Focused CCPM Implementation with the Project Execution Maturity Matrix

Full Abstract

The implementation of any new managerial approach, such as Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM), is rarely a “green-field-activity”, but takes place in an environment with existing procedures, processes and applications, all put in place with the intention of creating a performing project management organization.

When project results indicate poor performance a need for improving the current project management system should be evident. Yet the question often is how severe the problem really is. Clearly assessing and communicating the need for change and what to change requires an understanding of the current performance gap and its causes. Many times, CCPM advocates within an organization (“champions”) as well as from the outside (“consultants”) have little difficulties obtaining agreement on the need to improve project timeliness, reducing lead times and budget compliance, yet they struggle to make the case of explaining in detail what to change and what the roadmap should be.

Focus is (1) doing what should be done and (2) not doing what should not be done (cf. Goldratt: Introduction to TOC, 2010). This implies that any improvement initiative must take into account the current reality at the start, preserve its strengths and overcome its shortcomings. This requires a tailor-made approach, based on a structured analysis of the current reality against the aspired state.

Thus one of the first activities must be the assessment of the current state of project execution: How well is the organization doing when compared to an ideal state and in comparison to a relevant peer group. A maturity model allows an organization to have its current methods and processes assessed according to the management best practice on which the model is built. Maturity is then indicated by a particular "maturity level", comparing the organization’s state with the best practice and with the states of other organizations. This level also reveals a gap between the organization and the best practice and between the organization and the peer group.

While maturity models have their roots in software development, they have emerged into more general process improvement approaches. Today’s maturity models (such as Carnegie Mellon’s CMMI) are based on a variety of best practice bodies, including PRINCE2 for project management.

Using a maturity model should enable an organization to

• Determine what is and what isn’t working

• Establish a case for action

• Develop a plan for improvement

Existing project management models are often highly planning oriented. The idea is that better planning will eventually result in better project performance. In a similar way and despite the broad reach of the Project Management Strategy and Tactics Tree (PM S&T), the implementation of CCPM is often discussed under its planning angle. However, planning is only a necessary condition for project success; the key to successful projects is skillful execution.

This presentation presents a Project Management Execution Maturity Model which uses the CCPM framework as a best practice background. It acknowledges the central role of project execution by drawing on behavioral and organizational psychology research such as the logical link between measurements and behaviors (cf. Aubrey Daniels’ and Eli Goldratt’s works).

In the Project Management Execution Maturity Model, maturity levels are referenced from an initial level highlighted by ad hoc methods and tools to the highest level where the organization is continually improving project execution processes:

Initial: project management is ad hoc, lacking standard processes and driven by cost-measurements
Basic Project Management: the organization begins to develop processes and methodologies, focusing on single processes
With Portfolio Focus standardization and integration of processes and procedures becomes essential, a priority spans across the entire portfolio
Managed: Portfolio-wide performance metrics are clearly linked to essential behaviors, decision makers use these to compare and propagate best practices
Optimizing: Continuous improvement is the standard way of doing business

This five level maturity scale is then used to measure thirteen elements, each defining an essential project management competency (based on the CCPM principles). They ensure processes and policies are firmly in place to rapidly mature project execution in the organization. Based on the progress across these elements, one can differentiate three stages.

The five key elements of the foundational stage (“Basic Coordination”) are designed to ensure project success without causing major disruptions to current operations. These elements enable the project team to realize results rapidly and prepare the organization for further improvements:

Single priority system
Collaborative execution
Control of work in progress
Full kitting
Aligned metrics

The next stage (“Improved Coordination”) focuses the entire team on the same priorities and issues, reducing project risk and further increasing delivery reliability:

Date management
Buffer management
Order promising
Remote collaborative execution
Load control and staggering

The highest stage (“Integrated Planning & Execution”) expands upon the principles of the previous stages and adds:

Probabilistic scheduling and execution (CCPM planning and execution control)
Subcontractor management
Predictive and simulation capabilities

Software support for planning, scheduling, execution, resource management, and scenarios is typically added at the last stage.

By assessing an organization’s project management maturity in this manner, a clear understanding of the elements that must put in place to rapidly improve project performance is created. Solutions can then be tailored to an organization’s unique needs based on the maturity level of each element and progressing step by step. Implementation time, effort and resources can be focused on ensuring rapid gains in performance.

The methodology presented here is especially attractive in environments where a structured approach to project management is required, such as medium to large companies, or where elaborate and audited management systems are already in place. It facilitates integration and adoption of CCPM with the existing project management organization and systems, without destroying positive past achievements (or reinventing the wheel) and without impeding the organization’s project delivery capabilities.

The presentation describes the model, the underlying logic and how it is applied, including examples from actual applications, showing a clear link between maturity and operational and financial performance. Attendees are invited to uses this approach for their own CCPM projects.

Learning Objectives

Understand some limitation of a green-field CCPM-implementation
Explore the Project Execution Maturity Model and how each of the elements and levels contribute to increasing project execution success
Know how to use the Project Execution Maturity Model to increase focus of CCPM implementations for fast, increasing, and lasting success

Questions at the End

How does the Project Execution Maturity Model compare with other maturity models such as CMMI or SPICE?
As there are so many conceptual similarities between the TOC solutions for project management and manufacturing, is this execution-oriented model also applicable in other areas/function, e.g., production?
What is the difference between the proposed approach and an implementation of CCPM along the Projects S&T?