Introduction
The analysis of organizational project management (OPM) is valuable in research and practice as it allows one to see a company’s choices and actions to create something. According to the Project Management Institute, one can define project management as using skills, tools, knowledge, and various methodologies to provide a valuable product or service (What is project management, n.d.). This description underlines the role of OPM in organizational performance and highlights the value of knowing specific techniques to deliver high-quality products. Thus, one should investigate these tools and methods to understand how they contribute to the project implementation. Moreover, the models that project managers implement should also be considered when discussing the essence of OPM.
Specific case study analyses allow one to review the theory of OPM and how major companies implement it. The selected project for the review is the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme, which involves an upgrade of a highway between the two towns in the United Kingdom (About the scheme, 2020). The decision to implement this scheme was made between 2014 and 2016, and the project was completed in 2020 (About the scheme, 2020).
The length of project planning between its starting and ending dates demonstrates the attention to detail and the complexity of OPM. The following review considers such areas of project management as its context, problem-solving, decision-making, and risk management. Finally, the case study analysis considers factors that contributed to the scheme’s implementation and forces absent from this process, offering recommendations for similar ventures in the future.
Project Management
The Role of Projects in Delivering an Organizational Strategy
The evaluation of project management examples requires understanding the value of OPM to clients and the organization. The definition provided above does not specify that OPM is important to one of the potential stakeholders because it has the potential to improve internal processes and drive the business forward as well. Firstly, OPM allows companies to distinguish themselves and take on projects that align with their strategy.
Derakhshan, Turner, and Mancini (2019) note that project managers participate in selecting the right projects and developing their planning and implementation framework based on the most suitable models and tools. For example, small software development companies may aim to select creative projects that require constant communication and improvement, and OPM helps this goal with the existence of such methodologies as agile, scrum, and kanban (Tereso et al., 2019). Similarly, companies in other industries choose projects based on their strategic aims, and OPM selects a suitable model to support them.
Second, project management provides businesses with tools to define the organization’s structure, align objectives with project steps, and continuously monitor the scope of organizational capabilities. The planning, implementation, and evaluation stages in the project management cycle focus on achieving the goals that a company sets for its employees. The correct strategy and role distribution determine whether the final product will be high quality and consistent with what the organization wants to present to its stakeholders (ul Musawir, Abd-Karim, and Mohd-Danuri, 2020). Here, the tools and techniques the project manager utilizes play a significant role in whether the company can deliver value in line with the strategy.
The Process of Initiating, Planning, and Managing Projects
Project management can take many forms depending on the industry, product, and company characteristics. However, whether the result is a piece of road or a constantly changing software application, the main steps of a project lifecycle remain similar. Alves, Ferreira, and de Nadae (2021) outline such stages as visualizing, planning, designing, implementing, evaluating, and closing the project.
Initiating a project relies on an idea that one may present to the organization to be implemented. Then, OPM may use the plan-do-check-act (PDCA) cycle to develop this idea into a viable project while keeping it in line with corporate strategic aims (Fewings & Henjewele, 2019). The third step uses the prepared plan of action to start designing the final product and the tools to implement and measure outcomes. As the project is implemented, the team uses the plans and tools to produce the product. Finally, the result is evaluated against the set expectations and company goals to close the project or modify the product.
These steps apply to the most popular OPM methodologies, but their details may differ depending on how the product is delivered. For instance, in the method called “Waterfall,” the designated project team works in several stages, and each one begins only after the previous one has ended (Thesing, Feldmann, and Burchardt, 2021). In this case, the planning, design, implementation, and evaluation take significant time, which may increase the production time while delivering a thoroughly researched and prepared result. In other approaches, like scrum, the steps are repeated in endless iterations, and instead of one finished product, the team works on a continuously updating list of problems (Thesing, Feldmann, and Burchardt, 2021). However, in every variation of OPM, the main elements are applied, and project management is always focused on delivering and implementing a clear plan that aligns with company goals.
Chosen Case Study Project Analysis
Background
In construction, projects may create something from scratch or improve an existing part of infrastructure due to issues, incidents, or general wear. The selected example is the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme, which was implemented between 2014 and 2020 in the UK. The highway between the two cities was one of the busiest parts of the road in the country, and its congestion problem was a significant issue for the drivers on both sides of the network (Consultation outcome, 2014). The proposal suggested extending the road segment of 21 miles to include a new bypass that would reach the southern part of Huntingdon.
Furthermore, the plan was to widen the carriageway between Cambridge and Swavesey to decrease congestion. The Cambridge Northern Bypass and junctions were to be improved for fewer accidents and faster drive-through speeds. Another suggestion was to widen approximately 7 miles of local access roads and the 4 ½ section of A1 between Alconbury and Brampton (Consultation outcome, 2014). Several organizations then reviewed the proposal between 2014 and 2016.
Overall, the initial plan was not entirely accepted, and some changes were made, but the aims of relieving congestion and widening the road remained the same. For example, the government chose to limit the focus on road quality by not including one of the early ideas of tolling the bypass. This decision was made according to the public response to tolling as unpopular, while other suggestions in the plan were received positively (Consultation outcome, 2014).
The project’s final cost came up to about £1.5bn, and the work was completed between 2016 and 2020. As a result, the team working on the improvement scheme presented such outcomes as a new 12-mile bypass, wider A1, wider sections, improved junctions on A14, new local roads, and a renovated Huntingdon Town Center (About the scheme, 2020). The goals of decreasing traveling times, reducing traffic, and creating new ways to get to some smaller locations have been achieved successfully. Simultaneously, the scheme expanded the local economy and improved the connection between smaller regional communities.
Project Context
The context of a project refers to the environment in which the idea is developed and implemented, as well as the people who are invested in or impacted by its completion. In the case of the A14 improvement scheme, the main areas of change are construction and government property, such as roads. The stakeholders can be identified as the government, drivers, local areas where the road goes, and the locations where the new route is planned. One may organize the preparation of the project context in the PESTLE (political, economic, social, technological, legal, and environmental) form or consider these aspects separately. Stakeholder analysis is another valuable OPM tool for considering how the affected parties will view this venture.
The documents about the improvement project available to the public demonstrate the depth of investigation and reveal that the project context was adequate for its management. The report that describes the first consultations contains ample information about the environmental impact of road improvement, explores stakeholder perspectives, and reflects on the provided opinions to revise the plan. One such example is the consideration of a social sphere through the eyes of responders, as they view tolling negatively and urge the government not to include this in the scheme; this proposal element is discarded (Consultation outcome, 2014). Similarly, the effects on the local environment are considered, including the appearance of the new bypass, legacy benefits, local footpaths, and more. Overall, the context is detailed and aware of the environment and stakeholders.
Problem Solving and Decision-Making
The A14 improvement scheme is a project concerned with solving the issues of congestion and the lack of local roads, but additional decision-making is necessary to bring positive outcomes. For instance, the team needed to decide how to extend the road, choose the best locations for a bypass, and organize the construction process. Here, cause-and-effect analysis, brainstorming, planning, and trade-off analysis are among the main tools that a project manager can use to arrive at the best solution.
The reports about the construction planning and process show the practical approach to decision-making, in which the team made several plans to discover which expansion option was the most suitable. In total, 6 highway options were suggested, using different locations for the new roads. Additionally, the project participants provided several alternatives to improving this road part, considering the effects of improving infrastructure and traffic management.
These ideas were then brought to the public for a discussion, which revealed brainstorming as one of the main steps in project planning. The decision-making during the construction was supported by six management teams, responsible for one section of the scheme, and frequently communicated to deliver the best solutions (Murphy, 2021). Thus, the project’s problem-solving can be considered adequate as it shows highly skilled delegation and communication.
Risk Management
Finally, the last selected element of OPM is risk management, which refers to forecasting and preventing potential hindrances to the idea’s implementation. Risk management success depends on the quality of planning, the clear project scope, and the skills of the involved professionals. Looking at positive or negative risks and appraising their possibility and potential outcomes can prepare the project team to tackle the issues and use opportunities for better results. Assigning responsible parties and preparing responses to such situations are also among the techniques used in OPM.
The project’s longevity exposed its processes to several risks, including construction-related injuries and damages, as well as pandemic health concerns. Several management divisions were hired to manage risks, including Aggregate Industries and Mace, and each team focused on the specific type of dangers and opportunities. In particular, Aggregate Industries dealt with the on-site vehicles and developed practices that supported workers’ health during the pandemic (Murphy, 2021). As a result, the reports demonstrate the lack of accidents and outbreaks that could delay the completion. In contrast, the construction was completed several months earlier than planned due to proper analysis and the prevention of risks.
Factors and Recommendations
Factors that Contributed to Effective Project Management
Several factors contributed to the successful and timely completion of the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme. Firstly, the project reports present transparent and concise goals and objectives. It is clear what the plan wants to achieve and which solutions are chosen to tackle the identified issues. Second, the team has extensively researched the problem and analyzed many alternative ways of approaching the project before arriving at the final version. Communication with stakeholders was especially valuable as it included the local citizens in the decision-making process, eliminating many risks and negative perceptions from the public.
The plan also included several teams that were given clear instructions and were responsible for a specific part of the scheme. Such a distribution of tasks has led to the fast completion of objectives and efficient use of resources. The project’s scope was also well-developed, and the focus was further narrowed in the initial research phases, allowing for easy decision-making. As is evident from the records, each step of the project implementation and evaluation was recorded sufficiently, demonstrating knowledge management and credibility.
Finally, the government provided sufficient resources for the scheme, including financial support, technology, professionals, and access to public opinion. The combination of these factors has led to the project’s early completion.
Factors that Were Absent
While most factors positively affected the project’s results, some elements were absent from this process. One of the issues recently identified after the scheme had been implemented was the damage to the local areas where the new road part had been built (Lamy, 2021). Higher congestion was found on the new road patch, and some crossing issues were identified (Lamy, 2021).
Finally, some communities raised environmental concerns about the new traffic load. These issues, although relatively small, reveal the lack of long-term forecasting as a factor that influenced the project. The team should have performed a deeper analysis, including drivers and those who needed to cross the roads on foot. The factor of involving stakeholders was not present at its full capacity.
Recommendations for Similar Future Projects
The A14 improvement scheme is a great example of project management and provides significant insight into the planning and implementation steps for future ventures. Following the scheme’s approach to preparing project plans, teams should involve as many stakeholders as possible at the early stages of discussion to ensure that the public clearly understands and supports the goals and objectives. It is also vital to examine the context from all available viewpoints to understand potential barriers to and facilitators of success. Furthermore, the attention to extensive research has led to minimal complications and a practical completion before the deadline, which can also be considered. Project managers should pay more attention to the long-term outcomes of projects and perform rigorous analysis of risks that occur both during and after change implementation.
Conclusion
Project management is an integral part of putting any central idea into effect, and it involves planning, designing, implementing, and evaluating the results of this process. Project managers have many techniques and tools that they can use to ensure success. The A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme is an example of a project with a well-thought-out scope, a deeply analyzed context, excellent decision-making, and risk management. Many factors have contributed to the project’s completion, including a massive budget, technological advancement, professional managers, and effective communication. Although the scheme has led to some concerns among the public, most of its elements can be viewed as recommendations for future projects of similar size and type.
Reference List
About the scheme (2020). Web.
Alves, J. L., Ferreira, E. A. and de Nadae, J. (2021) ‘Crisis and risks in engineering project management: a review’, Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management, 18(4), pp. 1-17. Web.
Consultation outcome: A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme. (2014). Web.
Derakhshan, R., Turner, R. and Mancini, M. (2019) ‘Project governance and stakeholders: a literature review’, International Journal of Project Management, 37(1), pp. 98-116. Web.
Fewings, P. and Henjewele, C. (2019) Construction project management: an integrated approach. New York: Routledge.
Lamy, J. (2021) ‘A14 improvement scheme: series of problems identified’, Peterborough Telegraph. Web.
Murphy, P. (2021) ‘How the A14 Upgrade was complete eight months early amid a global pandemic’, New Civil Engineer. Web.
Tereso, A. et al. (2019) ‘Project management practices in private organizations’, Project Management Journal, 50(1), pp. 6-22. Web.
Thesing, T., Feldmann, C. and Burchardt, M. (2021) ‘Agile versus waterfall project management: decision model for selecting the appropriate approach to a project’, Procedia Computer Science, 181, pp. 746-756. Web.
ul Musawir, A., Abd-Karim, S. B. and Mohd-Danuri, M. S. (2020) ‘Project governance and its role in enabling organizational strategy implementation: a systematic literature review’, International Journal of Project Management, 38(1), 1-16. Web.
What is project management? (n.d.). Web.