122, 195–204.
12 0 1.0 0.1 0 Chang, I.S., Tsujimura, Y., Gen, M., & Tozawa, T. (1995).
13 0 0.5 0.5 0 An efficient approach for large scale project planning based on
14 0.3 0.4 1.0 0.3 fuzzy delphi method. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 76, 277–288.
15 0 0.4 0.1 0.1 Chiadamrong, N. (1999). An integrated fuzzy multi-crite-
16 1.0 0.1 0.4 1.0 ria decision making method for manufacturing strategies
17 0 0 0.1 0.1 selection. Computer & Industrial Engineering, 37 (1, 2),
18 0 0 0 0 433–436.
19 0.1 0 0 0.3 Chiu, C.-Y., & Park, C.S. (1994). Fuzzy cash flow analysis
> 19 0 0 0 0 using present worth criterion. The Engineering Economist, 39
(2), 113–137.
Center
of area 15.79 12.32 14.09 16.17 Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (1979). Decision-making under
fuzziness. In M.M. Gupta & R.K. Yager (Eds.). Advances in
fuzzy set theory and applications (pp. 279–302). Amsterdam:
North-Holland.
Activity Criticality Path Criticality Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (1980). Fuzzy sets and systems:
A 1.0 P1 1.0 Theory and applications. New York: Academic Press.
B 0 P2 0 Fernandez, A.A., Armacost, R.L., & Pet-Edwards, J.J. (1998).
C 1.0 P3 0.4 Understanding simulation solutions to resource constrained
project scheduling problems with stochastic task durations.
D 0.4
Engineering Management Journal, 10 (4), 5–13.
E 1.0
Fortemps, P. (1997). Jobshop scheduling with imprecise
F 0.4
durations: A fuzzy approach. IEEE Transaction on Fuzzy Systems,
G 1.0
5 (4), 557–569.
Table 3. Membership Functions for Path and Critical Path Hapke, M., Jaszkiewicz, A., and Slowinski, R. (1994). Fuzzy
Lengths and Activity and Path Criticalities project scheduling system for software development. Fuzzy
Sets and Systems, 67, 101–117.
Hapke, M., & Slowinski, R. (1996). Fuzzy priority heuristics
for project scheduling. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 83, 291–299.
References Hulett, D. (2000). Project schedule risk analysis: Monte
Bagnoli, C., & Smith, H. (1997). Fuzzy logic: The new par- Carlo simulation or PERT? PM Network, 14 (2), 43–47.
adigm for decision making. Real Estate Issues, 22 (2), 35–41. Hutchinson, M. (1998). The use of fuzzy logic in business
Bezdek, J.C. (1993). Editorial: Fuzzy models—What are decision-making. Derivatives Quarterly, 4 (4), 53–66.
they, and why? IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 1 (1), 1–6. Jones, E. (2000). Risk management—Why? PM Network, 14
Bezdek, J.C. (1994). The thirsty traveler visits gamont: A (2), 39–42.
rejoinder to ‘Comments on fuzzy sets—What are they, and Kamburowski, J. (1983). Fuzzy activity duration times in
why?’ IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 2 (1), 43–45. critical path analysis. Proceedings of the International
Buckley, J.J. (1989). Fuzzy PERT. In G.W. Evans, W. Symposium on Project Management, New Delhi, India.
Karwowski, & M.R. Wilhelm (Eds.). Applications of fuzzy set The Netherlands: International Project Management
methodologies in industrial engineering (pp. 103–114). New Association, 194–199.
York: Elsevier Science. Klir, G.J., & Yuan, B. (1995). Fuzzy logic: Theory and
Chanas, S. (1982). Fuzzy sets in few classical operational applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
research problems. In M.M. Gupta & E. Sanches (Eds.). Kosko, B. (1990). Fuzziness vs. probability. International
Approximate reasoning in decision analysis (pp. 351–361). Journal of General Systems, 17 (1), 211–240.
Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co. Lootsma, F.A. (1989). Stochastic and fuzzy PERT. European
Chanas, S. (1987). Fuzzy optimization in networks. In Journal of Operational Research, 43 (2), 174–183.
K.S. Kacprzy & S.A. Orlovsk (Eds.). Optimization models using Machacha, L.L., & Bhattacharya, P. (2000). A fuzzy-logic-
fuzzy sets and possibility theory (pp. 303–327). Boston: D. based approach to project selection. IEEE Transaction on
Reidel Public Co. Engineering Management, 47 (1), 65–73.

December 2002 Project Management Journal 21

 Mares, M. (1994). Computation over fuzzy quantities. Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press.
McCahon, C.S. (1993). Using PERT as an approximation
of fuzzy project-network analysis. IEEE Transaction on
Engineering Management, 40 (2), 145–153. Matthew J. Liberatore, PhD, is the John F. Connelly
McCahon, C.S., & Lee, E.S. (1988). Project network analy- chair in management and professor of decision and
sis with fuzzy activity times. Computers and Mathematics with information in the College of Commerce and Finance
Applications, 15 (10), 829–838. at Villanova University. He joined Villanova in 1983 and served as
Pollack-Johnson, B., & Liberatore, M.J. (1998). Project chair of the department of management from 1989 to 1995 and as
management software usage patterns and suggested research associate dean from 1996 until 1999. Liberatore has published more
directions for future developments. Project Management than 50 journal articles in management science, information systems,
Journal, 20 (2), 19–28. project management, and research and engineering management.
Prade, H.M. (1980). Operations research with fuzzy data. He currently serves on the editorial board of the American Journal of
In P.P. Wang & S.K. Chang (Eds.). Theory and application to Mathematical and Management Sciences and IEEE Transactions on
policy analysis and information systems (pp. 155–170). New Engineering Management and previously served on the board of
York: Plenum Press. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice and as area editor for produc-
Project Management Institute. (1999). Project manage- tion and operations management for Interfaces. Liberatore received
ment software survey. Newtown Square, PA: PMI. a BA in mathematics, and both a master’s and PhD degree in opera-
Rommelfanger, H.J. (1994). Network analysis and infor- tions research, all from the University of Pennsylvania. He previously
mation flow in fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, taught at Temple University and held management positions at RCA
67, 119–128. and FMC Corp.
Royer, P. (2000). Risk management: The undiscovered
dimension of project management. Project Management
Journal, 31 (1), 6–13.
Ruskin, A. (2000). Using unders to offset overs. PM
Network, 14 (2), 31–37.
Shipley, M.F., de Korvin, A., & Omer, K. (1997). BIFPET
methodology versus PERT in project management: Fuzzy
probability instead of the beta distribution. Engineering and
Technology Management, 14 (1), 49–65.
Siskos, J., Lochard, J., & Lombard, J. (1984). A multi-
criteria decision-making methodology under fuzziness:
Application to the evaluation of radiological protection
in nuclear power plants. TIMS Studies in the
Management Sciences (Vol. 20, pp. 261–283). North-
Holland: Elsevier Science.
Tavares, L.V., Ferreira, J.A., & Coelho, J.S. (1998). On the
optimal management of project risk. European Journal of
Operational Research, 107 (2), 451–469.
Van Dorp, J.R., & Duffey, M.R. (1999). Statistical depen-
dence in risk analysis for project networks using Monte
Carlo methods. International Journal of Production Economics,
58 (1), 17–29.
Woodall, W.H., & Davis, R.E. (1994). Comments on
Editorial: Fuzzy models—What are they, and why? IEEE
Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 2 (1), 43.
Yen, J., & Langari, R. (1999). Fuzzy logic: Intelligence, con-
trol, and information. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Zadeh, L.A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8,
338–353.
Zadeh, L.A. (1975). Calculus of fuzzy restrictions. In L.A.
Zadeh, K.S. Fu, K. Tanaka, & J. Shirmara (Eds.). Fuzzy sets and
their application to cognitive and decision processes (pp. 1–39).
New York: Academic Press.
Zadeh, L.A., & Kacprzyk, J. (Eds.). (1992). Fuzzy logic for
the management of uncertainty. New York: John Wiley &
Sons Inc.

This article is copyrighted material and has been reproduced with the permission of PMI. Unauthorized reproduction of this material is strictly prohibited.
Toward a Dynamic Simulation
Model for Strategic Decision-Making
in Life-Cycle Project Management
▼ (1994) suggests a similar concept, i.e., the investment decisions on product life cycle
Abstract
This paper argues that process simulation
technology is an added facility in the quest for
optimizing project decisions based on market
and external uncertainties associated with the
project’s environment. The authors put forward
a dynamic simulation modeling system (DSMS)
as a tool for proactive and optimal decision-
making in the project life cycle. DSMS is
geared toward representing generic processes
with a hierarchical and modular model struc-
ture. DSMS facilitates the optimization of tech-
nical and operational functionality during
development and operation phases of pro-
jects. Project life-cycle objective functions are
the basis for decision-making throughout the
project’s life. The paper reviews the limitations
of the current systems’ ranges and capabili-
ties. A review of the existing simulation tech-
niques leads to a discussion on the need for
setting up an integrated model to encompass
the entire project life cycle. Details of the sys-
tem are described, and a case study is used to
demonstrate its capabilities.
Keywords: dynamic simulation; process
modeling; optimization; life-cycle project
management
©2002 by the Project Management Institute
2002, Vol. 33, No. 4, 23–38
8756–9728/02/$10.00 per article + $0.50 per page
December 2002
Hemanta Kumar Doloi, The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering,
Building J05, Sydney NSW 2006 Australia
Ali Jaafari, The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering, Building J05,
Sydney NSW 2006 Australia
P roject management concepts and processes are being utilized increasingly in
the strategic planning of service and operational processes. The technique
involves re-engineering processes with new and innovative ideas and therefore more
effective, productive, and efficient ways of doing business. To achieve the overall
business goals of the project, management must adapt to the market dynamics,
maintain operability and functionality of project facilities, adopt total quality man-
agement of end products, and seek customer satisfaction (Morris, 2000). Artto
should be based on the view of final customer’s perspective.
Economic analysis reflecting the final customer’s or investor’s life-cycle costs
vis-à-vis the project deliverables, are important during decision-making, particularly
in the early phase of projects (Jordanger, 1998; Morris, 1998). This is because
solutions devised and commitments made at the early phase fix a major part of
the project cost. Cleland (1999) emphasizes continuous improvement, which
helps increase the efficiency of current operations through better utilization of
facilities, resulting in greater effectiveness with new strategies to do the right things
in the right time.
To deal with the growing project complexity, organizations increasingly rely
upon the benefits of new technologies (Heindel & Kasten, 1996). Technologies
must be incorporated in the end result of a project, i.e., a product, a system, or a
facility, as well as being applied in the management of the project, i.e., technology
to support planning, control, communication, and decision-making (Storm, 1996).
Key strategies in the global marketplace include the development of high-
quality products at lower cost and faster commercialization. The main objective of
the project definition process is to maximize the chances of successful project
realization; define the project concepts, selection of alternatives, technical contents
and project scope; and determine financial and commercial requirements
(Kahkonen, 1998).
Westinghouse Corporate Services Council estimates that 85% of the product’s
life-cycle cost is determined before the manufacturing department becomes
involved with a new product. An additional dollar spent before manufacturing
can save $8 to $10 on manufacturing and post-manufacturing activities (Artto,
1994). Marmon (1991) and Luk (1990) emphasized the use of simulation to
study design, construction, and production phases of the facilities to justify and
fine-tune the impacts on process design changes.
Project Management Journal 23
 Define the Product in Define the Product in
the New Facility the Existing Facility

Life-Cycle Model for Life-Cycle Model for

New Products Existing Products

Define Processes for Define Processes for

the New Facility Existing Facility

Simulate
Processes

Optimize
Processes

Yes Yes
Proceed With Should We Invest Proceed With
the New Product in a New Product? the New Product

No
Define the New Product Define the New Product
Do Not Proceed With LCC Model as Baseline
LCC Model as Baseline
the New Product

No
Should We Implement the
Alternative Products?

Yes
Accept the Alternative
Repeat the Process and Make the Alternative
as Required the New Baseline

Figure 1. Process Simulation in the Life-Cycle Decision Model

This paper introduces a holistic approach for effective
front-end planning and management of the project deliver-
ables by focusing on the business objectives during the
early phases of the project. The underlying methodology
enables project managers in meeting some of these chal-
lenges and allows design, evaluation, and visualization of
new and existing processes throughout the project life
cycle. Development of a dynamic simulation modeling
system (DSMS) allows simulation and optimization of
selected processes during planning, implementation, and
operation phases and evaluation of the impacts of changes
on the life-cycle objective functions (LCOFs) (Manivong &
Jaafari, 1999).
Simulation Model and the Integrated
Facility Engineering System
Discrete event simulation is a powerful means for the design of
mathematical-logical models of the real-world system and
experimentation with alternative scenarios on the computer
screen. Simulation makes the target facility more realistic in
terms of functionality, and the required total investment cost
can be forecasted more accurately. Figure 1 shows a typical
process simulation in the life-cycle decision model. Investment
decisions can be optimized on project facilities based on finan-
cial LCOFs (Jaafari & Manivong, 1998). The technique facili-
tates improved understanding of the real-life situation during
the conceptualization and finalization phases of the project.

24 Project Management Journal December 2002

 Integrated Facility Engineering (IFE) System
Project

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4

Process Process Process Process

Simulation Level
Simulation Simulation Simulation Simulation

Output Output Output Output

Whole Project
Process Simulation

Submit

Optimization Level
Scope Evaluation
Resubmit in SPMIS Framework Resubmit

No LCOFs No
Satisfied

Yes

Visual Design Soft Issue

Management System Project Management
Databank

Figure 2. Simulation Model Integration in the Integrated Facility Engineering System

Figure 2 shows the overall architecture of the Integrated
Facility Engineering (IFE) project, currently under develop-
ment at the University of Sydney’s Department of Civil
Engineering. The IFE is a generic system that aids management
of capital projects in an integrated project management envi-
ronment. Target values set for LCOFs are used as the criteria to
guide decision-making. The architecture has been conceptual-
ized and designed to facilitate the uptake of life-cycle project
management (LCPM) methodology for the delivery of projects
(Jaafari & Manivong, 1998).
The LCOFs include:
■ The project’s financial status and its profitability;
■ The operability, quality, or performance of the facility;
■ The soft issues such as project short- and long-term
liabilities, including occupational health and safety (OH&S)
risks throughout project life, environmental impacts, and
third-party liabilities.
The IFE system entails integrated modules including:
■ A smart project management information system (SPMIS)
to facilitate the analysis of project management functions
(Jaafari & Manivong, 1998);
■ A visual design management (VDM) system to assist in visu-
alization/schedule simulation and management of the design
process (Chaaya & Jaafari, 1999);
■ A construction management information system (CMIS)
(Jaafari, Manivong, & Chaaya, 2000);
■ A dynamic simulation modeling system (DSMS) to
enhance the strategic decision analysis for project viability
(Doloi & Jaafari, 2000);
■ A soft issues management system (SIMS) to evaluate soft
functions such as community and stakeholder issues (Jaafari
& Vlasic, 1999).
The IFE system has a unified project databank that estab-
lishes a multi-access intranet configuration. It allows entry

December 2002 Project Management Journal 25

at the point of information generation, provides distributed
access to the system, and furnishes the required functions to
aid information integration and expedite communication
and decision processes within the client-server protocol.
The work breakdown structure (WBS) determines the so-
called parts and products of the project (Jaafari &
Manivong, 1998). IFE facilitates an iterative planning
process to assemble and evaluate information, solutions,
effectiveness of the same, and the overall impacts on the
project. The project management team presides over the
entire process and evaluates all decisions or alternatives to
locate an optimal solution to meet or exceed the target val-
ues set for LCOFs.
The remainder of this paper will map a logical approach
to research and development of a DSMS module. For
further information on other modules, refer to Jaafari and
Manivong (1998), Chaaya and Jaafari (1999), and Jaafari
and Vlasic (1999).
DSMS
The integrated DSMS module adds a process simulation capa-
bility to the IFE system for decision evaluation (Figure 2). The
main purpose of the DSMS is to facilitate the optimization
of the end facility—particularly reliability, throughput
times, stocks, facility utilization, process streamlining, and
optimization vs. LCOFs. The DSMS has been conceptual-
ized to meet these requirements in a practical and objective
manner. The functionality incorporated in DSMS allows
process mapping, modeling, simulation and animation,
data analysis, and reporting of input/output results. It facil-
itates performance analysis, capacity analysis, capability
analysis, comparison study, sensitivity analysis, optimiza-
tion study, decision/response analysis, constraint analysis,
and visualization.
Process Simulation and Project Management
Numerous examples provide evidence how organizations can
save millions of dollars and avoid major risks using process
simulation (Chen, 1997). While development of computer-
aided process simulation techniques have accelerated in recent
years, its use for project definition, management of project
deliverables, and end management of the investment life cycle
is not widespread. Simulation in project management
has been limited to only project management education and
training (Cano, Saenz, & Sanz, 1998; Tsuchiya, 1997).
Due to the existence of traditional barriers, dynamic
modeling and simulation tools play little or no role in
defining business objectives for the project. Project managers
are hindered severely by the lack of appropriate simulation
tools and environments. The complexity of simulating a
process typically acts as a constraint to the utilization of sim-
ulation technology for the evaluation of real-life situations.
Thus, an easy to use conceptual model that simplifies the
task of project managers would be ideal for testing the
project concept against fluctuations in operational environ-
ments and facility characteristics as well as improving
process design and operational improvements.
26 Project Management Journal
Idealized Simulation Model for
Proactive Life-Cycle Project Management
Simulation modeling allows evaluating a broad range of sys-
tem conditions to monitor the consequences of altering
processes and measuring the impacts, including performance
and sensitivity of input/output characteristics related to project
operations. An idealized simulation tool must facilitate con-
struction of a digital model of the project processes. This tool
would be capable of acting as an experimental test-bed for
decision-making throughout the project life cycle. It should
furnish the capability to test diverse scenarios to derive the
most viable solution in the project’s life cycle.
To set up a benchmarking template of the capabilities of
an idealized simulation model, the authors have identified
17 model characteristic functions (Table 1). This is based
on an extensive literature study of the currently available
simulation systems.
Review of Current Simulation Systems
System Classifications. The existing systems fit in three main
categories (Table 2):
■ Construction-oriented simulation systems;
■ Manufacturing-oriented simulation systems;
■ General-purpose simulation systems.
A total of 28 popular systems have been sampled for the
purpose of this study. These systems can be divided further into
two classes:
■ In-house, typically proprietary systems that are developed
generally as prototype systems;
■ Commercial systems that are available in the market or
developed and employed within research institutions.
Among the 28 systems sampled, 16 are commercially avail-
able, and the rest are prototypes (Table 2). The sample encom-
passes functional variations across different systems as far as
possible. Information on these systems was gathered from
published articles in leading journals, conference proceedings,
textbooks, and handbooks without independent evaluation.
The authors have selected these systems for a comprehensive
analysis in terms of functional features and are not biased
toward any one particular system.
The purpose of the study is primarily to compare the fea-
tures offered by the selected systems and to verify whether the
development of a new generation simulation system is war-
ranted (Table 1). As seen from Table 2, a significant number of
modeling and simulation methodologies have been developed
in the past three decades.
Functions Covered. Among commercial systems sampled,
all are found to be excellent in performing certain model char-
acteristic functions for which they have been designed. However,
a critical evaluation of the systems shows that none really satisfy
the capabilities sought for the idealized DSMS. These systems
have not been designed as proactive decision-making tools. The
increasing complexity and uncertainty brought about by operat-
ing in a dynamic global business environment certainly require
continual re-evaluation of project functionality, operability, reli-
ability, and market responsiveness, which are not supported by
the current systems (McCahill & Bernold, 1993).
December 2002
 Number Characteristic function Methods and application
1 Life-cycle application Embraces whole life cycle including conceptual, planning, design, manu-
facture, operation and maintenance, demolition and recycle phases;
evaluation of project scope based on the target values set for life-cycle
objective functions (LCOFs).
2 Hierarchical and Development of hierarchical breakdown structure identifying major
modular structure parts, processes, and operations; operation sequencing techniques;
interconnectedness of various processes for final product simulation;
hierarchical model composition structures of discrete event simulation
with process interaction approach; explicit and modular definition of
event rules.
3 Application methods Flexibility and capability of the model for generic use as well as specific
process simulations.
4 Process optimization Optimization of processes in terms of efficiency, performance,
functionality, operability evaluation, and LCOFs requirement; percent
completion reports for operation processes.
5 Resource utilization Bar charts, histograms, S-curves, learning curve, pie charts and resource
tables; supply-demand curves; percent resource utilization charts.
6 Proactive evaluation and Proactive decision evaluation based on process simulation; scope
continuous project definition re-evaluation based on input-output requirements; what-if scenario
analysis and reports.
7 Modeling environment User friendliness; graphic user interface (GUI); hardware and software
systems requirement; object-oriented technology, Web server application;
Internet and intranet capabilities; input and output requirements; pro-
grammability, extensibility and usability.
8 Pre- and post- Pre- and post-review reports; cost-benefit analysis, profitability
completion review index; technical cost achievement report.
9 Facility management Viability of overall facility based on end deliverables; change impact
analysis; percent facility utilization charts; bar charts, pie charts, and
documentation.
10 Operation time Cycle time, schedule, operational duration estimates to cope with
market fluctuation; make-to-order, work-in-progress, and just-in-time.
11 Market and customer Market demand and fluctuation monitoring plan; market change
management analysis and forecast plan; life-cycle impact analysis; model flexibility to
supply-demand adjustment.
12 Scope management Project configuration and feasibility evaluation; needs assessment;
project prioritization analysis.
13 Product management Product management plan, implementation; monitoring and controlling
facility; production curve; production scheduling.
14 Performance evaluation Performance evaluation in terms of functionality and average facility usage.
15 System integration Prototype system integrating with the Integrated Facility Engineering
(IFE) system for dynamic project viability evaluation; integrating with
other systems such as spreadsheet and CAD application software.
16 Reporting, visualization, Graphical and tabular presentation of results, reports,
and animations documentation, visualization, and animations; pie charts,
histograms, time-series plots, bar charts.
17 Dynamic implementation Model implementation is based on real-time scenarios rather than static
CAD-based applications; model simulates processes and feeds relevant
outputs dynamically into various modules in the IFE system as required.

Table 1. Definition of Characteristic Functions for an Idealized Process Simulation Model Embodying a Project
Management Information System

December 2002 Project Management Journal 27

 System name System status Source/Author Percent comparability*
Construction-oriented
CIPROS Prototype Tommelein et al. (1994) 29
AP3 Prototype Sawhney (1994) 28
CRUISER Prototype Hajjar and AbouRizk (1998) 27
SimCon Prototype Chehayeb and AbouRizk (1997) 26
SEACONS Prototype McCahill and Bernold (1993) 25
COOPS Prototype Liu (1991) 24
MICROCYCLONE Prototype Halpin (1990) 21
STROBOSCOPE Prototype Martinez and Loannou (1995) 20
SIREN Prototype Kavanagh (1985) 18
Manufacturing-oriented
PROMODEL Commercial Harrel and Leavy (1993) 41
FACTOR/AIM Commercial Enrlich and Lilegdon (1997) 38
WITNESS Commercial Markt and Mayer (1990, 1997) 37
Taylor II Commercial Nordgren (1995) 36
MODSIM III Commercial Goble (1990, 1997) 35
EXTEND Commercial David (1995) 31
SIMPROCESS III Commercial Jones (1995) 31
PROSIM Commercial Lingineni et al. (1995) 29
SIMFACTORY II.5 Commercial Globe (1991) 28
General purpose
SIMPLE ++ Prototype Geuder (1995) 40
AweSim Commercial Pritsker and O’Reilly (1997) 36
SIMAN/Cinema V Commercial Glavach and Sturrock (1993) 34
GPSS/WORLD Commercial Cox (1991) 33
SLAM II Commercial O’Reilly (1995) 31
SIMULA Commercial Dahl and Nygaard (1966) 29
PETRI-NET Prototype Petri (1962, 1997) 27
SIMOBJECT Commercial Jones (1995) 27
C++/CSIM17 Commercial Schwetman (1995) 27
SIMSCRIPT II.5 Prototype Russell (1993) 23

* Percent comparability is found by expressing the average total score from Table 3 as percentage of 6 (ideal score). For example, an average total
score of 3 is equal to 50% comparability.

Table 2. Description of Simulation Systems and Their Comparison to the Idealized System

System Interfacing. Most of the systems do not provide full
integration of the characteristic functions shown in Table 1.
However, the commercial systems in the sample generally pro-
vide better integration with existing information technology
(IT) tools compared to the prototype systems. For example,
AweSim (Prisker & O'Reilly, 1997) is built on a relational data-
base and accessible through standard tools such as DBase,
Access, FoxPro, and Microsoft Excel. Input data can move easi-
ly from an Excel worksheet to the AweSim input tables. FAC-
TOR/AIM (Ehrlich & Lilegdon, 1997) allows creating custom
reports and graphs using Access report wizards. Output data
can be saved directly as an Excel spreadsheet for further analy-
sis. Many provide explicit integration capabilities with CAD
programs and dynamic data exchange. SIMAN/Cinema
(Glavach & Sturrock, 1993), ProModel (Harrel & Leavy, 1993),
and WITNESS (Markt & Mayer, 1997) import drawings from
many CAD programs to display static background and to
define material handling paths. Taylor-II (Nordgren, 1995) can
generate model documentation in text file format and process
external files (ASCII-file) for the whole model.
Point Comparison and Ranking. The authors have under-
taken a point comparison of the systems in the sample to eval-
uate their technological and functional capabilities (Table 3).
The scoring scale ranges from 1 to 6:
■ Score 1: Poor;
■ Score 2: Fair;
■ Score 3: Moderate;
■ Score 4: Good;
■ Score 5: High;
■ Score 6: Ideal.
Table 3 shows the total average score derived for each
system. Individual scores are shown in columns against each

28 Project Management Journal December 2002

 Reporting, visualization, and animation

Average total score (Ideal score = 6)

Market and customers management
Hierarchical and modular structure

Pre- and post-completion review

Operation time management

Characteristic

Dynamic implementation
functions

Performance evaluation
Modeling environment

Product management
Life-cycle application

Facility management
Process optimization
Application methods

Proactive evaluation

Scope management
Resource utilization

System integration
Simulation
systems

Construction-oriented
1 MICROCYCLONE 2 4 4 2 1 3 1 1 3 1.24
2 COOPS 2 4 4 3 1 4 1 2 3 1.41
3 CIPROS 3 3 4 4 4 1 3 2 2 3 1.71
4 STROBOSCOPE 2 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 1.18
5 SimCon 1 3 4 4 3 1 4 1 2 3 1.53
6 SIREN 2 3 3 3 3 1 3 1.18
7 SEACONS 2 2 4 4 3 4 2 1 3 1.47
8 CRUISER 2 2 4 4 3 1 4 2 1 4 1.59
9 AP3 3 2 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 4 1.65
Manufacturing-oriented
10 MODSIM III 3 2 5 5 4 1 5 3 3 5 2.12
11 PROMODEL 2 4 5 5 5 3 5 3 5 5 2.47
12 SIMFACTORY II.5 2 4 4 3 1 4 3 3 4 1.65
13 FACTOR/AIM 2 3 5 5 5 2 5 3 4 5 2.29
14 WITNESS 2 3 5 5 5 1 5 3 4 5 2.24
15 Taylor II 2 3 5 5 5 1 5 2 4 5 2.18
16 EXTEND 2 2 5 5 4 1 5 3 3 5 2.06
17 PROSIM 3 4 4 4 1 3 3 4 4 1.76
18 SIMPROCESS III 2 3 5 5 4 1 4 3 1 4 1.88
General purpose
19 GPSS/WORLD 2 3 5 5 4 1 4 3 3 4 2.00
20 SLAM II 3 5 5 4 1 5 4 5 1.88
21 PETRI-NET 3 4 4 3 1 4 2 3 3 1.59
22 SIMOBJECT 3 4 4 5 1 3 3 4 1.59
23 SIMPLE ++ 4 4 5 5 5 2 4 3 5 4 2.41
24 C++/CSIM17 2 3 4 4 4 1 3 3 3 1.59
25 SIMSCRIPT II.5 3 4 4 4 1 3 4 1.35
26 SIMAN/Cinema V 2 3 5 5 4 1 5 5 5 2.06
27 AweSim 1 4 5 5 4 2 5 1 5 5 2.18
28 SIMULA 3 5 5 4 1 5 3 4 1.76

Table 3. Point Comparison Between Existing Systems and the Idealized System

December 2002 Project Management Journal 29

 (a) (b)
Entity Process
(d) (e)
Queue Activity
Activities
Generate Delay Assemble Release Replenish
Figure 3. Modeling Elements for Process Simulation
function. A blank space in a column represents a nonexistent
capability. An examination of these columns shows that none
of the systems sampled provides the full capabilities sought.
The last column of Table 2 shows the ranking of
samples against the idealized DSMS in descending order.
The system with the highest ranking possesses less than
one-half of the total capabilities defined for the idealized
system. The construction-oriented simulation tool,
Construction Integrated PROject and process planning
Simulation system (CIPROS) (Tommelein, Odeh, & Carr,
1994) scored the highest with 29% comparability require-
ments. In the manufacturing category, ProModel scored
the highest with 41% comparability. Under the general-
purpose simulation category, SIMPLE++ (Geuder, 1995)
came in first with 40% comparability.
Most of the available systems facilitate one or a combi-
nation of the characteristic functions in various contexts.
The authors have concluded that a generic simulation sys-
tem for decision evaluation within an integrated environ-
ment with the required capabilities (Table 1) does not exist.
Furthermore, none of the systems reviewed provide a facil-
ity for proactive project scope evaluation based on holistic
considerations. Under the traditional project management
approach, projects are not proactively scrutinized, and deci-
sions are mainly based on short-term profitability criteria
(Riggs, 1989). This clearly indicates that there is potential
to research and develop a system that can furnish a lot
more capability and functionality than the best systems
currently available.
DSMS Specifications
The DSMS has been conceptualized to simulate typical service
and production processes throughout the project life cycle. Six
broad elements are utilized to construct the process model
(Figure 3). These include entities, processes, subprocesses,
queues, activities, and resources. Different block symbols are
30 Project Management Journal
(c)
Subprocess
(f)
Resource
Block Batch Unbatch Interruption Discard
used to represent these elements. A total of ten activities with
unique block symbols (generate, delay, assemble, release,
replenish, block, batch, unbatch, interruption, and discard) are
used to represent the behavior of processes and subprocesses
in the model.
Figure 4 shows the generic relationships among model-
ing elements in DSMS framework. Processes involve a log-
ically and sequentially related set of activities on selected
entities. The entity changes and produces an output at the
end. If a process involves more than one function within
the system that becomes too complex, the process must
further break down into subprocesses. Activities take place
within processes and subprocesses. Queue establishes the
necessary logical links between processes and subprocess-
es. Resources are allocated for each activity within
processes. It is postulated that this methodology can be
utilized as a generic application in various service situa-
tions. DSMS interfaces will allow users to represent the
real-life situations as a simulated model without prior
simulation training.
The DSMS model utilizes a hierarchical and modular struc-
ture (Figure 5). This structure enhances the program’s capabil-
ity in simulating varied design alternatives (Zeigler, 1987). The
WBS adopted for each project facilitates this requirement. The
WBS used in DSMS is based on the following hierarchy:
1. Project. The project is considered to be the highest compo-
nent in the hierarchy model and focuses on the gross project
attributes. At this level, attributes are project identification and
overall management issues from startup to the end of the project.
2. Part. A part is considered to be a subproject and defined
either as a physical part of the project or an associated soft
deliverable. Major parts are identified at this level.
3. Process. At this level, processes for each constituent
part are identified. The dynamic composition for a part is
described as a system in terms of activities, events, and
processes. If the processes are not easily identifiable at the
December 2002
 Processes in Part 1
Process
Process 1.3 Process
1.1 1.5
Entity Queue Process
Process Process 1.7
Process
1.2 1.4 1.6
Queue

Resources

Subprocesses
Subprocess Subprocess Resource
1.2.1 1.2.3 1

Subprocess Resource
Subprocess 1.2.4 2
1.2.2
Resource
3

Activities Activity
1.2.4.3
Activity
1.2.4.1 Activity
1.2.4.2

Figure 4. Process Modeling Elements and Their Relationship in the Dynamic Simulation Modeling System

part level, parts are broken down further into products,
i.e., subsystems. Processes are used to represent whole or
part of the life of temporary entities in the real system.
Usually, a number of processes exist in a system model at
any point in time. The process level is very important with-
in the project hierarchical structure and defines function-
ality of the project.
Operational and technological sequencing of the
processes must be identified at the process level (Abdalla,
1991). These processes are broken down further into sub-
processes, and logical links are established with user-
defined interfaces. The logical links between processes and
subprocesses in DSMS methodology are treated as a queue
(Figure 4). Every queue stands as an individual unit with its
own specific properties. The queue links adopted in DSMS
are one of the unique innovations in process simulation
theory. The activity is the smallest piece of operation with a
finite execution time. A sequence of activities, i.e., an oper-
ation, is initiated when an event occurs. One or more activ-
ities transform the state of a system. A basic set of activities
constitutes the subprocesses and allows modeling the
sequence of events in chronological order.
The process simulation engine produces a design solution
at both the part and project levels. A user can select the time
units in seconds, minutes, hours, days, and weeks. The model
statistics can be collected at all levels of the hierarchy.
Modeling variability associated with uncertainties or
randomness, such as activity times, interarrival times, time-to-
failure, and time-to-repair values, are achieved using statistical
distribution functions. The model outcomes are produced in
the form of reports, bar charts, pie charts, tables, histograms,
time plot variables, and text files. The model outputs are uti-
lized in terms of performance analysis, capacity analysis, com-
parison study, sensitivity analysis, optimization study, deci-
sion/response analysis, constraint analysis, and visualization.
The accepted scenario from the model output is further
analyzed for life-cycle impact evaluation (Jaafari, 1988).
Functions can be linked across the life-cycle phases within the
IFE environment to get a comprehensive overview of the pro-
ject’s status in real time. This objective-based approach will
allow planners to verify the impact of any changes on the sub-
ject project. If LCOFs are not satisfied at the project level, the
corresponding process must be re-evaluated for alternative
solutions, and the procedure is repeated (Figure 3).

December 2002 Project Management Journal 31

 Project
Level 1

Define Resource
Yes Define Library
Process Clear? Processes No
No
Parts No Yes
Subprocess Exist? Unified LCOFs
Level 2

Project Satisfied?
Yes
Database
Process Clear? Yes
Define
No Subprocesses
Products
Level 3

Yes Define Define Queue

Process Clear? Queue Links Properties

Define Activity
Define Activity
Properties

No Can the Yes

Model Run? Simulation

Figure 5. The Three-Level Hierarchy Structure in the Dynamic Simulation Modeling System

IT Outlook. The object-oriented environment using
C++/Visual C++ programming languages have been used for
development of the DSMS as well as the IFE system. The
DSMS is designed to set up automatically project-based
process models against instructions from the users and uti-
lizing information extracted from the IFE system. Interactive
Windows facilitate users to determine the association
between each object class in the DSMS. Data exchanging and
dynamic linking capabilities allow the DSMS to integrate
into the IFE system.
Furthermore, DSMS’s interfacing capabilities provide an
added facility for entering and modifying system inputs,
reviewing facility needs, redefining project scope, and produc-
ing reports and maps. A database management system
(ObjectStore®) is being utilized to capture the entire project
and process data within the IFE framework.
Process Simulation Framework
Object Oriented Technologies. The Booch Object-Oriented
Analysis and Design method (Booch, 1993) is a suitable
solution for design of the simulation model. Due to its object-
oriented nature, the C++ programming language (Stroustrup,
1991) provides all the necessary flexibility, speed and industry
support during the design of the model.
The object-oriented simulation model consists of a set of
interrelated object classes. It interacts with other objects
through exchanging messages. An object can have defined
properties through which it is possible to construct a com-
plex assembly of objects in order to define the processes of a
facility (Abdalla, 1991).
The DSMS approach utilizes the discrete event simulation
technique (Pidd, 1984) with process interaction approach
(Garrido, 1999). In discrete event process simulation, entities
representing products or services are induced into the model;
they compete for resources and perform the activities and are
discarded at the end (Figure 5).
In the process interaction simulation approach, a process is a
sequence of logically related activities in time. A process can be
represented as a class. The attributes of a process are represented
as attributes of the class. The behavior of a process is modeled by
the operations to be performed on the process. The modeler
declares process objects and specifies their behavior via available
methods. Thus, the integration of all the defined process objects
into a single process unit provides the simulation model.

32 Project Management Journal December 2002

 Project Definitions and Specifications
Process Resource Model Performance
Definition Assignments Formulation Measurement

User Interface

Knowledge-based
Process Generation
Module
Module
Link Identification
Subprocess and Generation
Generation Module Module

Resource Queue Generation

Library Module
Activity
Generation Module
Output Generation
Module
Resource
Allocation Module Intranet/Internet-
based Application
Module
Object-Oriented Simulation and
Database Optimization
Module

Figure 6. Broad Architecture of the Dynamic Simulation Modeling System

Process Interaction Approach. Processes are the set of
abstract data structures and entities carrying out the operation
sequences within the system (Figure 4). Activities are assigned
to each subprocess to represent the system behavior, and each
process maintains its own list of activities. Subprocesses act as
nodes linked with interactive queue connections. Each sub-
process contains the respective event time and activities in the
system. The processes can be in one of the several states:
■ Active—When its activities are being executed;
■ Ready—When the process is waiting to start;
■ Idle—When the process is not active;
■ Terminated—When the process has exhausted its action and
is not going to be active again in the run under consideration.
Thus, the process interaction approach in simulation mod-
eling represents the dynamic behavior of a group of processes
carrying out the operations and interactions with one another
(Garrido, 1999).
Project and Process Model. DSMS is needed to support
proactive management of the project, particularly with respect
to LCOFs. The LCOFs must be evaluated not only for a select-
ed major process, but for the complete project to ensure that
decisions made on the formulation, design, specification, and
implementation lead to viable business solutions. For exam-
ple, the pulp handling system in a paper mill is considered a
major system. Design and specification of this system must be
optimized in respect of the overall project vs. LCOFs.
In the DSMS methodology, the entire model library (con-
taining invisible elements or submodels) resides in the main
project’s repository. Dialog boxes allow users to define relevant
rules, constraints and logical connectivity of all processes and
subprocesses. The knowledge-based system facilitates the syn-
thesis of the required process model automatically.
Of course, the needed level of abstraction may have to be
explicitly specified or deduced from clues provided by the user.
As an example, if a production engineer in a factory wants to
increase production by 50% due to market demand, the sys-
tem can synthesize an appropriate model automatically using
the information supplied by the user.
Process Interaction Implementation
Process Activity Interaction. The process model set up by
DSMS consists of four major types of objects: processes,
resources, transactions, and queues. Processes use available
resources to provide the definitive results. Activities interact

December 2002 Project Management Journal 33

Figure 7. Interaction Between Process Data and Database in the Dynamic Simulation Modeling System
inclusively within the processes. The process object allows rep-
resenting several subprocesses in multiple levels. Every process
and subprocess has a name and identification defined in the
model interface.
The total eight activities (generate, delay, assemble, release,
replenish, block, batch, and unbatch) define the unique
dynamic behavior of the processes and subprocesses
(Figure 3). In the DSMS approach, the activities cannot be
broken down. Every activity has the user-defined interactive
properties of its own. Resources can be allocated from the
resource library for each process vis-à-vis the activity. The sim-
ulation engine manages the processes in the object database
by carrying out three main tasks: process placement, process
removal, and process rescheduling. The engine keeps track of
the simulation clock and decides which process is for imme-
diate activation based on the process connectivity (Pidd,
1984). For the sake of brevity, details of the activities have not
been discussed in this paper.
Resource Modeling. Resources are the agents that are
required in performing a process or subprocess through an
activity. The performance of the dynamic processes usually is
constrained by the limited availability of the resources or
resource interdependencies, which form queues in the system.
DSMS modeling capability allows defining type, identification,
capacity, cost, schedule, and allocation for resources. The sim-
ulation engine keeps track of resource utilization and queu-
ing/delays for each process during the simulation run. Users
can select the resource schedule and resource interruption
options in the resource interfaces.
34 Project Management Journal
Transaction Modeling. Transactions are the entities that
flow through the processes. Transactions can be used to repre-
sent physical objects such as an order, a customer, telephone
calls, or work units. Every entity has its own properties such as
a name, identification, arrival time, and service time. Users can
define the state of transactions such as periodic arrival, cyclical
arrival, and random arrival along with the generation points, as
required in the real-life situation.
Process Connectivity. Queue links are utilized among
processes and subprocesses for logical connectivity in the
DSMS framework. These are used for defining the workflow.
Queues are modeling objects with their own characteristics
such as a name, identification, maximum queue size, priority,
etc. More than one queue is used to define the concurrent
processes. Users can define the logical links by selecting prede-
cessor and concurrent processes in the process interfaces. A
process that has multiple incoming and outgoing queues can
be modeled using multiple queue links. DSMS allows collect-
ing the queue statistics during and after the simulation run.
Proposed DSMS Architecture
Components of DSMS. Figure 6 illustrates a conceptual archi-
tecture of the simulation model. The DSMS comprises four
broad subsystems:
■ Process Generation Module. This model facilitates the
hierarchical process generation following the top-down
approach. The processes are broken down into subprocesses in
the next level of the hierarchy model. The progressive break
down continues until a sufficient level of details can describe
December 2002
 Subprocesses
Washing Filling Sealing
Line 1 Line 1 Line 1

Washing Filling Sealing

Line 2 Line 2 Line 2
Queue ID
Prs1_Prs2_Q1
Bottling
Line 1 ‘Prs2’ Labeling Box Packaging
Line 1 ‘Prs5’ Line 1 ‘Prs7’ Box Box
Bottle Arrive Bottling Labeling 1 Storage
‘Prs1’ Line 2 ‘Prs3’ Labeling Box Packaging ‘Prs9’ ‘Prs10’
Line 2 ‘Prs6’ Line 2 ‘Prs8’
Bottling
Line 3 ‘Prs4’

Figure 8. Network Model for a Bottling and Packaging Line

Figure 9. Process-Process Relationships and Queue Link Mechanism in the Dynamic Simulation Modeling System

the behavior of the subprocesses. Activities in the subprocesses
are defined in a different interface, and resources are allocated
as required. The resource library maintains the overall resource
data. The information on process data, site condition,
historical data, production data, product properties, and
design constraints are identified during the model definition.
Different scenarios are combined with various constraints dur-
ing simulation model construction.
■ Simulation and Optimization Module. The simulation
engine facilitates systematic sequencing of different processes
and subprocesses in the overall model. The simulator manages
and runs the relevant processes with input and output require-
ments. The simulator maintains the simulation clock. It pro-
vides a set of operations that can be called or invoked by the
simulation model. Functionality and operability offered by dif-
ferent scenarios are observed and optimized based on the
model behavior and simulation run statistics.
■ Knowledge-Based Intelligent System. The knowledge-based
intelligent system facilitates the establishment of logical links
between processes and subprocesses based on the expected

December 2002 Project Management Journal 35

scenarios via the digital model of the project. The queues are
generated between processes and subprocesses and properties
are defined using interfaces. The multiple objectives of the
process alternatives are assessed within the process-modeling
framework. The input analyzer refines the stochastic data using
probability analysis (Jaafari, 1988). The output generator engine
provides reports and documents with visualization and anima-
tion capabilities. The intelligent system maintains the track of
simulation object libraries. Note that the DSMS will be designed
as a multi-user program using a client/server configuration to set
up the IFE system.
■ Database Management System, or Repository System. An
object-oriented database system acts as a motherboard in the
IFE system. All program modules reside as segments in the
database and enable real-time interactions with one another.
The object data from the process models are stored persistent-
ly in the object-oriented database management system
(OODBMS). The OODBMS accommodates multimedia data
objects such as text files, image files, spreadsheet files, CAD
drawings and project information.
System Capabilities and Applications
DSMS interfaces are window oriented. It utilizes pop-up and
pop-down menus, dialog boxes, selection lists, and editors for
developing process logic. Interactive graphic user interfaces
allow users to build process models by filling simple forms
without prior simulation training. The user can customize the
reports by selecting statistics for resources, locations, entities,
variables, etc. Reports can be displayed, printed or imported
into the typical application software and plotted in the form
of pie charts, histograms, time-series plots, etc.
Figure 7 shows Dialog boxes provided for an interaction
between process data and the database in the DSMS applica-
tion. Dialog 1 shows the main menu and a floating palette
bar on the left side. User can create activities by clicking on
the palette bar icons. Figure 8 shows a case study database
file for simulation of a bottling and packaging line. The
process data file stored in the ObjectStore database can be
retrieved as shown in Dialog 2. Processes can be defined
using the general project-process sheet (Dialog 3), and sub-
processes can be assigned further in edit dialog box of the
respective processes. Resource libraries and entity character-
istics can be defined by using the resource and entity dialog
boxes as shown in Dialog 3.
Figure 9 shows the establishment of logical connections
between selected processes and their dependencies (Dialog
4). In Figure 8, the Bottle Arrive-Prs1 process is the prede-
cessor to the Bottling Line1-Prs2 process. Queue links are
assigned between these two processes by using the Add
Queue button. Queues are further edited by using Dialog 5
and 6 as shown in Figure 9.
Subprocesses for the process Bottling Line1-Prs2 have
been defined in Dialog 4. A maximum of five alternative
scenarios can be analyzed for each model run. Activities are
assigned by selecting the respective buttons of the applica-
tion, and the corresponding resources can be allocated from
the predefined resource library (Dialog 4).
36 Project Management Journal
Future Directions
At present, development of DSMS is about half completed and
the full functionality of the model is yet to be achieved. To
verify and validate the model, the authors have started to con-
duct a series of case studies. The model focuses on manufac-
turing-, construction-, or services-type processes throughout
the project life cycle. The case study will provide a thorough
understanding of how simulation techniques can be used
effectively to optimize decisions in every stage of the project. It
helps in forecasting the impacts of business process re-engi-
neering or changes due to benchmarking exercises. The inte-
gration of DSMS within the IFE system will facilitate life-cycle
project management through real-time evaluations and opti-
mizations of the project’s LCOFs.
A further development planned for the future is that DSMS
should be Web-enabled to permit distributed teamwork. The
users should be able to reach the system via Web application
servers. The DSMS application will consist of data storage, data
indexing and retrieval, the Web server, the application server,
and many other components. The system requires users to
input data, which will be stored into the project repository sit-
ting on the remote application server. The application software
typically developed in C++, PERL, and JAVA will respond
dynamically to the requests over the Web server (Skibniewski
& Abduh, 2000). Thus, the system will be designed to foster
creativity and innovation via rapid testing of multiple alterna-
tives, in conjunction with other IFE modules.
Summary and Conclusion
In this paper, the authors argued that discrete event process
simulation is a valuable tool in terms of optimizing project
decisions vis-à-vis life-cycle objective functions. Projects are
considered as value-driven business undertakings. Simulation
technology can be used to improve the project’s baseline value
and determine project investment decisions optimally.
A review of the existing systems against an idealized sys-
tem indicated the need for DSMS development. The project’s
functionality and operability can be simulated, reflecting
anticipated future market shifts at an early stage of the pro-
ject. This permits greater understanding of the project’s capac-
ity to respond to market dynamics and maintain its business
competitiveness.
Object-oriented technology utilized for the development of
DSMS facilitates the integration of the system into the IFE sys-
tem. The hierarchical and modular structure of the model pro-
vides a framework for process simulation of the whole project
as well as parts or subsystems. Process interaction approach
adopted within the DSMS framework helps logical and
sequential mapping of the selected process. Six model ele-
ments with a set of eight unique activities facilitate the model
construction. Alternative scenarios vis-à-vis projects’ processes
can be easily simulated and optimized via the evaluation of
their impacts on LCOFs.
The DSMS is designed as generic prototype application soft-
ware that responds to the user’s instructions interactively. The
DSMS allows users to create relevant dynamic process models
using graphic interfaces and without prior training. DSMS
December 2002
helps estimate the real-life process characteristics such as input
quantities and variations, cycle time, percentage utilization of
service facility, processing time, supplier lead times, personnel
utilization, resource utilization, critical variation, bottlenecks,
queues, and output variations more accurately. Information
derived from DSMS supports improved strategic decision-
making on project’s facilities in a dynamic environment.
References
Abdalla, J.A. (1991). An object oriented architecture and
concept for an integrated structural engineering system.
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Application
of Artificial Intelligence to Civil and Structural Engineering,
Edinburg, Scotland. Stirling, Scotland: Civil-Comp Ltd.,
147–155.
Artto, K.A. (1994). Life cycle cost concepts and method-
ologies. Journal of Cost Management, 3, 28–32.
Booch, G. (1993). Object-oriented analysis and design with
applications. Redwood City, CA: Benjamin Cummings.
Cano, J.L., Saenz, M.J., & Sanz, D. (1998). Development of
a project simulation game. Proceedings of the 14th World
Congress on Project Management, Slovenia, Finland. Slovenia,
Finland: Cankarjev dom Cultural and Congress Center,
620–628.
Chaaya, M., & Jaafari, A. (1999). Integrated design man-
agement within a life cycle project management paradigm.
Proceedings of the Second International Conference on
Construction Process Re-engineering, Sydney, Australia. Sydney,
Australia: Australian Center for Construction Innovation,
279–289.
Chen, J. (1997). Achieving maximum supply chain
efficiency. IIE Solutions, 6, 30–35.
Cleland, D.I. (1999). Project management, strategic design
and implementation (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Doloi, H., & Jaafari, A. (2000). Application of simulation
tool for strategic decision evaluation for life cycle project man-
agement. Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on
Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC 2000), Taipei,
Taiwan. Taipei, Taiwan: National Taiwan University, 739–744.
Ehrlich, J.N., & Lilegdon, W.R. (1997). Making better man-
ufacturing decisions with AIM. Proceedings of the 1997 Winter
Simulation Conference, Atlanta, GA. New York: The Institute of
Electrical & Electronics Engineers, 552–554.
Garrido, J.M. (1999). Practical process simulation using object-
oriented techniques and C++. Boston: Artech House.
Geuder, D.F. (1995). Object-oriented modeling with
SIMPLE++. Proceedings of the 1995 Winter Simulation
Conference, Arlington, VA. New York: The Institute of Electrical
& Electronics Engineers, 534–540.
Glavach, M.A., & Sturrock, D.T. (1993). Introduction to
SIMAN/Cinema. Proceedings of the 1993 Winter Simulation
Conference, Los Angeles, CA. New York: The Institute of
Electrical & Electronics Engineers, 190–192.
Harrel, C.R., & Leavy, J.J. (1993). ProModel tutorial.
Proceedings of the 1993 Winter Simulation Conference, Los
Angeles, CA. New York: The Institute of Electrical & Electronics
Engineers, 184–189.
December 2002 Project Management Journal
Heindel, L.E., & Kasten, V.A. (1996). Next generation PC-
based project management systems: The path forward.
International Journal of Project Management, 14 (4), 249–253.
Jaafari, A. (1988). Probabilistic unit cost estimation for
project configuration optimization. International Journal of
Project Management, 6 (4), 266–234.
Jaafari, A., & Manivong, K. (1998). Towards a smart project
management information system. International Journal of
Project Management, 16 (4), 249–265.
Jaafari, A., Manivong, K.K., & Chaaya, M. (2000). The story
of VIRCON in simulating and teaching professional construc-
tion management. Proceedings of the International Conference on
Construction Information Technology, Hong Kong, China. Hong
Kong, China: The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 515–532.
Jaafari, A., & Vlasic, A. (1999). Integration of soft issues
into a life-cycle project management system. Proceedings of the
Second International Conference on Construction Process Re-engi-
neering, Sydney, Australia. Sydney, Australia: Australian Center
for Construction Innovation, 211–223.
Jordanger, I. (1998). Value-oriented management of pro-
ject uncertainties. Proceedings of the 14th World Congress on
Project Management, Slovenia, Finland. Slovenia, Finland:
Cankarjev dom Cultural and Congress Center, 813–821.
Kahkonen, K. (1998). Understanding and facilitating
investment project definition process. Proceedings of the 14th
World Congress on Project Management, Slovenia, Finland.
Slovenia, Finland: Cankarjev dom Cultural and Congress
Center, 362–368.
Luk, M. (1990). Hong Kong air cargo terminals to work
in synch because of simulation applications. Industrial
Engineering, 11, 42–45.
Manivong, K., & Jaafari, A. (1999). A life cycle project
management model to maximize value for clients. Proceedings
of the Second International Conference on Construction Process
Re-engineering, Sydney, Australia. Sydney, Australia: Australian
Center for Construction Innovation, 59–70.
Markt, P.L., & Mayer, M.H. (1997). WITNESS simulation
software: A flexible suite of simulation tools. Proceedings of the
1997 Winter Simulation Conference, Atlanta, GA. New York: The
Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers, 711–717.
Marmon, C. (1991). Teledyne applies simulation to the
design and justification of a new facility. Industrial Engineering,
3, 29–32.
McCahill, D.F., & Bernold, L.E. (1993). Resource-oriented
modeling and simulation in construction. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 119 (3), 590–606.
Morris, P.W.G. (1998). Why project management does not
always make business sense. Project Management, 1, 12–16.
Morris, P.W.G. (2000). Benchmarking project management
bodies of knowledge. Proceedings of the UMIST 4th
International Conference of the International Research Networks on
Organizing (IRNOP-IV), Sydney, Australia. Sydney, Australia:
Sydney University of Technology, 467–481.
Nordgren, W.B. (1995). TAYLOR II manufacturing simula-
tion software. Proceedings of the 1995 Winter Simulation
Conference, Arlington, VA. New York: The Institute of Electrical
& Electronics Engineers, 401–404.
37
 Pidd, M. (1984). Computer simulation in management
science. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Prisker, A.A.B., & O’Reilly, J.J. (1997). AWESIM: The
integrated simulation system. Proceedings of the 1997 Winter Hemanta Kumar Doloi is a graduate in civil engineer-
Simulation Conference, Atlanta, GA. New York: The Institute of ing from the University of Dibrugarh. He has completed
Electrical & Electronics Engineers, 545–551. his master’s of engineering from the Asian Institute of
Riggs, L.S. (1989). Risk management in CPM network. Technology. He was awarded a PhD scholarship
Journal of Microcomputers in Civil Engineering, 3 (3), 229–235. through the University of Sydney’s Civil Engineering Department and is
Skibniewski, M.J., & Abduh, M. (2000). Web-based project currently engaged on research and development of an integrated
management for construction. Proceedings of the International dynamic simulation system. Prior to starting his PhD, Doloi worked in
Conference on Construction Information Technology, Hong Kong, the construction of elevated expressway projects in Greater Bangkok.
China. Hong Kong, China: The Hong Kong Polytechnic
University, 56–77.
Storm, P.M. (1996). The management of soft projects.
Proceedings of the World Congress on Project Management, Paris,
Ali Jaafari is currently a professor in the University of
France. The Netherlands: International Project Management
Sydney’s Department of Civil Engineering. He has more
Association, 803–810.
than 29 years of international business, teaching, and
Stroustrup, B. (1991). The C++ programming language.
consulting experience on projects and programs
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
around the world. He has authored more than 100 publications in pro-
Tommelein, I.D., Odeh, A.M., & Carr, R.I. (1994).
ject and program management. Since 1982, he has conducted cours-
Knowledge-based assembly of simulation networks using con-
es and seminars for more than 2,000 executives, managers, and pro-
struction designs, plan, and methods. Proceedings of the 1994
fessionals in Australia, Asia, and Europe. Jaafari has held visiting pro-
Winter Simulation Conference, Buena Vista, FL. New York: The
fessorial appointments at a number of universities, in the United
Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers, 1145–1152.
States, United Kingdom, Europe, and Asia.
Tsuchiya, S. (1997). Simulation/Gaming: An effective tool
for project management. Proceeding of the Project Management
Institute’s 28th Annual Symposium, Chicago. Newtown Square,
PA: Project Management Institute, 325–329.
Zeigler, B.P. (1987). Hierarchical, modular discrete-event
modeling in an object-oriented environment. Simulation, 49
(2), 219–230.

This article is copyrighted material and has been reproduced with the permission of PMI. Unauthorized reproduction of this material is strictly prohibited.

38 Project Management Journal December 2002

A Taxonomy of Internet Applications for
Project Management Communication
▼ disciplines (Giffin & Jefferson, 2000). For example, the architecture, engineering,
Abstract
A taxonomy of Internet applications has been
created to describe the use of the Internet for
project management communication. It is
based on the technological characteristics
of Internet applications, the requirements of
project management communication, and the
organizational issues associated with using
Internet applications. Its dimensions are the
sender/receiver synchronization and the rela-
tionship between the number of senders and
receivers. The taxonomy is populated with six
Internet applications that are used commonly
in project management communication. The
taxonomy is presented as an aid to under-
standing the capabilities and limitations of
Internet applications for different types of
project management communication.
Keywords: Internet; communication;
taxonomy
©2002 by the Project Management Institute
2002, Vol. 33, No. 4, 39–47
8756–9728/02/$10.00 per article + $0.50 per page
December 2002
Steve D. Giffin, 120 35th Street, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254–2020 USA
T he Internet is a worldwide communication system particularly suited for project
management communication. Project management, as defined by the Project
Management Institute (PMI Standards Committee, 1996), is a temporary endeavor
undertaken to create a unique product or service. This temporary and unique nature
creates a need for communication systems that can be deployed rapidly and used by
diverse, interorganizational teams to share information with minimum training and
administration (Giffin & Stankosky, 2000). Consequentially, the Internet and other
electronic networks have facilitated the evolution of virtual project organizations:
temporary organizations that depend on communication to accomplish projects
from a distance (Guss, 1998).
Nevertheless, coordinated efforts to use the Internet to improve project
management are only at an experimental stage in many project management
and construction (AEC) industry has been targeted by several vendors offering a
variety of specialized Internet-based services, known as project sites or project
portals for project management (Doherty, 1999). However, only 1% of AEC firms
have reported using this technology, and there is skepticism about its benefits as
well as concerns about liabilities such as security issues (Roe & Phair, 1999).
In the field of project management research, there is a notable lack of peer-
reviewed studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of Internet communication in a
project management environment (Giffin & Jefferson, 2000). In fact, one study that
measured the effectiveness of e-mail and other communication tools in virtual
organizations determined that e-mail often is perceived as contributing negatively to
project success (Enghavanish, 1999). Therefore, understanding how the Internet is
best used in project management is an important consideration for firms attempting
to improve the effectiveness and efficiency with which they execute projects.
This issue can be addressed by creating a taxonomy that characterizes Internet
applications according to their technological characteristics inside a framework that
is relevant to project management communication.
Background
Traditional Categorization of Electronic Communication Mechanisms.
Traditionally, communication has been defined as a basic four-element model con-
sisting of a sender, a receiver, the medium, and the message (Figure 1). Although
communication taxonomies generally include each of these elements to some extent,
Project Management Journal 39

Sender
Media
Figure 1. Traditional Communications Model
they are concerned primarily with describing the selection of
an appropriate mechanism, i.e., medium or channel, to
encode, transmit, and decode the message.
Categorization of communication mechanisms is impor-
tant as a means for describing the selection of the most
appropriate channel given the requirements of a particular
message (Robbins, 1998). The selection of a communication
mechanism also can influence the quality of information
received. The relationship between communication mecha-
nisms and effectiveness is recognized presently in the field of
knowledge management, where viscosity, or channel rich-
ness, is used to describe the ability of a communication
mechanism to transfer information-rich content (Davenport
& Prusak, 1998).
Some important research in the use of electronic tools for
group communication preceded the widespread organization-
al use of Internet applications by several years. The
taxonomies created by these researchers generally categorized
communication tools in terms of time/synchronization and
place/distance.
First, Johansen, Sibbet, Benson, Martin, Mittman, and Saffo
(1991) defined electronic communication tools used by
groups as same time/same place, same time/different place,
different time/same place, or different time/different place
(Figure 2). Electronic tools for same-time/place communica-
tion were considered synchronous because interactive commu-
nication occurs in real time. Theoretically, such communica-
tion therefore can substitute for face-to-face conversation. With
asynchronous, i.e., different-time communication, one party
cannot respond until the other has finished sending. E-mail is
an example of asynchronous communication.
In different-place communication, geographic separation
prohibits face-to-face communication even if the participants
are communicating simultaneously. Conferencing and other
electronic technologies for remote communication are exam-
ples of different-place tools.
With same-place technology, participants either use the
same electronic tools synchronously or asynchronously, such
as with an electronic meeting room (synchronous) or a work-
station used in shifts (asynchronous).
40 Project Management Journal
Message
Receiver
In another well-known approach, McGrath and Hollingshead
(1994) characterized communication by the task being
accomplished in addition to classifying tools according to
dimensions of contiguousness and synchronization. They
described e-mail as a distal, asynchronous technology, which
may cause the natural order of messages to be disrupted. They
considered text-based e-mail a poor fit for tasks of increasing
information requirements based on its relatively low richness.
Technologies judged more appropriate for such tasks were
audio or video systems and face-to-face systems.
Limitations of Traditional Taxonomies. One limitation of
classifying Internet tools by time and distance is the decreasing
relevance of those factors in the contemporary business work-
place. When groupware taxonomies were introduced in the
early 1990s, integration of local area network technology and
Internet communication was not common. (Note that elec-
tronic networks are identified as same place/same time in
Figure 2, while Internet tools are categorized as different
place/different time.)
However, in the late 1990s, Internet applications, particu-
larly e-mail, became very popular business communication
tools, even when traditional methods might be better suited
due to factors of task, location, or relative effectiveness
(Jefferson, 2000). The present popularity of e-mail and
intranet-based Web technology has contributed to the
realization that electronic networks and Internet tools
currently are considered anytime/anyplace technologies—a
concept considered futuristic by Johansen et al. (1991).
Internet tools that are useful in project management
communication include e-mail, static Web sites, group-
ware, conferencing, and discussion group applications
(Giffin & Stankosky, 2000). E-mail, Web sites, and
discussion applications use client/server technology, while
conferencing applications may be implemented in peer-to-
peer or client/server configurations. Groupware is
deployed on the Internet through database-backed Web
servers that also may implement discussion and confer-
encing applications or employ other Internet technologies
such as file transfer. The characteristics of these underlying
technologies have distinct implications for the types of
December 2002
project management communication for which each tool
is useful. Some of these technological characteristics are

ou e
on im
s)
discussed in Table 1.

hr T
nc nt
sy re
(A iffe
Proposed Framework for

D
Categorization of Internet Applications Voice Mail
Requirements for Categorization Scheme. Like the E-mail

no e
ro im

)
us
approach of the traditional communications model, there

ch T
yn e
are advantages to making the message the central compo-

(S Sam
nent of a taxonomy for Internet communication in project Two-Way
management. Primarily, this strategy allows communication Video Team Rooms
to be defined independent of the project and its context, Shift Work
Screen
therefore creating the possibility that the new taxonomy can
Sharing
define many types of communication, all of which may be

e
Electronic

ac
used at various times in a project. In addition to the mes-

Pl
Networks

nt
sage-centricity of the traditional communications model, the

re
ffe
concept of synchronization from Johansen et al. (1991) also PC Projectors

Di
is useful. Notwithstanding the contemporary notion of

e
Internet tools anyplace/anytime, there are still important

ac
Pl
differences between the tools in terms of their ability to facil-

e
m
itate real-time communication.

However, the traditional taxonomies did not address other
relevant attributes of Internet applications and project
management, e.g., the use of Internet applications in the
send-only mode and the suitability of certain applications for
this specific task, such as static Web pages. This consideration
can be addressed by including one-way communication as a
distinct class, the appropriateness of which is supported by
the project management function of disseminating informa-
tion or providing reference material.
Another consideration that should be addressed is the
relationship between the utility of Internet tools and the
number of recipients of the message. For example, a Web
page may be a better method for delivering information to a
large diverse group than e-mail, if the sender does not have
an effective means of maintaining an e-mail distribution list.
This and similar types of situations may be considered by
including the number of senders and receivers as a dimen-
sion of the taxonomy.
Last, the proposed taxonomy must have a level of detail
sufficient for describing a full range of communication needs
in project management while having only the minimum
number of categories necessary to differentiate between the
available Internet tools.
Proposed Categorization Framework. The identified
requirements include the synchronization between the
sender and receiver, the number of senders and receivers, the
possibility of one-way communication, and the ability to
describe each of these about an individual message.
Incorporating these into a two-dimensional taxonomy pro-
duces the framework of Figure 3. This scheme accounts for
the consideration of one-way communication as a special
category of synchronousness. Combined with asynchronous
and synchronous two-way communication, a full range of
communication possibilities is provided on one axis.
On the other axis, the number of senders and receivers
varies from one person communicating with one to many
Sa
Source. Johansen, R., Sibbet, D., Benson, S., Martin, A., Mittman, R.,
and Saffo, P. (1991). Leading business teams: How teams can use
technology and group process tools to enhance performance. Boston,
MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
Figure 2. Categorization of Electronic Tools
people communicating with many. The categories on this
axis may be defined rigidly or loosely depending on the
capabilities of the tools being classified. If justified, addi-
tional divisions on this axis could include one person
communicating with a few, a few people communicating
with a few others, a few people communicating with many,
and so on.
The framework of Figure 3 also is independent of distance
and location. For example, a group of people in one room
could carry on many one-to-one conversations about different
subjects. Because the subjects are different, each conversation
represents an individual message, and the communication
type would be synchronous one-to-one. However, if all were
conversing freely about the same subject, the communication
type would be synchronous many-to-many. In fact, both types
of communication could occur simultaneously in one place
because it is the message not the location that determines the
communication type.
Nine categories of communication are defined by the basic
framework of Figure 3:
■ One-Way 1:1. One sender sends to one receiver;
■ One-Way 1:Many. One sender sends to more than one
receiver;
■ One-Way Many:Many. More than one sender sends to more
than one receiver;
■ Asynchronous Two-Way 1:1. One sender communicates
non-interactively with one receiver;

December 2002 Project Management Journal 41

 Internet tool Description
E-mail Electronic messaging service capable of sending text messages and attached files over local area
networks and the Internet. Users receive messages in their inbox and can reply, forward, or store
them for later use. To send a message, the user must know the e-mail address of the receiver.
Static Web Documents viewed in a Web browser, which may include text, images, files, and hyperlinks
pages pointing to other Web pages or e-mail addresses. Static pages exist as files and reside on a
server, which may be attached to the Internet or an intranet. To access a Web page, users
must know the address of the page, which commonly consists of a registered domain name,
the name of the Web server, the name of an individual file, and a three-letter extension.
Web-based Web sites that implement traditional groupware features such as a personal task lists,
groupware calendars, integrated e-mail, private and shared folders, or scheduling. Examples may include
e-commerce, search engines, “project sites,” and online communities. Web-based groupware
typically requires a log-in process that identifies the user and provides tools to facilitate interac-
tion with other members of the “community.” Contents of groupware sites are stored as entries
in a database rather than a static file. Web pages are compiled as necessary by the server so
they always reflect the most current data. Unlike static Web pages, users can upload data to a
database-backed site.
Discussion Specialized messaging system that allows many users to review and respond to comments or
groups questions from others about a common topic. Also called online group forums, discussion
groups may be implemented through Lotus Notes, Usenet Newsgroups, or as part of an online
community or groupware package. Special features may include the ability to search for mes-
sages, receive e-mail updates, and assign different levels of access such as read-only, author,
and moderator. To submit or read messages, the user must know the name of the forum and
have write-access if the forum is protected. Because some forums are replicated in several
locations, recent posts may not show up until the next scheduled replication, often the next day.
Video/audio Transmission of interactive voice or video images over a private network or the Internet. May
conferencing require special software/hardware, but the capability to receive video or audio also can be
implemented through a Web browser. Users can initiate videoconferences provided they have
the appropriate tools, or they can join multicast groups and view video playing from a server.
Text Two-way interactive text conferencing with a potentially unlimited number of users. This includes
conferencing “chat rooms,” “instant messaging,” “net meeting,” and other common applications. Conferences
may be hosted on a server, where the users can join a group discussion, or they may operate
“peer-to-peer.”

Table 1. Utility of Internet Applications in Project Management

■ Asynchronous Two-Way 1:Many. One sender communi-
cates non-interactively with more than one receiver;
■ Asynchronous Two-Way Many:Many. More than one sender
and more than one receiver communicate non-interactively;
■ Synchronous 1:1. One sender communicates interactively
with one receiver;
■ Synchronous 1:Many. One sender communicates interac-
tively with more than one receiver;
■ Synchronous Many:Many. More than one sender commu-
nicates interactively with more than one receiver.
Relevance of Proposed Framework to Project Management
Communication. The two axes of Figure 3 encompass several
important criteria from the perspectives of Internet applications
and project management. First, the axis that describes the syn-
chronization of senders and receivers also describes the ability of
the communication to include contextual cues and personal
reaction. Therefore, it is a measure of the suitability of a tool for
problem solving or knowledge transfer.
The other axis, which represents the number and relation-
ship of senders and receivers, is important from both techno-
logical and management viewpoints. From the standpoint of
management, an increase in message recipients implies an
opportunity to reduce cost and risk by exploiting electronic
communication. For example, the Internet is used in con-
struction projects to reduce cost associated with revising and
publishing blueprints (Tedeschi, 2000). The cost savings from
this activity will consequentially be more attractive as more
people need a set of plans. Similarly, the risk of someone not
receiving an important update will be reduced if all use a
common system.

42 Project Management Journal December 2002

 1:1
One-way
Two-way/
Asynchronous
Two-way/
Synchronous
Figure 3. Framework for Categorization of Internet Applications
From a technical standpoint, the cost of implementation
and support also is related to the number of parties involved.
For example, if only a few need to communicate, e-mail may
be the least expensive form of communication. However, if the
cost of implementing and maintaining a Web site can be
spread out over many, the Web becomes a more efficient mech-
anism for providing information.
The Completed Taxonomy
Categorization of Internet Applications. To populate the
taxonomy, the characteristics of Internet tools in Table 1
must be considered within the bounds of the framework of
Figure 3. The optimal position of each tool in the matrix is a
consequence of two factors. First, the technological charac-
teristics of some tools may prevent their inclusion in certain
areas. For example, the only tools that facilitate real-time
communication are conferencing technologies. The others
are either one-way or asynchronous-only mechanisms.
Second, the efficiency with which certain tools can be used
in different organizational environments should be considered.
For example, although it is possible to use e-mail to provide
information to a large number of people, if the information is
on a Web site, the sender is not burdened with keeping track of
e-mail addresses. Additionally, if the recipients are unknown to
the sender, the Web is the only mechanism that is suitable.
Conversely, if two-way communication is required in large
groups, a Web-based groupware system that allows participants
to subscribe to distribution lists may be the most effective.
The justification for categorizing the Internet applications
based on technical and management aspects (as summarized
in Table 2) is:
■ Conferencing Applications. Conferencing applications are
the only tools in Table 1 that are capable of supporting
December 2002 Project Management Journal
1:Many Many:Many
real-time communication. Consequently, they are the most
appropriate tools for each type of synchronous communication
in the model. Conferencing applications may support text,
audio, or video transmission, however audio and video
transmissions are best suited for small groups with few con-
nections due to bandwidth requirements. Additionally, as the
number of active participants in video and audioconferencing
grows, it becomes more difficult for individuals to follow the
conversation. Text conferencing is less vulnerable to this
limitation because all contributions to the conversation are
displayed in the same window and participants can scroll
upward to view previous comments. Therefore, text con-
ferencing should be better suited than videoconferencing as
the number of participants increases;
■ E-mail and Web Communication. Compared to confer-
encing, e-mail and the remaining Internet applications are not
real-time. However, by virtue of their lack of synchronousness,
they allow the user to review and respond to messages at the
most convenient time, thereby increasing efficiency. E-mail is
well suited for individual one- and two-way communication
and may be used effectively with larger groups, particularly if
all participants are members of the same organization.
However, as the number of e-mail participants increases, the
challenges of maintaining large distribution lists and support-
ing individual e-mail clients and external programs for viewing
attachments becomes a burden. In particular, Web-based com-
munication is more effective when a group is not associated
with a single organization. Unlike static Web sites, which are
primarily suited for one-way communication, database-backed
sites can implement two-way communication protocols and
provide customized content, security, and user authentication.
Because they are more efficient than conferencing applications,
e-mail and Web communication are more appropriate for
43
 Internet application Technical and organizational attributes
E-mail Useful for sending individual messages; This is best suited for one-to-one communica-
tion. It also may be used for communication with several people with some success.
Static Web sites Useful for dissemination of information to large groups; It becomes increasingly useful as
the number of people increases who need access to information.
Web-based groupware Best suited for structured communication within moderate to large groups;
The only type of Web site that allows two-way communication.
Discussion groups Best suited for allowing large, unassociated groups to follow topics of interest; The only
non-interactive Internet technology that truly facilitates collaboration.
Conferencing Best suited for interactive communication of complex information;
(Audio/video) Best suited between two parties (May be used by more than two parties although
effectiveness diminishes rapidly).

Conferencing (Text) Useful for interactive communication between larger/more diverse groups where
audio/videoconferencing are not practical.

Table 2. Attributes of Internet Applications

asynchronous and one-way communication. Web communi-
cation is preferable as the number of participants increases. In
the case of one-way Web communication, static pages are most
efficient and are preferable. Database-backed sites are required
for two-way communication;
■ Discussion Groups. Compared to Web and e-mail com-
munication, discussion group applications allow many
senders to collaborate on the content of the message. Like e-
mail, discussion group applications are message-centric, i.e.,
participants in the conversation can view a list of replies to
each individual message and respond to any comment as they
choose. Unlike e-mail applications, messages are not delivered
automatically to a user’s in-box. However, as the number of
users increases, this attribute becomes less inconvenient
because discussion group applications allow users to select
messages to be read before their contents are retrieved. Last,
discussion group applications allow senders to provide infor-
mation or submit responses without knowing the identities of
the other participants in the communication. For this reason,
discussion group applications are well suited for communica-
tion in which the participants belong to many organizations. If
the participants wish to restrict access to particular messages or
restrict communication to certain participants, discussion-
group applications also can be implemented through
database-backed Web sites that can provide both security and
authentication. Based on their ability to support collaboration,
discussion groups are most appropriate for many:many
communication, except in real time. However, e-mail and Web
sites are more convenient and, therefore, more appropriate
when there is only one sender.
Population of the Taxonomy. To accommodate the attrib-
utes summarized in Table 2, a subcategory of communication
must be added to the framework of Figure 3 between the 1:1
and 1:many classes. This additional class, represented as 1:few
communication, is useful for describing the case in which the
participants share some sort of relationship, e.g., they belong to
a common organization. For example, a common association
allows technologies such as e-mail to be used effectively,
whereas unassociated groups would find e-mail less effective
due to the absence of a common directory of addresses.
The completed taxonomy is presented in Figure 4. The areas
where each Internet application was deemed most appropriate
are depicted with shaded ovals. Areas where the ovals overlap
depict the expectation that more than one application may be
used effectively.
Discussion
Application of the Taxonomy. The completed taxonomy
should be viewed as a tool for structuring project communica-
tion systems based on the synchronization and relationship
characteristics of project communication requirements. For
example, if the ability to collaborate by asking questions and
reviewing others’ results is important to the success of a pro-
ject, then technologies suited for asynchronous many:many
communication should be provided. According to Figure 4,
discussion group technologies suit these requirements.
If the ability to provide information to many parties is
important to the success of the project, Web sites should be
used for maximum efficiency. Conversely, if most of the project
communication is expected to be 1:1, the use of e-mail should
be encouraged and resources made available to facilitate
audio/videoconferencing.
Table 3 demonstrates a hypothetical analysis that employs
the framework of the taxonomy to categorize project informa-
tion elements. In Table 3, the dimensions of synchronization
are defined in terms relevant to project communication. One-
way communication includes providing information, as well
as the creation and maintenance of project documentation.

44 Project Management Journal December 2002

 1:1 1:Few
One-way
E-Mail
Two-way/
Asynchronous
Two-way/ Audio/Video
Synchronous Conferencing
Figure 4. Taxonomy of Internet Applications for Project Management
Two-way asynchronous communication is described as
offline communication to represent communication that might
typically take place through channels such as regular mail, fac-
simile transmission, or interoffice memos. Synchronous com-
munication primarily contemplates information that would oth-
erwise be exchanged or created in meetings or on the telephone.
The steps involved in preparing an analysis (Table 3)
include identifying project information elements, identifying
the personnel or teams responsible for creating or receiving
each element, and categorizing the relationship of those
involved as 1:1, 1:few, 1:many, or many:many.
The project information elements then should be plotted
within the framework of the taxonomy, and Figure 4 should be
employed to determine which Internet technologies are most
applicable for the various project information and comm-
unication requirements. The completed table of information
elements also could be used in conjunction with the project
organization chart and schedule to identify the number of
users and the phases of the project for which various Internet
technologies might be employed most effectively.
Further Development. At present, the taxonomy meets the
identified needs for project management communication
based on the available Internet applications. However, it also
can be expanded if the availability of applications supports
additional categories. For example, if communication applica-
tions are dissected further according to their ability to carry
information-rich content, a third axis of viscosity could be
added to the scheme. In that case, e-mail with multimedia
attachments could be considered a highly viscous mechanism
for 1:1 asynchronous communication. Messaging that does not
support attachments would rate lower on the viscosity scale.
December 2002 Project Management Journal
1:Many Many:Many
Static Web
Sites
Discussion
Groups
Web-based
GroupWare
Text Conferencing
The taxonomy primarily identifies one application as opti-
mal for each type of communication. However, this list implies
that the application indicated is theoretically the best suited for
that type of communication, not that other applications can-
not be used successfully.
Organizations that study the effectiveness of Internet com-
munication may find that user satisfaction with Internet tools
increases when the tools are used within their realm of suit-
ability as defined by the model of Figure 4. In the absence of
tools suited for specific tasks, individuals might substitute
another mechanism of electronic communication that con-
tributes less effectively to project outcomes. Therefore, firms
also may benefit from providing a full complement of Internet
tools for project management communication.
Conclusion
A taxonomy has been created to describe the ability of
Internet applications to support different types of communi-
cation in project management. Because the taxonomy
defines communication based on the requirements of an
individual message, it can be used as a model for using
multiple types of Internet applications with multiple types of
communication in any given project.
The axes of the taxonomy describe the numbers of
senders and receivers and the synchronization between
them. Special cases of communication are used to describe
one-way communication and to differentiate between com-
munication with groups under common association with
the sender and communication in groups without common
association. The taxonomy differs from previous categoriza-
tion schemes in that it supports the classification of Internet
45
 Type 1:1 1:Few 1:Many Many:Many

One-way ■ Meeting notes; ■ Project schedule; ■ Announcement of ■ Bulletin board;

(Providing ■ Backup for ■ Project budget; contracts/Reports ■ Industry standards;
information/ proposal (cost, ■ Task descriptions; for Propsal/etc.; ■ Regulations;
Records) schedule, technical ■ Status reports on ■ Organizational ■ Central
performance same, e.g., chart, directory; project file;
elements); timesheets, formal ■ Project plans, ■ Training/Reference
■ Daily record. reports, etc.; specifications, material, e.g.,
■ Project tracking project/System standards,
records. requirements; templates, etc.
■ Public
announcements.

Two-way/ ■ Contract ■ Development of ■ Bidding/Request ■ Development

Asynchronous execution/ information ele- for Proposal of project
(Offline Procurement; ments listed above process; documentation;
communication) ■ Approval of prior to project, ■ Status of ■ Development of
individual e.g., plans, specs, projectwide regulations or
expenditures/ requirements, etc., schedule, budget, standards;
Requests; and maintenance expenditures, etc. ■ Industry or project
■ Task assignment/ during the project. forum.
Status of
individual task.

Two-way/ ■ Negotiation; ■ Status update ■ Training session; ■ Informal meeting,

Synchronous ■ Interviews; meeting; ■ Pre-project briefing; e.g., watercooler;
(Meetings) ■ Conflict resolution. ■ Pre-proposal ■ Conference/ ■ Free-form meeting,
meeting; lecture. e.g., brainstorming
■ Project/proposal or problem-solving.
presentation.

Table 3. Common Project Information Elements by Communication Type

tools as anytime/anyplace technologies and expands the
concept of group communication to include one-way
dissemination of information.
The taxonomy uses a graphical approach to depict the effec-
tiveness of each application, with the region of the taxonomy
encompassed by each Internet application defining the theo-
retical realm of its maximum effectiveness. Applications do not
overlap except for the case of 1:few communication.
Otherwise, only one application is considered to be a best fit.
By analyzing the communication requirements of the
project management team and matching those requirements
with the appropriate communication applications, organiza-
tions may improve their ability to meet their goals for effec-
tive technology use. This taxonomy may serve as a theoreti-
cal model for project management organizations seeking to
improve their effectiveness and efficiency.
References
Davenport, T.H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Doherty, P. (1999). Site seeing. Civil Engineering, 69
(5), 38–41.
Enghavanish, S. (1999). Analysis of the effectiveness of
communication and information sharing in virtual project
organizations. (Doctoral dissertation, The George
Washington University, 1999).
Giffin, S.D., & Jefferson, T. (2000). Conducting project
management over the internet. Proceedings of the 21st Conference
of the American Society of Engineering Management, Washington,
DC. Rolla, MO: ASEM.
Giffin, S.D., & Stankosky, M. (2000). Internet applications
for project management communication. Proceedings of the 21st
Conference of the American Society of Engineering Management,
Washington, DC. Rolla, MO: ASEM.
Guss, C.L. (1998). Virtual project management: Tools
and the trade. Project Management Journal, 29 (1), 22–30.
Jefferson, T. (2000). Virtual project teams in an academic
setting. Proceedings of the 21st Conference of the American
Society of Engineering Management, Washington, DC. Rolla,
MO: ASEM.
Johansen, R., Sibbet, D., Benson, S., Martin, A., Mittman, R.,
& Saffo, P. (1991). Leading business teams: How teams can use
technology and group process tools to enhance performance. Boston,
MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

46 Project Management Journal December 2002

 McGrath, J.E., & Hollingshead, A.B. (1994). Groups interact-
ing with technology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
PMI Standards Committee. (1996). A guide to the project
management body of knowledge (PMBOK® Guide). Retrieved 3
October 1999, from http://www.pmi.org/publictn/pmboktoc
.htm#PMBOK1996
Robbins, S.P. (1998). Organizational behavior: Concepts, con-
troversies, applications (8th ed.). Princeton, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Roe, A.G., & Phair, M. (1999). Connection crescendo. ENR,
248 (10), 22–26.
Tedeschi, B. (2000). Construction heads into the Internet
age. The New York Times, 21 February 2000, Sec. C, 1, 9.
Steve D. Giffin, an employee of ExxonMobil Corp.,
recently completed his doctorate degree in engineering
management at The George Washington University.
He has been responsible for management of large-scale
projects and has taught courses in telecommunications as an adjunct
professor at the University of Baltimore’s Merrick School of Business.
He is a registered professional engineer and holds a bachelor’s degree
in civil engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology and a
master’s in environmental engineering from the University of Maryland.

This article is copyrighted material and has been reproduced with the permission of PMI. Unauthorized reproduction of this material is strictly prohibited.

December 2002 Project Management Journal 47

Critical Chain Project Scheduling:
Do Not Oversimplify
▼ CCS/BM approach (Leach, 1999; Umble & Umble, 2000), other sources
Abstract
Critical chain scheduling/Buffer management
(CCS/BM)—the direct application of the theory
of constraints (TOC) to project management—
has received much attention in project manage-
ment literature. There still is controversy over
the merits and pitfalls of the CCS/BM method-
ology. This paper focuses on the fundamental
elements of CCS/BM logic and pinpoints some
intricacies that are not commonly referred to in
the available literature. The authors’ analysis
is based on a critical review of the relevant
sources and experimentation with both com-
mercial CCS/BM software and an internally
developed CCS/BM-based tool.
Keywords: critical chain; buffer management;
resource-constrained project scheduling
©2002 by the Project Management Institute
2002, Vol. 33, No. 4, 48–60
8756–9728/02/$10.00 per article + $0.50 per page
48
Willy Herroelen, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Department of Applied Economics,
Naamsestraat 69, Leuven B-3000 Belgium
Roel Leus, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Department of Applied Economics, Naamsestraat
69, Leuven B-3000 Belgium
Erik Demeulemeester, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Department of Applied Economics,
Naamsestraat 69, Leuven B-3000 Belgium
C ritical chain scheduling/Buffer management (CCS/BM)—the direct application
of the theory of constraints (TOC) to project management—has received much
attention in the project management literature. Subsequent to the publication
of Goldratt’s book Critical Chain in 1997, numerous books (Newbold, 1998;
Leach, 2000) and papers (Cabanis-Brewin, 1999; Globerson, 2000; Herroelen
& Leus, 2000, 2001; Leach, 1999; Maylor, 2000; Patrick, 1999; Pinto, 1999;
Rand, 2000; Umble & Umble, 2000) have been written to clarify the CCS/BM
philosophy. Internet discussion groups also have been set up to discuss critical chain
scheduling issues. These groups include the critical chain Yahoo group
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/criticalchain) and more general TOC-oriented
groups such as the Yahoo TOC Experts (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tocexperts)
and the APICS Constraints Management special interest group (accessible via
http://www.apics.org/lists/default.htm).
While real-world applications by companies such as Lucent Technologies and
Harris Semiconductor have been described to demonstrate the effectiveness of the
(Zalmenson & Zinman, 2000, 2001) alert the reader to serious drawbacks and
implementation failures or at least claim CCS/BM is not at all innovative (Wilkens,
2000). There still is a lot of controversy over the merits and pitfalls of the CCS/BM
methodology. Being confronted with many views and comments on CCS/BM writ-
ten by either true believers or committed naysayers who fail to offer a fair appraisal
of the CCS/BM project technique, PM Network, the professional magazine of the
Project Management Institute, put an editor’s note in its January 2001 issue stating
“PM Network is neutral on Theory of Constraints; the publishing division holds no
allegiance either for or against it.” The objective of this paper is not to defend or
reject CCS/BM. The CCS/BM methodology has much to offer if applied wisely and
if the practical implications and limitations are well understood. The authors’ analy-
sis is based on a critical review of the relevant literature and experimentation with
both commercial CCS/BM software and an internally developed CCS/BM-based
tool (Herroelen & Leus, 2000).
The CCS/BM Methodology
The fundamentals of CCS/BM are summarized in Table 1. CCS/BM builds a baseline
schedule using activity duration estimates based on a 50% confidence level. Activity
due dates and project milestones are eliminated, and multitasking is to be avoided.
Project Management Journal December 2002
 50% probability activity duration estimates
No activity due dates
No project milestones
No multitasking
Scheduling objectives = minimize makespan; minimize work in progress
Determine a precedence and resource-feasible baseline schedule
Identify the critical chain
Aggregate uncertainty allowances into buffers
Keep the baseline schedule and the critical chain fixed during project execution
Determine an early start-based unbuffered projected schedule and report early completions (apply the
roadrunner mentality)
Use the buffers as a proactive warning mechanism during schedule execution

Table 1. Fundamentals of CCS/BM

Prioritize the projects

Plan the individual projects according to CCS/BM fundamentals
Stagger the projects by inserting capacity buffers
Insert drum buffers
Measure and report the buffers
Manage the buffers

Table 2. CCS/BM Multiproject Method

To minimize work in progress, a precedence-feasible sched-
ule is constructed by timing activities at their latest start
dates based on critical path calculations. If resource conflicts
occur, they are resolved by moving activities earlier. The
critical chain then is defined as that chain of precedence and
resource dependent activities that determines the overall
duration of a project. If there is more than one critical chain,
just select one.
The safety time that is eliminated from the critical chain activ-
ity durations by selecting aggressive duration estimates is shifted
to the end of the critical chain in the form of a project buffer
(PB). This PB should protect the project due date promised to
the customer from variability in the critical chain activities.
Feeding buffers (FB) are inserted whenever a noncritical
chain activity joins the critical chain. Their aim is to protect the
critical chain from disruptions on the activities feeding it and
to allow critical chain activities to start early in case things go
well. Although more detailed methods can be used for sizing
the buffers (Newbold, 1998; Product Development Institute,
1999), the default procedure is to use the 50% buffer sizing
rule, i.e., to use a PB of half the project duration and to set the
size of a FB to half the duration of the longest noncritical chain
path leading into it. Resource buffers (RB), usually in the form
of an advance warning, are placed whenever a resource has to
perform an activity on the critical chain, and the previous crit-
ical chain activity is done by a different resource.
During project execution, both the critical chain and the
baseline schedule should be fixed. Project activities are execut-
ed according to the roadrunner mentality using an unbuffered
projected schedule. This schedule is early start-based, except for
the gating tasks (activities without predecessors), which are to
be started at their baseline scheduled start times. Early com-
pletion of activities must be reported, and activities should be
started as soon as work becomes available. The execution of
the project is managed by using the buffers as a proactive
warning mechanism.
As activities are completed, project management should
keep track of buffer consumption. As long as a predeter-
mined portion of the buffer remains [buffer consumption is
only in the green (O.K.) zone], everything is assumed to go
well. If buffer consumption moves beyond a certain point, a
warning is raised (the yellow watch-and-plan zone). If it
deteriorates past a critical point (the red act zone), corrective
action must be taken.

December 2002 Project Management Journal 49

 In a multiproject environment, CCS/BM relies on the six
common steps summarized in Table 2:
1. Prioritize the organization’s projects;
2. Plan the individual projects according to the CCS/BM
fundamentals;
3. Stagger the projects;
4. Insert drum buffers;
5. Measure and report the buffers;
6. Manage the buffers.
Step 1 aims to avoid multitasking among projects. Step 2
calls for the identification of the most constraining company
resource as the “bottleneck” (strategic or drum resource).
Projects are staggered (Step 3) on the basis of the schedule for
the strategic resource (drum plan). This is done by placing a
capacity buffer in front of a strategic resource activity that is
on the critical chain in the strategic resource schedule. A
drum buffer (Step 4) is placed before activities on the strate-
gic resource to protect the strategic resource from disruptions
on nonstrategic resources. The buffers then can be managed
more or less the same way as done in the single-project case
(Steps 5 and 6).
CCS/BM Scheduling Approach
For discussions on a more managerial level, the authors refer
to Pinto (1999), Elton and Roe (1998), and McKay and
Morton (1998). The authors focused on the procedures for
identifying the critical chain in the baseline schedule, buffering
the baseline schedule, using the buffers as a proactive mecha-
nism, and the issue of stability and rescheduling.
Throughout the discussion, the authors refer to major find-
ings of a factorial experiment conducted by Herroelen and
Leus (2001) on the well-known Patterson (1984) test problem
set, which contains test instances with a number of activities
ranging from seven to 50 and requiring up to three renewable
resource types each. The authors confronted the results
obtained using an exact solution procedure for the resource-
constrained project scheduling problem (Demeulemeester &
Herroelen, 1992, 1997) with the results generated using their
own computerized CCS/BM software and tested the impact of
the project scheduling mechanism, the buffer size computa-
tion method, the composition of the critical chain, and the
recomputation mechanism of the baseline schedule.
Identifying the Critical Chain
One of the fundamental merits of CCS/BM is that it explicitly
recognizes it is the interaction between activity durations,
precedence relations, resource requirements, and resource
availabilities that determines the project duration. This inter-
action results in one or more sequences of activities—consist-
ing of precedence-related and resource-dependent segments—
that determine the length of the baseline schedule. Goldratt
(1997) identifies such a sequence as the critical chain. This
concept is not new; Wiest (1964) introduced the concept of a
critical sequence more than 30 years ago. It has been used by
many researchers in project scheduling to compute a lower
bound on the project duration (Herroelen, De Reyck, &
Demeulemeester, 1998).
50 Project Management Journal
1 1 5
2 6 7
1 2 1
0
0 2
1 3 9
0 2 0
4
4
2
3 3
5 8
2 2
Figure 1. Project Network Example
CCS/BM has revealed the importance of this critical chain
to the practitioner and plays a crucial role in the awakening
process to the disappearance of the traditional critical path
concept in the presence of resource constraints. Moreover,
CCS/BM’s argument that time protection against uncertainty
should not be allocated to the individual activities but should
be aggregated and concentrated at particular points in the base-
line schedule is well-taken and commonly accepted in TOC-
based scheduling. In short, the idea of generating a determin-
istic baseline schedule and protecting it against uncertainty is
sound and appeals to management. CCS/BM paved the way
for the recent introduction of protective buffering mechanisms
into commercial project planning software. Examples include
ProChain as an add-in to Microsoft Project® and the critical
chain-planning functions of Scitor’s PS8 package.
A baseline schedule may contain more than one critical
chain, and the composition of the critical chain(s) is entirely
dependent on the procedure used for generating the baseline
schedule. Creating a precedence and resource-feasible baseline
schedule that minimizes the project duration—the number
one objective used by CCS/BM’s baseline scheduling logic—is
not easy because most resource-constrained project scheduling
problems are NP-hard (they cannot always be solved to opti-
mality in polynomial time). Goldratt (1997, p. 217) seems to
minimize the issue and claims that “in each case the impact on
the lead time of the project is less than even half the project
buffer” and suggests (p. 220) to cut for each step a piece of
paper so that “the length represents time. This way we can
move them around until there is no contention.”
Also, there is a lack of consensus in the CCS/BM literature
about the activity duration estimates to be used for generating
December 2002
 5 5
2
4 3 8 4 3
Units

Units
3 6 3 5 6
2 7
2 2 8

1 5 4 1 4
7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Time Time

Figure 2. Minimum Makespan Schedule for the Network Figure 3. Schedule Obtained Using Microsoft Project
of Figure 1

the initial baseline schedule. Goldratt (1997) suggests using
the median, while the Product Development Institute (1999)
argues in favor of the mean. Herroelen and Leus (2001) con-
clude from their full factorial experiment that the use of the
mean activity duration provides the safest estimates of the
project duration.
To illustrate that the length of the baseline schedule and the
collection of possible critical chains is entirely dependent on
the scheduling procedure used, consider the example network
given in Figure 1 (Demeulemeester, Herroelen, Simpson,
Baroum, Patterson, & Yang, 1994). The numbers above each
node denote the activity duration of the corresponding activi-
ty (node 1 and node 9 are dummy nodes with zero duration).
It is assumed that these activity duration estimates do not
include individual safety provisions. The numbers below each
node of the network in Figure 1 represent the number of units
of a renewable resource, e.g., workers, required during every
period of the corresponding activity’s duration interval. It is
assumed that the renewable resource has a constant availabili-
ty of five units per period.
Figure 2 gives a minimum duration schedule. This can be
obtained, for example, by using the branch-and-bound pro-
cedure of Demeulemeester and Herroelen (1992, 1997). As
can be verified easily, the project duration is seven time peri-
ods (by poor luck this corresponds to the length of the
longest critical path 1–2–6–7–9). The baseline schedule
reveals three critical chains: the chain 2–6–7, the chain
2–6–3–8, and the chain 5–4.
Figure 3 shows the baseline schedule generated by
Microsoft Project. This baseline schedule has a length of nine
time periods and reveals two possible critical chains, different
from the ones present in the optimal duration schedule of
Figure 2: the chain 4–7 and the chain 5–6–7.
If the project planner would rely on the ProChain software,
the schedule in Figure 4 would be obtained. The schedule now
has a length of eight time periods and has two critical chains: the
chain 3–5–8 and the chain 3–6–7. Both activity 2 and activity 4
have been right-shifted, i.e., scheduled as late as possible within
the scheduling horizon determined by the critical chains. The
software selects the chain 3–6–7 as the critical chain.
If the user relies on PS8 for generating the baseline sched-
ule, the optimal seven-period schedule of Figure 2 results, with
the critical chains 2–6–7, the chain 2–6–8–3 (8 and 3 have
switched position), and the chain 5–4. The software selects the
critical chain 2–6–7.
In short, four different baseline schedules have been
obtained for the same project, ranging in duration from seven
to nine periods, and each providing the planner with a differ-
ent population of critical chains. Goldratt (1997) contends
that it does not really matter which critical chain is chosen.
This simple example proves the fact that generating a good
baseline schedule does matter, and that statements such as “the
critical chain is never ambiguous” (Leach, 2001b) must be
interpreted with sufficient care. The length of the baseline
schedule, the set of candidate critical chains, and the activities
in the chosen critical chain all depend on the procedure used
for generating the baseline schedule.
Adding a 50% integer length PB (according to CCS/BM
logic) to the baseline schedules of Figures 2, 3 and 4 would
inspire management to make the customer promise to
deliver the project in at least 11, 14 or 12 periods, respec-
tively. These should be interpreted as “lower bounds:” The

December 2002 Project Management Journal 51


5 resource allocation remains unchanged].
4 4
Units
3 6
2 7
2 time in the baseline schedule and the roadrunner mentality
1 3 5 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Time
Figure 4. Schedule Obtained Using ProChain
insertion of FBs may well lead to larger committed project
durations. If one fails to use the minimum duration base-
line schedule as the starting point for buffering and negoti-
ating the project due date with the customer, one may well
lose the contract.
Buffer Insertion and Management
CCS/BM argues that safety time should best be eliminated
from individual activity duration estimates and aggregated
in the form of buffers at crucial locations in the baseline
schedule. The buffers should offer protection against statisti-
cal variation and should act as safeguards that provide a
proactive protection mechanism. The experiment of
Herroelen and Leus (2000) revealed that the 50% rule for
sizing the buffers may lead to a serious overestimation of the
required PB size and, consequently, of the project duration
committed to the customer.
By buffering the baseline schedule so that the completion
time of the last positioned critical chain activity is scheduled to
occur much later than the completion of any other noncritical
chain of activities, CCS/BM avoids the cumbersome task of
performing generalized PERT calculations (Elmaghraby, 1977)
to make reliable predictions about project completion in the
presence of resource constraints. The FBs decouple the critical
chain from the remaining activities in the network, and as such
they help management focus and set realistic due dates. As a
result, there is a subtle difference between the interpretation of
a FB and the critical path notion of activity float.
On the other hand, the management of the buffers during
project execution does not notably differ from float manage-
ment in the absence of resource constraints. As was already
52 Project Management Journal
noted by Wiest (1964), however, we must recognize the condi-
tional nature of slack when resources are limited: Slack values
are associated with a particular schedule. Moreover, the
rescheduling policy adopted also will influence activity slack
[refer to Bowers (1995), who works in an environment where
When the FBs are inserted by pushing back their feeding
chains, the critical chain may no longer be the longest chain in
the network. This has serious implications for the projected
schedule, which is unbuffered and in which every gating task
(task without real predecessors) is set to start at its scheduled
dictates the start times of the other activities. It may well be that
the critical chain, the most important chain of activities that is
supposed to determine the duration of the project, is started
later than noncritical chain activities. This is a rather counter-
intuitive way of work.
Also, gaps may be created in the critical chain of the
buffered baseline schedule. CCS/BM offers a pragmatic
response to these problems in that the critical chain simply is
defined as the longest chain before the buffers are inserted
(Product Development Institute, 1999). Last, inserting the FBs
may lead to immediate resource conflicts. These conflicts must
be resolved with sufficient care to avoid an unnecessary
increase of the length of the baseline schedule.
While the buffer protection idea certainly is defendable
and widespread within scheduling practice, the practical
implications should be understood well. First, project
management should be sufficiently alert for the idiosyncrasies
of the project planning software package in use and should
interpret the buffered schedules generated by commercial soft-
ware packages with extreme care. Figure 5 shows the buffered
baseline schedule generated by a commercial software
package with integrated CCS/BM scheduling logic for the pro-
ject of Figure 1. The planned project duration is 13 periods.
The critical chain activities 2–6–7 are kept in series, but the
chain exhibits a one-period gap.
Figure 6 shows the buffered baseline schedule obtained for
the same project with an add-in commercial software package.
The planned project duration also is 13 periods, but now man-
agement is invited to focus on a different critical chain 3–6–7,
which is no longer a chain. The critical chain activities are not
kept in series. Critical chain activity 3 is shifted forward and is
scheduled in parallel with critical chain activity 7.
FBs should be inserted with sufficient care or an unwant-
ed serious increase in the length of the baseline schedule may
well be the result. Rather than using the CCS/BM textbook
approach to simply shift activities back and forth until
resource contention is resolved, the authors recommend
treating the buffers as artificial activities and rescheduling the
network. Also, the buffer protection mechanism may fail to
be proactive. To illustrate the first point, consider the project
shown in Figure 7. The numbers above each node again
denote the activity duration, and the numbers below each
node represent the renewable resource requirement per peri-
od for a single resource type with a constant availability of
three units per period. As such, activity 5 has a duration of
December 2002
Figure 5. Buffered Baseline Schedule Generated by an Integrated Commercial Software Package

Figure 6. Buffered Baseline Schedule Generated by a Commercial Add-in Software Package

five periods and requires two units of the renewable resource
type during each of its execution periods.
Figure 8(a) shows a minimum duration schedule for the
project. The critical chain is identified as chain 1–2–3–8 with
a 17-period duration. As indicated in Figure 8(b), three FBs
must be inserted: The buffer FB5 should be inserted after
activity 5, the buffer FB6 should be inserted after activity 6,
and the buffer FB7 should be placed after activity 7. If a
person applies the 50% rule for buffer sizing and assumes
integer length buffers, FB5 should have a length of four
periods, FB6 should have a length of three periods, and FB7
should be two periods long.

December 2002 Project Management Journal 53

 If the buffers are inserted by pushing the chain of activities
feeding the FB backwards in time, immediate resource conflicts
may occur. If activity 5 is pushed backwards, an immediate
resource conflict is created with activities 6 and 7. Shifting
activity 7 backwards does not create sufficient room for
activity 5. Activity 4 is a predecessor of both activities 5 and 6.
Shifting the chain of activities 4–6 backwards in time does not
release sufficient resources for the placement of activity 5,
which may be allowed to jump over activity 6, but cannot
jump over its predecessor activity 4. Shifting backwards the
chain of activities 4–5, which feeds FB5 does not help either.
The manager is forced by the resource constraint to increase the
project duration by almost 50%, as shown in Figure 8(b).
If, however, the buffers are treated as dummy activities with
a positive duration and a minimal duration schedule is com-
puted, keeping the critical chain unchanged, the schedule of
Figure 8(c) results. It has exactly the same length as the original
baseline schedule of 8(a) and only differs in the planning of the
noncritical chain activities. Sufficient room is available for the
proper insertion of the three feeding buffers.
The fact that the penetration of FBs may instantaneously
lead to resource conflicts that prohibit the FBs from acting as
a proactive warning mechanism can be illustrated on the exam-
ple network shown in Figure 9(a). The numbers above each
node again denote the corresponding activity durations. Six
resource types are used in this project. Resource types A, B, C, D,
and F have a constant availability of one unit per time period,
while resource type E has a constant availability of two units per
time period. The activity resource requirements are indicated
below each network node.
The buffered baseline schedule is shown in Figure 9(b). The
critical chain consists of the activities 1–4–8. Assume now that
during project execution, activity 2 is the subject of a very small
delay. This delay will cause a penetration of FB3–4. Given the
small delay, this penetration will not exceed the first third of
the buffer, so that no management action is required. However,
the delay also will lead to an immediate resource conflict with
activity 6, which requires the same resource B. Delaying
activity 6 will not just lead to a penetration of FB 7–8. While
this penetration will be too small to call for management
action, it also will lead to a resource conflict with critical chain
activity 4, which requires the same resource B. The FBs do not
protect the critical chain from the merge bias. The result is an
immediate delay in the critical chain. This will be the case even
if a resource buffer (wake-up call) for resource B would be pre-
sent in front of activity 4. Clearly, FB 3–4 and FB 7–8 fail to act
as a warning mechanism in anticipation of future difficulties.
The FBs used by CCS/BM are time buffers. Time buffers may
fail to cushion resource conflicts. Such immediate resource con-
flicts must be resolved, possibly requiring actions to repair the
schedule. In this simple example, the required schedule repair
actions are rather trivial. This no longer will be the case for real-life
project network structures in which multiple activities and multi-
ple resource types may be involved.
Buffer sizes may very well be updated as the project pro-
gresses. The PB provides an estimate of the project completion
time that can be realized with an appropriate probability and,
54 Project Management Journal
6 11
2 3
2 1
5
3 5
0 0
1 4 2 8
3
0 1 0
6
1
3
7
1
Figure 7. Example Network
hence, an estimate of the project due date. As shown in the
experiments conducted by Herroelen and Leus (2001), it may
be beneficial to update the size of the PB during project execu-
tion, as a reaction to the dynamic process of reevaluating the
chances of meeting the due date. A related idea would be to
shift the alert thresholds of buffer consumption backward in
time, assessing the consumption of buffers relative to project or
critical chain completion.
Patrick (2001) discusses various techniques in depth in
messages of the Yahoo discussion group. His preference (and
the authors’) is recalculation of the PB size:
“One advantage of this approach is that rather than
depend on some arbitrary percentage of the buffer ... the
threshold is determined not at the launch of the project
but in a ‘just-in-time’ manner that allows the process to
take into consideration new information encountered dur-
ing the execution of the project.”
Rescheduling and Stability
Consider the buffered schedule of Figure 8(c). If activity 7 were
to take zero time, or activity 2 were to take three time units
more than anticipated, activity 6 could be repositioned before
activity 5. In general, it makes sense at every project status
update to check for opportunities to speed up the projected
schedule by rearranging jobs. This is usually done implicitly by
available software packages, but it is interesting to explicitly
recognize the option.
The example project in Figure 10(a) assumes that all the
activities have the same unit duration. Activities F and H
cannot be scheduled in parallel because they compete for the
December 2002
 3
7
2 5
Units
4 6

1 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Time

(a) Minimal Duration Schedule

3
FB5
7 FB6
FB7
Units

2
6
1 5 2

4 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Time

(b) Buffered Schedule Using Push-back Method

3 FB5
7 4 FB6
FB7
Units

2 5
6

1 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Time

(c) Optimal Buffered Schedule

Figure 8. Insertion of Feeding Buffers

December 2002 Project Management Journal 55

 1 1
2 3
B D

6 4 2
1 4 8
A, E B, E E
3 2 1
5 6 7
F B, E C

(a) Project Network Example

(b) Optimal Buffered Schedule

Figure 9. Project Network and Corresponding Buffered Baseline Schedule

same resource with unit availability; the same holds for D and
E. Resource usage of the other activities is not restrictive. One
possible critical chain would be B–E–H–F–I. The correspond-
ing buffered baseline schedule is shown in Figure 10(b). The
unbuffered projected schedule is depicted in Figure 10(c).
Suppose that at the foreseen end of activity D, this activity
is perceived to take longer than expected. Keeping the critical
chain unchanged would yield the new projected schedule
shown in Figure 11(a). Clearly, the makespan of the projected
schedule has increased.
Assume that the critical chain no longer is required to
remain in series. In this case, it no longer is necessary to sched-
ule activity H in front of activity F. The result is the projected
schedule shown in Figure 11(b), which has a smaller
makespan. However, the new projected schedule actually is an
implicit recognition of a new critical chain. It would be logical
to identify this chain and insert/resize the buffers accordingly.
This also allows full exploitation of the updated PB size in
making reliable project completion time estimates. Similar
observations were made as a result of the simulation experi-
ments in Herroelen and Leus (2001): If the critical chain must
be kept in series during project execution, the makespan can be
improved by regularly reevaluating the “tightness” of the criti-
cal chain, or in other words, one should avoid concentrating
on an ex ante-derived critical chain that is no longer the real
constraint on project makespan.

56 Project Management Journal December 2002

 cause variation requires management action, while common
cause variation does not.
A C F I The experimental set-up used in the funnel experiment con-
sists of a target on the floor, a funnel on a movable stand, and
a marble to drop from the funnel. The aim of the system is to
cause the marble to land on the center of the target. In the con-
D G J End text of project scheduling, the target can be thought of as the
committed project completion date and cost. The funnel exper-
iment shows that adjusting a stable process to compensate for
an undesirable result or an extraordinarily good result will pro-
B E H K duce output that is worse than if the process had been left
alone. Moving the funnel in the opposite direction whenever
the marble misses the target [Leach (2001a) relates this to expe-
diting a newly identified critical path], or moving the funnel
(a) Example Project back to zero each time before making the adjustment [Leach
(2001a) relates this to updating the project baseline schedule
with a change or adjusting the plan to actual before taking the
management control action] leads to an increase in variation.
A C FB F I Leach (2001a) claims that these actions boil down to an adjust-
ment for statistical fluctuation, or common cause variation,
D G J instead of real change, or special cause variation.
FB
There is, however, a subtle difference between the parame-
ter setting of a univariate or bivariate statistical process and the
B E H K FB Time
rather combinatorial nature of project scheduling, even with
variable activity durations: The analogy does not hold. In
many companies, rescheduling is undesirable, but mostly
(b) Buffered Baseline Schedule because of organizational choices for coordinating resources,
rather than because of underlying statistical intuition, as is the
case in the funnel experiment. Statistical process control is
about observing the same statistical process multiple times
A C F I (production environment), whereas every single activity is
executed only once in a project, which has by itself a unique
character. This observation makes any intimate comparison
D G J
between the two settings faulty.
In addition, the closest equivalent obtainable in the fun-
B E H K Time nel experiment to receiving new information about activity
durations would not be the case in which one tampers with
the settings of the funnel after one observation. Rather, it is
(c) Projected Schedule the situation in which one adjusts the location of the funnel
because the variability of the output is reduced (the project
Figure 10. Project Example and Associated Baseline and moves toward completion) and the location of the funnel can
Projected Schedule be better positioned unambiguously. This is because project
activities are precedence and resource dependent. During the
execution of a project, the occurrence of disturbances changes
CCS/BM recommends that the baseline schedule and the the structure of that part of the project that remains to be
selected critical chain should not change during project execu- executed: They provide additional information. This infor-
tion (except for very fundamental disruptions that consume mation should not be treated only as the result of statistical
the protection offered by the PB), motivated by the idea that fluctuation but should be interpreted as special cause
rescheduling and changing the critical chain may lead the pro- variation that may require management action.
ject team into losing focus. Leach (1999, 2001a, 2001b) illus- Opportunities for speeding the remaining part of the
trates the point through an analogy with the funnel experi- ongoing project may be exploited by rearranging the sched-
ment conducted by Deming (1982) to illustrate the differences ule. Discarding from the outset information that will allow
between common cause and special cause variation. Common the remainder of the schedule to be completed fastest may
cause variation refers to a cause that is inherent in the system. not always be wise. The factorial experiment performed by
Special cause variation refers to a cause that is specific to some Herroelen and Leus (2000) confirms that—whether we like
group of workers, a particular production worker, a specific it from a practical project management viewpoint or not—
machine, or a specific local condition (Leach, 1999). Special regularly recomputing the baseline schedule and updating

December 2002 Project Management Journal 57

the critical chain leads to significantly smaller realized
project durations. Jorgensen (1999) also has discussed this
reactive type of approach in a more theoretical setting.
Some authors argue that workers will think management is
unqualified and only relies on improvisaton if it routinely
reschedules the baseline. Note, however, that the projected
schedule, which indicates when workers are to start their next
job, is updated every time project status updates occur.
Herroelen and Leus (2001) clearly show that this mechanism is
most similar to a dispatching approach. At times, it may be a
different critical chain that determines the projected schedule
updates and job dispatching; this situation should not upset
workers more than with an unchanged baseline schedule, espe-
cially if project accelerations are achieved in this way.
On the other hand, there are a number of cases where
rescheduling is not desirable. Dispatched jobs must not
be interrupted normally due to shifting priorities. Such
decisions will be counterproductive and introduce system
nervousness, and it might be difficult to transfer expert staff
and special resources between activities at short notice
(Bowers, 1995).
Schedule stability will be required as a result of ex ante
imposing limits on certain activity start and end times to
coordinate resources, for instance, across multiple projects.
This is one reason why piloting a single project according to
the CCS/BM methodology in a multiproject organization
will demand extra care. It may be necessary in a multiproject
environment to make advance bookings of key staff or
equipment to guarantee their availability (Bowers, 1995).
Other sources of the need for such stability can be hard
delivery dates for suppliers or subcontractors, or in a larger
sense, a hard due date for project deliverables, e.g., mile-
stones—in other words, any time restriction that is external
to the project itself. Remember that it is standard CCS/BM
procedure to introduce a separate PB per deliverable
(ProChain, 1999). If supplier delivery dates or “ready times”
are tight or due dates are not, the plan may have to be
created backward from or within those dates.
If the due dates are tight on the other hand (after exhaust-
ing all possible “activity crashing” alternatives), a baseline
schedule loses its significance, and implicit buffer sizes follow
from comparing the projected schedule with the imposed
dates; there is no real distinction anymore between buffer
management and “classical” float management.
In conclusion, the decision to repair the schedule or
engage in rescheduling requires extreme care. Simple, clear-
cut answers do not seem to exist. This being said, the project-
ed schedule will require regular adaptation anyway to
account for resource contention. Also, proponents of uncon-
ditionally keeping the critical chain unchanged should ask
themselves whether they refuse to revise the baseline sched-
ule because it introduces system nervousness, or rather
because such schedule management in the CCS/BM way
becomes rather arduous. Reevaluating the most critical part
of the schedule in such situations regularly boils down to
completely repositioning the buffers and the critical chain.
For instance, Wilkens (2000, p. 69) states:
58 Project Management Journal
A C F I
D G J
B E H K Time
(a) Projected Schedule Keeping Critical Chain in Series
A C F I
D G J
B E H K Time
(b) Projected Schedule With New Critical Chain
Figure 11. Effect of a Duration Disturbance
“Feeding buffers are another story altogether, simply
because they are a pain in the neck to manage for all
but very small projects. As work is replanned to incor-
porate changes and work around plans, the buffers
need to be relocated and adjusted.”
Clearly, the need for intelligent scheduling/repair
mechanisms remains, and additional research is needed in the
development of powerful mechanisms for the creation of
robust baseline schedules and the deployment of effective
proactive warning mechanisms.
Conclusions
The CCS/BM methodology has acted as an important eye-
opener in project management practice. It correctly recognizes
that the interaction between the time requirements of the pro-
ject activities, the precedence relations defined among them,
the activity resource requirements, and the resource availabili-
ties has a crucial impact on the duration of a project. This
point, largely unrecognized by many project management
practitioners and blind critical path fanatics, is well taken and
completely in line with the profound insights gained in the
resource-constrained project scheduling literature. Given the
complexity and the moderate research progress of stochastic
resource-constrained project scheduling, the idea of construct-
ing and protecting a mean activity duration-based precedence
and resource-feasible deterministic baseline schedule is sound.
It often is the best thing one can hope for and rely on from a
computational point of view.
The methodology of inserting and managing resource, feed-
ing, and project buffers—essentially the application of the
December 2002
TOC to project scheduling—provides a simple and workable
tool for setting realistic project due dates and for monitoring
the project during execution. It emerged into project manage-
ment software, which allows project management to shift from
a time-oriented (critical path-based) to a resource-constrained
(critical chain-based) view. Daily project management practice
was in a desperate need for such a shift in focus.
The danger, however, lies in the oversimplification.
McKay and Morton (1998, p. 762) relate: “We believe that
most project managers will benefit from a conscious reflec-
tion of what Goldratt has written ... However, a danger exists
for the project manager who does not understand the neces-
sary preconditions.” Indeed, the practical implications of
applying CCS/BM must be recognized clearly. Pinto (1999,
p. 51) concludes: “My concern lies in the strong potential for
many companies, who do not understand both TOC’s
strengths and weaknesses, to latch on to it as TNBT [The Next
Big Thing, meaning a management fad] regardless of their
particular and unique circumstances.”
Resource-constrained project scheduling problems are hard.
Constructing and protecting a baseline schedule is not an easy
pursuit. CCS/BM offers a practical, software-supported project
scheduling tool. Identifying the critical chain is not easy. Due
to the complexity of the resource-constrained project
scheduling problem involved, management is forced to rely on
heuristic procedures for generating a precedence and resource-
feasible baseline schedule for real-life projects.
Different scheduling methods may yield different project
durations and/or a different set of critical chains. The proce-
dures used for inserting the buffers may have a strong impact
on the project completion times committed to the customer,
and commercial software packages may provide ambiguous
results. The authors have shown that during project execution,
the buffers may fail to act as a real proactive protection
mechanism and pointed out that management must face the
trade-offs involved in schedule repair and rescheduling.
Simple, clear-cut answers do not seem to exist. Further research
is needed in the development of workable and effective
mechanisms for creating robust baseline schedules and
effective mechanisms for schedule repair.
References
Bowers, J.A. (1995). Criticality in resource constrained net-
works. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 46 (1), 80–91.
Cabanis–Brewin, J. (1999). “So … So What?” Debate over
CCPM gets a verbal shrug from theory of constraints guru
Goldratt. PM Network, 13 (12), 49–52.
Demeulemeester, E.L., & Herroelen, W.S. (1992). A branch-
and-bound procedure for the multiple resource-constrained
project scheduling problem. Management Science, 38 (12),
1803–1818.
Demeulemeester, E.L., & Herroelen, W.S. (1997). New
benchmark results for the resource-constrained project sched-
uling problem. Management Science, 43 (11), 1485–1492.
Demeulemeester, E., Herroelen, W.S., Simpson, W.P.,
Baroum, S., Patterson, J.H., & Yang, K.K. (1994). On a paper
by Christofides et al. for solving the multiple-resource
December 2002 Project Management Journal
constrained, single project scheduling problem. European
Journal of Operational Research, 76 (1), 218–228.
Deming, W.E. (1982). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Elmaghraby, S.E.E. (1977). Activity networks—Project
planning and control by network models. New York: Wiley
Interscience.
Elton, J., & Roe, J. (1998). Bringing discipline to project
management. Harvard Business Review, 76 (2), 153.
Globerson, S. (2000). PMBOK and the critical chain. PM
Network, 14 (5), 63–66.
Goldratt, E.M. (1997). Critical chain. Great Barrington, MA:
The North River Press Publishing Corp.
Herroelen, W., De Reyck, B., & Demeulemeester, E. (1998).
Resource-constrained project scheduling: A survey of recent
developments. Computers and Operations Research, 25 (4),
279–302.
Herroelen, W., & Leus, R. (2000). On the merits and pitfalls
of critical chain scheduling. Proceedings of the 1st PMI Research
Conference 2000, Paris, France. Newtown Square, PA: PMI,
283–295.
Herroelen, W., & Leus, R. (2001). On the merits and pitfalls
of critical chain scheduling. Journal of Operations Management,
19 (5), 559–577.
Jorgensen, T. (1999). Project scheduling—A stochastic dynam-
ic decision problem. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
Trondheim, Norway.
Leach, L.P. (1999). Critical chain project management
improves project performance. Project Management Journal, 30
(2), 39–51.
Leach, L.P. (2000). Critical chain project management.
Boston: Artech House Professional Development Library.
Leach, P. (2001a). Putting quality in project risk man-
agement—Part 1: Understanding variation. PM Network, 15
(2), 53–56.
Leach, P. (2001b). Putting quality in project risk man-
agement—Part 2: Dealing with variation. PM Network, 15
(3), 47–52.
Maylor, H. (2000). Another silver bullet? A review of the theory
of constraints approach to project management. Paper presented
at the 7th International Annual European Operations
Management Association Conference, Ghent, Belgium.
McKay, K.N., and Morton, T.E. (1998). Critical chain. IIE
Transactions, 30 (8), 759–762.
Newbold, R.C. (1998). Project management in the fast
lane—Applying the theory of constraints. Boca Raton, FL: The
St. Lucie Press.
Patrick, F.S. (1999). Critical chain scheduling and buffer
management—Getting out from between Parkinson’s rock
and Murphy’s hard place. PM Network, 13 (4), 57–62.
Patrick, F.S. (2001, 2 January). Critical chain project manage-
ment, program management, TOC and projects [Msg 33].
Message posted to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/criticalchain
Patterson, J.H. (1984). A comparison of exact procedures
for solving the multiple constrained resource project schedul-
ing problem. Management Science, 30 (7), 854–867.
59
 Pinto, J.K. (1999). Some constraints on the theory of
constraints—Taking a critical look at the critical chain. PM
Network, 13 (8), 49–51.
ProChain Solutions Inc. (1999). Introduction to ProChain.
Retrieved 19 February 2002, from www.prochain.com/
university.asp
Product Development Institute. (1999). Critical chain
tutorial. Retrieved 23 September 2002, from http://www.pd
institute.com/tutorial/contents.html
Rand, G.K. (2000). Critical chain: The theory of constraints
applied to project management. International Journal of Project
Management, 18 (3), 173–177.
Umble, M., & Umble, E. (2000). Manage your projects for
success: An application of the theory of constraints. Production
and Inventory Management Journal, 41 (2), 27–32.
Wiest, J.D. (1964). Some properties of schedules for large
projects with limited resources. Operations Research, 12 (3),
395–418.
Wilkens, T.T. (2000). Critical path, or chain or both? PM
Network, 14 (7), 68–74.
Zalmenson, E., & Zinman, E. (2000). People oriented project
management. Retrieved 23 September 2002, from
http://users.actcom.co.il/cyberman/articles/People_Oriented_
PM.doc
Zalmenson, E., & Zinman, E. (2001). Theory of constraints
analysis. Retrieved 23 September 2002, from http://users.
actcom.co.il/cyberman/articles/toc_eng.doc
Statement of Ownership, Management and Circulation
1. Publication Title: Project Management Journal
2. Publication Number: 8756-9728
3. Filing date: 12/01/02
4. Issue Frequency: Quarterly
5. Number of Issues Published Annually: 4
6. Annual Subscription Price: $14.00
7. Complete Mailing Address of Known Office of Publication:
PMI Publishing Division, Four Campus Boulevard,Newtown
Square, PA 19073–3299 USA
15. Extent and Nature of Circulation
a. Total No. Copies (Net Press Run)
b. Paid and/or Requested Circulation
(1) Sales Through Dealers and Carriers, Street Vendors, and Counter Sales (Not Mailed)
(2) Paid or Requested Mail Subscriptions (Include Advertisers’ Proof Copies/Exchange Copies)
c. Total Paid and/or Requested Circulation
[Sum of 15b(1) and 15b(2)]
d. Free Distribution by Mail (Samples,
Complementary, and Other Free)
e. Free Distribution Outside the Mail
(Carriers or Other Means)
f. Total Free Distribution (Sum of 15d and 15e)
g. Total Distribution (Sum of 15d and 15f)
h. Copies Not Distributed
(1) Office Use, Leftovers, Spoiled
(2) Return from News Agents
i. Total [Sum of 15g, 15h(1), and 15(2)]
(1) Percent Paid and/or Requested Circulation (15c / 15g x 100)
16. This Statement of Ownership will be printed in the December 2002 issue of this publication.
17. Name and Title of Editor, Publisher, Business Manager, or Owner: Linda Cherry
This article is copyrighted material and has been reproduced with the permission of PMI. Unauthorized reproduction of this material is strictly prohibited.
Willy Herroelen, PhD, is professor in operations
management at the Department of Applied Economics
at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. He teaches cours-
es in the area of production scheduling and sequencing,
facilities planning, organization of the production process, and project
management. He has published widely on resource-constrained project
scheduling. His current research activities focus on scheduling and
sequencing under various resource and capacity constraints. He is a
member of the Project Management Institute and several professional
management science and operations management associations.
Roel Leus holds a commercial engineering degree
from the Department of Applied Economics at the
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. He is research assis-
tant of the Fund for Scientific Research—Flanders
at the same department where he is preparing a PhD dissertation
on robust and reactive project scheduling. He is a member of the
Project Management Institute and Institute for Operations Research
and the Management Sciences.
Erik Demeulemeester, PhD, is professor in operations
management at the Department of Applied Economics
at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. He teaches
courses in quality management and production man-
agement. He has published widely on resource-constrained project
scheduling. His current research activities focus on scheduling and
sequencing under various resource and capacity constraints. He is a
member of the Project Management Institute and several professional
management science and operations management associations.
8. Complete Mailing Address of Headquarters or General 11. Known Bondholders, Mortgagees, and Other Security
Business office of the Publisher: Project Management Holders Owning or Holding 1% or More of Total Amount
Institute, Four Campus Boulevard, Newtown Square, PA of Bonds, Mortgages, or Other Securities: None
19073–3299 USA 12. For completion by nonprofit organizations authorized to mail
9. Full Names and Complete Mailing Addresses of Publisher: at special rates. The purpose, function, and nonprofit status of
Linda Cherry; Four Campus Boulevard Four Campus this organization and the exempt status for federal income tax
Boulevard, Newtown Square, PA 19073–3299 USA purposes: Has Not Changed During Preceding 12 Months
10. Owner: Project Management Institute, Four Campus 13. Publication Name: Project Management Journal
Boulevard, Newtown Square, PA 19073–3299 USA 14. Issue Date for Circulation Data Below: November 2002
Average No. Copies Each Issue Actual No. Copies Single Issue
During Preceding 12 Months Published Nearest to Filing Date
93,894 100,275
Does Not Apply Does Not Apply
92,794 99,175
92,794 99,175
Does Not Apply
Does Not Apply
Does Not Apply
92,794 99,175
1,100 1,100
Does Not Apply
93,894 100,275
98.7% 98.9%
Date: 12/01/02
Journaling: A Learning Tool for
Project Management Training
and Team-building
▼ ment training and team-building (Fleming & Koppelman, 1997; Goodge, 1998;
Abstract
This paper describes the application of
reflective learning journals to promote critical
self-awareness. This technique improved both
individual and team performance among
members in nine management undergraduate
teams conducting project management
research projects. Qualitative analyses of
entries in the journals revealed seven major
themes: interpersonal relationships, team
communication, stress-time pressures, team
vs. individual work, personal criticisms and
improvement, lessons learned and future
actions to improve one’s performance, and
evaluation and comments about journaling.
Analyses of the journaling evaluation data
showed that participants found journaling a
useful learning tool. Recommendations are
presented for using reflective learning journals
as one tool in project management training
and team-building.
Keywords: learning journals; team-building;
training
©2002 by the Project Management Institute
2002, Vol. 33, No. 4, 61–66
8756–9728/02/$10.00 per article + $0.50 per page
December 2002
Robert Loo, The University of Lethbridge, Faculty of Management, Lethbridge,
Alberta T1K 3M4 Canada
T eamwork and managing teams can be very stressful because of interpersonal and
task conflicts, the pressures of deadlines, performance standards, and resource
scarcity, among other disagreements that typically threaten team effectiveness and
success. Project managers control such threats to team effectiveness partly through
measures such as timely training in leadership skills, conflict management skills,
communication skills, and the like. Another method to manage such threats is
through the implementation of various administrative procedures and practices such
as team meetings and performance reviews.
This paper focuses on the usefulness of reflective learning journals as a method of
promoting both individual and team performance in the context of project manage-
Zimmerer & Yasin, 1998). Critical reflection upon project team experiences through
journaling should facilitate learning specific skills including interpersonal commu-
nications, conflict management, managing effective meetings, managing stress, and
leadership skills. The nature of reflective learning, the use of reflective learning jour-
nals, and their application in teamwork are illustrated along with recommendations
for the effective use of journaling in project management.
Theory and Practice of Reflective Learning
Boyd and Fayles (1983) define reflection as “the process of internally examining and
exploring an issue of concern, triggered by an experience, which creates and clarifies
meaning in terms of self and which results in a changed conceptual perspective”
(p. 100). Reflection is embedded within several theoretical frameworks (Hutchinson
& Allen, 1997; Kember, Jones, Loke, McKay, Sinclair, Tse, Webb, Wong, F., Wong,
M., & Yeung, 1999; McCaugherty, 1991; Riley-Doucet & Wilson, 1997; Scanlon &
Chernomas, 1997). This paper used Scanlon’s and Chernomas’s (1997) three-stage
model because it is a relatively simple model that easily can be communicated and
used. As seen in Figure 1, the first stage of reflection is awareness, where awareness
might be stimulated by some uncomfortable or positive thoughts or feelings about a
learning situation or event. Without such awareness, reflection cannot occur.
In the second stage, the individual critically analyzes the situation, bringing to
bear his or her relevant knowledge and experiences as well as the application
of new knowledge resulting from the analysis process. This stage should involve
critical thinking and evaluation and self-examination with accompanying growing
self-awareness.
Project Management Journal 61
 The third and final stage involves the development of a new
perspective based upon one’s critical analysis and the applica-
tion of new knowledge to the (learning) situation under reflec-
tion. The new perspective may be marked by affective, cogni-
tive, and behavioral changes. The author expects that such
changes are adaptive in the sense that the individual becomes
more effective as an individual and team member; clearly then,
learning has occurred.
Essentially, this view of reflective learning fits well with sev-
eral theoretical frameworks such as Schon’s (1987) reflective
practitioner and “knowing-in-action” and the empowerment
literature (Shulman, McCormack, Luechauer, & Shulman,
1993; Spreitzer, 1995) because journaling is a process whereby
learners take a great deal of control over their own learning
experiences and give meaning to their learning. Reflective
learning journals are an important tool in translating theory
into practical action, i.e., praxis.
Applications Example
The present example illustrates the use of reflective learning
journals in project teams, specifically, in four-student teams in
a faculty of management undergraduate project management
course. The 35 management undergraduates formed their own
four-student teams for a total of nine teams at the beginning of
the semester to work on a major term paper worth 30% of their
final grade. The team worked together over a period of about
10 weeks. Peer evaluations were used at the end of the assign-
ment to apportion marks among group members.
In addition to the information provided in the course out-
line, handouts (available from the authors upon request) were
provided as well as class discussions held on several occasions
concerning the nature and scope of the term paper, the
Scanlon and Chernomas (1997) model of reflective learning,
and the guidelines for the reflective learning journals.
A reflective learning journal was part of the electronic sub-
mission requirement at the end of the assignment, and each
journal was worth a maximum of 5% of each student’s final
grade. It was emphasized that journals are not simply a “diary”
or “log” but an articulated narrative that follows from the
reflective and critical thinking about one’s learning experiences
or specific learning events. Six questions were posed to help
students stay focused and make journaling a useful exercise:
■ What was the learning situation/event?
■ What have I learned, and how did I learn it?
■ How do I feel (good and bad feelings) about what I learned?
■ How could I have learned more effectively/efficiently?
■ What actions can I take to learn more effectively/
efficiently in the future?
■ In what ways do I need to change my attitudes, expectations,
values, and the like to feel better about learning situations?
Tips also were provided to students in the handout as well
as during class discussion:
■ Pick a quiet place and reflective time, e.g., early evening in
your room, to do your journal entries;
■ Entries should be done at least twice weekly or daily when
there is significant project activity, e.g., project meetings or
completing the project report;
62 Project Management Journal
■ Stated questions should help stimulate ideas and keep
focused on learning in this course requirement, but feel free to
discuss other questions/topics or incidents that you judge to be
important to your learning effectiveness;
■ Be self-aware, honest, and open in your reflection—
self-delusion won’t help improve your effectiveness. Go from
genuine self-awareness to self-evaluation, and then to actions
for improvement.
Given that these guiding questions and tips were provid-
ed to all students as part of a handout and the various occa-
sions in which class discussion took place about journaling,
the process might be described as “guided journaling.”
Journals were submitted in electronic form, and students
received individual feedback on their journal along with
their grade. Class feedback on journaling was provided when
research reports were returned to the class. Last, students
were asked to evaluate the journaling approach by respond-
ing to five questions (Table 1) and adding their comments,
at the end of semester.
Analyses and Findings From
the Reflective Learning Journals
The qualitative software program NUD*IST (Non-Numerical,
Unstructured, Data: Indexing, Searching, and Theorizing)
(NUD*IST, 1997) and a dictionary of codes, e.g., positive and
negative interpersonal communication, interpersonal con-
flict, and lessons learned, generated by the investigator were
used to categorize the text in the journals; each sentence was
a unit of analysis. The investigator then used an iterative
process to develop and refine themes and subthemes that
reflect the information in the learning journals. The themes
and subthemes were subject to a reliability check by the
research assistant.
Seven major themes plus subthemes emerged from the
journals: interpersonal relationships, team communication,
stress-time pressures, team vs. individual work, personal criti-
cisms and improvement, lessons learned and future actions to
improve one’s performance, and evaluation and comments
about journaling.
Interpersonal Relationships
This team assignment was associated with a mix of positive
and negative interpersonal interactions over the course of the
assignment as indicated by a number of subthemes.
Shared Goal and Focus. Some students were quite happy
with their group, mainly because team members shared a com-
mon goal, did their share of work, met deadlines, and the like.
■ “The one thing that made our paper and team come
together was the fact that we all had the same goals. When
everyone in a group has the same group performance goals,
group work is a more satisfying experience;”
■ “This group I have been working with have been great.
Everyone seems to be eager to work, and I like how we divided
up the work load;”
■ “Our group did work well together, when we were
at meetings there was not a lot of idle chit chat; we got down
to business.”
December 2002
 Statements Agree Agree Disagree Disagree
strongly strongly

1. I found the learning journal 0.0% 22.2% 61.1% 16.7%

very difficult to do.

2. I now have a better grasp about 5.6% 55.6% 38.8% 0.0%

how to do a learning journal.

3. I now feel that I have greater 11.8% 52.9% 35.3% 0.0%

insight into my own learning.

4. I think I will use a learning 0.0% 33.3% 44.5% 22.2%

journal in the future.

5. In the future, I will reflect more 23.5% 58.9% 17.6% 0.0%

upon my learning experiences.

Table 1. Percent Responses to the Five Evaluation Statements

Personal Compatibility. Other students commented on the
good fit of personalities or effective aspects of group interactions.
■ “As far as personalities go, our personalities coincide
very well;”
■ “[We] possess similar personalities, so we enjoy learning
from one another;”
■ “We seem to be getting along great so far this semester and
I hope that it continues throughout the project.”
Safe Environment. Some comments reflected a “safe envi-
ronment” team in that the team climate was supportive rather
than threatening.
■ “What really worked well during this meeting was the fact
that everyone contributed their ideas, and no one criticized
ideas offered ... I have found that this group has helped me to
come out of my shell;”
■ “There was [sic] no criticism or accusations made ... I believe
that this cohesion produced a fantastic paper and a great
rapport between each of us;”
■ “I found it great that we all accepted each other’s feedback
and made the suggested changes to our individual work.”
Humor. There were a few comments about the positive
effects of humor in group meetings.
■ “I have a good sense of humor and like to display that,
especially in a group setting. This sense of humor helped with
loosening our group up at the beginning of our meetings.”
On the other hand, there were negative comments about
interactions within the team.
Interactions Lacking Focus. Some students noted the frus-
trations when group meetings lacked focus or were discussions
about unrelated matters.
■ “Made it difficult to get any work done because of talking
about unrelated subjects, disagreements, and differing out-
looks, which had to be treaded on carefully in order to keep
from hurting any feelings;”
■ “This lack of focus was mainly due to our lack of knowledge
of each other personally.”
Friends vs. Colleagues. While students may believe initial-
ly that working with friends will make projects easier, they
soon discover that is not always the case.
■ “I also reaffirmed my belief that having team members with
whom you also share a social relationship with is not always
conducive to getting things accomplished.”
Interpersonal Conflict. Some students noted conflict with
other group members.
■ “For the first time in my university career, I feel like get-
ting mad every time I have a meeting in this group. It’s not
that I have personal differences with anyone, in fact [we]
are good friends. It’s just that we seem to argue over the
stupidest things.”
Self-Awareness and Interrelationships. Some students rec-
ognized aspects of their own personality and interpersonal
style that hindered constructive interrelationships. Some made
efforts to change their behaviors.
■ “At these meetings, I can’t help but feel that I’m taking
charge too much. A nasty habit of mine, I usually try to dom-
inate the conversation ... I am concerned that I may be
offending my other group members, and I have tried to talk
about it with my group members. Nobody has made any
complaints so far;”
■ “I have traditionally hated working in groups ... Having
been let down in the past, I seem to have developed a bit of a
pessimistic outlook when it comes to relying on other people
for work that will directly affect me;”
■ “I can get aggravated quite easily if I am under pressure
and if things don’t go the expected way I planned, so I need
to take a deep breath, step back, and remember that my team
members are in the same boat as I am with school, work, and
social lives.“

December 2002 Project Management Journal 63

 Awareness
Connects Present With
Present
the Past and Future
Note. Adapted from the Atkins and Murphy (1993) three-stage model of reflective learning.
Figure 1. Reflective Process
Group Communication
Not surprisingly, there were many comments related to
communication within teams, including comments about
both effective and ineffective communications.
Usefulness of E-mail as a Communications Tool. Several
journal entries emphasized the usefulness of e-mail as a com-
munication tool for the group assignment.
■ “I sent an e-mail to all team members, getting folks to start
thinking about the kind of project they wanted to do. We
e-mailed back and forth two or three times and finally all
confirmed the topic;”
■ “We were all up to speed because we kept in touch
through e-mail;”
■ “I learned that I love e-mail!”
Effective Communication Leading to Effective Meetings.
Some students noted examples of effective group communica-
tion leading to effective meetings.
■ “During this meeting we had excellent communication and
focus. The meeting was not long—just under an hour—but we
got a lot accomplished and I think that we all came away from
the meeting with a good feeling;”
■ “What really worked well during this meeting was the fact
that everyone contributed their ideas and no one criticized
ideas offered.”
There also were instances of ineffective communications
noted in some journal entries.
Off-Task Communications. Some students noted the frus-
trations of group meetings in which they felt that too much
time was spent on discussions not relevant to the task—the
group term paper.
■ “We really haven’t done that much together, and when we
do get together, we tend to talk a lot about unrelated topics.”
Ineffective Communications. There were journal entries
that noted ineffective communications in the sense that
communication was not focused, ambiguous, and the like.
■ “I think we must have been on different wavelengths the
evening we chose our topic. It was very different than what we
talked about;”
■ “Today we discussed our problem, and I realized that it was
pretty bad. Ironically, by talking about it, we got even further
off track without addressing the real problem. I guess it would
help if we had an agenda and appointed someone to be the
watch dog for each meeting.”
64 Project Management Journal
Critical Analysis Learning
Future
Negative Reactions to E-mail. While some students had pos-
itive evaluations of e-mail as a communications tool, others did
not like using e-mail or found the communications frustrating.
■ “We discussed after our first team exercise that e-mailing was
a bad means of communicating ... Some team members were
not as keen as others on using e-mail for correspondence;”
■ “She said she would e-mail us a draft and we could look it
over and send it back to her on Thursday. That sounded like a
great plan, but Netscape was down most of Wednesday and
Thursday so I couldn’t get my mail.”
Stress-Time Pressures
Some students commented on stress mainly due to time pressures.
■ “We realized we started too late on this paper, and we’re
starting to get snappy and crabby at and with each other—
unjustified actions;”
■ “From the beginning, we failed to get organized. Now we
are all in a panic trying to find the easiest way to produce a
good paper;”
■ “I have so much other work to do that I can’t organize or get
other people going and coordinate the proceedings.”
On a positive note, one student stated:
■ “After a good meeting like this, my stress level just dropped
two notches.“
The distressful effects of time pressures also were mentioned:
■ “I’m worried that we don’t have enough done yet, and I’m
worried that we are not going to finish this in time. We need to
get going, but everyone’s schedule is so limited;”
■ “I think we may have been feeling the pressure because
there is [sic] only two weeks before the paper is due.”
Team vs. Individual Work
While the assignment was a group paper, some students
commented favorably on the ability to divide the work
among members, or in other words, the ability to do indi-
vidual as well as group work. Other students commented
that the group assignment allowed individual work too;
therefore, students could break the project into individual
tasks and coordinate the work.
■ “The ability for the individual team members to work
individually, yet still [work] towards [sic] the common goal
of the group saved everyone a lot of unnecessary meeting
times and headaches in the end.”
December 2002
Personal Criticism and Improvement
Some students made critical self-assessments and then went
the next step to identify points for personal improvement.
■ “I have to learn to control my anger ... I personally can be
better prepared through planning and time management;
hopefully this will also make me a better communicator;”
■ “I admit that I tend to procrastinate, but with this group I
can’t do that. That is a good thing;”
■ “I have to admit when I am wrong and accept someone
else’s way of doing things sometimes;”
■ “I made a point to listen to what people were saying and
making myself more aware of their opinions.”
Lessons Learned and Future
Actions to Improve One’s Performance
In line with the main purpose of the learning journals, many
students reflected upon the team assignment and identified
lessons learned as well as actions they could take to improve
their own learning and team effectiveness in the future.
Journal entries were grouped into four categories: manage-
ment skills, the “people” side of teamwork, learning from
others, and learning from “bad” experiences.
Management Skills. Comments in this category reflected
basic management skills such as communications skills,
planning, time management, and the like.
■ “In the future I plan to take a speech class in order to help
me with my communication skills;”
■ “In the future I am going to make a list of things I want to
get done;”
■ “I found that the scheduling of these meetings gave us
ample time to get accomplished what we needed to, as
well as giving us some ‘cushion time’ in case of delays,
missed meetings, research time, and so on. Through this, I
quickly learned that a ‘cushion’ amount of time is just as
vital as a ‘cushion’ amount of money in a project budget.
This is extremely apparent when the weather turned bad in
the final week of the project. If we had not the additional
time prior to this past week, the project would have been
in dire straits;”
■ “… Decision-making and leadership styles are largely sit-
uational and will have to change in order to best suit the
needs of the project;”
■ “The one thing I really learned through the whole experi-
ence is that we need better planning and communication.
The whole project would have gone a lot smoother and faster
if we just planned out what we were going to do;”
■ “I have learned now that I can’t do as much as I want to
sometimes, so I have to pace myself and realize that I can’t
work 24 hours a day.”
“People” Side of Teamwork. Comments included in
this category reflected the interpersonal relations side
of teamwork.
■ “So, at this point, I learned that groups take time to get
use [sic] to each other. I learned to be patient and get to know
group members before tackling a big problem;”
■ “I learned that it really helps when individuals allow each
other to work in their [sic] areas of strength;”
December 2002 Project Management Journal
■ “In the past, I had always been disapproving of other peo-
ple that missed scheduled project meetings. What I learned
was that sometimes it truly is unavoidable.”
Learning From Others. A few entries reflected the useful-
ness of social learning and imitation.
■ “I learned a lot from just watching [him] operate in
a group setting. [He] was a good chairperson or leader
of meetings. From this I learned some important
leadership techniques.”
Learning From “Bad” Experiences. Some students recog-
nized the value of learning from situations that were ineffec-
tive, so they learned not to behave that way in the future.
■ “I have learned more from this completely ineffective
group than I would have from any good group I may have
worked with. Maybe not more, but different things, which I
consider more important for me to know;”
■ “I learned what not to do.”
Evaluation and Comments About Journaling
The responses to the seven evaluation questions are present-
ed in Table 1. Overall, the results were positive but there were
participants who found journaling difficult to do or who
would not consider doing journals in the future. Clearly,
there is a need when using this method to communicate
more convincingly to participants the usefulness of journal-
ing in effective learning. There were several positive com-
ments about the usefulness of journaling.
■ “Overall I think this was a good experience, and I enjoyed
doing the learning journal as well;”
■ “I believe I learned quite a bit from my [sic] writing my
journal myself. I saw definite areas that need to be polished,
need to be started sooner, more structure to them [sic], set
milestones, etc., and areas that I can help make these differ-
ences happen—not pass it off on others. The problems, good
points, and feelings in this journal, and the possible
solutions are such that they can be applied to other similar
situations I may run into in the future.”
Lessons Learned and
Recommendations for Managers
Journaling can be a useful learning tool for managers to record
and critically reflect upon their own work performance with
the aim of improving their management skills and perfor-
mance. Senior managers who mentor or coach new managers
may find that assigning a journaling exercise is a useful way of
obtaining specific work-related information for discussion and
advice-giving in the mentoring/coaching relationship.
Managers can use journaling as one tool in team-building
for project teams or management teams. Journaling also can
help turn problem teams around because the analysis of jour-
nal entries from problem teams can identify problem areas—
technical or people problems—for corrective actions.
Lessons Learned and
Recommendations for Trainers
Instructors need to thoroughly and convincingly communicate
to participants the purpose, value, and procedure for learning
65
 journals. Comprehensive handouts and periodic reminders to
participants about doing their journaling, i.e., coached reflec-
tion, are important.
It is important to provide detailed individual and class
feedback on the journals along with specific recommenda-
tions for students to improve their future learning. Instructors
must ensure the confidentiality of journals so students feel
secure in recording sensitive and personal information.
Instructors also should identify problem learning
areas, e.g., poor communication and time management
skills, or obstacles to learning, e.g., inadequate management
support for training, in order to offer remedial action in
training courses.
Lessons Learned and
Recommendations for Learners
Learning is an active empowering process so students must be
encouraged to take control over their own learning and ability
to learn from experience. Reflective learning journals provide
learners with an important opportunity to empower them-
selves and to learn if they take journaling seriously.
Learners need to hone basic project management skills, e.g.,
doing detailed planning, scheduling, and prioritizing of activi-
ties, including self-management skills, e.g., conflict resolution,
communication, and time management skills.
and practice in first-year student nurses: An action research
study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 16 (5), 534–543.
NUD*IST. (1997). QSR NUD*IST 4 user guide (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Riley-Doucet, C., & Wilson, S. (1997). A three-step method
of self-reflection using reflective learning journal writing.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25 (5), 964–968.
Scanlon, J.M., & Chernomas, W.M. (1997). Developing the
reflective teacher. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25 (6),
1138–1143.
Schon, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner:
Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the profes-
sions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shulman, G.M., McCormack, A., Luechauer, D.L., &
Shulman, C. (1993). Using the journal assignment to create
empowered learners: An application of writing across the cur-
riculum. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 4 (1), 89–104.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1995). An empirical test of a comprehen-
sive model of intrapersonal empowerment in the workplace.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 23 (5), 601–609.
Zimmerer, T.W., & Yasin, M.M. (1998). A leadership profile
of American project managers. Project Management Journal, 29
(1), 31–38.

Conclusions
Findings from this study show that reflective learning journals,
with the guidance and support of instructors, are useful tools
that can help staff learn as individuals as well as members of Robert Loo, PhD, is professor of management at the
teams. Significantly, this group of students provided evidence University of Lethbridge. Before joining the university
demonstrating they learned that identification of their short- in 1989, he worked extensively in both private and
comings is important and that it is essential to take steps to public sector organizations since the 1960s. Loo has
change behaviors to work compatibly within teams. The reflec- held both project and program management positions in organiza-
tive learning journals stimulated students to contemplate how tions such as the Canadian Department of National Defense, the
they would fit in as a contributing member of a team. Systems Division at Bell-Northern Research, and the federal Public
Service Commission of Canada. He has published more than 100
References journal articles and book chapters over the past 25 years.
Boyd, E.M.E., & Fayles, A.W. (1983). Reflective learning: Key
to learning from experience. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 23
(2), 99–117.
Fleming, Q.W., & Koppelman, J.M. (1997). Integrated
project development teams: Another fad ... or a permanent
change. Project Management Journal, 28 (1), 4–11.
Goodge, P. (1998). How do we make management devel-
opment effective? Journal of Management Development, 17
(1), 83–87.
Hutchinson, D.J., & Allen, K.W. (1997). The reflection inte-
gration model: A process for facilitating reflective learning. The
Teacher Educator, 32 (4), 226–234.
Kember, D., Jones, A., Loke, A., McKay, J., Sinclair, K., Tse, H.,
Webb, C., Wong, F., Wong, M., & Yeung, E. (1999). Determining
the level of reflective thinking from students’ written journals
using a coding scheme based on the work of Mezirow.
International Journal of Lifelong Education, 18 (1), 18–30.
McCaugherty, D. (1991). The use of a teaching model to
promote reflection and the experimental integration of theory

This article is copyrighted material and has been reproduced with the permission of PMI. Unauthorized reproduction of this material is strictly prohibited.
Cover to Cover
Book Review Editor, Kenneth H. Rose, PMP
Managing Multiple Projects: Planning,
Scheduling, and Allocating Resources for
Competitive Advantage
edited by James S. Pennypacker and Lowell D. Dye
L ike Shakespeare’s sorrows,
projects nowadays come not
as single spies, but in battalions.
More and more organizations are
managing projects not as single
entities, but as elements of a larger
whole. Managing Multiple Projects:
Planning Scheduling, and Allocating
Resources for Competitive Advantage,
edited by James S. Pennypacker
and Lowell D. Dye, presents con-
temporary views on dealing with
this emerging challenge.
The book comprises 23 chap-
ters organized by overview; time,
cost, and other management issues; tools, techniques, and
methods; and best practices and applications. Each chapter is a
stand-alone article from a recent technical conference or an
adaptation or extract from an author’s previously published
material. Pennypacker and Dye have woven them together into
something much like a project portfolio: a strategically linked
group with differing characteristics and priorities.
The editors open with their own introduction to the subject.
They define the difference between a collection of projects—a
group of independent projects consuming time and resources—
and a project portfolio, which consists of projects deliberately
selected for their relevance to the organization’s strategy,
planned with a mid- to long-term view, and managed in a way
that recognizes interdependencies and optimizes resources.
Pennypacker and Dye further define the difference between
project category (size, value, duration, and overall contribution)
and priority (time and criticality of delivery date). They briefly
discuss historical shortcomings in managing multiple projects
and offer limited suggestions and models for improvement.
A chapter by Lewis R. Ireland provides more specifics in
managing multiple projects in the 21st century. He discusses
both programs—a family of closely related projects—and
multiple independent projects managed by a single manager.
Ireland gives most attention to the latter, providing extensive
guidance for considering and selecting projects for this type
of management. Addressing work breakdown structures,
December 2002 Project Management Journal
scheduling, resources, and reporting, he provides a clear path
to improved productivity.
In Part II, Mike McCauley, Ann Bundy, and William
Seidman debunk the myths of resource management.
Conventional wisdom has it that resource shortages may be
overcome in three ways: Hire more people, use portfolio man-
agement to identify priorities, or level resources against an over-
all profile. The authors explain why none of these really work
and suggest “resource bottleneck analysis” as a more effective
alternative. They include a case study that restates the theory in
practical terms and ensures understanding by the reader.
The theory of constraints applied to multiple project manage-
ment is the subject of separate chapters by Francis S. Patrick and
Tony Rizzo in Part III. Patrick addresses ways to deal with multi-
tasking and utilize shared resources. So does Rizzo, but in a
broader context of a five-step multiproject management model.
In the longest chapter in the book, Robert Cooper, Scott
Edgett, and Elko Kleinschmidt discuss new solutions for making
portfolio management of new product development projects
more effective. They identify and discuss four common chal-
lenges, then present a series of solutions: Improve information
quality, analyze resource capacity, and develop a product inno-
vation and technology strategy. They discuss in detail a variety of
portfolio tools to meet management goals and describe two spe-
cific ways to analyze resource capacity vs. demand.
Authors Martien Hendricks, Bas Voeten, and Leon Kroep
remind readers in Part IV that there is more to project man-
agement than considerations of cost and schedule. Human
resource allocation can be a make-it-or-break-it process. They
identify five vital elements: long-term, medium-term, and
short-term allocation, linking, and feedback. Their discussion
of the scatter factor and the resource dedication profile pro-
vides new tools for managing staff allocation.
The chapter by Michael Cusumano and Kentaro Nobeoka
on Toyota’s multiproject development centers is perhaps the
most substantive in the book. Facing competitive and other
pressures, Toyota introduced a radical change in its product
development organization beginning in 1992. The authors pre-
sent a background analysis of the situation, a careful description
of actions taken, and a clear, concise evaluation of outcomes.
In all, Managing Multiple Projects contains much more than
mentioned here. Depending on their own technical domain
and project management environment, readers probably will
find information of value in many other chapters in the text.
That is the book’s great strength: It is a comprehensive
collection of recent theory and practice on a topic that has
67
recently risen to the list of critical few. Managing multiple pro-
jects no longer is an option or even a best practice. It is required
for organization survival and success.
Marcel Dekker Inc., 2002, ISBN: 0–8247–0680–3, hardcover,
352 pp., $80.75 member, $85.00 regular.
Reviewed by Ken Rose, PMP, an instructor for ESI
International residing in Hampton, VA, USA, and vice
president for programs, PMI Hampton Roads Chapter.
PM 102 According to the Olde Curmudgeon: An
Introduction to the Basic Concepts of Modern
Project Management
by Francis M. Webster Jr.
T he second shoe has final-
ly dropped. With PM 102
According to the Olde
Curmudgeon, Francis M.
Webster Jr. completes the
odyssey through modern pro-
ject management that began
with PM 101 published in
2000. It is a true continua-
tion, starting right where PM
101 left off. Readers must be
familiar with the previous text
to grasp complete content
and to obtain full benefit
of this highly readable and
comprehensive pair.
This volume deals with the nitty-gritty, practical side of
project management. Beginning with estimating, Webster
offers his trademark combination of sage advice and useful
tools. He reminds readers that estimates may be calculated by
several different means, but the critical factor is often the who
aspect, not the how. He offers a detailed model that may not
be completely applied in all cases, but provides a foundation
for understanding all the elements involved.
Webster runs readers through the steps of manually calcu-
lating critical paths, then reminds them that computers are
more effective, stressing both understanding of concepts and
efficiency of execution. One of the gems in this text is his list of
16 ways to reduce project duration that progresses from low to
high cost and risk. It is interesting to note the 10 ways that pre-
cede “Apply Additional Resources,” a method that is often an
early recourse in the project world.
Resource management involves much more than merely
crunching numbers in a financial spreadsheet. Webster
describes a taxonomy that includes managerial, human,
financial, physical, and intangible resources and advises
readers how to make the most of all. This information is
important: Resources—often viewed as constraints—also
present opportunities. Identifying and exploiting them
depends more on good judgment than computer programs.
68 Project Management Journal
Webster continues his practical approach when he says
scheduling ensures the “feasibility of completing the project by
the required date.” It is the outcome, not the tool, that is
important. He describes and discusses three basic types of
scheduling techniques: time-constrained, resource-con-
strained, and critical chain. The latter is a newcomer that shows
great promise by recognizing the role of uncertainty and bot-
tlenecks to a greater degree than traditional techniques have.
Webster offers a compelling summary and points readers to
sources of further information.
The extended discussion of time/cost tradeoffs in schedul-
ing is realistic and enlightening. Webster explains that the
time/cost relationship is not linear. Costs increase with both
reduced and extended time around a notional optimum. He
also discusses the easily overlooked social aspects of cost/time
tradeoffs. Savvy project managers will consider the effects of
various options on motivation within the workforce.
The author’s holistic view of cost management—something
that begins with the statement of work and extends through
the life of the product of the project—is refreshing. Earned
value and other project tools are necessary but not sufficient.
Life-cycle costs are critical to project success. Webster’s com-
plete coverage addresses key cost drivers of scope, design, pur-
chase and subcontract, schedule, materials, labor, methods,
equipment, and change. Readers may be a bit overwhelmed,
but they certainly will be better prepared by the comprehensive
treatment of this area.
Webster’s view of quality embraces four aspects: customer
satisfaction, specifications, quality of the product, and quality
of the project. The first three are rather traditional and follow
Philip Crosby’s definition of quality as “conformance to
requirements.” The last is a welcome addition. It addresses
how the project team achieves the first three and affects hard
and soft issues such as cost, schedule, motivation, and morale.
Beyond theory, Webster suggests three specific quality actions
and explains the benefits to project performance.
Risk is omnipresent in project management. So is uncer-
tainty. Webster differentiates the two and explains their role in
managing projects. His direct discussion does much to clarify
what is often a complex issue. He walks readers through the
risk management process of A Guide to the Project Management
Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) and presents a taxonomy
of risks that gives readers a firm footing in recognizing possible
risks. He discusses uncertainty with a view toward Monte Carlo
simulation as an effective management tool.
In closing, Webster breaks some of the treasured icons of
project management by comparing traditional measurement
methods to driving a car while looking in the rear-view mirror.
He makes a strong case for managing the manageable elements
of scope, activity definition and performance, resource appli-
cation, and some aspects of the project itself such as visibility,
urgency, and systems design. Final comments address manage-
ment style and managing organizational senior management.
Throughout, Webster offers more than descriptions and
advice. He links both to the real world by means of continuing
examples from the Mars Pathfinder Project as well as singular
examples form individual relevant projects.
December 2002
 PM 102 stands apart from other project management litera-
ture because of its conversational style and down-to-earth tone.
But make no mistake—this is no lightweight “Aw, shucks” frip-
pery to be superficially skimmed. It, along with its predecessor
volume, provides a powerhouse of practices that should be in
every project manager’s performance repertoire.
Project Management Institute, 2002, ISBN: 1–880410–78–8,
paperback, 342 pp., $28.95 member, $34.95 regular.
Reviewed by Ken Rose, PMP, an instructor for ESI
International residing in Hampton, VA, USA, and vice
president for programs, PMI Hampton Roads Chapter.
The Advanced Project Management Office: A
Comprehensive Look at Function and
Implementation
by Parviz F. Rad and Ginger Levin
T he project management
office (PMO) is a matter
of more frequent consider-
ation and cautious application.
Different views exist as to just
what a PMO is and the various
views have their own propo-
nents and detractors. Parviz F.
Rad and Ginger Levin have
made some sense of this situa-
tion with their highly rational
and readable new book The
Advanced Project Management
Office: A Comprehensive Look at
Function and Implementation.
In the introduction, the authors differentiate between a pro-
ject office, which is limited in application to a specific project
and ceases to exist when the project ends, and a project man-
agement office, which is enterprisewide in scope and exists
independent of individual project duration.
The substance of the book stands in two parts: elements and
implementation. In four brief chapters, Rad and Levin address
project performance facets, marginal project performance, pro-
ject manager competency, and maturity models. This all estab-
lishes a foundation. They follow with two chapters that address
functions of the PMO and implementing a PMO.
The authors describe determining project performance as a
critical role of the PMO, but do not prescribe a specific, uni-
versal set of attributes and ratings. Rather, they offer a method-
ology for formalizing and documenting attributes and ratings
that responds to different needs among different projects.
They explain deliverables-focused client viewpoints and
means-focused project team viewpoints in a clear, logical way.
Their summary of project evaluation criteria is clear and com-
plete and supports the implementation of an honest-broker
element such as a PMO to apply, evaluate, and document the
criteria and results.
December 2002 Project Management Journal
According to Rad and Levin, when marginal project perfor-
mance is evident, it often is the result of inadequate scope defini-
tion and planning. An effective, well-functioning PMO can pre-
vent problems of this kind. Also, once things go bad, the PMO
may provide a project recovery manager to get things back on
track. Always, the PMO must foster commitment to continuous
improvement that goes beyond repair of the immediate problem.
The authors present a comprehensive discussion of project
manager competency, pointing out that “getting by”—good
enough in the past—is nowadays a prescription for failure.
They advise that project managers must be competent in three
areas: technical skills, quantitative skills, and people skills.
They further suggest that a PMO is well suited to identifying
the competencies necessary for project managers and team
members and to develop lists of competencies by role and
position within the organization.
To this end, Rad and Levin present two sample lists: one that
shows duties performed by seven typical project-related positions
and one that shows the knowledge and competency require-
ments of the positions. These lists may not be the universal norm,
but they provide a framework and foundation that does much to
remove the mystery associated with project organizations.
The discussion of maturity models shows that PMOs need
not leap to life fully formed. They may be tailored to fit the
needs and project maturity of the organization. The authors link
maturity to metrics, showing how a PMO can play a lead role in
organizational performance measurement by identifying key
project and process issues, selecting and defining corresponding
metrics, and integrating the metrics into existing processes.
Guidance for implementation begins with a summary of
PMO functions. An effective PMO performs functions that assist
projects and support organizationwide project management.
Rad and Levin describe 17 separate project-focused functions
and 11 enterprisewide functions and areas of performance.
The authors’ approach to implementing a PMO addresses
motivation, cost and benefits, current practices, and organi-
zational structure. They offer a six-step life cycle for imple-
mentation and discuss deployment of the PMO relative to its
sponsorship and intended influence.
The book closes with a brief but contemporaneously rele-
vant discussion of the PMO and professional responsibility.
The PMO can provide mentoring, consulting, and guidelines
in areas of professionalism, integrity, and diversity.
Project management offices are not likely to replicate in
rapid cookie-cutter fashion. Divergent issues and interests
affect both startup and operation. The Advanced Project
Management Office does not prescribe a solution. Instead,
it offers a solution method that may be applied flexibly accord-
ing to the need and desires of those who would improve
organization project management performance.
St. Lucie Press, 2002, ISBN: 1–57444–340–2, hardcover, 224
pp., $56.95 member, $59.95 regular.
Reviewed by Ken Rose, PMP, an instructor for ESI
International residing in Hampton, VA, USA, and vice
president for programs, PMI Hampton Roads Chapter.
69
It’s Your Ship: Management Techniques one example, Abrashoff describes his authorized purchase of a
From the Best Damn Ship in the Navy commercial off-the-shelf item of foul-weather clothing that was
by Captain D. Michael Abrashoff superior to the more expensive Navy supply item. The crew
loved it. When the crew of another ship saw the item, they want-

N ot too long ago, conven-

tional wisdom was that if
you want to make the boat go
ed it, too. The commander of the other ship—an officer senior
to Abrashoff—responded in a predictable way: He ordered
Abrashoff to recall the item from the Benfold crew because it was
faster, whip the oarsmen hard- causing dissatisfaction among his own crew. Abrashoff respond-
er. D. Michael Abrashoff knows a ed predictably: He refused. The senior commander relented, but
better way and explains how in could have handled the matter differently had he viewed the
It’s Your Ship: Management positive effect the items had on the Benfold’s crew as an oppor-
Techniques From the Best Damn tunity to obtain collective achievement from an individual orga-
Ship in the Navy. nization success, or “A rising tide lifts all boats.”
The book is misnamed. Project mangers can gain much from this book. The Navy
Abrashoff may characterize his experiences—even those involving junior enlisted personnel
subject as “management,” but matters—translate readily as concepts and principles to a pro-
it is immediately apparent that ject management environment. Abrashoff’s first-person
he is talking about leadership. account offers wisdom and insight that makes It’s Your Ship
He deals not with disciplined, well worth the read. Project managers—and organization lead-
controlled execution of an exhaustively prescribed plan, but ers in general—will find application of the Benfold experience
rather with innovative, creative solutions to both traditional a short leap. After all, it’s your project.
and novel problems. The tools for those solutions—the
media through which organizations achieve enduring, supe- Warner Books, 2002, ISBN: 0–446–52911–7, hardcover, 256
rior performance—are people. pp., $23.70 member, $24.95 regular.
Abrashoff, former commander of the guided missile
destroyer USS Benfold, provides hard numbers that show Reviewed by Ken Rose, PMP, an instructor for ESI
reduced costs in operations and maintenance, increased reten- International residing in Hampton, VA, USA, and vice
tion rates, and improved tactical performance. He provides president for programs, PMI Hampton Roads Chapter.
anecdotal evidence of improved motivation and morale, those
unquantifiable, almost magical elements that enable people to
move mountains when the need arises.
The key to all this is in the book’s title. Early in command,
Abrashoff was approached by a sailor with a problem. As com-
mander, he could have issued instructions as a solution. Such
a traditional response would have been expected. It also would
have perpetuated a dependent, cautious command environ-
ment that had not served the ship well in the past. Instead,
Abrashoff invited/challenged the sailor to suggest a solution.
After all—and here’s the zinger—It’s your ship.
This simple yet powerful turnaround became the command
philosophy and the motto for the ship. Using it as a founda-
tion, Abrashoff began a leadership journey that he details in a
conversational, engaging way throughout the book.
He documents the journey by way of a series of thematic
chapters that are subdivided into central leadership points,
which are in turn illuminated by examples from experience.
This gives the book a comfortable, practical feel that readers
will find compelling.
For example, Chapter 6 is titled “Look For Results, Not
Salutes.” It includes: Help knock down the barriers, let your crew
feel free to speak up, free your crew from “top-down-itis,” nur-
ture the freedom to fail, innovation knows no rank, and chal-
lenging your crew beyond its reach. Ten other chapters are orga-
nized in a similar manner. In all, they cover the bases of leader-
ship in an environment of importance, opportunity, and risk.
Abrashoff’s anecdotes are informative and say as much about
organizational culture as they do about Benfold leadership. In

70 Project Management Journal December 2002

 Calendar of Events
December 16–18 Information Systems Project Management. San Francisco, Calif., USA. Sponsored by the American
Management Association. For more information, visit www.amanet.org.
2003
January 14–16 PMI Arabian Gulf Chapter 9th Conference, Seminars and Exhibitions. Manarna, Bahrain. For more
information, visit www.pmi-agc.org.
March 23–28 3rd World Project Management Week. “Powering Through Adversity.” Surfers Paradise Marriott
Resort, Gold Coast, Australia. Managed by Eventcorp and supported by PMI chapters in Australia,
Singapore, Hong Kong, and the Women in Project Management Specific Interest Group. For more
information, visit www.wpman.com or e-mail wpmweek@eventcorp.com.au.
April 30 PMI GLC Spring Symposium. Michigan State University Management Education Center, Troy,
Mich., USA. For more information, visit www.pmiglc.org/programs/seminars.html.
May 1–2 PMI Southern Alberta Chapter Symposium 2003. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. For more information,
visit www.pmisac.com/symposium/2003.htm.
May 1–2 Professional Development Day. Madison, Wis., USA. Sponsored by the PMI Madison South-Central
Wisconsin Chapter. For more information, visit www.pmi-madison.org. Note: Day 2 of the event is
a repeat of Day 1.
June 3–6 17th IPMA World Congress. Moscow, Russia. For more information, visit www.sovnet.ru or
www.pmcongress.ru.
June 18 PMI Madison South-Central Wisconsin Chapter monthly dinner meeting. Madison, Wis., USA. For
more information, visit www.pmi-madison.org.
June 22–25 47th Annual Meeting of AACE International. Walt Disney World Resort, Orlando, Florida, USA. For
more information, visit www.aacei.org.
October 8–9 IV Argentina Project Management Symposium. Buenos Aires, Argentina. Sponsored by the PMI
Buenos Aires Chapter. For more information, visit www.pmi.org/chap/argentina.

Correspondence
The Current State of Project Management
Research: Trends, Interpretations, and Predictions
I have somewhat belatedly finished reading “The Current
State of Project Management Research: Trends,
Interpretations, and Predictions” [June 2002, Project
Management Journal, p. 5] and was amazed to find that the
authors (T.J. Kloppenborg and W.A. Opfer) seem to be
unaware of the fact that English is spoken in places outside
of the North American continent, in particular the United
Kingdom! Their claim to have reviewed all of the research
published in English from 1960 to 1999 is patently false.
The major easily accessed information resource ignored
in the paper is the International Journal of Project
Management, published by Pergamon Press (ISSN
0263–7863). This journal has, since the early 1980s, only
published refereed project management articles with a high
proportion referring to research projects.
Kloppenborg and Opfer also have apparently ignored
the vast amount of published literature available in other
publications including the Association of Project
Management (United Kingdom) and Australian Institute
of Project Management, to mention only two, and from a
vast array of government and educational institutions in
the United Kingdom, Australia, South Africa, India, etc., all
in English.
My complaint is not so much that these other resources
have not been researched—the cost and workload would be
enormous—rather the exaggerated claim of having researched
all articles published in “English.” The more accurate descrip-
tion of the research would be “a limited range of articles pub-
lished in the USA/Canada.”
—Patrick Weaver
Authors’ Response:
There are a couple of minor points on which we feel that Mr.
Weaver has merit, but we disagree with most of what he asserts.
We would first point out that, while the article certainly
does imply an extensive search of the English language sources,
“This research study project covers research published in
English from 1960 through 1999,” it does not make any claim
“to have reviewed all of the research published in English from
1960 to 1999.” This is a somewhat semantic argument, but we
think it is valid.

December 2002 Project Management Journal 71

 Weaver’s claim that the paper ignores the International Every country Weaver mentions is represented in
Journal of Project Management is patently false. In the table of the database.
best article candidates at the end of the paper, five of the 56 From the United Kingdom:
“best articles” come from the International Journal of Project ■ British Telecommunications Engineering;
Management. That’s just shy of 10%. What percentage of inclu- ■ British Journal of Administrative Management;
sion no longer qualifies as ignoring? ■ International Journal of Project Management;
However, upon investigation, we did discover that this ■ European Journal of Information Systems;
journal was only “easily accessed” from 1992, when ■ GEC Journal of Research;
ABI/Inform started indexing it. We did do hard copy search- ■ Process Engineering;
es for several key journals that were not indexed online back ■ Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers;
to 1960; they are listed in the article in Table 3. Older issues ■ Ocean and Coastal Management;
of the International Journal of Project Management were not ■ International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management;
reviewed because the oldest issues in OhioLINK are from ■ International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
1992 at OSU’s library in microfilm. So we are missing arti- Management;
cles from 1983 to 1991. We have since done a search on ■ International Journal of Production Research;
INSPEC which indexes the title back to 1985 and found 57 ■ European Management Journal.
articles from the International Journal of Project Management. From Australia:
This only represents a selective indexing of this title for at ■ Road and Transport Research;
least some of these years. ■ Australian Accountant.
Weaver is correct in claiming that the project manage- From South Africa:
ment association publications from the United Kingdom ■ Civil Engineer in South Africa.
and Australia are not included in the database, and he is cor- From India:
rect in pointing out that to have reviewed these publications ■ Chemical Age of India;
would have entailed considerable expense. We did consider ■ ASCI Journal of Management.
the possibility of trying to acquire some additional indexes In addition, several other international journals are rep-
to cover international publications. However, we did have resented, including Bulletin of the Polish Academy of Sciences:
access to ABI/Inform, which is described as, “the most com- Technical Sciences (Poland); Chartered Accountants Journal of
prehensive multidisciplinary index to the scholarly literature New Zealand (New Zealand); Singapore Management Review
of management” (Business Information: How to find it, How to (Singapore); Japanese Railway Engineering and Japan Annual
use it, 2nd ed.) and as “the premier abstracting and indexing Reviews in Electronics, Computers & Telecommunications
database covering leading academic business and manage- (Japan); International Journal of Technology Management
ment journals” (Magazines for Libraries, 10th ed.). (Switzerland and Romania); International Journal of
Weaver’s claim that only North American publications were Production Economics, Engineering Geology, Automation in
reviewed is incorrect. As is listed in the article in Table 2, Construction, and European Journal of Operational Research
ABI/Inform coverage at the time “includes more than 350 (The Netherlands); Doktorsavhandlingar vid Chalmers
English-language titles from non-U.S. sources.” Furthermore, Tekniska Hogskola (Sweden); Dalian Ligong Daxue
in doing the database searches, we did use truncation to maxi- Xuebao/Journal of Dalian University of Technology and Chung-
mize returns for English language variants. For instance “pro- kuo Kung Ch’eng Hsueh K’an/Journal of the Chinese Institute of
gram$” was used to find both “program” and “programme.” In Engineers (China).
addition, just reviewing the journals in the best articles table The authors are happy to discuss any of these points with
undermines this claim. Not only is the International Journal of anyone. Please direct inquiries to assisteditor@pmi.org.
Project Management listed, but so is the ASCI Journal of —T.J. Kloppenborg and W.A. Opfer
Management (India).

Index of Advertisers

Mindjet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C2
PMI Knowledge & Wisdom Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Primavera Systems Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C4

72 Project Management Journal December 2002

Call for Nominations for the PMI Educational Foundation’s

2003 Student Paper Awards

An award recognizing excellence in student
development of original concepts in project
management.
Purpose: To recognize and honor two students,
one graduate and one undergraduate, for research
and creative efforts directed toward advancing the
concepts, tools, and techniques of managing pro-
ject-oriented tasks.
Eligibility: Any individual who is or was a student
in good standing at an institute of higher learning
during the period covered by the nomination.
Qualifications: Any paper dealing with an original
concept and related to any aspect of the manage-
ment of projects will be considered. Papers must
be written by a single author, completed after
October 2002, and must not have been previously
accepted for publication.
Nomination Procedure: Students will submit
abstracts of not more than 1,500 words by 30
January 2003. The abstracts should propose the
subject and concept to be addressed by the
paper. Abstracts will contain only the title of the
proposed paper and must be accompanied by a
separate letter containing the author’s name,
address, institution, major course of study, and
expected degree. If the paper has been complet-
ed, the date of completion must be included in
the letter.
A candidate must be nominated/sponsored by
an educator at the institute of higher learning at
which the nominee is or was a student in good
standing. A letter of recommendation from the
student’s sponsoring faculty member must
accompany the abstract.
Selection: Initial selection from abstracts and final
selection of the winning paper(s) will be made by
a panel of three experts in project management.
These experts will place emphasis on originality
of presented concept, applicability to the field of
project management, practical applications of the
concept, and suitability for presentation to PMI
Congress participants.
Selected candidates will be notified of their
selection as a finalist via formal letter from the
PMI Educational Foundation by 15 March 2003.
Completed papers must then be submitted
before 30 April 2003. The panel of experts will
select the winning paper(s) from among the
finalist candidates by 15 June 2003. The Institute
reserves the right to elect not to present an
award in 2003 on the basis of abstracts received.
The Panel: The panel will consist of a practicing
project manager, a consultant in project manage-
ment, and a member of the academic community.
Frequency and Number: Not more than two
Student Paper Awards may be awarded annually.
Award: The award recipient(s) and their sponsor-
ing faculty member(s) will receive travel and hotel
expenses to a PMI Congress and a cash award of
$500. The winning paper will be presented at a
session of a PMI.
Presentation and Recognition: Student Paper
Awards will be formally presented at a PMI
Congress. Photographs and biographical informa-
tion of the Student Paper Award recipients will
be published in PMI Today, and the paper will be
published in the Project Management Journal.

Abstracts must be received by 30 January 2003 and should be addressed to:

Chair, Student Paper Award Committee

PMI Educational Foundation
Four Campus Boulevard
Newtown Square, PA 19073–3299 USA
Voice: +610–356–4600, ext. 1059 / Fax: +610–356–4647