I’ve previously described a characterisation framework for projects, in which I differentiated projects based upon the level of uncertainty involved, and the potential consequences of that uncertainty. I’ve also referred to some prior frameworks, and discussed how some project management process models fitted the framework.
In this post, I talk about what use this framework (which I’m now calling the UC Framework, with capital letters even) might be for project managers.
In its simplest application, placing a project on the UC Framework allows it to be compared with the comfort zones of various process models, assisting in the selection of a process model. For example, an NPD project involving a small team and known markets and technology ( a “line extension” project) would typically have low scores on both U and C axes, suggesting that plan-driven, Agile, and possibly even ad-hoc approaches would be effective. Selection of a process model then comes down to individual project requirements. In this example the characteristics of the product might point away from Agile techniques and a compromise between plan-driven and ad-hoc – effectively a bare-bones implementation of a plan-driven model – might be used.
The model can also be used to identify leverage points for adjusting the project’s parameters to provide a better fit to a preferred process model. For example in major infrastructure projects, the major driver of project uncertainty is complexity, and this can be sufficient as to raise project uncertainty outside the plan-driven model’s comfort zone [75]. If a plan-driven process model is to be used, reducing the uncertainty effects of this complexity by improving the team’s understanding of it could improve project management effectiveness [76].
Given a system for quantifying the axes, different projects could also be plotted against each other on the UC Framework, allowing a comparison of the relative risk (UxC value, by analogy to other risk management techniques) of significantly different projects to be made. The framework also highlights opportunities to trade off different factors against each other to minimise project risk. For example does the increase in CU gained by shortening the project duration and thus improving environmental stability? Alternatively is the criticality of the project such that the extra costs of collocating the team are justified? caused by using a large geographically dispersed team outweigh the reduction in
Such assessments are necessarily only snapshots, and projects change over time. Over the course of a project, the level of uncertainty associated with it will typically drop, as information is acquired and decisions made – indeed, a project can be viewed as an information search [77]. Similarly, over a project’s course the consequences will typically rise: team size and distribution is more likely to increase than decrease during the project, “sunk costs” increase throughout, and commitments which raise the stakes are typically made in the later stages. This can lead to the need for adjustment of the process model, and even the need to switch models entirely – this is particularly true for projects which commence in a problem-structuring mode, as this mode is likely to be less helpful in the latter stages of a project unless implementation proves to be trivial. Such changes over time can be highlighted by periodic reassessment of the project.
The left and upwards trend is broadly similar to the shape of a “constant risk” curve. This is consistent with the tendency of people to adjust their behaviour to maintain constant “target risk” levels (Risk Homeostasis Theory [78]) – project managers and team members will tend where possible to defer the more critical decisions until they are made more “comfortable” by the availability of better information. Real options theory [79] suggests that this is economically sensible behaviour, and that committing early to important (C increasing) decisions may be counterproductive. However the UC Framework shows that the risk associated with such decisions may be reduced by minimising other C-increasing factors, or by pulling forward U-reducing activities in proportion.
