Abstract
The subject of integration is rarely discussed in the project and program management literature, yet it is essential to complex public projects, commonly known as megaprojects. Since trillions of dollars will be spent globally over the next decade on public projects, it is essential to evaluate the importance of integration in managing these mammoth structures. This article looks at how the interface between the various components of a project drives project outcomes and consequently the return on investment to society. The current article summarizes part of a larger ongoing research study of integration mechanisms and outcomes from integration as a project management concept for achieving success in large scale public projects. Future research will examine the development of integration mechanisms that will offer frameworks for integrating the people, the processes, the project and program methodologies and the project and operational phases of project delivery.
Introduction
Project integration management is one of the Project Management Institute’s ten knowledge areas (PMI PMBOK 2013), yet the literature is scarce on integration management in terms of its application to large scale projects. Much has been written about the other nine knowledge areas, particularly scope, cost, schedule, risk and communications management, but integration may be one of the more significant knowledge areas in terms of achieving success on large scale projects. PMI in its Standard for Program Management defines project integration as “the processes and activities needed to identify, define, combine, unify, and coordinate multiple components within the program. It coordinates the various program management activities across the program life cycles” (PMI 2013). Coordination of the “multiple components” of a project has been interpreted in different ways. The coordination of program management activities can be complex on a small one-off project, let alone a megaproject with hundreds and sometimes thousands of smaller projects to coordinate. For example, on the Big Dig there were more than 9,000 processes and procedures that required coordination among 135 major contracts and thousands of sub-contracts.
The question of integration management raises the following four key questions that all project and program managers must answer (Greiman 2013):
- What types of functions or activities require coordination in projects?
- How does integration add value to projects?
- What is the best way to achieve this integration?
- How may these needs change over time?
While most traditional theories on effective project management emphasize cost and schedule controls, quality control, risk management control and scope control, there has been little discussion on what is meant by integration management and how it might benefit projects.
Implementation of Project Integration
To truly integrate a project one must look not only at the processes and procedures that require integration but also other factors. In particular, a key element in integration that is often overlooked is the integration of the project team with the organization that will eventually operate the project. As an example, Heathrow Terminal 5 (T5) was a mega-project that was on schedule and on budget since construction had begun, defying all the trends of previous mega-projects in the UK (Davies et al 2009). T5 was seen as the first step in the regeneration of London’s main airport in preparation for the 2012 Olympics. However, on the day the Terminal opened in what was to be a grand celebration, instead turned into a national disaster due to baggage delays, temporary suspension of check-in, and the cancellation of 68 flights. This failure has been attributed to among other things a lack of systems integration and coordination between the project and the operating organization each operating as separate systems. Once project management on Terminal 5 thought they surmounted the considerable issues related to building such a vast and technologically sophisticated terminal they suffered from technological hubris and forgot about the people issues related to the successful functioning of any large technical system (Brady & Davies 2010).
What really failed in the Heathrow Terminal Case Study was Integrated Project Delivery (IPD). The concept of IPD as defined by the American Institute of Architects (AIA), is a project delivery approach that integrates people, systems, business structures, and practices into a process that collaboratively harnesses the talents and insights of all participants to optimize project results, increase value to the owner, reduce waste, and maximize efficiency through all phases of design, fabrication, and construction (AIA 2007). If there is little integration between the project and operations the final outcome is most certainly to fail. Ironically, Heathrow Terminal 5 was a model in systems integration in many ways, yet the outcome was a failure due to the discontinuity in one of the most important areas of integration, project delivery. Integration is important in all aspects of a project because it fosters collaboration and collaboration fosters knowledge and trust, key elements of project success. In every megaproject there is a need to integrate the processes and methodologies required to deliver the project with those involved in the operations of the project’s end result (Davies 2009).
Project integration has also been discussed in the literature in terms of teamwork effectiveness and scholars have found that integration is useful for improving the effectiveness of teamwork, which is a very important tool for project delivery (Baiden & Price 2010). Practices that meet the various requirements of integration either complement or increase the likelihood of fulfilling the key elements of effective teamwork. A common issue in large megaprojects that sometimes operate nationally or even globally is helping teams collaborate across projects to ensure better interfaces, and sometimes it requires collaboration across disciplines such as merging the expertise of designers, contractors, risk managers, economic experts and other disciplines.
Often defined as a criterion for project success, project integration essentially means achieving coordination and collaboration among project teams, internal and external stakeholders, project controls and responsibility centers, and the entire organization. The coordination needs of a megaproject may create unique interdependencies between the larger organization, and the numerous separate projects and programs that comprise the organization.
The question of how one achieves integration in large scale projects must be understood in the context of the project’s internal and external environment. Complex megaprojects require not only the integration of processes and procedures but also integration of the people, the integration of communities of knowledge including business process integration, strategic management and methodologies, and project activities and programs (Greiman 2013). For instance, integration of the people dimension requires an understanding of the relationship between the resources dedicated to the project and the people impacted by the project.
Since megaprojects often involve the use of multiple standards and methodologies, operating at the same time, the integration of these standards and methodologies has been an important area of interest to practitioners around the world. To address this concern, in January 2011, the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) and the Project Management Institute (PMI®) formed a strategic alliance to advance the integration of the systems engineering and program management disciplines. In October 2012, the organizations conducted a joint survey to better understand the roles of program manager and chief systems engineer and to gauge their current level of integration. The Consortium for Engineering Program Excellence (CEPE) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) provided strategic support in analyzing, reviewing and finalizing the survey results with INCOSE and PMI. The results of the analysis resulted in the development of key requirements in improving the integration of Systems Engineering and Program Management which included the following:
- using standards from both domains;
- formalizing the definition of integration;
- developing integrated engineering program assessments; and
- effectively sharing responsibility for risk management, quality, lifecycle planning and external suppliers (Conforto et al 2013).
This alliance of two major project and program management methodologies is a giant step forward in project integration and perhaps will serve as a model for improvement of all aspects of integration in the projects of the future.
Conclusions
Developing strategies for maintaining complex projects like the Big Dig over a long period of time requires a shift from implementing a plan of action to establishing a sustainable structure that integrates the people, processes, systems and programs. The benefits of integration include increased efficiency, reduced costs and reduction in redundancy, improved data integration, better procedures, continuous relationship building, and the development of a sustainable project (Greiman 2013). To achieve these benefits will require a much broader view of project integration management from the initiation of the project to the ultimate operation of the project deliverables.
References
(AIA) American Institute of Architects (2007) Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide, Washington, D.C.: The American Institute of Architects.
Baiden, B.K. and Price, A. D. F. (2011) The Effect of Integration on Project Delivery Team Effectiveness, International Journal of Project Management, 29, pp. 129-136.
Brady, T. and Davies, A. (2010) From Hero to Hubris – Reconsidering The Project Management of Heathrow’s Terminal 5, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 28, Iss. 2, pp. 151-157, February.
Conforto, E., Rossi, M., Rebentisch, E., Oehmen, J. and Pacenza, M. (2013) Survey Report: Improving the Integration of Program Management and Systems Engineering. Results of a Joint Survey by PMI and INCOSE, Whitepaper presented at the 23rd INCOSE Annual International Symposium, Philadelphia, USA, June, Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Davies, A., Gann, D., and Douglas, T. (2009) Innovation in Megaprojects: Systems Integration at London Heathrow Terminal 5, California Management Review, Vol. 51, No. 2, Winter.
Greiman, V. (2013) Megaproject Management: Lessons on Risk and Project Management from the Big Dig, John Wiley & Sons, New York, London, Hoboken.
(PMI PMBOK) Project Management Institute. The Project Management Body of Knowledge (2013) 5th ed. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute. (PMI) Project Management Institute. The Standard for Program Management (2013) 3rd ed. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
Virginia A. Greiman is Professor of Megaprojects and Planning at Boston University and holds academic appointments at Harvard University Law School and Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. She is a recognized scholar on megaprojects, public private partnerships, and international law and development. She served as a diplomatic official to the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development in Eastern and Central Europe, Asia and Africa. She has held executive and advisory positions with several of the world’s largest megaprojects including Boston’s Central Artery/Tunnel Project, California’s High Speed Rail Project, the UK’s Crossrail Project, and development in the South China Sea. She has published extensively on megaproject complexity and governance, and international development and project finance. Her recently published book is entitled: Megaproject Management: Lessons on Risk and Project Management from the Big Dig, John Wiley & Sons, Publisher © 2013 London, New York, Hoboken.