Monday

Monthly Archives: April 2023

Web page tidy up

Sometimes libraries need a bit of reorganization!  The Mosaic Project Management Knowledge Index (PMKI) is an indexed and categorized library of 100s of papers and articles focused on the broad scope of managing projects and programs.

As part of our regular grooming process the following pages have been reorganized, tidied, and updated:

Corporate/Organizational Governance: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-ORG-005.php
This subject covers the creation and implementation of the organizational objectives, policies, practices and systems that are responsible for ensuring organizational resources are utilized effectively and the work of the organization is aligned with its strategy and objectives.

Ethics and Culture in Organizations: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-ORG-010.php
This subject looks at the at the central role of ethics, culture and the associated outcomes such as CSR, sustainability, and the ‘triple bottom line’, in successful organizations.

Dispute Management: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-ITC-014.php
Disputes in the construction and engineering industries are common and often involve large amount so money. This page looks at contract dispute management from the perspective that preventing disputes is better than resolving disputes. But when a dispute arises you need to know how to respond effectively.

Almost all of the information in the PMKI is available for use under a creative commons license. See its full scope at: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI.php

Measuring Project Success

Can a project be years late, £ Billions over budget, and a success?  It appears the answer to this question depends on your perspective.

In a recent post looking at project success, we identified a significant anomaly between the percentage of projects classed as failing and the perception of executives.  In round terms some 70% of projects are classified as failing, but over 70% of executives think their organization deliver projects successfully. You can read the updated version of this post at: Do 80% of organizations average a project failure rate of 80%?

A number people providing feedback on the original post suggested this anomaly could be caused by different perspectives of project success. This concept has been identified by many people over the years as the difference between project management success (on time and on budget), verses project success (the delivery of value to stakeholders).  These different types of project success are briefly discussed in Achieving Real Project Success.

Measuring project management success.

However, the concept of project management success, typically measured as delivering the project on time and on budget, raises its own set of challenges. 
Consider the following:

Two different organizations own the same commercial software, and decide to implement the latest upgrade, essentially two identical projects to deliver similar benefits to two separate organizations.

  • Organization A estimates their project will cost $110,000 and the work is approved.
  • Organization B estimates their project will cost $80,000 and the work is approved.

Both projects complete the work successfully and on time. The final project costs are compiled and the close-out reports completed:

  • Organization A has a final cost of $100,000 – $10,000 under budget, and the project is declared a success!
  • Organization B has a final cost of $90,000 – $10,000 over budget, and the project is declared a failure! 

But Organization B has achieved the organizational benefits of the upgrade for $10,000 less than Organization A – which project was really successful?

The above example is simplistic but clearly shows the need for better processes to define project success and failure. Comparing the estimated time and cost at the start with the achieved outcomes can be very misleading. On time and on budget may be valid measures for a contractor delivering a project under a commercial contract that defines a fixed time and cost for completion, but for everyone else the question of success is more nuanced. 

For example, consider the Crossrail Project in London, initiated in 2008 to deliver the new Elizabeth Line, it is years late and £Billions over budget. But since its partial opening in May 2022, more than 100 million journeys have been made on the Elizabeth Line, currently around 600,000 journeys are made every day. This patronage is above forecast levels and the project is on track to break even by the end of the 2023/24 financial year. Even the British Tabloid press are declaring the Elizabeth Line a success despite the final upgrade to achieve 100% of the planned service frequencies not happening until 21st May 2023 (for our thoughts on Crossrail over the years see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-ITC-012.php#Crossrail).

The May 2023 upgrade will mark the successful completion of the Crossrail project and its final transition to operations. This is some 4 ½ years after the original planned opening date in December 2018 and £4+ Billion over budget – so who gets to declare it a success and what is the basis for measuring this? When we looked at this question in  Success and Stakeholders our conclusion was success is gifted to you by your stakeholders, you have to earn the gift by delivering the project, but there is no way of knowing for sure if it will be considered successful. The Elizabeth Line has achieved the accolade of successful from its stakeholders, but this is hardly a scientific measure, or an effective KPI for general use. Which poses the question how do you realistically measure project success? Asking the question is easy, finding a generally applicable answer is not – any ideas??
For more on defining project success see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-ORG-055.php#Success 

Where were the first passenger railways built?

Most of the early railways identified in The First Railway Projects were built for the transport of freight cargos, usually coal.  Some of these lines did carry passengers as a sideline, but were not built for a combined passenger / freight operation. This post looks at some of the early passenger railways and/or tramways that included passenger operations from a very early stage in their development:

The Swansea and Mumbles Railway

Probably the first fare-paying, horse-drawn, passenger railway service in the world, was the Oystermouth Railway, later known as the Swansea and Mumbles railway.

Originally built under an Act of Parliament of 1804 to move limestone from the quarries of Mumbles to Swansea and then onto the markets beyond, it carried the world’s first fare-paying railway passengers under an agreement effective from 25 March 1807. This line transitioned from horse power to steam locomotion in 1877, and was finally converted to electric power, before closing in January 1960. The original stations, were located at The Mount in Swansea, and in Oystermouth. The Mount is the world’s first recorded railway station, but its physical form is not known, it is unlikely that any special facilities were provided.

Stockton and Darlington Railway

The Stockton and Darlington Railway (S&DR) was a railway company that operated in north-east England from 1825 to 1863, and was the world’s first public railway to use steam locomotives. Its first section of line was officially opened on 27 September 1825, connecting collieries near Shildon with Darlington and Stockton-on-Tees in County Durham. The movement of coal to ships rapidly became a lucrative business, and the line was soon extended to a new port at Middlesbrough. While coal wagons were hauled by steam locomotives from the start, passengers were initially carried in coaches drawn by horses until passenger trains pulled by steam locomotives were introduced in 1833.

Canterbury & Whitstable Railway

The first steam powered railway for fare-paying, passenger was probably the Canterbury & Whitstable Railway (C&W) which opened on 3 May 1830. This railway also issued the first season ticked in 1834. The line provided a direct link between Canterbury and Whitstable, then a small village on the coast of the Thames Estuary about seven miles (11 km) due north of the city. Passenger stations were located at Canterbury North Lane, and Whitstable Harbour. However, because of steep gradients on the line, the C&W used stationary engines and cables to power the trains for much of its length. From the beginning, the railway was a public railway, intended for passengers as well as freight.

Liverpool & Manchester Railway

The Liverpool and Manchester Railway (L&MR) was the first inter-city railway in the world. It opened on 15 September 1830 between the Lancashire towns of Liverpool and Manchester in England. The railway was primarily built to provide faster transport of raw materials, finished goods, and passengers between the Port of Liverpool and the cotton mills and factories of Manchester and surrounding towns. Trains were hauled by company steam locomotives between the two towns, though private wagons and carriages were allowed to be attached to some trains.

The L&MR was the first railway to rely exclusively on locomotives driven by steam power, with no horse-drawn traffic permitted at any time; the first to be entirely double track throughout its length; the first to have a true signalling system; the first to be fully timetabled; and the first to carry mail. The only exception to the use of steam locomotives was a short section built to deliver freight to the Liverpool Docks, a cable haulage system was used down the steeply-graded 1.26-mile (2.03 km) Wapping Tunnel from Edge Hill Junction to the Liverpool docks. The double tunnel in the centre of the picture above (the Wapping tunnel) goes down to the Wapping dock on the waterfront with the continuous cable for raising and lowering wagons clearly shown. The tunnel to the right goes up to the original passenger terminus at Crown Street.

The terminal stations for the L&MR were at Crown Street in Liverpool and Liverpool Road in Manchester. These are the first stations that would be recognized as railway stations in the modern sense, not just stopping places along the line. The Manchester station is still in existence and is part of the Manchester Museum of Technology. The Crown Street terminus is pictured.

Australian Railways

The first steam powers passenger railway in Australia was 2.5 mile line constructed between the City of Melbourne and its port at Sandridge, opening in 1845, see: The First Steam Powered Railway in Australia.

USA Railroads

The South Carolina Canal and Rail Road Company was a railroad in South Carolina that operated independently from 1830 to 1844. The company operated its first 6-mile (9.7 km) line west from Charleston, South Carolina in 1830. Beginning in 1833, the railroad ran a scheduled steam service over its 136-mile (219 km) line from Charleston, South Carolina, to Hamburg, South Carolina. This was probably the first passenger service in the USA.

The first section of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad in the United States opened in 1830. The railway was tasked with building a railroad from the port of Baltimore west to a suitable point on the Ohio River. Opened on May 24, 1830, a horse pulled the first cars 26 miles and back, the railway did not transition to use steam power, or start a passenger service for several years.

Conclusion

From the 1830s on, passenger rail became increasingly important. For more on the development of railways see:  https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-ZSY-005.php#Process2

Project Governance Challenges – Delusions or Data Errors

Note: This post has been updated and augmented, for the latest version see: Do 80% of organizations average a project failure rate of 80%?

This post is not intended to provide precise numbers, rather to highlight an intriguing anomaly that could benefit from some structured research.  Over many years, and many different reports, based on different survey methods, we regularly see the following data presented:

  1. Far more projects fail than succeed, the ratio is typically around 30% success 70% fail.
     
  2. There are some organizations that routinely achieve project success, these are slowly increasing as an overall percentage and currently sit at around 20% of the organizations that ‘do projects’.

  3. The vast majority of executives surveyed think their organization manages its projects successfully.  The percentage of executive with this view seems to sit comfortably above 80%.

But, unless there is a major distortion in one or more of the data sets, these data are mutually incompatible!

If 20% of organizations that ‘do projects’ get most of their projects delivered successfully, it means this group have to account for at least half of the 30% of successes, which pushes the ratio of fails for the rest of the organizations to 15:65 = 19% success vs 81% fails.

In round numbers 80% of the organizations doing projects, have a failure rate of around 80%.

But if more than 80% of executives feel their organizations deliver projects successfully this data suggests that some 60% of these executives are seriously misinformed. So, my question is why do some 75% of executives in the 80% of organizations that routinely fail to deliver projects successfully appear to believe the opposite?  The answer to this question probably sits in the complex area of communication failures caused by organizational culture and governance issues, for more on this see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-ORG.php

This assessment also helps explain why so many organizations simply do not invest in systems to improve project delivery. There is no point in spending money to fix a problem the executives cannot acknowledge. So whereto from here??

The answer will not be easy. To quote from the 2018 PMI Pulse of the profession survey: “There is a powerful connection between effective project management and financial performance. Organizations that are ineffective with project management waste 21 times more money than those with the highest performing project management capabilities. But the good news is that by leveraging some proven practices, there is huge potential for organizations to course correct and enhance financial performance.”  But it appears that while the people setting their organizations strategy, culture and governance systems may be aware of this, a large percentage do not believe it applies to them – their projects are managed appropriately, even if 80% of them fail. 

Changing the culture to implement effective project governance and controls needs executive support! For more on the strategic management of projects and programs see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-ORG-015.php#Process1

Notes:

  1. First, I am fully aware of the ‘Flaw of Averages’, and the resulting problems in the way the calculations in this post have been made. But in the absence of an integrated data set for proper statistical analysis, I believe the trends highlighted above are valid indicators of a problem. What is needed to test these indicators is a proper survey that contrasts executive opinions against project success rates across a large sample of organizations.

  2. The second issue is the sample of executives surveyed. Most of the data I have seen comes from ‘opt-in’ surveys which is likely to bias the sample towards executives that consider projects important.

The Diolkos – The first truly commercial project?

In our papers looking at early wagonways and railways, the Diolkos on the Isthmus of Corinth in Greece, was identified as probably the first purpose-built railway in the world (if you define a railway as a set of tracks that guide wheeled vehicles).  This blog takes a close look at this fascinating construction project.

Unlike most other projects at the time of its construction, the Diolkos has three unique characteristics:

  1. Its purpose was commercial – most other projects of its time were built for the purpose of either religious celebration, military necessity, or royal ego-trips.
  2. The construction had to be completed before any value could be derived from the work. You either transported a ship across the Isthmus, or you did not!
  3. There was no option for incremental development. There may well have been earlier trackways for moving goods from shore to shore using pack animals or wagons, and using logs as wooden rollers to move ships was feasible but it is a big jump from these technologies to a ship transporter system.

These characteristics make the decision of the Corinthians who commissioned and constructed the project the first commercial project sponsors I have been able to identify.  And, the 650+ years of operation of the Diolkos suggest they got their decision correct.

The Diolkos (pass via machinery) was a paved trackway, variously measured to be between 6 to 8.5 km long, that enabled vessels to be moved overland across the Isthmus of Corinth. It was built to speed up the transfer of goods between the Gulf of Corinth and the Saronic Gulf, although, in times of war, it may also been used as a means of speeding up naval campaigns. The alternative way to reach Athens, and other ports in the Saronic Gulf, from the Gulf of Corinth was for ships to take a nearly 700-kilometer-long detour around the Peloponnese. A journey that was not only long but dangerous. Gale-force winds around Cape Matapan and Cape Maleas often troubled sailors. Whereas, both the Gulf of Corinth and the Saronic Gulf were relatively calm and the narrow strip of land, the Isthmus of Corinth, separating both the water bodies was only 6.4 km wide at its narrowest.

The basic mode of operation for the Diolkos was for a cargo vessel to be unloaded at one end and its cargo carried separately on wagons to the other side of the isthmus, then the ship was loaded onto the Diolkos, and pulled to the other side where it was refloated, then reloaded.

Enough of the trackway remains to show how the system operated. Eastward-bound ships would arrive at the northwestern end of the Diolkos at the current location of Poseidonia in Corinth where there was a stone ramp. They were then pulled up the ramps onto a stout wooden frame, or sledge. Once they were on dry land, the ships were then stripped of their masts and other movables to make them as light as possible. The massive vessels then were turned by winches to line them up with the Diolkos. Next, they would be pulled up another stone ramp to get them onto the wheeled undercarriage. These had large wheels along both sides spaced to fit into the deep grooves cut into the stones of the trackway, which ensured the undercarriage and its burden would stay firmly on track all the way to the other side of the isthmus. Even though the gradient of the road only went up to approximately three percent, it would still have been a feat of engineering and brute strength to move seagoing vessels overland in this way. This process appears to have been improved to some extent in the early 4th century BCE, when it seems that a wooden lifting machine was installed that allowed easier placement of ships on the standing wheeled vehicle.

Excavation and restoration works show us the paving was made of limestone blocks with carved grooves at an axial distance of about 1.50m for the guidance of the wooden wheeled vehicle on which the ships were transported. Engraved letters on some of the paving stones belong to the oldest local alphabet and date the works to the beginning of the 6th century BCE.

At each end of the route, the track continues down to a pier and slipway at the water’s edge.

At the western end, a section of an inclined cobbled pier measuring about 10.00 x 8.00m has been excavated.

In summary, it seems a combination of human and animal power plus great technological know-how allowed the Diolkos to function for over 650 years, from around 600 BCE until the middle of the first century CE. A successful project by any measure!

It also seems the Diolkos served a very similar purpose to the early wagonways and railways developed in England and Europe in the 16th century CE – the efficient movement of goods. This aspect is discussed in The First Railway Projects, you can download this paper and others on early transport projects from: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-ZSY-005.php#Process2

But there’s more

The use of groves carved (or worn) into rock to help guide wagons seems to be much older than the Diolkos.

The starting point of this development was wooden sledges that are known to have been used by communities living by hunting and fishing in northern Europe, on the fringes of the Arctic during the late Mesolithic Period from 7000 BCE or earlier.

During the Neolithic, the domestication of cattle, and more particularly the discovery that a castrated bull becomes the docile but very powerful ox, meant that humans could transport heavier loads. This is done at first on larger sledges, which slither adequately over the dry grass of the steppes of southern Russia and on the parched earth of Mesopotamia. In both regions ox-drawn sledges are in use by the 4th millennium BCE. Then from around 3000 BCE the development of wheeled wagons seems to have occurred and spread quickly (or wheeled wagons were developed in multiple locations). These vehicles were 4-wheeled and pulled by people or animals, the image is a depiction of an onager-drawn wagon on the Sumerian “War” panel of the Standard of Ur (c. 2500 BCE).

These early wagons had fixed axles steering was achieved by physical force applied to the side of the wagon (2-wheeled carts and chariots were developed quite a bit later and were linked to the domestication of the horse). As the use of heavy wagons became more commonplace, it seems that where a relatively soft, flat bedrock was close to the surface, wheel ruts started to be worn into the surface, and people found the ruts made guiding their cart easier, the wheels just followed in the groves. From this starting point, it does not need a huge leap of imagination for someone to realize that by carving a starting point into the rock, subsequent use would develop deeper grooves though wear, making the job of guiding a cart progressively easier. This type of ‘cart rut’, can be found in Malta, Greece, Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, Switzerland, Spain, Cyrenaica, Portugal, Azerbaijan and France.

As with most examples, the age and purpose of the Maltese tracks is uncertain with estimates of their origins ranging from c.700 BCE, but with several examples pointing to a Temple Period date c. 3800-2500 BCE. The underlying rock in Malta is weak and when it’s wet it loses about 80 percent of its strength so whether these tracks were carved, or worn into the bedrock, or started by carving then worn deeper, is open to question.

Misrah Ghar il-Kbir (Clapham Junction) – Malta.

These earlier examples suggests the convenience of having guides to help keep carts on the desired track would have been well understood by the time the Diolkos was built. The builders of the Diolkos simply expanded on the concept by making their own ‘bedrock’ by laying paving stones.

The use of fixed (non-steering) axles continues through to the present time. The mine carts of the 13th century, the ‘chaldrons’ used on the NE England wagonways in the 18th century to move coal to the wharfs, through to modern railway freight cars all use fixed axles guided by groves or rails. For more on the history of railways see the papers at: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-ZSY-005.php#Process2.

The use of a steerable front axle on wagons is a much later development, dependent on the availability of iron to efficiently manage the high loads at the pivot pin. This was achieved in about 500 B.C. (although some commentators put the date as early as 1500 B.C.) with the production of an axle capable of swiveling about a vertical axis. Such vehicles can be readily detected in accurate drawings because the front wheels had to be small enough in diameter to pass under the floor of the vehicle. The technology did not spread rapidly. There were only a few steerable wagons in fourteenth-century England, and they were not widespread until the seventeenth century.

Estimating Updates

Over the last couple of weeks, we have been updating the estimating pages on our website, partly in response to the #NoEstimating idiocy.

There is no way an organization that intends to survive will undertake future work without an idea of the required resources, time, and cost needed to achieve the objective and an understanding of the anticipated benefits – this is an elementary aspect of governance. This requires estimating! BUT there are two distinctly different approaches to estimating software development and maintenance:

1.  Where the objective is to maintain and enhance an existing capability the estimate is part of the forward budgeting cycle and focuses on the size of the team needed to keep the system functioning appropriately.  Management’s objective is to create a stable team that ‘owns’ the application. Methodologies such as Scrum and Kanban work well, and the validity of the estimate is measured by metrics such as trends in the size of the backlog.  For more on this download De-Projectizing IT Maintenance from: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-ITC-040.php#Process1

2.  Where the objective is to create a new capability, project management cuts in.  Projects need an approved scope and budget which requires an estimate! The degree of detail in the estimate needs to be based on the level of detail in the scope documents. If the scope, or objectives, are only defined at the overall level, there’s no point in trying to second guess future developments and create an artificially detailed estimate. But, with appropriate data high level estimates can be remarkably useful. Then, once the project is approved, normal PM processes cut in and work well. Some of the sources of useful benchmarking data are included in our update estimating software list at: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-SCH-030.php#Cost

The #NoEstimating fallacies include:

The fantasy that software is ‘different’ – its not! All projects have a degree of uncertainty which creates risk. Some classes of project may be less certain than others, but using reliable benchmarking data will tell you what the risks and the range of outcomes are likely to be.

Estimates should be accurate – this is simply WRONG (but is a widely held myth in the wider management and general community)! Every estimate of a future outcome will be incorrect to some degree.  The purpose of the estimate is to document what you thought should occur which provides a baseline for comparing with what is actually occurring. This comparison highlights the difference (variance) between the planned and actual to create management information. This information is invaluable for directing attention towards understanding why the variance is occurring and adjusting future management actions (or budget allowances) to optimize outcomes.

Conclusion

The fundamental flaw in #NoEstimating is its idiotic assumption that an organization that commits funding and resources to doing something without any concept of how long its is going to take, or what it will cost will survive.  Good governance requires the organizational leadership to manage the organization’s assets for the benefit of the organization’s stakeholders. This does not preclude risk taking (in many industries risk taking is essential). But effective risk taking requires a framework to determine when a current objective is no longer viable so the work can be closed down, and the resources redeployed to more beneficial objectives. For more on portfolio management and governance see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-ORG.php  

In summary #NoEstimating is stupid, but trying to produce a fully detailed estimate based on limited information is nearly as bad.  Prudent estimating requires a balance between what is known about the project at the time, a proper assessment of risk, and the effective use of historical benchmarking data to produce a usable estimate which can be improved and updated as better information becomes available.  For more on cost estimating see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-PBK-025.php#Process1

Assessing Delay – the SCL Options.

Our latest paper Assessing Delay – the SCL Options. Has been published in the April edition of PM World Journal.

This paper reviews The Society of Construction Law, Delay and Disruption Protocol (2nd edition), and contrasts the SCL Protocol with AACE® International Recommended Practice No. 29R-03 Forensic Schedule Analysis (2011 Ed.)

In most respects, the two documents take a very similar approach to assessing delay and disruption on construction projects. The fundamental difference is in the focus of the documents, the objective SCL Protocol is to provide useful guidance on some of the common delay and disruption issues that arise on construction projects, with a view to minimizing disputes, whereas AACEi 29R-03 focuses on forensically analyzing delays after the dispute has arisen.

To download more papers focused on delay, disruption and acceleration see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-ITC-020.php#ADD

Knowing (exactly) where you are is not that simple!

Most people own some land and they, and many projects, need to accurately locate the position of their property lines and facilities, but achieving this is far from straightforward.

One reasonably well-known example of this challenge is the Prime Meridian at Greenwich. This historic meridian is a geographical reference line that is marked on the ground, and passes through the Royal Observatory, in Greenwich, London (the dashed line above). But, the Prime Meridian used by your GPS is the solid line 102 meters to the east. The objective of our latest article is to explain why these are different! It is a long story starting in the third century BCE, that intertwines astronomy, map making, navigation, and time keeping.

Scientific understanding of the shape of the earth has changed from the Ancient Greek assumption it was a sphere, to the modern understanding the earth is a shape-shifting mass that approximates an oblate spheroid. This shift in understanding does not change the relationship between latitude, longitude, and time, but the relentless changes in the earths surfaces do continue to affect map making and surveying. Sometimes the change can be catastrophic – this tree was split in two by the Türkiye Earthquake*. But fortunately, most of the time both the magnitude and rate of change are quite small, but for many applications cannot be ignored.

So, answering the question ‘where in the world are you?’ accurately can be remarkably difficult and will change over time. To find out why download our article: Knowing (exactly) where you are is not that simple!

For more on The Origins of Numbers, Calendars and Calculations see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-ZSY-010.php#Overview  

*To do something to help your career, and the Türkiye Earthquake victims, join PM 4 The World for a 24 hour ‘talk around the clock’ webinar bringing together many leading project management practitioners. All donations go straight to UNICEF: https://talk-around-the-clock.com/event-schedule