The Successful Adoption of Web-Based Collaborative Software (2005)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

PART 4: APPENDIXES

A-1 APPENDIX A PROJECT MANAGEMENT MATURITY MODELS Project management maturity models promote the idea that some organizations have more fully developed approaches to project management than others. This allows organiza- tions to gauge themselves against a standard, diagnose their weaknesses, and plan their own development. Models devel- oped by Harold Kerzneri and Kwak and Ibbsii can gauge an organization’s project management maturity level. The Berke- ley Management Process Maturity (PM2) Model by Kwak and Ibbs is similar to Kerzner’s, but starts the organization from a point of general ignorance of project management, whereas Kerzner starts the organization from a point with a basic knowledge. KERZNER’S FIVE LEVELS Kerzner designates five levels of project management maturity: 1. Common language. At the initial level, the organiza- tion begins to recognize the importance of project man- agement. It has basic knowledge project management. Assessing whether you’ve reached this level involves evaluating the degree to which the organization under- stands the fundamental concepts. 2. Common processes. At this level, the organization attempts to use project management by developing appropriate processes and methodologies. It realizes that if processes of one project can be replicated to another, the entire program can be managed more easily. As these processes are implemented, the organization also begins to realize the need to understand behavioral changes and expectations. Assessing whether you’ve reached this level involves evaluating the effectiveness of the com- mon processes. 3. Singular methodology. At this level, the organization recognizes the value of a singular methodology over multiple ones to achieve project control and synergy. The organization is committed to the development of this methodology. Assessing whether you’ve reached this level involves evaluating the adoption of a singu- lar methodology and the level of commitment. 4. Benchmarking. At this level, the organization has proven its commitment to project management. To understand how best to use these tools, it uses bench- marking to compare its practices with recognized lead- ers. This analysis helps to determine how integrated the key success factors are. Assessing whether you’ve reached this level involves evaluating how structured this benchmarking effort is. 5. Continuous improvement. At this level, the organiza- tion recognizes the need for continuous evaluation and analysis and implements any necessary changes from the benchmarking efforts. Assessing whether you’ve reached this level involves evaluating the extent to which your organization implements change. BERKELEY MANAGEMENT PROCESS MATURITY MODEL The Berkeley model also designates five levels of project management maturity: 1. Ad-hoc. At this level, project management procedures are very basic. There are no formal processes or guide- lines. Project management either is not used or is used inconsistently. The organization is isolated by projects, which are dependent on individuals for success. 2. Planned. At this level, projects are planned and exe- cuted by individuals, though management processes are partially controlled by managers. Still, project man- agement procedures are informal and incomplete. The organization is more team oriented, but is still ineffi- cient because it does not attempt to control projects beyond the individual. 3. Managed. At this level, project management tools are partially formal. There is some data collection for trend analysis and management. The organization is team oriented and works to integrate cross-functional teams for more structured planning and control. 4. Integrated. At this level, project management proce- dures are formal and information is documented and quantitatively measured. The organization has strong teams that can conduct multiple-project planning and control. Integrated project management tools are fully implemented. 5. Sustained. At this level, the organization is fully com- mitted to project management processes and works to continuously improve the system. Data are collected for this purpose, and innovative ideas are pursued. The organization has dynamic and fluid project teams. i International Institute for Learning, Inc. “Kerzner’s Five Levels of Project Man- agement Maturity.” http://www.iil.com/project_management_training/kerzner_five_ levels.asp ii Kwak, Y. H., and C. W. Ibbs. “Project Management Process Maturity (PM)2 Model (Berkeley PM Maturity Model).” Department of Civil Engineering, University of Cal- ifornia at Berkeley. www.ce.berkeley.edu/~ibbs/yhkwak/pmmaturity.html.

B-1 APPENDIX B RETURN ON TECHNOLOGY “Even though non-financial benefits do not have standard metrics, they are important because of IT’s potential to impact business performance and the organization’s mission.”i DEFINITION OF RETURN ON INVESTMENT Return on investment (ROI) is a measurement of the net income an organization is able to earn with its total assets.ii It is For the construction industry, the calculation of ROI must take into account the rate of return for each year of the dura- tion of the project. Typically, “the ROI is different from year to year, with a very low value at the early years and a high value in the later years of the project.”iii ROI AND IT Part of the reason for the failure of integrating information technology (IT) solutions is that appropriate value is not placed on cost-efficiencies.iv What are you getting in return for what you are spending? Traditional benefits are financially driven, i.e., cost reduction and revenue increases. With IT projects, however, many of the benefits are nonfinancial. These include shorter cycle times and increased and accurate information.v A number of software packages are available to help cal- culate ROI for the IT industry, such as InterWorld and ROInow. Understanding the benefits requires more than calculating immediate costs and benefits, but should also take into account the entire life cycle of the project and beyond. OTHER MEASUREMENTS In addition to ROI, there are other methods for measuring net income: Net profits after taxes Total assets • Net present value: project value and cost added to expected future value. • Internal rate of return: the return a company would get if it expanded or invested in itself. • Payback analysis: the time it will take to recoup an investment. Net present value allows the owner to plan over a longer period of time. “The net present value (NPV) of the estimated cash flows over the planning horizon is the discounted value of the net future value (NFV) to the present. A positive NPV for a project indicates the present value of the net gain cor- responding to the project cash flows.”vi Internal rate of return (IRR) “gives the return of an invest- ment when the capital is in use as if the investment consists of a single outlay at the beginning and generates a stream of net benefits afterwards. However, the IRR does not take into consideration the reinvestment opportunities related to the timing and intensity of the outlays and returns at the inter- mediate points over the planning horizon.”vii Payback period “refers to the length of time within which the benefits received from an investment can repay the costs incurred during the time in question while ignoring the remaining time periods in the planning horizon.”viii This can be used as a secondary measure. TRANSIT AND ROI Construction projects in the transit industry are inherently long-term investments, so costs and benefits cannot simply have the short-term picture in mind. There are typically three approaches to facility investment planning: 1. Need or demand driven, 2. Design driven, and 3. Finance driven. Another issue to consider for the transit industry is whether the facility is publicly or privately owned. Private ownership typically requires a higher rate of return than public owner- ship. Further, private ownership generally looks at returns as monetary revenues. On the other hand, “public agencies often i Resource Management Systems, Inc. www.rms.net ii Ibid. iii Hendrickson, C., and T. Au. “Project Management for Construction: Fundamental Concepts for Owners, Engineers, Architects and Builders.” http://www.ce.cmu.edu/ pmbook/. Accessed October 2003. iv Sunil, S. “Construction e-Project Management.” http://www.projectmanagement. com/pm/article.cfm?ID=127864. v Resource Management Systems, Inc. www.rms.net vi Hendrickson, C., and T. Au. “Project Management for Construction: Fundamental Concepts for Owners, Engineers, Architects and Builders.” http://www.ce.cmu.edu/ pmbook/. Accessed October 2003. vii Ibid. viii Ibid.

consider total social benefits in evaluating projects. Total social benefits include monetary user payments plus user’s surplus, external benefits, and non-quantifiable factors. Gen- erally, total social benefits will exceed monetary revenues.”ix FINANCIAL ROI Ibbs and Reginato point out that in project management, the use of financial and nonfinancial metrics that matter most to individual companies “typically deteriorate into mass exer- cises in measuring for the sake of measuring.”x As a ratio rather than an absolute number, ROI can help to clarify the “fuzzier” areas. NONFINANCIAL ROI The “60% solution” concept suggests that most organiza- tions only recoup 60% of potential value. Merkhofer argues that having a value model helps to understand the organiza- B-2 tion’s decision on project choices. Such a model can help decrease value losses that occur mostly because of errors in decision making and weaknesses in business systems.xi This model should be a top-down approach and offer the ways that the project creates value and helps to make intelligent deci- sions. It can also help to estimate day-to-day value in cost, time, and product. Particularly in the public sector, “financial metrics, quite simply, don’t capture all of the organization’s true objec- tives.”xii Rather than looking at traditional shareholder value, examining stakeholder value may be more appropriate. In the transportation/construction industry, value to the employ- ees, suppliers, customers, and community are all important. Though metrics do not have to be financial metrics, they should be observable—“that is, characteristics of projects or project outcomes that can be observed and measured in the real world.”xiii ix Ibid. x Ibbs, W., and J. Reginato. Quantifying the Value of Project Management. Project Management Institute, 2002, p. 12. xi Merkhofer, L. “Choosing the Wrong Portfolio of Projects: And What Your Orga- nization Can Do About It—Introduction.” Project Management Wisdom. www. maxwideman.com/guests/portfolio/intro.htm xii Merkhofer, L. “Choosing the Wrong Portfolio of Projects: And What Your Orga- nization Can Do About It—Reason 3.” Project Management Wisdom. http://www. maxwideman.com/guests/portfolio/reason3.htm xiii Merkhofer, L. “Choosing the Wrong Portfolio of Projects: And What Your Organi- zation Can Do About It—Metrics as ‘Observables’ and the Clairvoyant Test.” Project Management Wisdom. http://www.maxwideman.com/guests/portfolio/observables.htm

C-1 APPENDIX C CASE STUDY PARTICIPANTS CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY Christer Bohman Deputy Program Manager, Systemwide Projects Maureen Dunn Coordinator, Capital Funding Kristine Fallon President, KFA Valerie Gordon Architect Paul Gross General Manager, Data Services Planning & Development Rick Herndobler Architect Hector Macias Architect Brian Mulligan Project Manager David Mussa URS Construction Services Deputy Program Manager for Contracts and Administration Chicago Transit Authority— Capital Improvement Program Allison Pfister Project Engineer Michael Poynton E-Collaboration Specialist Dr. Michael Shiffer Vice President, Planning and Development Phillip Stevens Quality Assurance Manager, Blue Line Anthony Zamer Architect PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY George Broadbent Manager, Engineering Network Administration Joe Garcia Manager, Engineering Financial Services Peter Luke Principal, PMA Consultants, LLC Pradip Mehta Manager, Project Controls Achille Niro Assistant Chief Engineer, Program Management Bill Radinson Assistant Director, Capital Programs Peter Zipf Deputy Chief Engineer RAYTHEON Bill Baker Sr. Manager, Knowledge Management and Benchmarking Emanuel Brady Vice President of Information Technology for Space and Airborne Systems George Ellis Director of Enterprise Logistics Terri Lindo Assistant to Rusty Patterson Beryl McCadden Director, Supply Chain Management Jon W. McKenzie Director, Raytheon Six Sigma Mark Palla Raytheon Six Sigma Expert, Knowledge Management & Benchmarking SME Rusty Patterson Vice President, Customer and Supply Chain Institute Don Ronchi Vice President Raytheon Six Sigma, Supply Chain, and Chief Learning Officer Mark Ward Senior Manager, Supply Chain Management

D-1 APPENDIX D VENDOR CHOICES* Kristine K. Fallon, FAIA Kristine Fallon Associates, Inc. 30 East Adams Street, Suite 1040 Chicago, IL 60603-5610 Phone: 312-641-9339 Fax: 312-641-9337 Email: kfainc@kfa-inc.com Citadon 201 Mission Street, Suite 2700 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-882-1888 Fax: 415-882-1899 Email: info@citadon.com Primavera Systems, Inc. Three Bala Plaza West, Suite 700 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: 800-423-0245 Fax: 610-667-7894 Email: info@primavera.com American Productivity and Quality Center (APQC) 23 N. Post Oak Lane, Third Floor Houston, TX 77024 Phone: 800-776-9676 Fax: 713-681-8578 Email: apqcinfo@apqc.org EMC Documentum (eRoom) 6801 Koll Center Parkway Pleasanton, CA 94566 Phone: 925-600-6800 Fax: 925-600-6850 Email: salesinfo@documentum.com Lotus Team Workplace (QuickPlace) IBM Corporation 1133 Westchester Avenue White Plains, NY 10604 Phone: 888-839-9289 Fax: 866-722-9226 Email: https://www.ibm.com/contact/us/en/query PMA Consultants LLC 1 Woodward Avenue, Suite 1400 Detroit, MI 48226 Phone: 313-936-8863 Peter Luke, Principal PMA Consultants LLC 2 Penn Plaza, Suite 1080 New York City, NY www.PMAconsultants.com * The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, the Transit Development Corporation, and the Federal Transit Administration (spon- sor of the Transit Cooperative Research Program) do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essen- tial to the clarity and completeness of the project reporting.

E-1 APPENDIX E CATEGORIZED BIBLIOGRAPHY CONSTRUCTION The Business Roundtable. “More Construction for the Money, Summary Report of the Construction Industry Cost Effectiveness Project.” New York, January 1983. http://www.curt.org/pdf/ 145.pdf Hendrickson, Chris, and Tung Au. “Project Management for Con- struction: Fundamental Concepts for Owners, Engineers, Archi- tects and Builders.” Carnegie Mellon University. Version 2.1, Summer 2003. http://www.ce.cmu.edu/pmbook/ Holti, Richard, and Davide Nicolini. “How to Increase Collabora- tion Within a Construction Project.” The Tavistock Institute, March 2002. Holti, Richard, and Hilary Standing. “Innovation in Construction Procurement: Current Developments and Agenda for the Future.” The Tavistock Institute, March 2002. Sunil, S. “Construction e-Project Management.” http://www.project management.com/pm/article.cfm?ID=127864 Unger, Scott. “The Trend Towards an Internet-Based Communica- tion Standard in the A/E/C Industry.” Constructware, January 2002. Visioni, Laura Jusy, and Jeff Weiss. “A First Step in Ensuring Suc- cessful Partnerships.” Vantage Partners, LLC, 2001. INNOVATION Martin, Stephen, and John T. Scott. “The Nature of Market Fail- ure and the Design of Public Support for Private Innovation.” March 1999. http://www.mgmt.purdue.edu/faculty/smartin/vita/ 9902.pdf Ramiller, Neil C., and E. Burton Swanson. “Whether, When and How to Innovate with Information Technology? What Do Empir- ical Studies Tell Us?” IS Working Paper Series, University of California at Los Angeles, Anderson School of Management, March 11, 2003. www.anderson.ucla.edu/documents/areas/fac/ isrp/wp-index.pdf Thomond, Pete. Innovation Strategy. International Ecotechnology Research Center. Cranfield University, 2002. PowerPoint Slides. p.thomond@cranfield.ac.uk ORGANIZATIONAL READINESS Baker, Bill, and Melissie Rumizen. “Knowledge Management in the Real World.” Association for Manufacturing Excellence, 2003. http://www.ame.org/template.php?contentFile=targetOn line&section=Features Graham, Robert J. “Management Science Process: Understanding the Benefits of Poor Communications.” Interfaces, the Institute of Management Sciences, Vol. 11, No. 3, June 1981. Merkhofer, Lee. “Choosing the Wrong Portfolio of Projects: And What Your Organization Can Do About It.” Project Management Wisdom. www.maxwideman.com/guests/portfolio/intro.htm OTHER The Indian Express. “Port Authority of NY, NJ Wins Primavera Award.” April 22, 2004. Kliman, Stuart. “Avoiding Litigation: Corporate Counsel’s Role in Ensuring Successful Alliance Implementation.” Vantage Part- ners, LLC, Boston, 2000. Resource Management Systems, Inc. www.rms.net PROJECT MANAGEMENT Baecher, G. “The Project Environment.” Foundation Knowledge, 2000. www.foundationknowledge.com/Briefings/WBPMK ProjectEnvironment/main.htm Barnes, M. “A Long Term View of Project Management—Its Past and Its Likely Future.” UK: Cornbrash House, June 2002. http://www.pmforum.org/pmwt02/papers02-07.htm Fallon, Kristine K. “Keys to Success in Web-Based Project Man- agement: The Technology Implementation Perspective.” Ameri- can Public Transportation Association, Rail Transit Conference, June 2003. http://www.kfa-inc.com/articles/APTApresentation 2003.PDF Ibbs, W., and J. Reginato. “Quantifying the Value of Project Man- agement.” Project Management Institute, 2002. IT Project Management. Office of the Chief Information Officer, Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., January 2002. Kerzner, Harold. “Kerzner’s 5 Levels of Project Management Maturity.” International Institute for Learning, Inc. New York. http://www.iil.com/project_management_training/kerzner_five_ levels.asp Kwak, Young Hoon, and C. William Ibbs. “Project Management Process Maturity (PM)2 Model.” University of California at Berkeley. www.ce.berkeley.edu/~ibbs/yhkwak/pmmaturity.html Orr, Joel. “Keys to Success in Web-Based Project Management: Lessons Learned from the Chicago Transit Authority Capital Improvement Program.” Cyon Research Corporation, Bethesda, Maryland, August 15, 2002. Project Management Institute. “Articulating the Value of Project Management.” 2003. Project Management Institute. Technical Needs Assessment 2002 Key Findings. 2003. PowerPoint Slides. RESISTANCE TO CHANGE Cherns, Albert. “The Principles of Sociotechnical Design Revis- ited.” Human Relations, Vol. 40, No. 3, 1987. Coutu, Diane. “The Anxiety of Learning: An Interview with Edgar Schein,” Harvard Business Review, March 2002. Solomon-Gillis, Cassie. “Shame, Competence and Collaboration: An Interview with Larry Hirschhorn.” Unpublished paper, May 2004. csolomon@cfar.com

Thomas, Robert J. Implementing Successful Organizational Change—Strategies for Managing, Structuring, and Sustaining the Change Process. Center for Management Research. Power Point Slides. RETURN ON TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT Aberdeen Group. “Aligning IT Strategy and Investment to Deliver Enterprise Value: Seeing the Forest and the Trees.” Boston, October 2002. Aberdeen Group. “Enterprise Cost Management: A Holistic Approach to Capturing and Sustaining Cost Savings.” Boston, April 2002. Aberdeen Group. “Quantifying the Vision: Building the Case for Project Collaboration in the Construction Industry.” Boston, December 2002. Advisory Counsel. “Smart Advice: Tracking IT’s Value,” Informa- tion Week, December 22, 2003. http://www.informationweek. com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=17000207 Colkin, Eileen. “Getting Tough on ROI,” Information Week, Octo- ber 21, 2002. http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArti cle.jhtml?articleID=6503764 Copeland, Ron. “ROI: The IT Department’s Moving Target,” Infor- mation Week, August 6, 2001. http://www.informationweek.com/ story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=6506444 D’Antoni, Helen. “How to Be Sure Tech Dollars Pay Off,” Infor- mation Week, December 8, 2003. http://www.informationweek. com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=16600187 Gartner, Inc. “Fixing the Balanced Scorecard’s Missing Link.” Stamford, Connecticut, November 2001. Gartner, Inc. “Focusing Purely on Finance Is Bad for Your Finan- cials.” Stamford, Connecticut, September 2002. Gartner, Inc. “Return on Enterprise Architecture: Measure It in Asset Productivity.” Stamford, Connecticut, July 2002. E-2 Hayes, Mary. “Get a Grip on IT Investments,” Information Week, November 25, 2002. http://www.informationweek.com/story/ showArticle.jhtml?articleID=6504035 Hayes, Mary, and Christopher T. Heun. “ROI Hammer and Nails,” Information Week, August 6, 2001. http://www.informationweek. com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=6506426 SOCIO-TECHNICAL STUDIES Hirschorn, Larry, Phillip Noble, and Thomas Rankin. “Sociotech- nical Systems in an Age of Mass Customization,” Journal of Engineering and Management. Vol. 18, No. 200, Elsevier Sci- ence B.V., 2001. pp. 241–252. SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT CMI/Vantage Partners. “Beyond Training: Frequently Asked Questions on Improving Organizational Capacity to Negotiate and Building Negotiation Infrastructure.” Boston, 1999. http:// www.cmi-vantage.com/new/publications/beyond.training.fr quently.html Holti, Richard, and Davide Nicolini. “Commercial Practices for Built Environment Supply Chain Integration: A State-of-the-Art Review.” The Tavistock Institute, December 2000. UNDERBOUNDED/OVERBOUNDED SYSTEMS Alderfer, Clayton. “Consulting to Underbounded Systems,” Advances in Experiential Social Processes, Vol. 2, eds. C. P. Alderfer and C. L. Cooper. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1980.