JP Phentar case presents a complex construction initiative that presupposes a plethora of various nuances. Due to the unique nature of the project, there is a need for the establishment of an effective managerial framework. In this paper, the most effective information-gathering and analytic tools will be chosen and discussed in relation to JP Phentar’s case.
Project Activities for Monitoring
The complexity of the project is based on several factors that dictate the choice of tools for their management and monitoring. One of the most crucial aspects of the construction project is the quality of work. In this case, it could be logical to assume that Peter is an expert in construction projects and saw a multitude of similar works being done. Therefore, with a high degree of certainty, he possesses the required knowledge to define quality. However, the technical details that might be elusive to all but highly specialized professionals would likely require a tailored managerial approach.
Another issue that requires control is the timing. As mentioned before, the project is rather complex, and delays that might arise due to construction issues could offset the deadlines. Another problem could concern the rising costs of construction. The project could take many months to complete, and the prices for materials may change. Therefore, the estimation needs to be managed with the utmost care.
In addition to that, the Phentar’s house project presents a combination of different jobs ranging from design to construction and furnishing, which presupposes a range of different contractor firms whose schedules and the task might overlap and offset one another (Wilson, 2014). Thus, this complex house project requires effective information-gathering and analytical tools.
Information-Gathering Tools
Team meetings are one of the most widespread and popular managerial tools for gathering information about the project. The essence of this method is in assigning specific dates on which teams that are responsible for assigned tasks gather and present information about the results of their activities (Marchewka, 2014).
The tool is rather versatile and can be fine-tuned for every project that involves teamwork. Weekly team meetings are a two-way process that helps managers receive relevant information but also allows them to correct the work of the team. The internal meeting presupposes that only the individuals and groups that are actively involved in construction attend them, although the client may also appear and participate.
Customer meetings are another tool that could be used in this project. They are designed to inform the client of the project’s key deliverables, while the contractor company or any party responsible for the task may organize their workflow as they see fit (Marchewka, 2014). The third information-gathering approach involves using written forms of communication such as templated reports. It surmises the absence of frequent meetings while all information is created, gathered, and distributed either manually on paper or digitally. Such an approach allows greater time saving and minimizes information losses.
In the framework of this project, it would be possible to hypothesize that the use of all three methods could be valid. Each of the methods has its strong sides and disadvantages, and it could be wise to combine them in order to tackle the variety of tasks for which they could be suitable (Marchewka, 2014). More abstract issues such as budget and schedule, it might be reasonable to utilize team meetings followed by customer meetings. As these issues presuppose discussion, these managerial approaches could be most useful. In relation to more concrete and quantifiable issues such as the construction of different parts of the house, the reports can be more effective.
Analytical Tools
In terms of analytics, one of the most popular tools for project management is a multi-criteria decision-making tool called PROMETHEE. This method, according to Dziadosz, and Rejment (2015), allows managers to assess multiple parameters of a construction project and assign and calculate numeric coefficient values to them. This paradigm appears to be a near-perfect solution for projects that assume a variety of works and associated risks.
This method is rather flexible and provides an opportunity to implement it in combination with other tools. Among other tools, there is a project in controlled environments (PRINCE2) management method. It incorporates assigning qualitative and quantitative values to different risks in order to deductively measure and assess them (Dziadosz & Rejment, 2015). Its strengths imply highly understandable structure and visual attractiveness.
For the benefit of Peter’s current project, it could be reasonable to employ these two approaches in combination. The PROMETHEE tool is grounded in statistics and calculation, which allows precision in planning and acting. In complex projects with a plethora of nuances, an application of such an approach could become invaluable in order to economize on corrections. However, the usage of this tool alone could be detrimental as the client may not be as proficient in understanding complex analytic formulas. Therefore, for client meetings where managers and contractors will accept his wishes and corrections, it could be better to use a more understandable and straightforward model such as PRINCE2.
Corrective Actions
Should there arise a necessity in making corrections as the construction of the house progresses, the above-mentioned models could accommodate any number of them. The management and monitoring system built on the basis of team meetings, client meetings, reports, and the two analytical tools is rather flexible and welcomes adjustments. In the framework of this project, there appear to be two levels of management: inner and outer.
On the inner level, managers gather information and deliver it to the workers through reports and team meetings. Here the corrective actions are possible at a larger frequency due to the weekly design. Analytical actions are based on the received data and can be formed into trends compared with project deliverables. This information is communicated to the customer at regular intervals, and he may make adjustments. By varying the frequency of meetings, the customer and managers may determine the scale of corrections possible (Marchewka, 2014). More numerous meetings allow for a larger number of small corrections, while rare ones may produce large-scale adjustments.
Conclusion
The project of the JP Phentar is an exceptional endeavor that requires finesse in management and monitoring. Even the slightest errors in designing and choosing the tools for these tasks could undermine the success of the whole project. Therefore, there is a need for multi-aspect and interprofessional collaboration. The combination of team, customer meetings, and reports would tackle the objective of gathering information.
The benefit here would be in versatility and time economy due to controlling each construction nuance with a suitable tool. Analytical tasks could be divided into inner and outer ones, with the former serviced by PROMETHEE and the latter – by PRINCE2. In this manner, professional information could be better assessed and delivered to the client for him to make weighted decisions and corrections if necessary.
References
Dziadosz, A., & Rejment, M. (2015). Risk analysis in a construction project – Chosen methods. Procedia Engineering, 122, 258-265.
Marchewka, J. T. (2014). Information technology project management (5th ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Wilson, R. (2014). A comprehensive guide to project management schedule and cost control: Methods and models for managing the project lifecycle. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson FT Press.