Why Project Management Doesn't Always Make Business Sense? Project management is a well established discipline.

Yet project management sits oddly with in business. As a discipline it is often decidedly uncommercial. Classically, the definition of project management success is whether management delivers the project "on time, in budget, to specification." Theoretically, you can be on time, in budget and to specification but still make a loss or produce something that does not perform as required. Profitability is an equally valid and in many ways a better measure. In fact there are several important financial measures. Indeed, the project team should in fact be focussing on a variety of product and process Key Performance Indicators as we shall see shortly. How long can project manage ment continue to be so isolated from the reality of everyday commercial life? How can project management professionals make it more relevant, and valuable? The answer, research and practice suggests, is to recognise that we are too often not focusing the project management effort properly, and that we are not drawing on the enablers that now realy allow management to get bottom line impact. There is a view, hopefully becoming increasingly recognised as out of date, that project management begins only after Authorisation for Expenditure has been agreed. It has always been obvious that in reality setting up the project effectively is vital to project success. But with today's emphasis on optimising project definition for maximum value for money, actively managing this front end definition stage is especially important and difficult. The management of the front end can literally make or break the project. Systemic planning, better budgeting, technology management, risk management, improved predictability design management, better prioritisation obvious though these areas are, management at the frontend is probably harder than at any other stage of the project. Not only are the judgements more important, they are usually made on less information. It is a genuinely difficult area. The argument being put forward is not revolutionary. Project management in the past has not been wrong. Rather, it is evolutionary. Project management has not been adequate. It needs extending right to the front end. And more focused effort needs giving, within the project, to defining the appropriate strategy, aligning the project team and realising the cost savings and value benefits that are nearly always there to be had. Consider the project management philosophy of Lockheed Martin, for example, one of the most successful of the large US aerospace and systems integrators. Lockheed Martin's summary of proficient project management comprises: - Structured systems definition - Total systems design and analysis - Partnership based contracting - Comprehensive integration, test and qualification - Quality project management skills and processes - Scheduling determination - Forward looking risk management - Real-time cost management. The practice of project management is changing. New technologies and man agement practices are giving managers new means to improve performance. There is greater emphasis on high performance teamwork. Information Technology is dramatically improving a wide array of areas, from communications and modelling predictability to knowledge management. The real change however is the increasing recognition that the simple "on time, in budget, to specification"

view of project management is not sufficient. Project management needs to be more directly concerned with the bottom line. A more sophisticated set of performance indicators needs systematically reviewing as the project evolves. Greater attention to the front end and procurement in particular will have a significant impact on project performance. Often neglected in the management literature, these two are as quite different in nature and management difficulty should now be receiving increased attention, both in research and practice.