项目管理统一的方法-外文翻译-外文文献-英文文献.doc

英语原文
A Unified Approach to Project Management
Thomas Froese* and Sheryl Staub-French*
*Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6T 1Z4. e-mail: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Abstract
In current project management practice, the overall task of designing, managing, and constructing a building is carried out by organizing the work into many distinct tasks assigned to many different groups. Most project effort is then directed towards carrying out these tasks in the most effective manner possible, while relatively little effort (concentrated within a few critical positions) is focused on managing the interdependencies between tasks and effectively combining these results to yield the overall result. We propose a unified approach to project management that brings an integrative view to the forefront, centered on the notion of defining multiple views of the project and the interrelationships that exist between the views. This integrated representation acts as a model or prototype of the physical facility, allowing more experimentation and optimization and providing a unifying focus for the ongoing work. The representational framework, proposed methodology, and accompanying IT issues for this approach to project management are discussed.
Motivation
Much of our previous research has been in the area of information technologies (IT) applied to the task of project management (PM) in the field of architecture, engineering, construction, and facilities management (AEC/FM). Within this field of research and development (R&D), a major theme has been the integration of information resources and tools throughout the AEC/FM project lifecycle. Great progress has been made in the concepts, technologies, and tools to support this integration. As of yet, however, the results have had minimal impact on practice in the industry. This situation begs the question of why this active area of R&D has not had greater impact. One significant problem seems to be that the resulting technologies and tools do not fit particularly well with current project management practices. More specifically, the new tools assume and require a level of integration and coordination among project participants that is seldom found in practice. Clearly, the technologies require further development towards tools that better suit current practice. Yet it may be useful to also consider current project management practices to see if changes could be introduced that would allow projects to better exploit the advances that have been made in IT.
From this initial perspective of IT, we have begun to explore potential weakness and opportunities for improvement in current project management practices. In the process, the perspective has broadened to identify several issues that are not specifically IT related. These are not new concepts, but a collection of several current trends in AEC/FM and relevant ideas from other industries. In this paper, we consider several of these views on weakness in current project management practices and opportunities for improvements. We then synthesize these into a proposed framework for a unified approach to project management in AEC/FM.
Perspectives on Weaknesses and Opportunities for Project Management
Complexity and Interdependencies in AEC/FM projects. AEC/FM projects are often described as large and increasingly complex. A greater understanding of the nature of this complexity can point to the areas where the need for improved management is greatest.
Studies have identified the following characteristics as generally common to any
type of complex system1 Paraphrased from Homer-Dixon 2001, pp.110-114.

:
1. Complex systems are comprised of a multiplicity of things; they have a large number of entities or parts. Generally, the more parts a system contains, the more complex it is.
2. Complex systems contain a dense web of causal connections among their components. The parts affect each other in many ways.
3. Complex systems exhibit interdependence of their components. The behavior of parts is dependant upon other parts. If the system is broken apart, the components no longer function (like the parts of the human body).
4. Complex systems are open to their outside environments. They are not selfcontained, but are affected by outside events.
5. Complex systems normally show a high degree of synergy among their components: the whole is more than the sum of its parts.
6. Complex systems exhibit non-linear behavior. A change in the system can produce an effect that is not proportional to its size: small changes can produce large effects, and large changes can produce small effects.
To some extent, all of these features can be observed in AEC/FM projects. AEC/FM projects are made up of components such as the physical elements in a building, thedesign or construction activities, the people and resources utilized, etc. In many cases, the individual components are not complex. Yet the number of components that make up the project is vast, and the causal connections between these components are numerous. For example, a change in the intended use of some space in a building could affect the heating and cooling requirements for that space, which could affect the design of parts of the mechanical system, which could alter the elements of the electrical system, which could change a purchase order for material supplies, which could delay a material delivery, which could influence the construction schedule, which could reduce the productivity of a work crew, which could increase a work package cost, which could affect a sub-contractor’s financing, and so on.
AEC/FM projects, then, are justifiably described as complex, largely because of the quantity and interdependence of the components that make up the project.
Explicit recognition of interdependency in project management approaches. One of the fundamental mechanisms that the AEC/FM industry has developed for dealing with complexity is the approach of dividing project work into well-defined work tasks and assigning each work task to a specialist group. These tasks are then carried out, to a large extent, as if they are fairly independent from each other. To be sure, each participant has some notion that their work must follow certain work and must precede other work, and that certain actions or outcomes of their work will influence others. By and large, however, participants focus primarily on their individual tasks, with any concerns about these interdependencies addressed in a very ad hoc and reactive way. Most participants try to optimize their own work while the few people responsible for managing the project as a whole have little opportunity to optimize the entire system.
Clearly, it is beneficial to organize work in such a way as to minimize interdependency among work tasks. However, we contend that a weakness of current project management practice is that it tends to treat typical AEC/FM work tasks as being far more independent than they actually are. Instead, project management approaches should strive to make the interdependencies between work tasks more explicit. This does not increase interdependence and complexity, but it does make the existing interdependency and complexity more visible, and therefore more manageable. In summary, AEC/FM projects are complex because of the quantity and interdependency of their components, and project management techniques should strive to make these interdependencies explicit.
Information, Information Management, and Information Technology. All design and management tasks on AEC/FM projects are fundamentally information processing tasks: they take existing project information as input and produce new project information as output. Even construction tasks, which deal with the processing of physical resources, require information as a significant resource. Yet the information resources and information flows are rarely considered and managed explicitly, and are instead treated as implicit in assigned work tasks and physical project components. This makes the management of this important resource haphazard, and makes the application of appropriate information technology more difficult.
Information Management. We suggest the following general approach to information management (IM) on AEC/FM projects. The IM should adopt a processbased approach, organizing the project into its work tasks. The IM approach should then consider three main issues: 1) the information requirements for each task, 2) the communication requirements between tasks, and 3) the integration across tasks and communications. For each task, the IM should evaluate what the information input requirements are, what IT tools should be used for supporting the task, and what the information outputs are. For communications, the IM should evaluate what information flows must exist between tasks (including their required characteristics such as sender, receiver, mode, content, etc.), and what information and communication technologies are used for these communications. For the integrative analysis, the IM should examine the integration across all tasks and communication flows (i.e., adopt a holistic view and common IT platforms, rather than addressing each task or communication flow in isolation). This includes integration across organizational boundaries and integration with existing (and future) technologies.
Disparate views of a project. As stated previously, all design and management tasks work with information rather than physical resources. This information all describes or models the physical construction project, and thus it can be said that all designers and managers work with information models of the project. However, each task often works with its own unique view, perspective, or type of information model. This wide range of disparate views adds to the fragmentation of these tasks. There is very little of a common, shared vision of the project across all participants—at least until the physical structure begins to emerge, which provides a unifying common perspective for all participants.
A unified IT view. One of the opportunities of emerging IT is the ability to create building information models: semantically rich information models of construction projects that include both 3D geometric information (3D CAD) along with nongeometric information (everything from material properties to construction costs and schedules). These models support a wide range of advanced analytical and predictive software tools, including virtual project representations such as photo-realistic 3D renderings and walk-throughs, and they support extensive information sharing and software interoperability throughout the lifecycle of the project (as exemplified by the Industry Foundation Classes, IFCs, see International Alliance, 2002 and BLIS, 2002). This technology does not require that all project information be combined into a single model, but it allows linkages and interoperability between the various bodies of project information.
This technology offers opportunities to create a more unified approach to project management in two ways. First, by linking together disparate views of project information and supporting software interoperability, it provides a technical platform for achieving a more integrated approach to project management. Second, the “virtual building” created by these technologies has the potential of acting as a common focal point, or unifying view, for all project participants, particularly during pre-construction design and management phases, much in the way that the physical structure does during the construction phase.
Lean Construction and Workflows. There is currently a great deal of attention being paid to the area of lean construction, which spans a wide range of issues that relate to the management of AEC/FM projects (Lean Construction Institute, 2002). Among these issues is the concept that when a project is made up of many interdependent tasks, a focus on optimizing each task independently leads to sub-optimization of the overall project. Therefore, project management practices should ensure that tasks are managed with careful consideration of their role within the overall project workflows; they should not be treated as isolated, independent activities.
Software Engineering and the Unified Modeling Language. Although project management has a much longer (and perhaps more successful) history within the field of AEC/FM than in the field of software engineering, there are some valuable lessons that AEC/FM can learn from developments in the software industry, particularly related to integrated information structures for managing projects.
Much of the software engineering community has consolidated around the Unified Modeling Language (UML) (Object Management Group, 2002), a standard language for representing the components involved in the design and implementation of software projects. The UML provides a much more uniform and integrated (if less comprehensive) view of project requirements, processes, and elements, than comparable representations within AEC/FM (i.e., project plans and specifications, construction schedules, etc.).
Furthermore, UML-based software development methodologies have emerged (e.g., the Unified Process, Kendall, 2002) that tightly integrate the various project workflows with the various project artifacts (deliverables) throughout each phase of the project lifecycle. These methodologies also accentuate the cyclical and repetitive nature of the related work tasks that are carried out within workflows as they move through the phases of the project lifecycle. Unlike approaches that treat each activity as an independent, one-time task, this reinforces attempts to continually improve performance in this work. While these techniques are not directly applicable to the AEC/FM industry, some of the approaches and best practices are quite relevant.
A Unified Approach to Project Management
We have argued that existing project management practices underemphasize the interrelationships between individual work tasks and other project components. This leaves the interdependencies under-recognized and under-managed, and promotes a “one-time event” thinking that hinders the quest for ongoing performance improvements. We have begun to conceptualize a unified approach to project management that addresses some of the weaknesses and opportunities identified above.
The basic approach is to adopt a framework that: 1) explicitly represents the various views that are critical for managing projects, and 2) explicitly represents the interconnections between these views. Examples of project views include the physical view (“what”), the process view (“how, who, when”), the cost view (“how much”), etc. (Russell and Froese, 1997). If the total collection of project information is thought of as a m